Bernie Sanders: Redskins Name Not Necessary

[Albion]

No, not for the use of the word "red" - the name Boston RedSox or even Cincinnati Reds is fine (I assume the Cincinnati name is not connected to Native Americans, unlike the "Redskins" name.

It's not, but neither was the St. John's University name, "Redmen" which referred to their early uniforms (men in red, i.e. red men). It didn't matter; the thought police demanded a change because it was said that some people took offense at what it might bring to mind. And this is the issue I was referring to--nothing is allowed if someone on the Left doesn't like it, even if he's mistaken about the meaning. If the claim is completely and obviously without merit, it can always be said that the wording is "code."

Of course not - you are leaping to conclusions.

No, I'm not. You're just not sufficiently informed about how this works and so are relying upon your own guesswork as to what happens and what you think is reasonable. The problem is that unreasonable people with an agenda are part of the issue.

Please, let's have some correct reasoning here

Wouldn't that be nice?

I made an actual argument (two, as a matter of fact) as to why the term "Redskin" is a problem. You have wildly misrepresented me as simply being "offended for no reason".

I wasn't directing my comments at you, but at the overall situation. You talked as though one team with one nickname is all there is to this controversy, but it's not that. It's much bigger than that.

 

[Albion]

The Tomahawk Chop. My Chiefs do it too, but they have officially done away with all Indian imagery, beside the arrowhead. Their mascot is some kind of weird armadillo thing.

While we're at it, notice how the starting idea has been expanded now that it was challenged. The topic here was the nickname, as in Washington Redskins. But suddenly we're supposed to be against the nickname because a "tomahawk chop" cheer is used in some schools.

 

[Albion]

Here is another reason why the name may be a problem: it arguably trivializes and caricatures native American culture. Imagine if someone proposed that a new New York football team be called the "New York Rabbis".

It doesn't seem to have outraged the fans of the "Providence Friars" who also have a Friar for a logo.

 

[expos4ever]

It's not, but neither was the St. John's University name, "Redmen" which referred to their early uniforms (men in red, i.e. red men). It didn't matter; the thought police demanded a change because it was said that some people took offense at what it might bring to mind.

Well, that is not the point here - I (and perhaps others) have not simply declared we are offended: I have provided clear reasons why the name Redskin is inappropriate. You are clearly engaged in a strawman argument here - I have posted nothing at all that renders me vulnerable to this critique. The fact some other people are overly political correct has nothing to do with me and the arguments I am putting forward.

 

[expos4ever]

No, I'm not. You're just not sufficiently informed about how this works and so are relying upon your own guesswork as to what happens and what you think is reasonable. The problem is that unreasonable people with an agenda are part of the issue.

Of course you are leaping to conclusions, and the readers will know this (if they are carefully following this thread). How, and please be specific - have I posted anything that justifies this particular comment you made?

...So it all comes down to the right or lack of same to say anything--so long as someone, somewhere, on the political Left takes offense at it, logically or otherwise

Good luck! I provided clear arguments as to why the name was offensive. Your response: you do not address the actual content of what I say and make a generalized statement implying that the objections against the term "Redskin" are grounded in mere offense, with no logical underpinning.

Now please: take responsibility for your statements. I provided an argument, you simply dismissed it.

You complain about people with an agenda. What irony! I make an actual case and you engage in simple broad-brush tarring of people who disagree with you, and provide no actual counterargument to the case I have made.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Sanders should stick to what he knows - giving away free shtuff with no way to pay for it.

When did Sanders ever give or promise to give away free stuff? [note correct spelling of "stuff" - seems like you could have used some "free" schooling!]

 

[Albion]

Well, that is not the point here - I (and perhaps others) have not simply declared we are offended: I have provided clear reasons why the name Redskin is inappropriate.

It may be inappropriate, but before you lose all your cool, try to focus on my point that this matter represents a classic "slippery slope."

It's not that one nickname is unthinkable--or even "unhelpful," whatever that's supposed to mean--but the campaign is uncontrolled and has proven to be the means for censoring any speech that is found, by anyone in the PC crowd, to be offensive according to their own definition.

 

[expos4ever]

You talked as though one team with one nickname is all there is to this controversy,...

This claim of yours is simply without merit. In fact, if someone reads my actual posts, they will see that I have clearly not said anything to the effect that this is about "one team".

Please provide some actual defense for your position - explain to us all why the term "Redskin" is acceptable.

 

[One Voice Among Many1]

What's wrong with the n-word? Nothing... unless you're someone who gets offended by it.

And I certainly wouldn't recommend it as a name for a football team...

Personally speaking, I am very glad to see the tide finally turning against these racist NDN mascots and the racist stereotypes and exploitation of NDN culture. I am also glad to see public schools across the country banning the use of NDN mascots and racist NDN imagery too. There is a lot of work that goes into fighting and protesting them. I have spent the last few years being involved in the movement myself. I think a lot more non-NDN people are beginning to realize and accept that American Indians are people and neither they or their culture should not be used or exploited for American sports entertainment. And it is only a matter of time before the Washington team with the racist term for its name will be forced to change its name, in one way or another. The team has already lost its trademark status and it is losing ground in popularity with the public and with politicians in the federal government. There are a lot of American Indians (myself included) who are fed up with our people and our culture being misappropriated and exploited for American sports entertainment and for profit. And the word is very offensive because its origins describe the bloody scalps of my ancestors.

