Re: Problem with posts or censorship?
 

[quote=punch it in;1254732]Unbelievable that so many of you seem to believe that racial inequality is a hoax or something. That change is bad. That the change agent is some sort of terrorist organization. That no statistics or facts back up the fact that it is real. Just amazing. I could post 1000 different links to back it up but they would just be called fake news. I [B]honestly do not think you guys are racist[/B] , sorry if I implied that. I think you are just completely oblivious. That is not meant to be an insult. I cannot wrap my head around the fact that the fight for racial equality has become some left wing conspiracy theory of sorts with a hidden agenda to somehow ruin all your lives.[/quote]
I guess we can't agree on everything. :cheeky:

Re: Problem with posts or censorship?
 

That's a lot of the problem in our society today...we've reached a point that we're not allowed to have differing views any more. There's a segment of the population, largely being intentionally created in colleges and universities, that cannot handle disagreement and debate. When someone has a point of view that's different, the tactic is to shut down debate and freedom of thought by simply throwing out the accusation of racism.

You like the Redskins? RACIST!

You voted for HIM? RACIST!

You own that flag? AUTOMATIC RACIST!

You own guns? MURDERING RACIST!

You won't wear a mask? RACIST GRANDMA KILLER!


I've been called a racist before over the Redskins issue. Not once did the accuser bother to find out I have a lot of Native American blood...or that I regularly went to an all-black church growing up because my Dad was the pastor...or even bother to ask WHY I am a fan of the Redskins.

The racism industry is a huge moneymaker right now. Protests are organized and bused into cities with a heads up to the media.

Are there racists in this country? OF COURSE. There are EVERYWHERE. But I do not believe we're in a systematically racist country. I believe nearly all Americans if asked on the street, truly do not care about skin color. The media (and a political party) makes it out to be the polar opposite, that EVERY minority is being targeted by EVERY white person...and that white people need to be ashamed of their skin color and made-up "privilege".

Does racism go both ways? Absolutely. We're not allowed to say that though, just as we've been muzzled on our team name solely because of a permanently-offended segment of the population's "feelings". Bullying used to be a huge issue...now...it's a way of life for many and accepted, as long as you're bullying the right people.

I could but I do not want to get into the stats and debate racism.

Re: Problem with posts or censorship?
 

[quote=TheGuyFromOverThere;1254831]Personal opinion incoming:

I disagree with the "best country in the world" sentiment.

Not because I think the country I was born in (Germany) or the one I live in (Austria) or any of those I ever visited (England, Scotland, France, Italy, Poland, U.S., Spain, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Croatia, Serbia, India, South Africa, Romania and that´s just from the top of my head) is the best country in the world.

No, I think there is no best country in the world.

The U.S. has things that I think are great, absolutely great - football, freedom of speech, amazingly different countryside, a lot of great people that I met in my two visits. A ton of other things.

The U.S. also has things that I think are abysmally bad - the health care system, the lack of gun control, the system of voting for judges, coroners and sheriffs. A ton of other things.

But that´s the thing - every country has good and bad things. Yes, some countries have more goods than bads, Sweden, Finland spring instantly to mind for me. Some have a ton more bads than goods - North Korea, Saudia Arabia for example.

But "my country is best" is, in my opinion, nonsense.[/quote]

Ich meine mich das auch.

I think comparing the USA to Germany or the USA to Canada or Germany to Sweden is kind of silly. It's like arguing whether the Beatles or the Stones are the best band or a 65 Mustang is better than a 68 Camaro.

I will say that I do think The West- most of Europe, the US & Canada, Australia & New Zealand, and Japan plus South Korea and maybe Taiwan- is better than the rest of the world. Democratic governance and free markets have succeeded like no other combo.

I studied in Germany and greatly enjoyed it. It is obviously a successful country. There were some things I found maddening about it, but it is vastly better than places like Saudi Arabia, North Korea, or Venezuela, to name a few.

But every place is great in its own way.

Re: Problem with posts or censorship?
 

Good morning good morning. Having Monday off is great.

[IMG]https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f4/13/c9/f413c96ba4daf40a72268c708e0d1f56.jpg[/IMG]

Re: Problem with posts or censorship?
 

