First thing to get clear is that I'm talking about representations in general, not simply racial slurs. Would you agree that at some point in history, the way a race was represented had a real impact on the life of members of that race? There are plenty of examples of this. Notable ones would be wartime propoganda of the 20th century and blackface minstrelsy. Now, what about our contemporary society? That's where things become less clear because we do not have the benefit of historical hindsight. But I don't think you can reasonably deny that racial representations have had negative effects historically, and so it is at least possible that they are having a negative effect in our present world. The trick is identifying them, which is exactly what the Annenberg survey was attempting to do.
Do I feel these representations had impacts on races? Yes I do. They had an impact on many races in our society. Including Italians, Irish, Scott Irish, Asians and most every one of the nationalities that came into this great country at one point.
Once again, most everyone from these nationalities could hang onto those wrongs and ask for free speech exceptions. To a great extent, I feel it is the responsibility of individuals to at some point let go of the past and move forward. Not to hang onto history as an excuse to use a double standard we see today.
There is a big difference when it comes to "feelings and how one perceives those feelings" and an actual impact on your life. What someone says has no impact on your job, family or life except for "your feelings" about what was said.
Quote:
The difference is that, at one point in history, your ancestors actually suffered something because of the way their race was represented by others. What do you suffer from it now? Maybe being called redneck would hurt your feelings, but do you actually experience a material loss, or is there any real, lasting, significant psychological damage done to you because you are called a redneck? Your ancestors suffered from such representations; I doubt you suffer at all.
I could suffer from it if I so chose to, but I choose not to.
I don't really see it as any different actually to a great extent. I believe the black communities ancestors suffered because of what we are both talking about, "racial stereotypes and slurs". But that was at a time well before the world we live in today. In both cases, opportunities and rights have been established to help even the playing field.
I mean let's face it, the C in NAACP is a black organization representing blacks that with its own title uses a word they despise the white race for using.
Quote: I think we can say the same for blacks today. Surely they do not suffer from racist representations to the extent that their progenitors once did. Being called the "N-word" means a lot more when it is coming from a person who determines your material existence.
And how is it that I control their material existence again? I believe that's a far reaching generalization that is almost non-existant when it comes to the vast majority of people. I have no baring on anyone's existence with the acception of my own family.
Quote: Blacks don't have to worry about that as much as they once did. My only point is that, although the pattern is the same for blacks and Irish, blacks probably suffer more from how they are represented at present than the Irish do. By saying this, I'm not recommending any sort of policy to fix the disparity. I doubt public policy can do anything about it. I'm simply describing a difference as accurately as I can.
What I see as the real problem is how others "perceive races in their minds". What someone says and how someone really feels are two different things. Now if people feel somehow that trying to monitor control of what someone says has any real baring on the situation I totally disagree.
Until people "think differently", nothing truly changes. And I actually believe that using the N word in the double standard that black people today actually has an opposite effect on the perceived goal. It's more of a public way to create a double standard that is so obvious it becomes devicive. When one race uses the N word to help achieve wealth and fame while actually making it shameful for another race to use the exact same word, how does this in any way help solve racial tension? How does it not fly in the face of people saying it's offensive, while continuing to use the same word themselves?
I see nothing positive or correct about this.
Quote:
I guess the answer would be to look at the negative effects of racist representations. It might surprise you that I oppose the name change for the Redskins. How could that be considering everything I've said so far? I mean... to even point out that there might be effectual differences in how races are represented should automatically make me a PC liberal, right? Well, no, it doesn't. If 91 percent of Native Americans (real ones, unlike GMdawg) are not offended by the term, they must not be suffering anything by it. And so, there is no reason to even consider changing the representation. If those who have something at stake don't care because it's not affecting them negatively, then neither should anyone else.
So we define that one race is free to use the exact same word they find so offensive while at the same time continuing the pattern of its use themselves? Yet that isn't a double standard upon all of society?
Quote: I don't see how this is a free speech issue. It won't be until a legislator tries to make the use of the word illegal. I also think the context for the use of the "N-word" matters. The word might be spelled the same, but the context in which it is used changes the meaning. So, no, I don't see a double standard because the "N-word" said by a black person and the "N-word" said by a white person might as well be two different words.
The problem is, they aren't two separate words. I doubt anyone would see a problem in the use of a word everyone could use. But when a very vocal part of any race "chooses" to decide to perpetuate the use of a word they find offensive by any other race it appears the intent is purely devicive.
