Redskins "Name" debate

[pondwater]

Actually, there IS a problem- it's just not with those 3 schools. With the 28 schools who changed the name, the problem was great enough that they made the change. Even in a fake demacracy like the US, sometimes the "majority rules" approach does actually create change. 28>3. -EK

I guess in a way a constitutional republic could be considered a "fake" democracy seeing as how we are not a democracy. Unlike a pure democracy, in a constitutional republic, citizens are not governed by the majority of the people but by the rule of law. Furthermore, even if we were a democracy, your "majority rules" approach wouldn't apply to a private or sovereign entities.

[pondwater]

just a small tangent .. because people seem to have a misconception quite often about this.

the US isn't a democracy .. in fact it has never been a democracy and our constitution doesn't establish a democracy.

We live in a representative republic .. we use a democratic method in elections. Originally the founders even restricted that to being JUST the house of representatives. the senate was designed to be state appointed (governor or legislature) and the president is elected by electors which are what is voted on during a presidential election.

So we aren't a fake democracy .. we aren't one at all and have never been.

Beat me too it, haha. However, my point to EK is that republic, democracy, majority or not. None of that has any bearing on this topic.

[Dave Gray]

Wellpinit (Wash.) High School - 91.2 percent Native American
Kingston (Okla.) High School - 57.7 percent Native American
Red Mesa (Ariz.) High School - 99.3 percent Native American

Yes, but I started with my statement "Imagine if the Washington Redskins never existed"...which, by my last check, they do.

Secondly, it wouldn't surprise me any schools on a local level -- people do all kinds of stupid racist crap in small towns.  I was referring more to a national team.

[EKnight]

Are schools private or sovereign entitites?

Either way, I don't understand what the debate is. The term is offensive. If it offends enough people that there have been multiple attempts to remove/change it, that's good enough for me. What possible benefit do you get from leaving an offensive term out there? What good does that bring? -EK

[Fau Teixeira]

Furthermore, even if we were a democracy, your "majority rules" approach wouldn't apply to a private or sovereign entities

the civil rights act applies to private entities

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9689220/redskins-name-change-not-easy-sounds

Doesn't really matter. If the overwhelming majority of those schools are Native American and using and wearing the name proudly then there is no problem. If you or anyone else don't like it, don't go to the games or buy popcorn, simple enough in a free society.

It is well established that the author blatantly lied in that article.

[pondwater]

Yes, but I started with my statement "Imagine if the Washington Redskins never existed"...which, by my last check, they do.

If the Washington Redskins never existed then the Kingston (Okla.) High School would still be named the redskins, since according to the article, they have been wearing the Redskins name for 104 years. Even being politically correct and all sensitive, 104 years is still larger than 81 years.

Secondly, it wouldn't surprise me any schools on a local level -- people do all kinds of stupid racist crap in small towns.  I was referring more to a national team.

With the percentage of Native American students and their parents and families in those small towns, then they would be doing the stupid racist crap to themselves. Self inflicted racism is neato

[pondwater]

the civil rights act applies to private entities

You twisting my words, I never said civil rights. I said "majority rules" approach wouldn't apply to private or sovereign entities. But more to your point. What civil rights are being broken? Hurt feelings? Being offended? Gladly, those don't qualify.

[Spider-Dan]

What civil rights were broken when blacks had to ride at the back of the bus?  Hurt feelings?

[Fau Teixeira]

You twisting my words, I never said civil rights. I said "majority rules" approach wouldn't apply to private or sovereign entities. But more to your point. What civil rights are being broken? Hurt feelings? Being offended? Gladly, those don't qualify.

if 'majority rules' results in a new law being passed .. it applies to a private entity  .. no question about it

and i wasn't implying there were any laws being broken.

This is purely a public pressure event currently. When it starts to hurt the NFL business bottom line, the name will be changed faster than you can blink.

[Sunstroke]

Is it the word "wet" that is offensive, or the word "back?" What is the negative slant associated with the term that you're referring to?

Don't be a douche...wetback refers to the negative connotations of many Mexicans' illegal immigration to the USA. The term "redskin" is simply a physical description, and an accurate one.

[Dave Gray]

^ What about a team called "the darkies" which is also accurately covers skin color?

I don't think the wetback comparison is at all douchey, but very accurate.  Redskin has a negative connotation.

[Sunstroke]

What is that negative connotation? That their skin is red?

[Dave Gray]

^ It's the way that it's historically used.

It's not the actual words red or skin, clearly.   Likewise, you wouldn't have a team called the slant-eyes for Asians.  ...even though, yes -- they do have slanty eyes.  Slant-eyes is a slur, historically speaking.

[Spider-Dan]

Don't be a douche...wetback refers to the negative connotations of many Mexicans' illegal immigration to the USA. The term "redskin" is simply a physical description, and an accurate one.

You say this as if racial slurs can somehow be explained away if they are actually kind of accurate; like it's probably okay to refer to a Jew as a "hooknose" if their nose is kind of hook-shaped, or it's just fine to refer to a Hispanic as a "wetback" if that particular person literally immigrated into the US via swimming through a body of water.

I ask again: if your mayor referred to a Native American constituent as a "redskin," would you think that's OK?