Bernie Sanders: Redskins Name Not Necessary

[AvilaSurfer]

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!]

If you sound it out slowly, you will see exactly what I meant. Talk about dense.

 

[One Voice Among Many1]

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?

I honestly think many of the people who fight so hard to keep a tight grip on the use of NDN mascots care more about keeping and protecting the racist names and symbols of Native Americans (thus protecting even their own racism against Native Americans) than they care about the native people themselves.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

If you sound it out slowly, you will see exactly what I meant. Talk about dense.

Sound what out? Are you calling yourself dense? Don't be so hard on yourself just because you're having trouble answering my question.

 

[Albion]

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.

No, that's a dishonest argument. No one has a team named the "Jew Boys," and the Washington Redskins certainly do not use such a term.

You are trying to win an argument about a real issue by throwing a nonsensical, fictitious example at us. It's disingenuous IMO, like saying the federal government would be telling a woman when and with whom she can have sex...if the law were changed to prohibit late-term abortions.

 

[expos4ever]

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

What? You have not addressed one scintilla of what I posted!!! So what "scrutiny" are we talking about?

You merely constructed a rather obvious strawman and have not even touched the content of my posts.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

Sound what out? Are you calling yourself dense? Don't be so hard on yourself just because you're having trouble answering my question.

Wow. Entertaining, but wow. Have a day.

 

[Albion]

Sound what out? Are you calling yourself dense? Don't be so hard on yourself just because you're having trouble answering my question.

It was a joke, John. So you didn't get it. Don't make matters worse now.

 

[South Bound]

Bernie Sanders: Redskins Name Not Necessary



http://washington.cbslocal.com/2016/03/19/bernie-sanders-redskins-name-not-necessary/

It's not Bernie's place to say whether or not it's necessary and it really doesn't matter if it's "necessary" or not. It's what they've chosen to name their team and, under the 1st Amendment, it's their right to do so.

Personally, I would announce that I'm changing the name of the team, hold a press conference, and then announce that because so many people find the Washington Redskins offensive, we're going to remove the offensive word, the word that flies in the face of what America stands for and has alienated so many Americans. We will no longer be the Washington Redskins. We will henceforth be the Landover Redskins.

 

[expos4ever]

No, that's a dishonest argument. No one has a team named the "Jew Boys," and the Washington Redskins certainly do not use such a term.

It is hard to believe you are serious. Surely you know that my argument does not need there to be a team called "the Jew-boys". You have not addressed the actual force of the argument - if we use the slippery-slope argument as you have done, we should not object to the use of the name "Jew-boys" because - according to the slippery slope - such "censoring" will lead to stifling of all sorts of legitimate free speech.

 

[Albion]

It is hard to believe you are serious. Surely you know that my argument does not need there to be a team called "the Jew-boys". .

And for my part, I can't imagine why you won't understand that I've addressed the overall issue, cautioning against taking the "it's all so simple" approach to a complicated matter with far-reaching implications.

So maybe we're even.

 

[One Voice Among Many1]

The television ad that the NFL refused to play during the 2014 Superbowl.

 

[expos4ever]

And for my part, I can't imagine why you won't understand that I've addressed the overall issue, cautioning against taking the "it's all so simple" approach to a complicated matter with far-reaching implications.

So maybe we're even.

No, we are not even. Where have you actually provided some arguments for the "overall" issue. To simply invoke the "slippery slope" is not relevant. No one, I think, is saying that it should be illegal to call the team "Redskins", or "Jew-boys" for that matter. If that were the case, then, perhaps the slippery slope argument can at least be entertained. But, even then, I do not think it is a strong argument. In any event, I am not saying the name should be illegal. I am simply saying it is the morally right thing to do to get rid of the name.

The floor is yours - tell us precisely what "overall" considerations argue for retention of the name "Redskins"?

 

[Albion]

The floor is yours - tell us precisely what "overall" considerations argue for retention of the name "Redskins"?