It flies in the face of common sense to me for a race to claim a word is so offensive, yet wish to create a double standard that they have exclucive use of the word when if another race uses it, it can ruin their career. You can speak about legislation on the matter if you wish.
But it seems as if you wish to speak on the impact on one's life due to the use of the word, you need only look at how the use of the exact same word that is accepted for the black community today, impacts the life of people like Paula Dean.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
So, blacks can use the n word, and that's fine. Blacks can use cracker, and that's fine. It's just whites that can't. Got it.
I disagree. I don't use the term. And when I hear people use it, I consider them dumb. Black, white, or any other race.
I guess we'll just disagree here. If a word is wrong, it's wrong regardless of who says it. Or do I have that wrong?
If a black can call a white "cracker" and "who cares"? (your words)........I guess I just don't understand all this racism thing. it seems it only goes one way?
I dont see a context where i would ever need to casually slang with black homies. Having a history of oppression/domination over another race can lead to touchy feelings. And yeah whites get the raw end of the deal in terms of leeway because we werent the oppressed race. My general opinion is that people who make a big deal out of these subjects are typically insane. I sont view it as important in my life or really existing as an issue. Why people need to get up in arms about large issues is beyond me. (referring to the PC crowds)
Getting back to the whole thing about using indigenous appropriation in sports teams...
What many fail to miss is the whole blood drunk manifest destiny which possessed our nation. We came across a land, saying the natives were savages, put our dominance over them, called their beliefs pagan, and killed their culture along with a ridiculous amount of their people, too. Now we want to continue humiliating them with wide grins, red skin, inaccurate cartoonish portrayals of native garb, and a myriad of inaccurate stereotypes?
Getting back to the whole thing about using indigenous appropriation in sports teams...
What many fail to miss is the whole blood drunk manifest destiny which possessed our nation. We came across a land, saying the natives were savages, put our dominance over them, called their beliefs pagan, and killed their culture along with a ridiculous amount of their people, too.
No... a whole bunch of people that none of us have ever met did that stuff. "WE" didn't have anything to do with that, and I'll be damned if I'm going to live with some idiotic expectation of feeling guilty for something I didn't do just because I'm white.
Quote: Now we want to continue humiliating them with wide grins, red skin, inaccurate cartoonish portrayals of native garb, and a myriad of inaccurate stereotypes?
I don't think anybody wants to humiliate anyone, and if you go back and read this thread, I think that you'll find that there is evidence that very, very few people that matter actually feel any sort of shame or humiliation from those cartoons or names.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
It's a caricature. They are supposed to exaggerate features and such.
Look at the Boston Celtics logo. Should Irish people be offended because the guy is smoking a pipe, wearing a stupid hat, has a stupid expression, and is fat? No. It's a caricature.
Maybe people of northern ancestry can be offended by the Viking in Minnesota's logo.
Maybe the arrowhead in KC can offend certain Native American sensibilities. (after all, the tomahawk did in Atlanta)
Maybe sailors will be offended by the Pirate caricature.
Man, people can always find something to be offended by if they try hard enough. Maybe try to pretend that certain areas of the country had Native populations, and the team names honor those people. Teams use caricatures as logos. Often times those are stereotypical representations. Get over it. Geesh.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
The irish arent considered an oppressed or dominated culture. Not that NA's seem to care about the mascot according to the studies above. But caracatures of the irish dont exactly stir up white guilt in this country. It might be a different story if the team moved to london.
Quote: I'll be damned if I'm going to live with some idiotic expectation of feeling guilty for something I didn't do just because I'm white.
If that came off as "white guilt", I apologize.
My point is that we have the responsibilities as future generations to prevent this type of thing from spiraling further into mockery. Our country propagated enough harm on the indigenous groups of North Americans over the ages. The least we can do is stop the mockery of culture.
Quote: I think that you'll find that there is evidence that very, very few people that matter actually feel any sort of shame or humiliation from those cartoons or names.
Because the 1.2-1.5 million remaining see a losing battle due to their numbers, lack or organization, and their own culture barely being on life support. Indigenous cultures are fragmented on reservations with a whole host of other issues.
Quote: The irish arent considered an oppressed or dominated culture. Not that NA's seem to care about the mascot according to the studies above. But caracatures of the irish dont exactly stir up white guilt in this country. It might be a different story if the team moved to london.
Oh but the Irish were an oppressed culture at one point in our history. "Irish need not apply" was a fact of life at one time.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Freedom of Speech means the government has no place in this matter. If people don't like it they don't have to go to the games...enough people do that and the name will change by internal process.