[QUOTE=jamf;1254882]I guess we can't agree on everything. :cheeky:[/QUOTE]



I should have said I do not know. Im trying to be cordial. Honestly I think people just do not get it, like if they ever had a civil conversation with a black person they are not capable of racism. Lol. You do not need a swastika tattooed on your arm or white power tattooed on your back to be racist. Being oblivious and ignorant to the plight of so many people is sickening in its own right and definitely falls on the racist scale somewhere. The whole racism is a two sided thing with whites is just plain garbage. Better Jamf? [emoji3577]

Re: Problem with posts or censorship?
 

[quote=GridIron26;1254864]Yep, you hit all the points. I'm born and raised in America and I don't consider America as the best country in the world.[/quote]

I think post WW2 when the rest of the world was rubble then the USA was the best but like others have said, now there really is no best country.

The thing I always find interesting about the USA is the best country in the world claim is that it seems that people living in the best country would be the happiest but the USA is barely in the top 20 happiest countries in the world.

Re: Problem with posts or censorship?
 

[quote=punch it in;1254934]I should have said I do not know. Im trying to be cordial. Honestly I think people just do not get it, like if they ever had a civil conversation with a black person they are not capable of racism. Lol. You do not need a swastika tattooed on your arm or white power tattooed on your back to be racist. Being oblivious and ignorant to the plight of so many people is sickening in its own right and definitely falls on the racist scale somewhere. The whole racism is a two sided thing with whites is just plain garbage. Better Jamf? [emoji3577][/quote]

How is the changing of sports teams nicknames going to help minorities? If the nfl wants to do what’s right they would tell the MAYOR of CHICAGO to figure out how to stop the MASS MURDERS of black citizens in the city that is awarded prime time games every year ... the murder rate in that city is one of the highest in the world ... tell me again what is the NFL doing about that as well as the govt in that city ...

Re: Problem with posts or censorship?
 

[quote=rocnrik;1254993]How is the changing of sports teams nicknames going to help minorities? If the nfl wants to do what’s right they would tell the MAYOR of CHICAGO to figure out how to stop the MASS MURDERS of black citizens in the city that is awarded prime time games every year ... the murder rate in that city is one of the highest in the world ... tell me again what is the NFL doing about that as well as the govt in that city ...[/quote]

?
[url]https://www.statista.com/statistics/243797/ranking-of-the-most-dangerous-cities-in-the-world-by-murder-rate-per-capita/[/url]

Re: Problem with posts or censorship?
 

Black homiciide I’m talking about .. 2018 2400 shootings over 500 murders, 2019 nearly 2300 shootings over 500 murders .. according to the city of Chicago . That is very sad to me and then factor in the innocent lives and young people’s lives gone ... I just would like to see NFL being as upset over that than teams nicknames ..I can add homeless people to that issue .. how about San Fran or Seattle .. I have friend who owns business in Seattle and has to walk over homeless people to open his store ..I may be wrong but does the nfl with teams in those cities do anything to really help ?

At this point it’s not even about a name anymore .. okay I’m over it bring on the new name and I will be there however the League needs to step up the way they treat minorities.. no more excuses ! I want to see black ownership in league .. Commissioner job!! The bar has been raised !! Let’s see what you got ! Every single fan that has pulled for this team should hold this league to a high standard .. more than ever !! In a sense we have become a part of the movement ..

Problem with posts or censorship?
 

[QUOTE=rocnrik;1254993]How is the changing of sports teams nicknames going to help minorities? If the nfl wants to do what’s right they would tell the MAYOR of CHICAGO to figure out how to stop the MASS MURDERS of black citizens in the city that is awarded prime time games every year ... the murder rate in that city is one of the highest in the world ... tell me again what is the NFL doing about that as well as the govt in that city ...[/QUOTE]



Well that would involve gun control, funding inner city programs and schools, and getting to the root of the drug problem (hint they arent growing or making shit themselves). All things that aren’t priorities for the white people running the show. Don’t act like the Mayor of Chicago has so much power. That is Fox news bullshit.
I think the NFL probably does more good than you think. It isn’t exactly news when they do something in the inner city, it is when a team changes its nickname after almost 90 years.

Re: Problem with posts or censorship?
 

