Bernie Sanders: Redskins Name Not Necessary

[expos4ever]

I wondered how long before irrational hate and bigotry reared its ugly head here. Not as long as I would have hoped. Thank goodness for the "Ignore" feature.

 

[KarateCowboy]

The Steelers aren't a racial slur against an ethnic group. It seems you can tell which way someone's support blows if they're up in arms about the possibility of a company changing the racist name of a product or mascot. These are the same people that are angry that Muslims allegedly cheered in Jersey City, NJ on 9/11 (a false claim); notice they're not running around saying, "It's their first amendment right to cheer the deaths of people!"

Again with pushing your cultural tenets on others. Some people consider the word "mulatto" to be offensive, but in other cultures it's just a term that means mixed race and has no negative meaning.

Who are you to go and tell @Calvinist Dark Lord what is offensive according to his cultural heritage? Do you even know his background? You should at least know that before offensively presuming to understand his culture. When you do that, it's called 'prejudice'.

 

[SummerMadness]

Traditional, heartland American culture. It's the culture of people who identify as "ethnic American".

I identify as American and we consider the use of racial slurs as bigoted, ignorant, racist, and regressive. There are many of us within American culture that feel the same way, so I don't know how you can claim to speak for the culture. There are some, like you, who support the use of racial slurs against other ethnic groups, but most of us do not.

Again with pushing your cultural tenets on others. Some people consider the word "mulatto" to be offensive, but in other cultures it's just a term that means mixed race and has no negative meaning.

And those cultures are not American culture, so thanks for making a wonderful non-point.

 

[KarateCowboy]

I identify as American and we consider the use of racial slurs as bigoted, ignorant, racist, and regressive. There are many of us within American culture that feel the same way, so I don't know how you can claim to speak for the culture. There are some, like you, who support the use of racial slurs against other ethnic groups, but most of us do not.

Do you identify as ethnically American? In my culture, we do not consider "redskin" to be a slur, since there is nothing wrong with having red skin.

 

[expos4ever]

I identify as American and we consider the use of racial slurs as bigoted, ignorant, racist, and regressive.

As disturbing as some of the stuff here is, I think there is every reason that you are in the majority. As the ugliness of racism and bigotry is slowly but surely mercifully expunged from our culture, the cries of hate from those who realize their time is drawing to a close will become all the more strident. Perhaps you do not share my optimism, but I generally believe the world keeps getting better and better.

 

[SummerMadness]

Do you identify as ethnically American? In my culture, we do not consider "redskin" to be a slur, since there is nothing wrong with having red skin.

How one self-identifies is irrelevant, you are calling another ethnic group a term they consider offensive. That's why people from another culture learn to not call people "mulatto" when they come to the United States. Are you part of the indigenous tribes for which the football team in Washington is named?

 

[Chesterton]

I suggest that is manifestly the case that all of us - including you and me - are susceptible to the divisive effects of seeing the world in terms of differences in skin colour. It is, sadly, in our DNA, I suspect. But, this inclination to racism should be valiantly fought. One way to do that is to get rid of names like "Redskins" for sports teams.

I honestly don't know what "the divisive effects of seeing the world in terms of differences in skin colour" means to you.

I disagree, given the nature of athletic endeavor. If we named a football team "the New York Disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ", would you object? I confess the analogy is a little over-stretched in this example, I am provided, but I cannot think of something less dramatic.

I can't imagine why I'd object to that name. But we have a baseball team down here called the San Diego Padres. If you know some California history you know that is a reference to Spanish Catholic priests being called "padre". I've never heard of a Catholic or a Spaniard or a priest objecting to it.

The point is NFL football (or baseball) is not the pinnacle of achievement of our culture. To connect these sports to the name of a serious tradition (North American native culture, or any other cultural heritage of any merit at all) is at least a little bit dispespectful.

Whether sports are a pinnacle of achievement is irrelevant. Some people may think they are. But what is a "serious" tradition? Is mine not serious? The natives here saw something in sports, they invented lacrosse.

Imagine that the name of the team were "the Washington Large-Breasted, Low IQ, Blonde Women".

If I led a campaign to have that name changed, would you say that I am:

1. Selfish
2. Fascistic
3. Promoting the abandonment of freedom
4. Abandoning tradition
5. Incurring expense (to change the name)
6. Being a "bully" by simply campaigning for the name change.

I look forward to your answers.

"Yes" to all of the above.

 

[SummerMadness]

I can't imagine why I'd object to that name. But we have a baseball team down here called the San Diego Padres. If you know some California history you know that is a reference to Spanish Catholic priests being called "padre". I've never heard of a Catholic or a Spaniard or a priest objecting to it.

Padre is a position/profession/job, it is a not a racial slur for an ethnic group.

