Paintrain's all encompassing 'discuss all things offseason' thread (Version 2.0)

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

How can the logo be considered offensive when it was created, blessed, and presented by the Native Americans? That would then bring up this point. Are these Non-Native Americans assuming that Native Americans are too stupid to know when they should and should not be offended? Because honestly, that is the biggest message that these people in the PC movement are sending to the Native American community. And if I were a part of the Native American movement, I would strongly voice that these people, telling me what I should and should not be offended by, insults my intelligence and offends me more than some name of a sports team.

This is the argument that the anti-Redskins name group throws to the other side. "So you're telling us that you know more about what the Native Americans should and should not be offended by?" It's the same question to those in the PC movement. The only group whose voice matters in all of this is the Native Americans themselves. And they have been polled and an overwhelming majority has said it is not offensive to them. Why can't people just accept that and move on? Other than having some losing seasons on the field, what injustice has the Washington Redskins really done to the community?

That wasn't really the point I was making. I was referring to the point SS made about connecting 'Redskins' to Native Americans. I was saying that if the imagery didn't reflect an Indian, most non Redskins/football fans wouldn't think about it that deeply. For example, what mental image immediately comes with Packer, Steeler or Brown? Probably nothing because it's non-descript. If we just had an R on the side of the helmet, people wouldn't connect the dots as easily and wouldn't be able to layer levels of offended outrage.

You do make a great point however that this fight is being taken up primarily by non-Natives who are trying to make a name for themselves. There are some Native communities involved but as a whole they have bigger issues they are focusing on.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

That wasn't really the point I was making. I was referring to the point SS made about connecting 'Redskins' to Native Americans. I was saying that if the imagery didn't reflect an Indian, most non Redskins/football fans wouldn't think about it that deeply. For example, what mental image immediately comes with Packer, Steeler or Brown? Probably nothing because it's non-descript. If we just had an R on the side of the helmet, people wouldn't connect the dots as easily and wouldn't be able to layer levels of offended outrage.

You do make a great point however that this fight is being taken up primarily by non-Natives who are trying to make a name for themselves. There are some Native communities involved but as a whole they have bigger issues they are focusing on.

Yeah, my position, all along is, if it truly is as horrible as this PC movement is making it out to be, then let the Native Americans, as a whole, decide that. They shouldn't need anybody else being their mouthpiece. I can't decide either way, because for one thing, I'm a white guy with probably no Native American blood in my veins. Also, I'm biased because I'm a big fan of this team called the Washington Redskins. Losing the name means losing its identity, IMHO. I know others could deal with it, and in time, I probably could as well, but I can't help to believe that the name is and has always been meant to honor Native Americans not to disparage them. But as I said, it's not for me to decide, it's up to the Native Americans.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Yeah, my position, all along is, if it truly is as horrible as this PC movement is making it out to be, then let the Native Americans, as a whole, decide that. They shouldn't need anybody else being their mouthpiece. I can't decide either way, because for one thing, I'm a white guy with probably no Native American blood in my veins. Also, I'm biased because I'm a big fan of this team called the Washington Redskins. Losing the name means losing its identity, IMHO. I know others could deal with it, and in time, I probably could as well, but I can't help to believe that the name is and has always been meant to honor Native Americans not to disparage them. But as I said, it's not for me to decide, it's up to the Native Americans.

I think the leading group in this movement is the Oneida Nation, who are Native Americans. It's been recently that the likes of Harry Reid and others have become involved.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I think the leading group in this movement is the Oneida Nation, who are Native Americans. It's been recently that the likes of Harry Reid have become involved and others have been involved.

Yes, the Oneida Nation is involved, but you gotta remember they are involved because there's money to be had. The Oneida Nation is the richest Native American tribe in the country. I think they're the ones who own all or most of the casinos in several areas of the country. My question is, why were they not involved several, several years ago? I mean, if the term "Redskin" has always been meant to disparage Native Americans, then surely they, along with other tribes, would have stepped in decades ago and put an end to it.