[quote=punch it in;1255025]Well [B]that would involve gun control[/B], funding inner city programs and schools, and getting to the root of the drug problem (hint they arent growing or making shit themselves). All things that aren’t priorities for the white people running the show. Don’t act like the Mayor of Chicago has so much power. That is Fox news bullshit.
I think the NFL probably does more good than you think. It isn’t exactly news when they do something in the inner city, it is when a team changes its nickname after almost 90 years.[/quote]

Is someone gonna tell him about Chicago gun control?

Re: Problem with posts or censorship?
 

Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners - George Carlin.

Re: Problem with posts or censorship?
 

It is sad situation and I’m afraid it’s gonna get worse ... lots of division

Re: Problem with posts or censorship?
 

Does anybody have any idea when the new name will be announced?

Re: Problem with posts or censorship?
 

[QUOTE=Chico23231;1255026]Is someone gonna tell him about Chicago gun control?[/QUOTE]



Chicago gun control lol. As if all the guns in Chicago are born in Chicago. Can you say big picture?

Re: Problem with posts or censorship?
 

[QUOTE=Bishop Hammer;1255027]Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners - George Carlin.[/QUOTE]



Makes ya yearn for the days of complete and total segregation doesn’t it? [emoji849][emoji849][emoji849]

Re: Problem with posts or censorship?
 

A bunch of white guys commiserating that they cant call Native Americans derogatory names anymore and pointing to a completely debunked poll of some sorts done by other white guys for proof that it’s all good. Classic.

Re: Problem with posts or censorship?
 

punch it in - I have to concur. I do not think that "racism is a two sided thing" is complete garbage.

Racism from minorities against the majority exists. So, the thing itself is not garbage.

It just is... completely bloody irrelevant.

It just doesn´t matter if I as a white german hetersexual male am called any deregatory terms by non-whites, non-germans or non-hetersexual persons because I am in the bloody most "undiscrimatable" against position I can be in. Even if someone is racist against me, it just doesn´t matter.

And that is why, in my eyes, racism has two sides - one of them is just irrelevant.

Disclaimer: I´m talking from the wester countries perspective where white people are the majority.

Re: Problem with posts or censorship?
 

[quote=rocnrik;1255035]Does anybody have any idea when the new name will be announced?[/quote]

Yes, my high-ranking source inside the Redskins organization told me to expect an announcement sometime in the next 365 days.

Re: Problem with posts or censorship?
 

[quote=punch it in;1255040]A bunch of white guys commiserating that they cant call Native Americans derogatory names anymore and [B]pointing to a completely debunked poll of some sorts done by other white guys[/B] for proof that it’s all good. Classic.[/quote]

Punch...dude. First nobody is calling NA derogatory names. The only reference to the Redskins in the last 80 years is meaning for a Professional football team. Second, the polls weren’t by white people but Wash Post and are relevant.

Re: Problem with posts or censorship?
 

[quote=TheGuyFromOverThere;1255041]punch it in - [B]I have to concur. I do not think that "racism is a two sided thing" is complete garbage.

Racism from minorities against the majority exists. So, the thing itself is not garbage.[/B]

It just is... completely bloody irrelevant.

It just doesn´t matter if I as a white german hetersexual male am called any deregatory terms by non-whites, non-germans or non-hetersexual persons because I am in the bloody most "undiscrimatable" against position I can be in. Even if someone is racist against me, it just doesn´t matter.

And that is why, in my eyes, racism has two sides - one of them is just irrelevant.

Disclaimer: I´m talking from the wester countries perspective where white people are the majority.[/quote]

Huh?

Re: Problem with posts or censorship?
 

Stupid me and my second language.

Didn´t mean concur, did mean disagree.

Re: Problem with posts or censorship?
 

[quote=punch it in;1255040]A bunch of white guys commiserating that they cant call Native Americans derogatory names anymore and pointing to a completely debunked poll of some sorts done by other white guys for proof that it’s all good. Classic.[/quote]

A NJ liberal trying to control everyone else...classic.

For the record, I'm a hell of a lot more NA than the average "Indian" Senator and I have been a REDSKINS fan my whole life. I've never used it to cash in though, never focused on race or skin color for any reason.

Were you ever actually a Redskins fan...or has New Jersey just damaged you that much?


[quote=Chico23231;1255026]Is someone gonna tell him about Chicago gun control?[/quote]

Bwaha. Chicago is exhibit A on how gun control always fails.