 

[Chesterton]

Padre is a position/profession/job, it is a not a racial slur for an ethnic group.

Disciple of Christ is not an ethnicity either.

 

[expos4ever]

I honestly don't know what "the divisive effects of seeing the world in terms of differences in skin colour" means to you.

I am claiming that an inclination to racism is more or less bred into the very fabric of each person's DNA - and that this is something we need to actively fight. Skin colour distinctions have very limited legitimate usages.

I can't imagine why I'd object to that name.

Fair enough - you are being consistent.

But we have a baseball team down here called the San Diego Padres. If you know some California history you know that is a reference to Spanish Catholic priests being called "padre". I've never heard of a Catholic or a Spaniard or a priest objecting to it.

Fair point. I think each case does not to be evaluated on its merits. The difference between "Padres" and "Redskins" I suggest is clear: in the latter case, we have a history of conflict, violence, and arguably even genocide to deal with whereas those sensitive themes do not apply in the former.

"Yes" to all of the above.

Difficult to believe, but I have to accept you are telling the truth.

 

[PsychoeDial]

Bernie will pander to anyone won't he?

Get busy Bernie!
List of sports team names and mascots derived from indigenous peoples

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

The Steelers aren't a racial slur against an ethnic group. It seems you can tell which way someone's support blows if they're up in arms about the possibility of a company changing the racist name of a product or mascot. These are the same people that are angry that Muslims allegedly cheered in Jersey City, NJ on 9/11 (a false claim); notice they're not running around saying, "It's their first amendment right to cheer the deaths of people!"

Nice dodge, but my points remain. First off, NO NFL team with the noted exception of the Green Bay Packers is publicly owned. As such what they call themselves is no concern to the government. The Washington Redskins answer only to their customers as any other privately owned business. Patronise them or don't.

You apparently have no idea what i support or don't so i will enlighten you:

i am a Libertarian. As such, i have no dog in the fight that is the Republican Presidential nominating process. i will probably vote for the Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate in the Presidential election. The last time i voted for a "major party" presidential candidate was the 1984 election.

As a Libertarian, i strongly hold to private property rights. i resent any intrusion on individual liberty. That includes the right to be racist in private dealings or the right to NOT be racist in private dealings. i have stewardship over myself and am not the property of the US or any other government or individual (with the exception of God, which is why i claim only stewardship over myself, and not ownership unlike the majority of Libertarians). i answer to those who i chose and as long as i am not infringing on the rights of other individuals, i am not subject to the whims of whatever the majority determines to be 'correct' behaviour.

All that said, where GOVERNMENT is concerned it should never be permitted to discriminate in it's dealings with any of it's citizens. However, in this case, government has no role in what a sports team choses to call itself. Burned Out Sanders needs to deal with real issues, and not made up ones that he has no role in altering no matter what position he holds now or may hold in the future.

 

[SummerMadness]

Nice dodge, but my points remain. First off, NO NFL team with the noted exception of the Green Bay Packers is publicly owned. As such what they call themselves is no concern to the government. The Washington Redskins answer only to their customers as any other privately owned business. Patronise them or don't.

You apparently have no idea what i support or don't so i will enlighten you:

i am a Libertarian. As such, i have no dog in the fight that is the Republican Presidential nominating process. i will probably vote for the Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate in the Presidential election. The last time i voted for a "major party" presidential candidate was the 1984 election.

As a Libertarian, i strongly hold to private property rights. i resent any intrusion on individual liberty. That includes the right to be racist in private dealings or the right to NOT be racist in private dealings. i have stewardship over myself and am not the property of the US or any other government or individual (with the exception of God, which is why i claim only stewardship over myself, and not ownership unlike the majority of Libertarians). i answer to those who i chose and as long as i am not infringing on the rights of other individuals, i am not subject to the whims of whatever the majority determines to be 'correct' behaviour.

All that said, where GOVERNMENT is concerned it should never be permitted to discriminate in it's dealings with any of it's citizens. However, in this case, government has no role in what a sports team choses to call itself. Burned Out Sanders needs to deal with real issues, and not made up ones that he has no role in altering no matter what position he holds now or may hold in the future.

Did anyone suggest the government is going to change the name of the team? Bernie Sanders offered his opinion, so hyperventilating over the government coming in to change the name is an irrelevant diversion.

 

[expos4ever]

Bernie will pander to anyone won't he?

Get busy Bernie!
List of sports team names and mascots derived from indigenous peoples

Are you actually prepared to engage the arguments for changing the name? Please consider directly engaging my arguments in posts 14 and 16. The fact that a lot of teams are named after indigenous people is not an argument against changing those names.