The Redskins is a private business so we the people and our representatives have no say. However we the people do choose individually who we do business with.
Quote: Freedom of Speech means the government has no place in this matter. If people don't like it they don't have to go to the games...enough people do that and the name will change by internal process.
The Redskins is a private business so we the people and our representatives have no say. However we the people do choose individually who we do business with.
It may be privately held but the NFL is tax exempt and if the pressure mounts the threats to remove that exemption are sure to come flying from members of congress.
I don't think that they are tax exempt. They are exempt from antitrust regulations.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Sure are a lot of people getting upset about the possible name change. Wonder why? Does it really hurt you if they change the name? Why do you freaking care?
Like I said before, I am hardly ever politically correct, but the Redskin name is offensive. Why do you guys give a rat's butt if they change it? How does it hurt you?
Wow, I never saw or heard that hat at all! I understand why, but I'm not sure that I like it.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Quote: "To be a 501(c)(6) organization, anyone who meets your requirements for who's part of the industry has to be allowed to join the association as a member. With professional sporting leagues, that's not the case; it's a very closed circle," Tenenbaum said. "You can't start a professional football team and join the NFL. As a result, many people have wondered out loud if the NFL should even qualify under [Section] 501(c)(6) since it's only furthering a segment of the industry and functions more like an exclusive club."
Wow! This is a blatant misuse of what the 501 exemption was intended for. For example, the article mentioned the Super Bowl and how every NFL employee was not charged tax on whatever they did. Living high on the hog and not paying their fair share. Greed and gluttony, it the NFL way.
Quote: Yes. Have you been involved with your tribe? Oh wait, you don't know what tribe you are. So, again, you're the person with 1/32 Cherokee blood that claims they have a say in it, despite no ties to their tribe.
My grandfather grew up in an orphanage which burned down when he was in his teens. So because the records were lost and I have no idea which Tribe his family was from Then in your opinion I should have no say in the matter. GMAFB My grandfather was picked on back then for his heritage while growing up yet you still believe I have no right to my opinion pppfffttt I souldn't have wasted my time even responding to you.
Quote: The real issue, though, is who has a legitimate say in how a race or ethnicity is represented. As far as representation is concerned. only those with something potentially at stake should be included in the decision process.
pssst bro we are all Americans and we all have a say. No one persons opinion is more important than anothers opinion. So guess what man my opinion does count just like yours and everybody else who has made theirs known.
Ah, GMdawg, you are a true democrat. What can I say? The system is clearly on your side, and I'm not in the mood for a debate concerning the wisdom and efficacy of the democratic deliberative process right now. All I'll say is, not everyone's opinion is of equal value or merit, and to consult all persons on their own and give them equal weight is the height of stupidity, and, dare I say it, the sine qua non of political correctness. Oh my! All hail mediocrity.
The future of sports: Monday Night Football! Come watch the Cleveland Humans vs their arch rival, the Pittsburgh People! Next week, don't miss the Seattle Football Players vs the Green Bay NFL Athletes!
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
Quote: The real issue, though, is who has a legitimate say in how a race or ethnicity is represented. As far as representation is concerned. only those with something potentially at stake should be included in the decision process.
I find this almost comical. You think black people allow white people to determine how white people are represented? You think native americans don't have preconceived stereotypes about whites, blacks, etc?
You don't get to decide how you are represented, sorry but culture decides those things for you.
Quote: If you base your opinion about a person or group on their race, and if that opinion is untrue, then you are a racist.
Whether it's true or not is totally irrelevant because you are talking about a race of people so there are bound to be all kinds of exceptions. If I stated that blacks are a bunch of criminals, I can show you a bunch of statistics that shows that blacks do in fact commit crimes at a significantly higher rate in this county, so does that make it true and therefore, not racist? Or does the fact that a lot of blacks are NOT criminals make it untrue and therefore, racist?
Quote: But when considering what to do about racist representations, it does matter how the person or group is affected. Only those who might be affected by a racist representation should have a say in how that representation is handled.
How is a guy in Oklahoma affected because a Washington football team is called the Redskins? Can he not get a date because of it? Go to college? Get a job? How is he really affected?
Quote: When you write "fair game," you imply that every racial group is susceptible to the negative effects of racist representations. This is the false assumption I am challenging.
So then if somebody only utters racial slurs in their own home then they aren't really racist because it doesn't affect anybody in the race that might otherwise be offended? See, I don't think you can have outcome based racism.. that if nobody is really materially affected then racism didn't really happen.