Want to talk about racism...look at urban gun control. That takes the ability for black families to protect themselves in the most dangerous neighborhoods in America. THAT is racist.


[quote=rocnrik;1255035]Does anybody have any idea when the new name will be announced?[/quote]

No one does other than maybe a judge handling the trademark dispute. :D

Re: Problem with posts or censorship?
 

I don't get the objection to the name change.

I've been referring to them as the Burgundy and Gold or Washington for years now.

And there is some truly uninformed spotting off in this thread....I would say surprisingly uninformed but I know better.

Re: Problem with posts or censorship?
 

[QUOTE=30gut;1256322]I don't get the objection to the name change.



I've been referring to them as the Burgundy and Gold or Washington for years now.



And there is some truly uninformed spotting off in this thread....I would say surprisingly uninformed but I know better.[/QUOTE]



Because you feel the name is offensive? Or just what you called them?

Re: Problem with posts or censorship?
 

[quote=punch it in;1256323]Because you feel the name is offensive? Or just what you called them?[/quote]Years ago I gave the name some thought and did some research. Some research on the word and some research on George Preston Marshall and the notion that the name was chosen to 'honor' Native Americans seemed incongruent.

I thought the organization/owner missed a real opportunity to get in front of the issue.

When I made my decision I noticed that some of the team's own on air personalities called the team Burgundy and Gold or Washington and followed suit.

Re: Problem with posts or censorship?
 

duplicate

Re: Problem with posts or censorship?
 

[QUOTE=30gut;1256327]Years ago I gave the name some thought and did some research. Some research on the word and some research on George Preston Marshall and the notion that the name was chosen to 'honor' Native Americans seemed incongruent.



I thought the organization/owner missed a real opportunity to get in front of the issue.



When I made my decision I noticed that some of the team's own on air personalities called the team Burgundy and Gold or Washington and followed suit.[/QUOTE]


Gotcha. Refreshing post. I was sort of feeling like I was on an uninhabited island.....

Re: Problem with posts or censorship?
 

[quote=30gut;1256327]Years ago I gave the name some thought and did some research. Some research on the word and some research on George Preston Marshall and the notion that the name was chosen to 'honor' Native Americans seemed incongruent. [/quote]

I wish you would share what you found in your research, as it might help me with a couple of questions I have in my mind.

I shared a few weeks ago that I had never witnessed anyone in real life use the word "redskin" as a demeaning term or racial slur, and that I had, in fact, witnessed some idiots using the term "chief" in a sarcastic, derogatory, and demeaning way directed at a Native American. Punch then said I was being political (which is ironic, seeing as how he brings politics into the majority of his posts), that I was in love with Trump, and that the word "chief" could not possibly be used in a sarcastic and demeaning manner. I was surprised that he not only had never heard "chief" used in such a way, but that he couldn't even imagine how that could happen. I asked him if he ever witnessed the term "redskin" being used as a racial slur, and he didn't answer.
Punch must think anytime that anyone says anything about any subject that he disagrees with, that person must be in love with Trump. I feel sorry for him. It must be difficult to go through life applying one's political view to everything. I like football, and I don't think about politics when I'm watching or discussing football. The fact that he felt I must be a Trump supporter was humorous to me, and underscores the fact that I don't get into politics on this board, since Punch was so obviously far off on my political leanings. If your research showed that, in fact, the word "redskin" is used as a racial slur, I'd be interested in hearing about it. The only usage for the word "redskin" that I recall witnessing, other than for the football team, is redskin potatoes.

My second question is about the whole underlying issue with the naming of the team. You speak of incongruency, and I have always wondered why the owner of an NFL team would choose to intentionally name his team after a group of people if that owner was a bigot that considered that group of people to be inferior; and if he felt that the word he chose was a demeaning term and a racial slur. It simply doesn't make sense to me that anyone would do that, rather than naming the team after someone or something that he admired, and felt was noble, with a word that engenders pride in the team. Never made sense to me. I mean, if you were a billionaire and purchased a sports franchise, would you name the team "the Slimeballs" or "the Cowards?" That the name of the team was meant to accent the strength and pride of Native American warriors just made more sense to me. Could your research clarify this incongruency for me? Thanks.