 

[expos4ever]

Did anyone suggest the government is going to change the name of the team? Bernie Sanders offered his opinion, so hyperventilating over the government coming in to change the name is an irrelevant diversion.

Agree. Although perhaps one can argue that in soliciting the signatures of senators, he (Sanders) is exerting a form of government pressure. But I think that is a real stretch and, on balance, I see nothing in the article that implies Sanders is advocating for legally compelling a name change.

It is very difficult to argue the name "Redskin" is not racist. So those who want to keep the name are forced to avoid engaging those arguments and make the issue something else. Thus, we have Albion using the "slippery slope" argument and appealing to a fuzzy "big picture" which I believe was never realty spelled out for us. Or we have people trying to represent this as an effort to legally compel a name change and make this about freedom from government.

But its really quite clear that this is about the perfectly legitimate right for people to advocate for a healthy change - not through government force but rather through a grassroots battle for hearts and minds. And in this case, those who want the name changed are, I suggest, rather clearly on the "right side of history".

 

[expos4ever]

And let's remember. A football team is a public symbol even if it is privately owned. If the racists here want to limit their dating to a particular color, fine, go wild. But a football team's name is part of the broader culture and it arguably further entrenches hurtful racial stereotypes. The objectors to change need to try to distort or smother the following fundamental truth: it is in perfect keeping with the principles of democracy for people to peacefully advocate for change in the public institutions of their society. And, again, a privately-owned football team is still effectively a public thing.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Did anyone suggest the government is going to change the name of the team? Bernie Sanders offered his opinion, so hyperventilating over the government coming in to change the name is an irrelevant diversion.

The thing about totalitarians like Commie Sanders is that to totalitarians everything is a matter of government.

 

[PsychoeDial]

Are you actually prepared to engage the arguments for changing the name? Please consider directly engaging my arguments in posts 14 and 16. The fact that a lot of teams are named after indigenous people is not an argument against changing those names.

Let me help you out so that you know who you're talking to first. OK? I am full blooded Cherokee. I own quite a bit of property in the states and have no neighbors nearby. When I'm home and I do yard work I go naked on my property.
In the summer I am a red skin! Black hair, red skin. Because the sun 'tans' me very dark and there is a red hue that rises to the surface of my flesh when I'm in the sun for hours at a time.

How do pale faces, yes, remember that label for the Caucasian race? How do pale faces think the term, red skin, even got started? Because the Europeans that arrived on this continent were describing what they saw when they looked to the indigenous tribal people here. They had red skin!

A member of the people who claims red skin is an insult is insulting themselves and the tribes since the beginning of time.
Maybe, just maybe, that's why there are indigenous peoples who have no problem with the Washington Redskins football team, first called the Braves, keeping their team name.

While the hateful racists in the tribes, and believe it they are there, will glom onto anything in order to make a name for themselves and give that ghost enemy one more identity to hate.

You want an argument to change the name? Can't help you. Summer's coming and I'll soon be a red skin yet again when I go home for the season. Proud red skin mind you. Cherokee nation proud! If I hate the term red skin I hate the ancestors who were red skinned, beautiful, and proud.

We need to recognize our history and the truth of it. And jumping on a bandwagon against a professional NFL football team name isn't worth my time. People want a cause not a reason to think. Red skin!Think how that name even came about. Red skin is offensive? That's pathetic! Any native in the mid-west summers or in Florida especially needs to take a really good look at their flesh in mid summer. There it is! Red skin! Offensive! Ewww, do something about that. Must stop it. It's racist....

Yeah, right. No, do you know what's racist? Attacking a multi-million dollar football corporation because its owned by whites!

I promise you if Washington Redskins was owned by a collective representing the Lakota nation you'd never hear a word about team name. And it is Lakota, not Sioux! Sioux is an insult. True enough. Sioux was given to the tribe by the French.

It means, enemy!

Red skin isn't racism! Indigenous peoples are a race. What's next? Attacking, "Indian" , because Columbus wasn't actually in India like he thought?
So little time to live a life given by the grace of the great spirit. All my relations being called out and condemned because their red skin offends when invoked by a football team. Red skin isn't disparaging. Natives clamoring that their red skin is a racist slur when intoned by white American football teams is!

 

[expos4ever]

Padre is a position/profession/job, it is a not a racial slur for an ethnic group.

To be fair to Chesterton, s/he was probably responding to my line of argument which involved my objecting not only to race-based names, but other categories of names as well. And I think what s/he is saying is valid in the sense that it shows that there are indeed differences between particular names and that needs to be accounted for.

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

Traditional, heartland American culture. It's the culture of people who identify as "ethnic American".

What does this culture encompass? I identify as ethnic American, but I'm not sure what that means regarding food, music, the arts, entertainment, style if dress, etc....things we associate with culture.