Redskins Trademark cancelled

[ram29jackson]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

See I think this is where we differ. I don't equate tolerance to offense. Those are two different things. Tolerance means I accept whatever it is I tolerate. Doesn't have to be something I even like, but I accept it. Heck I might even be entertained by it.
Being offended, again my opinion, means that I do not tolerate whatever it is that has caused me offense. It's caused me personal grief, directly, and its caused me disruption in my soul.

Completely my opinion, but I would wager to say that a good amount of those who have hopped on the "change name" bandwagon, are there, not because they are personally offended by the name, but support the possibility that someone might be offended. In other words, they're looking to be offended at something.

tolerance does not mean acceptance. I tolerate what gay people think is ok to do in their lives but I will never accept it. I can be nice to a gay person without accepting the gay lifestyle as right or normal. That is tolerance.

people try to define tolerance as acceptance and by definition it simply isnt

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by ram29jackson

tolerance does not mean acceptance. I tolerate what gay people think is ok to do in their lives but I will never accept it. I can be nice to a gay person without accepting the gay lifestyle as right or normal. That is tolerance.

people try to define tolerance as acceptance and by definition it simply isnt

My point is that if one is a fan of the Redskins, wears Redskins jerseys, cheers for the Washington Redskins, or sings the fight song when they score a touchdown, I don't see how one can be, staunchly, against the name of the team. That's just my opinion.

I honestly believe the difference of opinions among those people who are not Native American, is a politically driven one - not one where they are personally effected by the name. Just my opinion. Especially when political figures are trying to get involved, those on one side or the other is going to be supporting their political "team" in anything. Certainly there are exceptions to the rule, but there are those who are so staunchly for their political party that they'll go along with anything that party says or does, and will argue for those actions - even if they don't understand what it is they are fighting for. And I believe when President Obama and a few other political figures came out against the name, that was enough to sway a few sitting on the fence, over to the "change name" camp.

The bottom line is, if there is overwhelming evidence, damnable evidence that the name of the team is derogatory, and an overwhelming majority of Native Americans agree that the team name is racist, then the name should change. But if there is NOT overwhelming evidence (and so far, there hasn't been), nor an overwhelming majority of NA's coming out against the name, then fighting for a name change simply doesn't make any sense.

What basis of argument do Non-NA's have against the name, if the majority of NA's come out and say that they do not find offense in the name? Going along with the argument that there might be 10% who are offended and that's enough for those opposed to fight the "good fight" seems pretty ignorant to me. That is when I say if there is division within the NA community, then let them figure it out among themselves.

[tshile]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

I honestly believe the difference of opinions among those people who are not Native American, is a politically driven one - not one where they are personally effected by the name. Just my opinion. Especially when political figures are trying to get involved, those on one side or the other is going to be supporting their political "team" in anything. Certainly there are exceptions to the rule, but there are those who are so staunchly for their political party that they'll go along with anything that party says or does, and will argue for those actions - even if they don't understand what it is they are fighting for. And I believe when President Obama and a few other political figures came out against the name, that was enough to sway a few sitting on the fence, over to the "change name" camp.

Agreed. As someone who's spent the last few years ridiculing my republican friends over a few things, I can't help but see some of their warnings about other things in action on this issue.

I don't know if the vast majority of people see things this way, but I'm certainly on the same page as you at this point.

Originally Posted by skinsguy

The bottom line is, if there is overwhelming evidence, damnable evidence that the name of the team is derogatory, and an overwhelming majority of Native Americans agree that the team name is racist, then the name should change. But if there is NOT overwhelming evidence (and so far, there hasn't been), nor an overwhelming majority of NA's coming out against the name, then fighting for a name change simply doesn't make any sense.

But therein lies the issue for me that is going to forever make it difficult for me to change from the keep-the-name camp to the change-the-name camp.

If, up until a point, there was no significant proof of disparagement etc, then why should I put any stock into that changing over time?
If when the team was named... when the cases were previously fought... when the name was trademarked... if there was no problem then, why should I give any credit to the idea that there is a problem now or in the future?

If there never existed a problem then the whole platform upon which the change-the-name camp sits goes away... Simply rallying more people onto their non-existent platform doesn't do anything for me.

They may able to recruit more in the future under the guise of righteousness and 'making a difference' because, from where I sit, the trend of people wanting to be a part of that sort of thing seems to continue to grow - especially as more and more people become reliant on the internet as a means of social interaction and source of happiness.

But it's not going to change anything for me. I'll see it exactly for what it is.. a bunch of phony nonsense that's been talked into 'existence,' but not really...

This isn't an issue that changes over time... or at least, it shouldn't be.