The barn door is shut and the name of my favorite team is definitely changing. That is sad to me, but it isn't the end of the world. I just wish I didn't feel like the change is being rammed down my throat by a small minority of folks without any substantive reason. I think I would feel better if it could be shown to me that the name really was demeaning, hurtful, and derogatory, not just claimed to be so.

Re: Problem with posts or censorship?
 

[QUOTE=Number44;1256360]I wish you would share what you found in your research, as it might help me with a couple of questions I have in my mind.



I shared a few weeks ago that I had never witnessed anyone in real life use the word "redskin" as a demeaning term or racial slur, and that I had, in fact, witnessed some idiots using the term "chief" in a sarcastic, derogatory, and demeaning way directed at a Native American. Punch then said I was being political (which is ironic, seeing as how he brings politics into the majority of his posts), that I was in love with Trump, and that the word "chief" could not possibly be used in a sarcastic and demeaning manner. I was surprised that he not only had never heard "chief" used in such a way, but that he couldn't even imagine how that could happen. I asked him if he ever witnessed the term "redskin" being used as a racial slur, and he didn't answer.

Punch must think anytime that anyone says anything about any subject that he disagrees with, that person must be in love with Trump. I feel sorry for him. It must be difficult to go through life applying one's political view to everything. I like football, and I don't think about politics when I'm watching or discussing football. The fact that he felt I must be a Trump supporter was humorous to me, and underscores the fact that I don't get into politics on this board, since Punch was so obviously far off on my political leanings. If your research showed that, in fact, the word "redskin" is used as a racial slur, I'd be interested in hearing about it. The only usage for the word "redskin" that I recall witnessing, other than for the football team, is redskin potatoes.



My second question is about the whole underlying issue with the naming of the team. You speak of incongruency, and I have always wondered why the owner of an NFL team would choose to intentionally name his team after a group of people if that owner was a bigot that considered that group of people to be inferior; and if he felt that the word he chose was a demeaning term and a racial slur. It simply doesn't make sense to me that anyone would do that, rather than naming the team after someone or something that he admired, and felt was noble, with a word that engenders pride in the team. Never made sense to me. I mean, if you were a billionaire and purchased a sports franchise, would you name the team "the Slimeballs" or "the Cowards?" That the name of the team was meant to accent the strength and pride of Native American warriors just made more sense to me. Could your research clarify this incongruency for me? Thanks.



The barn door is shut and the name of my favorite team is definitely changing. That is sad to me, but it isn't the end of the world. I just wish I didn't feel like the change is being rammed down my throat by a small minority of folks without any substantive reason. I think I would feel better if it could be shown to me that the name really was demeaning, hurtful, and derogatory, not just claimed to be so.[/QUOTE]



Yeah its still stupid that you think chief is derogatory and redskin isnt. Actually it was stupid the first time you said it and now its pure insanity.

Re: Problem with posts or censorship?
 

[quote=Number44;1256360]I wish you would share what you found in your research, as it might help me with a couple of questions I have in my mind.

I shared a few weeks ago that I had never witnessed anyone in real life use the word "redskin" as a demeaning term or racial slur, and that I had, in fact, witnessed some idiots using the term "chief" in a sarcastic, derogatory, and demeaning way directed at a Native American. Punch then said I was being political (which is ironic, seeing as how he brings politics into the majority of his posts), that I was in love with Trump, and that the word "chief" could not possibly be used in a sarcastic and demeaning manner. I was surprised that he not only had never heard "chief" used in such a way, but that he couldn't even imagine how that could happen. I asked him if he ever witnessed the term "redskin" being used as a racial slur, and he didn't answer.
Punch must think anytime that anyone says anything about any subject that he disagrees with, that person must be in love with Trump. I feel sorry for him. It must be difficult to go through life applying one's political view to everything. I like football, and I don't think about politics when I'm watching or discussing football. The fact that he felt I must be a Trump supporter was humorous to me, and underscores the fact that I don't get into politics on this board, since Punch was so obviously far off on my political leanings. If your research showed that, in fact, the word "redskin" is used as a racial slur, I'd be interested in hearing about it. The only usage for the word "redskin" that I recall witnessing, other than for the football team, is redskin potatoes.