 

[Albion]

When did Sanders ever give or promise to give away free stuff? [note correct spelling of "stuff" - seems like you could have used some "free" schooling!]

That's been said many times by all sorts of people, so don't be too hard on one poster here for having mentioned it. I suppose you could say that Sanders hasn't promised "free stuff" in a vacuum because he's said he'll find someone to pay for it. But if we're fair in our assessment of Bernie's campaign promises, we'll admit that 1) it's expected by those wanting tuition-free college to be free TO THEM, and 2) his proposals are unrealistic and can't be paid for in any case.

 

[expos4ever]

While we're at it, notice how the starting idea has been expanded now that it was challenged. The topic here was the nickname, as in Washington Redskins. But suddenly we're supposed to be against the nickname because a "tomahawk chop" cheer is used in some schools.

Please. The readers are not idiots (at least I hope not). The tomahawk chop is clearly inappropriate and it is equally clearly causally linked to the name of a particular team (the Atlanta Braves).

 

[ArmenianJohn]

It's not, but neither was the St. John's University name, "Redmen" which referred to their early uniforms (men in red, i.e. red men). It didn't matter; the thought police demanded a change because it was said that some people took offense at what it might bring to mind. And this is the issue I was referring to--nothing is allowed if someone on the Left doesn't like it, even if he's mistaken about the meaning. If the claim is completely and obviously without merit, it can always be said that the wording is "code."

You're obviously not familiar with St. John's and not from the NYC area like I am... I just asked my coworker buddy in the next door office what he thought of "Redmen" and he said it was ridiculous that they ever had such an offensive name - and this guy played football for SJU.

Your claim that "Redmen" originally referred to the color is correct. But, what you leave out completely is that SJU DID use an Indian caricature to play up the term "Redmen" to mean Indian or Native American. Realizing this at some point, and being a Christian school, they did the right, responsible thing and changed the name.

I don't know who the "thought police" are that you're referring to - the Pope? Louie Carnasecca??? Last I checked St. John's is a private school owned by the Catholic Church and they can do whatever they want for whatever reason they want. No thought police (or any other police) involved.

Here is the old SJU "Redmen" logo on a sweatshirt:

 

[expos4ever]

It may be inappropriate, but before you lose all your cool, try to focus on my point that this matter represents a classic "slippery slope."

It's not that one nickname is unthinkable--or even "unhelpful," whatever that's supposed to mean--but the campaign is uncontrolled and has proven to be the means for censoring any speech that is found, by anyone in the PC crowd, to be offensive according to their own definition.

This is simply not a valid argument - you are abusing the slippery slope principle here. Surely you must see that your line of reasoning could be used to defend calling a team "the Jew-boys". With your slippery-slope argument in hand, you can (conveniently, of course) ignore all the very good reasons why we should not call a team "the Jew-boys" and raise the alarm that if we don't want a team to be called the Jew-boys, all sorts of otherwise legitimate free speech will be suppressed.

Well, that is a huge leap, to put it mildly.

 

[Albion]

Please. The readers are not idiots (at least I hope not). The tomahawk chop is clearly inappropriate and it is equally clearly causally linked to the name of a particular team (the Atlanta Braves).

It's still a change of subject because your original claim didn't hold up to scrutiny very well.

 

[Albion]

Your claim that "Redmen" originally referred to the color is correct.

That's all you needed to say.

 

[SummerMadness]

It doesn't seem to have outraged the fans of the "Providence Friars" who also have a Friar for a logo.

Friar is a position, they are not representative of an ethnic group. Seriously, why do people fight so hard to keep a racist name and symbol?

 

[expos4ever]

By the way, I am not saying that it should be illegal to call a team "Redskins", but simply that it is the right thing to do to change the name.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

That's been said many times by all sorts of people, so don't be too hard on one poster here for having mentioned it. I suppose you could say that Sanders hasn't promised "free stuff" in a vacuum because he's said he'll find someone to pay for it. But if we're fair in our assessment of Bernie's campaign promises, we'll admit that 1) it's expected by those wanting tuition-free college to be free TO THEM, and 2) his proposals are unrealistic and can't be paid for in any case.

1) But you yourself admit that tuition-free college isn't free - it's paid for, so what "free stuff" are we talking about then???
2) He has shown how he'll pay for things:

 

[ArmenianJohn]

That's all you needed to say.

No, it's not, because it's far from the whole story. At least anyone else who sees my response can see the image I posted of the racist garbage that you are defending and they can know that about you.

If anything, all I really needed to say was "Obviously you're not from the NYC area like I am and you know nothing about St. John's."

I think out in the sticks where you live they probably never have even heard of St. John's...

 

[expos4ever]

That's all you needed to say.

Please. Again, you must think the readers here are ot-nay oo-tay ight-bray.

The point that other poster was making was about the caricature of the Native American that followed, for whatever reason, the choice of the name "Redmen". It does not matter that the original choice of the name "Redmen" had nothing to do with the Native American - no one here is making the case that its bad to have the term "red" in a name!