Been there, done that, expos; not going to repost it all now again.

 

[expos4ever]

I invite any reader to complete this sentence: "The negative consequences of changing the name from Redskins are................".

 

[AvilaSurfer]

Redskins fans: "Bernie Sanders is not necessary."

 

[expos4ever]

Been there, done that, expos; not going to repost it all now again.

Just tell us the post number, then. You are not going to do this, though, because you know that you do have not provided any real overarching argument as to why we should retain this name.

But, please, prove me wrong - give a post number where you believe you have provided the "big picture" case for not changing the name.

 

[Chesterton]

I suggest there is enough concern that the term promotes racism to warrant its withdrawal. I am not an historian, nor am I even an American, but I would bet that the term has a history of being used in ways that promotes divisiveness, suspicion of native Americans, and other negative things. Obviously, there are some occasions when we legitimately need to classify people according to their skin colour. But because, for whatever reason, we humans are arguably very easily inclined to unhealthy "us vs them" tribalistic thinking, we should make every effort to avoid thinking in terms of skin colour differences. And while, for example, medical experts need to be able to say that race A is more susceptible to disease X than race B, there is no earthly reason why we need to draw skin colour distinctions when it comes to naming sports teams.

Even if it does have a history, you shouldn't ban something merely because it's been used wrongly in the past. You judge things on their merits. And if you are easily inclined to unhealthy thinking when skin color is mentioned, you speak for yourself, and in that case I suggest you should not think in terms of skin color. I am not so inclined, so my speech does not need artificial restrictions.

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". I expect many would be offended, and I think rightly so. Why? Because the rabbinic tradition, I believe, has, in fact, made many contributions to the advancement of human knowledge and culture. To name a football team after it is at least a little disrespectful to that tradition, I suggest. A Jew, and especially a rabbi, would probably not want this respected tradition used as a label for a bunch of 25 year old millionaires battling over a leather ball. I suspect that native Americans feel the same way when the term "Redskin" is used for a football team - it kind of cartoon-izes their cultural tradition. And that is not really helpful or constructive.

It does not trivialize, on the contrary it honors even if only by acknowledgement. It is not disrespectful - we do not name sports teams in order to show disrespect, it's the opposite. You've never heard of a team named after a bad group of people have you - The New York Traitors, The Ottawa Cowards?

 

[expos4ever]

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.

Has any poster here argued for censoring the name in the sense of legally denying the owners the right to use the name? if someone has, then we can deal with that. I am inclined to think that there should not be a law against the use of the name "Redskin (or equivalent).

Here is the problem with what you are saying. If the team name were "the Washington Falcons", and someone claimed, without argument, that the name is offensive and argued for pressure tactics to get the name changed, I would be with you 100% simply because I can see no harm at all to society by calling a team "the Falcons" (if actual falcons let us know that it was an affront to their dignity, I might rethink). But there is clear harm in using the name "Redskins" and one only has to go to a Donald Trump rally to see what the harm is. But, I have spelled out my take on the problem in my first two posts in this thread.

I invite you and other readers to actually engage those arguments. And / or make the "bigger picture" argument you have talked about.

 

[TLK Valentine]

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.

We'll admit no such thing... particularly on 2).

 

[One Voice Among Many1]

They should do like the FSU Seminoles and become affiliated with and sanctioned by an actual tribe, use respectful imagery (the current one seems ok) and drop the racially insensitive name.

Basically, they need to pay homage to real Indians and not caricatures.

I disagree with any aspect of NDN culture or any imagery of NDN people being exploited and used for American sports entertainment or for other kind of American entertainment. And I know I am not the only NDN who feels this way. American Indians are human beings. We are people. We are not mascots for American sports entertainment or profit. Our people and our culture have been exploited, romanticized, misrepresented, and misappropriated in this country long enough. We have been abused, mistreated, exploited, oppressed, and discriminated against for far too long in this country and we are sick and tired of it. And we are fighting back.