My second question is about the whole underlying issue with the naming of the team. You speak of incongruency, and I have always wondered why the owner of an NFL team would choose to intentionally name his team after a group of people if that owner was a bigot that considered that group of people to be inferior; and if he felt that the word he chose was a demeaning term and a racial slur. It simply doesn't make sense to me that anyone would do that, rather than naming the team after someone or something that he admired, and felt was noble, with a word that engenders pride in the team. Never made sense to me. I mean, if you were a billionaire and purchased a sports franchise, would you name the team "the Slimeballs" or "the Cowards?" That the name of the team was meant to accent the strength and pride of Native American warriors just made more sense to me. Could your research clarify this incongruency for me? Thanks.

The barn door is shut and the name of my favorite team is definitely changing. That is sad to me, but it isn't the end of the world. I just wish I didn't feel like the change is being rammed down my throat by a small minority of folks without any substantive reason. I think I would feel better if it could be shown to me that the name really was demeaning, hurtful, and derogatory, not just claimed to be so.[/quote]
I started reading a few of these when the name change demand started in June I have changed my stance on the name. I don’t need to be contributing to Native American problems by rooting for a mascot. The first link is a great review paper and the second link shares several research papers on the name.

[url]https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=psychological+impacts+on+native+american+mascots&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DxzKgM2WoRsIJ[/url]

[url]https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=psychological+impacts+on+native+american+mascots&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart[/url]

Re: Problem with posts or censorship?
 

[quote=punch it in;1256419]Yeah its still stupid that you think chief is derogatory and redskin isnt. Actually it was stupid the first time you said it and now its pure insanity.[/quote]

Still avoiding the question, I see. Please share with us about all the times you have heard "redskin" used in a derogatory way. Everyone that disagrees with you in any way about anything is both stupid and a Trump lover. You must be real fun at parties.

Re: Problem with posts or censorship?
 

I am not taking sides in this but I have never seen anyone use "Redskins" as a slur. I have seen many people use "Chief" negatively. I have a co-worker that uses it when someone disagrees with him. Ok "Chief" or Whatever "Chief"

My issue with the name change is the meaning of words changes throughout history. For many years now, the word Redskins true meaning was the football team in Washington.

Example - Bad meant bad - then it meant good. This stuff changes all the time. Look at Cracker: it was a slur, then became a Grunge band in the '90s, now it is the tools to perform cracking, but to me is best with cheese.

Re: Problem with posts or censorship?
 

[quote=BaltimoreSkins;1256424]I started reading a few of these when the name change demand started in June I have changed my stance on the name. I don’t need to be contributing to Native American problems by rooting for a mascot. The first link is a great review paper and the second link shares several research papers on the name.
[/quote]

Thank you. Interesting reading. This is the kind of dialogue I was seeking, rather than the name-calling and labeling another poster consistently resorts to.

A conclusion that is drawn in a few of these studies is that the use of Native American mascots reduces the self-esteem of Native American youth, despite the indication that the majority of respondents in the studies said they were proud of the way Native Americans were portrayed in these mascots and were not against the use of the mascots. It wasn't really explained how their level of self-esteem was measured. If it is true that Native American youth are being psychologically damaged by the use of these mascots, then I would be in favor of eliminating all such mascots. I'd like to see more of the hard data of how that conclusion was arrived at, though. Reading the hypotheses that these studies commenced with, it seems that the possibility of confirmation bias exists in these studies. If such a study was commenced with the presupposition that the mascots either did or did not cause psychological issues, the interpretation of the results, or the very nature of how the questions are presented could potentially affect the findings.

"Discussion
The American Indian mascot representation had more positive associations than the clearly negative representation presented in the Stereotypically Negative Outcomes condition. The Chief Wahoo mascot representation was as positive as the Pocahontas representation. Taken together, these results suggest that American Indian mascot representations are not always regarded as negative. However, the guiding question is whether these positive associations also have positive psychological consequences for American Indian students. In Studies 2 to 4, we examine whether American Indian mascot representations influence how American Indians make sense of themselves both personally and as group members. Specifically, in Study 2, [B]we hypothesize that although Chief Wahoo and Pocahontas elicit positive associations, they will still depress self-esteem relative to the control condition.[/B]"

"Conclusion
[B]Given the documented educational inequities for Native Americans in comparison to U.S. averages, it is crucial that educational institutions take immediate actions to facilitate the success of Native American students. [/B]Although most people in the U.S. do not perceive Native American mascots as problematic, all of the academic studies undertaken to study the psychosocial effects of these mascots demonstrate either direct negative effects on Native Americans or that these mascots activate, reflect, and/or reinforce stereotyping and prejudice among non-Native persons. Based on this concise, but consistent, body of research evidence, we conclude that it is past time to eliminate Native American mascots in educational (and other) settings throughout the United States."