If you shoot at me and miss, you are charged with attempted murder even though I am unaffected.. maybe we need an "attempted racism" charge for those times when a black guy calls me cracker and I don't care.
Quote: If I stated that blacks are a bunch of criminals, I can show you a bunch of statistics that shows that blacks do in fact commit crimes at a significantly higher rate in this county, so does that make it true and therefore, not racist? Or does the fact that a lot of blacks are NOT criminals make it untrue and therefore, racist?
Well, when a half-white half-latino dude can initiate a confrontation with a black guy, end up shooting him to death, and get convicted of nothing in the same state that a black woman who is defending herself (by firing a "warning shot") from her husband who is trying to kill her gets sentenced to 20 years, then you have to question what the statistics are really saying... so, there's that.
Quote: The real issue, though, is who has a legitimate say in how a race or ethnicity is represented. As far as representation is concerned. only those with something potentially at stake should be included in the decision process.
I find this almost comical. You think black people allow white people to determine how white people are represented? You think native americans don't have preconceived stereotypes about whites, blacks, etc?
What are you talking about? I was making a normative statement, not a factual one. If I'm not getting your point, forgive me, but I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
Quote:
Quote: If you base your opinion about a person or group on their race, and if that opinion is untrue, then you are a racist.
Whether it's true or not is totally irrelevant because you are talking about a race of people so there are bound to be all kinds of exceptions. If I stated that blacks are a bunch of criminals, I can show you a bunch of statistics that shows that blacks do in fact commit crimes at a significantly higher rate in this county, so does that make it true and therefore, not racist?
It's not racist if you can prove that criminality has something to do with the race of the group. In that case, it's just a fact. So, I reiterate, if you think blacks are criminal because they are black, and if this belief you hold is factually untrue, then you are a racist.
Quote:
Quote: But when considering what to do about racist representations, it does matter how the person or group is affected. Only those who might be affected by a racist representation should have a say in how that representation is handled.
How is a guy in Oklahoma affected because a Washington football team is called the Redskins? Can he not get a date because of it? Go to college? Get a job? How is he really affected?
Again, I don't get your point. Is the hypothetical guy from Oklahoma a Native American? And are you then asking how the name of the football team affects him? Have you read all of my posts in this thread? I've already stated that the name of the team should not be changed because only 9 percent of NAs actually find it offensive, which I take to mean that 91 percent of NAs are totally unaffected by the name. I don't know how the other 9 percent might be affected, and I see no reason to speculate because the 91 percent make this whole issue irrelevant.
Quote:
Quote: When you write "fair game," you imply that every racial group is susceptible to the negative effects of racist representations. This is the false assumption I am challenging.
So then if somebody only utters racial slurs in their own home then they aren't really racist because it doesn't affect anybody in the race that might otherwise be offended?
No. I already defined what it means to be a racist. According to that definition, a person is a racist if they hold a belief about a person or group that explains that person or group according to their race AND that belief is untrue.
Quote: See, I don't think you can have outcome based racism.. that if nobody is really materially affected then racism didn't really happen.
Neither do I. Racism has nothing to do with outcomes, consequences, or effects. It has everything to do with true and false beliefs about race. But determining what is and is not racist is different from how a representation of a racial group affects that group. Perhaps you are confusing the two. No doubt, my presentation of both ideas has not been as clear as it might be, but I hope this now makes more sense.
Quote: What are you talking about? I was making a normative statement, not a factual one. If I'm not getting your point, forgive me, but I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
Quite simply stating that a group doesn't get to determine how it is perceived or represented at all. Culture does that.
Quote: So, I reiterate, if you think blacks are criminal because they are black, and if this belief you hold is factually untrue, then you are a racist.
How do you prove WHY somebody is a criminal? If 98% of Jews are cheap, then I still have to prove they are cheap BECAUSE they are Jews in order for it not to be racist? How do you do that when everything has more than one variable?
Quote: I've already stated that the name of the team should not be changed because only 9 percent of NAs actually find it offensive, which I take to mean that 91 percent of NAs are totally unaffected by the name.
Even if the numbers were reversed, how do you define "affected"? Does a little emotional affected count or do I have to be financially or socially affected in some way?
Quote: According to that definition, a person is a racist if they hold a belief about a person or group that explains that person or group according to their race AND that belief is untrue.
What percentage of a race has to have a similar characteristic before you can use it as a generalization of the whole group and not be racist?
Quote: Quite simply stating that a group doesn't get to determine how it is perceived or represented at all. Culture does that.
I don't know exactly what you mean by "culture," but I doubt you can clearly draw the lines between people group and culture. Why can't we spell out the "N-word" on this board? It's part of the culture, sure. But why? Didn't a particular group of people have a lot to do with it?
Quote: How do you prove WHY somebody is a criminal? If 98% of Jews are cheap, then I still have to prove they are cheap BECAUSE they are Jews in order for it not to be racist?
Correct. 98 percent is quite a definitive statistic. You are catching on.
Quote: How do you do that when everything has more than one variable?
I don't know. I'm not a scientist. But I bet we could come up with something. Did you ever read The Bell Curve by Charles Murray and Richard Hernstein? That would be one example.
Quote: Even if the numbers were reversed, how do you define "affected"? Does a little emotional affected count or do I have to be financially or socially affected in some way?
Negative financial and social effects would certainly be conditions under which a group can legitimately agitate for change. Psychological effects would also qualify, although I don't have any specific threshhold for psychological disturbance.
Have you ever watched Song of the South? In that movie, a slave plantation is depicted as an idyllic paradise, and the slaves sing happy songs all day and regale the little white children with their folksy tales. This movie was part of a large scale representation of plantation life which promoted the idea that blacks were happy as slaves and slavery was the best thing for them. Now, how did this affect blacks in the mid 20th century, and how did it shape what whites thought about blacks? I don't know, but can you honestly tell me racial representations of this kind had no negative effects? If that's the case, let's do a Song of the South remake. The animation could use an update.
Quote: What percentage of a race has to have a similar characteristic before you can use it as a generalization of the whole group and not be racist?
Sure are a lot of people getting upset about the possible name change. Wonder why? Does it really hurt you if they change the name? Why do you freaking care?
Like I said before, I am hardly ever politically correct, but the Redskin name is offensive. Why do you guys give a rat's butt if they change it? How does it hurt you?
I don't care if they change their name. If Mr. Snyder one day woke up and said "I would really like to own a team called the Washington Wambats" and therefor changed the name...then so be it.
I do care about the government being able to force private companies to change their names. Or to do anything for that matter....like force them to provide health insurance for example We the people and our representatives should have no say in (you the individuals) choices unless (you the individual) starts infringing on the rights of (they the other person.)
Quote: Did you ever read The Bell Curve by Charles Murray and Richard Hernstein?
I remember the flaming controversy surrounding that book. It was a fascinating read, although I feel that the authors took quite a few liberties in analyzing the study that followed a rather large segment of society from pre elementary school through adulthood. The most important point I took from the book is the importance of a GPA from early childhood.....which is why I ride my son to keep his grades up. He had a 4.18 this year (freshman in HS) while taking every honors course available. (Sorry, had to throw a little bragging in there!)
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul. - John Muir
If they're going to force a name change..... Snyder should change the name to the Washington "Cavalry". You know, the guys that massacred the Indians. Better to name your team after the winners than the losers anyway...
But there would be great-great grandsons of those original calvary members who would then be offended that their great-great grandfathers are being used as a nickname/mascot of a sports team who aren't even carrying guns or riding horses.
Calvary is not an insulting name. However, the term Red Skins is insulting and demeaning.
Like I said before, I am typically more Anti-Politically Correct than anyone on here, but that name originated as a derogatory name. I am not buying this "where will it end..." argument.
I think it's wrong to go too far one way or the other. I almost always hate the politically correct people because they go to extremes, but on the other hand, I don't see why so many people would be upset if Washington had to change their name. That seems extreme to me.
Logic and reason should be our guide. Not hate and bitterness.
While I don't think Redskins is an ideal name...I look at their logo and think that it is a very respectful logo. I'd look at the Indians logo and think its a bigger issue than the Redskins name.
I look at it now...lets look at the Redskins name.
Do Native's have a reddish skin color? Yes? Whats the problem?
I know what the problem is...we wouldn't have allowed a team called the Ns...that would be terrible. So...if Native Americans look at it the same way...goodbye. But I feel like there are worse things we could have it named.
Simply...if Native Americans join up and say we HATE it...get rid of it. Good bye to the name.
If its white European Americans that have the problem with it...stuff it.
"It has to start somewhere It has to start somehow What better place than here? What better time than now?"
See, I don't think you can have outcome based racism.. that if nobody is really materially affected then racism didn't really happen.
We the people and our representatives should have no say in (you the individuals) choices unless (you the individual) starts infringing on the rights of (they the other person.)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Heldawg/rgiii2.jpg)
