froggiepopple

I liked Chicah's idea for a thread on gay rights and discrimination, so I am decided to start a couple on rights of other people.

Some questions to get debate going:
1. Do you think sports teams especially the Washington Redskins should have to change their name to a nondegoratory term?
2. Do you think Columbus Day should be removed from the calendar? Do you think the holiday in itself reflects badly on Americans?
3. Should they possess the right to govern themselves?
4. Should they have the right to better land than what they were giving?
5. After over 200 years should we be required to give back in any of the land?

This debate can also be used for Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.

Indian Summer

Hmm.

1) Um, not really. I think a big part of this kind of thing has to do with how the name is meant to reflect. Obviously, the Washington Redskins aren't using the name as an insult, since they wouldn't... insult themselves.
2) Definitely not. I think regardless of how you spin it, Columbus landing in America shaped the continent. He wasn't directly responsible for the tragedies that happened afterwards, and it isn't like Columbus Day is some big celebration. You choose how to respond toward the holiday- if you want to spend the day mourning the Native American losses, that's cool. It's a major part of the continent's history, though, and taking it off the calendar doesn't change that.
3) Assuming you're talking about Native Americans, I think this is a tricky question. I think they're living in the United States, so they do need to respect some of the laws. However, I think their setup should be more similar to the government's relationship with the Amish/Mennonite- being exempt from taxes and really just a population of non-Americans living in America, in essence.
4) This one's really difficult for me. I think that in an ideal world, yes. However, historically land has been fought over, and there's a place we have to draw the land. The Native Americans lost the battle to protect their land, and I think if we're going to start going back in history and correcting all "unfair battles," we're basically going to have to redraw the borders of all the countries in the world. Kind of crazy...
5) See no. 4

I'll probably be back to address the situations in Australia and New Zealand- especially the latter since I spent some time living among the Maori, lol.

froggiepopple

Redskins is just as degoratory as ****, ******, cracker, ******, ****, *******, etc. We do not have any sports teams with any of those names. Obviously they are not insulting themselves, but the term itself is still degoratory. Does anyone know how in the first place the Washinton football team placed that as their name? I believe thinking of the indigenous peoples as mascots dehumanizes them.
In 1996 which marked the 500 year anniversay of Columbus's arrival to America statues in Columbus, Ohio I believed were smeared with blood. This article claims that Columbus was involved in the genocide: Christopher Columbus - American Indian Genocide. It was not the genocide of Indigenous people living in the United States of course.
Yes I was. I believe already that the tribes do govern themselves in away. Any crime that is committed on the reservations, the tribal police have to deal with it.
Giving back any land would be hard to do. If we were to give back any land would we give it back to anyone that had indigenous DNA or would have to have a certain amount?. What about the people that were 50/50 native and something else? I have heard racist people claim that all the African Americans should go back to Africa, if that is the case should all caucasions go back to Europe? What about people that are biracial or multiracial where would they go? In the end I think it is too late to give back any land? I think the best we can do is try to improve the living conditions for the indigenous peoples. Like you said Summer, if we as human start giving back land due to unfair battles in history it would probably be very difficult to accomplish.

Indian Summer

I agree to an extent, but I really don't think all of those words are quite on the same level (eg. The n word and "cracker" are both technically racist, but the n word definitely has a more derogatory meaning given its historical context). I just think it would be way too big of a step, especially considering they've been the Redskins since the 1930s- no one challenged it until what, the 80s or 90s? It just isn't practical at this point to ask a huge franchise to change its name.

Ech... I still fail to see how this relates to the holiday. No one's doubting Columbus played a major part in the formation of North America, right? And no one's dictating how the holiday has to be celebrated. I'd have more of an issue with it if the holiday was celebrated on a national level the way Independence Day is, in a celebratory manner.

froggiepopple

Haven't names been changed in the past thought?

I thought it was a national holiday, but just not one on the same level as Independence Day. This is probably going to have to be something we will have to agree to disagree on. I believe it sends the message that "we took our land and to rub it in our faces we are going to give a holiday to a man that was responsible for the genocide of the indigenous people." I also think it looks bad on our part.

Indian Summer

...Yes, and in fact the name of the Redskins themselves has been changed. However, I don't know if you're accounting for the huge costs of doing this sort of thing. What's in the past is in the past- what isn't in the past is the thousands of people who would lose their jobs if the team's name got changed. Millions upon millions of dollars would be lost due to having to change logos, pulling all the Redskins merchandise, etc. Inevitably, this would lead to job loss since the money needs to come from somewhere.

I still don't see your point, here, though. We don't celebrate Columbus Day in any respect other than, "Hey, we wouldn't be here if it wasn't for that Columbus guy." And Columbus himself wasn't responsible for the genocide. Sure, his actions (finding the "new world" and reporting it back to his 'bosses') led to a genocide, but he certainly wasn't its leader. Holding Columbus responsible for the genocide is like holding the green berets who reported there were WMD in Iraq responsible for what's happened there. It doesn't account for the fact that it wasn't them who waged the war.

migamoo

I view it more as a bank holiday. It's just another excuse for the government to shut down for another day.

Avatar

Redskins is definately derogatory - it's not as bad as the Cleveland Indians (especially their mascot), but it's bad nevertheless. The NCAA forced William & Mary to change this logo because it could cause offense - so can the term Redskins, not to mention the Indians' logo. If I were to start a sport team, I couldn't call it the Washington Blackskins or the Cleveland Chinese, and rightfully so. "Redskins" and "Indians" are no different. The names should be changed.

And I don't buy that it's difficult for an organization to change their name - after relocating to Tennessee, the former Houston Oilers went under the name Tennessee Oilers for two years before they changed their name to the current Tennessee Titans - if they can do it, then why can't Washington or Cleveland?

Or, since a picture says a thousand words:

Indian Summer

I'm going to hell for this, but I like the Cleveland Hispanics' picture. Obviously, I don't think the name would be a good idea, but the picture's cute!

Anyway, using the Tennessee Titans as an example is pretty interesting, considering the team has had a lot of money problems since then.

If we're going to start looking at any potentially offensive name in sports, though, I'll use the Yankees as an example, since they're obviously a big market team. I don't think I have to explain why it's offensive, but in case you somehow aren't aware: it's a fairly derogatory way of describing people from that region. *shrug* Not nearly as bad as others, but it does have a negative meaning.

Think of all the Yankee merchandise you've seen. Hell, when I was in Australia there were guys wearing Yankee hats (and Red Sox hats, without understanding the rivalry. It made me laugh. ). The cost of pulling all the merchandise off shelves around the world would be astronomical, and then you take into account things like redesigning logos and we're talking millions upon millions upon millions (actually, this is the Yankees so I think it's probably safe to say billions, lol) of dollars.

froggiepopple

Well that is an area that I do not know much about so the thought never entered my mind. I don't understand why people would lose their jobs if the team's named change couldn't they keep the same employees? I do understand the loss of money though. Please excuse my ignorance on the subject of economics and business.
Perhaps the information I got was wrong. I thought he was responsible for the genocide.

How is the term Indian more degoratory than Redskin? Don't many indigenous peoples refer to themselves as Indians? Were you just referring to the mascots?

Indian Summer

I don't think you're giving yourself enough credit, Leigh, lol. But basically, it's exactly what you'd think: huge losses in money mean that the franchise needs to find a way to keep from going under. In order to keep players interested in the team, they need to keep those salaries competitive, so the money can't come from there. They can raise stadium prices, but that alone wouldn't be enough. So people working within the stadium and in the merchandising departments would be the first let go.

Jacob1983

1. Do you think sports teams especially the Washington Redskins should have to change their name to a nondegoratory term?
Nope. Football is a sport. The Washington Redskins are one of the oldest franchises in the NFL. Why should the name be changed just now? I'm pretty sure that football fans and Redskins fans don't believe that the Redskins' name and logo degrades Indians or spreads native-American hate and phobia.
Should every team that uses an animal as a mascot, name, or logo be forced to change because of PETA? Nope.
2. Do you think Columbus Day should be removed from the calendar? Do you think the holiday in itself reflects badly on Americans? No and no. The day is an important date in American history. Columbus discovered America and that's important. Well, there is historical proof that the Vikings discovered America way before Columbus did but there weren't into discovering land.
Should Christmas be removed from the calendar because not everyone believes in Jesus? Nope
3. Should they possess the right to govern themselves? Who freakin cares!
4. Should they have the right to better land than what they were giving? Nope. I think the money and land they get from casinos is good enough
5. After over 200 years should we be required to give back in any of the land? Nope, we took it fair and square. I know this might sound mean but if the Native Americans wanted their land then maybe they should have fought harder for it back in the day but different strokes for different folks.

Avatar

The same way Amundsen and Scott 'discovered' the South Pole?

*Ledi*

Wow.

It really scares me that there's people out there who think the same way you do.

migamoo

That reminds me of my 11th grade US History teacher telling our class that timezones were "invented". It was like we were automatically able to make it certain times around the globe.