That there are educational inequities for Native Americans is not in dispute. I'm sure there are, but that fact exists independently from sports teams using Native American mascots. It is a real problem that demands real action to improve. Changing sports teams names as a supposed remedy for these educational inequities seems rather like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Again, if the use of these mascots in a respectful manner truly does negatively impact the self-esteem of Native American youth, then, by all means eliminate the use of these mascots. All of them. I'm just not sure that these research papers have adequately proven that. I've only read four of them, so some of the others may have more conclusive data.

Native Americans face real challenges and inequities in our society. I'm just not sure that the use of Native American sports mascots is a cause.

As I understand it, there are a lot of folks that don't really have a problem with Native American mascots, per se, but strongly wanted the removal of the mascot "Redskins" from our team in particular. Apparently, the view was that the word is a racial slur. The studies that you linked which I have read don't address this. My question remains: "is it?" I am unaware of that usage of the word, and have seen no evidence that the word is being used in such a way by anyone. And as I asked in my previous post, why on earth would an owner, bigot or not, choose to name his team with a racial slur? How does that make any sense to anyone? No one has yet explained that. But then, I'm stupid.

As I said, the barn door is closed and the name of my favorite team is changed forever. I'm not happy about it, but life goes on and I'm still a fan of the Football Team. It's not the end of the world and I certainly don't presume that those that don't agree with me are either unintelligent or belong to any particular political party.

Re: Problem with posts or censorship?
 

[QUOTE=Number44;1256429]Still avoiding the question, I see. Please share with us about all the times you have heard "redskin" used in a derogatory way. Everyone that disagrees with you in any way about anything is both stupid and a Trump lover. You must be real fun at parties.[/QUOTE]



If I tell you white people know better about how Native Americans feel and that BLM is a terrorist organization do you promise to stop talking to me?

Problem with posts or censorship?
 

And Redskins was used as a derogatory name well before any of us were born so can we stop with the “i never heard anyone say that before”. Just because it lost its original meanIng over time and became synonymous with a sports team doesn’t negate its origin. Also calling someone chief is the same as saying sarge or babe or dude. Not derogatory. Maybe disrespectful in another way.

Re: Problem with posts or censorship?
 

Not only does confirmation bias clearly exist...the sampling is a big if not huge issue.

Your quote here sums up my feeling


Native Americans face real challenges and inequities in our society. I'm just not sure that the use of Native American sports mascots is a cause


Of course it’s not, mascots aren’t even on the spectrum of issue within the native Americans communities. But these people who conduct these studies with the outcome determined...they don’t want to honest discussions. That turns into holding people within that community responsible.

My problem with the Redskins is I just wish Dan and Company would have Partnered stronger with NA and should have been more vocal about the challenges that they face and what could be done to make real change. Dan just seemed to write a check. Missed opportunity

Re: Problem with posts or censorship?
 

[quote=OmahaRedskins;1256432]I am not taking sides in this but I have never seen anyone use "Redskins" as a slur. I have seen many people use "Chief" negatively. I have a co-worker that uses it when someone disagrees with him. Ok "Chief" or Whatever "Chief"

My issue with the name change is the meaning of words changes throughout history. For many years now, the word Redskins true meaning was the football team in Washington.

Example - Bad meant bad - then it meant good. This stuff changes all the time. Look at Cracker: it was a slur, then became a Grunge band in the '90s, now it is the tools to perform cracking, but to me is best with cheese.[/quote]

Thank you. Your experience with the usages of "redskin" and "chief" is the same as mine.

Re: Problem with posts or censorship?
 

[quote=911 freedom fighter;1256440]Why are you calling me a camp scrub? That is racist against new posters!!!

Let’s take it to the teepee, just remember don’t urinate over all of it.[/quote]

You're the worst kind of troll. Usually you guys come with some entertainment value but you don't even offer that.

I pity you and everybody who unfortunately knows you in real life.

Re: Problem with posts or censorship?
 

bye-bye.:postcop: