If a cop asks me to identify a perpetrator, I will use the color of his skin when applicable ... Should I not?

 

Naturally.

 

But that isn't the context I posed in my hypotheticals.

 

Yes, it would be a matter of fact to identify a person according to a characteristic.

 

But depending upon context, it could be seen as insulting.

 

Tell me if this sounds even vaguely familiar.

 

You are with your girlfriend/wife, and you say something from clearly a male perspective or something that otherwise disturbs her feminine sensibilities-even if in a light hearted manner. 

 

She replies to you...with eyes rolled: "You are such a man."

 

Factually, yes, you may be a man.  But she meant it in the pejorative...as a dig.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

What if they just claim they were named after potatoes, would it still be offensive??  

---

So, I guess teams with the nickname redbirds, and golden eagles need to change their name too, because I heard the birds also find it offensive. 

---

If my wife said "You are such a man" in a way that was obviously meant as an insult, I wouldn't really be offended in the least.  And I don't exactly have thick skin.  Nor would I be offended if she said "You are such a woman!"  for whatever reason.

 

People keep going on about how the Redskins name needs to change.  Truth is, if you asked most Native Americans, they'd probably say that it doesn't matter one way or another.  And really, it doesn't.  How does it help them to change the name? 


Obviously there are some Native Americans who think the name should change.  But there are also a lot who don't really care one way or another.  Who know that by changing the name of the Redskins, you accomplish nothing.  How many Redskins fans are fans of the team because they hate Native Americans?  How many Redskins fans are fans of the team because they live in D.C. or grew up as Redskins fans?


People want to do this because they want to feel better about the treatment of Native Americans, without actually doing anything.  Changing the Name of the Redskins won't lower Native American suicides.  It won't create better conditions for them.  All it will do is make politicians feel good about doing something about nothing.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

If my wife said "You are such a man" in a way that was obviously meant as an insult, I wouldn't really be offended in the least.  And I don't exactly have thick skin.  Nor would I be offended if she said "You are such a woman!"  for whatever reason.

 

People keep going on about how the Redskins name needs to change.  Truth is, if you asked most Native Americans, they'd probably say that it doesn't matter one way or another.  And really, it doesn't.  How does it help them to change the name? 


Obviously there are some Native Americans who think the name should change.  But there are also a lot who don't really care one way or another.  Who know that by changing the name of the Redskins, you accomplish nothing.  How many Redskins fans are fans of the team because they hate Native Americans?  How many Redskins fans are fans of the team because they live in D.C. or grew up as Redskins fans?


People want to do this because they want to feel better about the treatment of Native Americans, without actually doing anything.  Changing the Name of the Redskins won't lower Native American suicides.  It won't create better conditions for them.  All it will do is make politicians feel good about doing something about nothing.

 

Good post. :thumbsup: 

---

So, I guess teams with the nickname redbirds, and golden eagles need to change their name too, because I heard the birds also find it offensive. 

 

I know you are not this stupid

---

;

;

If my wife said "You are such a man" in a way that was obviously meant as an insult, I wouldn't really be offended in the least.  And I don't exactly have thick skin.  Nor would I be offended if she said "You are such a woman!"  for whatever reason.

 

People keep going on about how the Redskins name needs to change.  Truth is, if you asked most Native Americans, they'd probably say that it doesn't matter one way or another.  And really, it doesn't.  How does it help them to change the name? 


Obviously there are some Native Americans who think the name should change.  But there are also a lot who don't really care one way or another.  Who know that by changing the name of the Redskins, you accomplish nothing.  How many Redskins fans are fans of the team because they hate Native Americans?  How many Redskins fans are fans of the team because they live in D.C. or grew up as Redskins fans?


People want to do this because they want to feel better about the treatment of Native Americans, without actually doing anything.  Changing the Name of the Redskins won't lower Native American suicides.  It won't create better conditions for them.  All it will do is make politicians feel good about doing something about nothing.

There have been numerous threads on the old board about this. I did a little background research on it and the number who don't want it changed, or don't care far out weigh those who do. I posted everything I found on here with quotes from some of the leaders of Indian tribes around the country, and numbers. etc.

 

It's a vocal minority who are clamoring for this.

 

Your last paragraph hit the nail on the head regarding some of the comments they had.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

 

 

It's a vocal minority who are clamoring for this.

 

 

 

 

Nutshell. 

---

There have been numerous threads on the old board about this. I did a little background research on it and the number who don't want it changed, or don't care far out weigh those who do. I posted everything I found on here with quotes from some of the leaders of Indian tribes around the country, and numbers. etc.

 

It's a vocal minority who are clamoring for this.

 

Your last paragraph hit the nail on the head regarding some of the comments they had.

 

If something is wrong poll numbers shouldn't matter. A majority of people living in the British colonies in 1776 didn't want to leave the rule of Great Britain either.

 

That's what they said about the civil rights movement - it's just a vocal minority (and communist lead!)

 

It's a derogatory description of a group of people, a recognition of a caste system as determined by skin color. We know that whites were considered superior. It's always been a question of if George Marshall considered blacks to be below American Indians or the reverse.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Calling them American Indians is more offensive than calling an NFL team The Redskins.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Calling them American Indians is more offensive than calling an NFL team The Redskins.

 

You're really reaching. But if you don't have a valid argument that's what you're left with.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

 

<div>I know it has to be my narrow mind keeping me from understanding why skin color is offensive. If I were racist would I then understand why skin color is offensive? I ask with nothing but respect, because it seems so illogical to me.
 
Spock/Data ... Those are guys I understand.
 

</div>

 

It's not that skin color is offensive. It is because in the past, skin color was used to create terms like redskins, darkies, yellowskins... which were originally intended to be derogatory. It's not about what it means now, it's about what the origins of it are. Even the "N" word comes from the skin color. 

 

Trust me, Spock and Data would understand. Especially Data. He always corrects people when they call him a robot. 

 

So, I guess teams with the nickname redbirds, and golden eagles need to change their name too, because I heard the birds also find it offensive. 

 

Come on man, that's just a terrible argument. 

---

Live long and prosper \\// 

Not even remotely reaching.  You're the one reaching by comparing it to the freaking Civil Rights Movement.  But that's what you do when you want to feel morally superior on an issue.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

If my wife said "You are such a man" in a way that was obviously meant as an insult, I wouldn't really be offended in the least.  And I don't exactly have thick skin.  Nor would I be offended if she said "You are such a woman!"  for whatever reason.

 

People keep going on about how the Redskins name needs to change.  Truth is, if you asked most Native Americans, they'd probably say that it doesn't matter one way or another.  And really, it doesn't.  How does it help them to change the name? 


Obviously there are some Native Americans who think the name should change.  But there are also a lot who don't really care one way or another.  Who know that by changing the name of the Redskins, you accomplish nothing.  How many Redskins fans are fans of the team because they hate Native Americans?  How many Redskins fans are fans of the team because they live in D.C. or grew up as Redskins fans?


People want to do this because they want to feel better about the treatment of Native Americans, without actually doing anything.  Changing the Name of the Redskins won't lower Native American suicides.  It won't create better conditions for them.  All it will do is make politicians feel good about doing something about nothing.

 

I likely wouldn't take insult under those circumstances, either.  However, there is a world of difference between friendly jibes from a spouse or significant other and a stranger denigrating an entire group, which is what is being alleged here.

 

Sammy dismissed the possibility of a descriptive term of someone's skin color as possibly being less than/other than factually descriptive.

 

My example was designed to illustrate that a facially neutral descriptive term of a person's immutable characteristic can be used in a less than neutral-even insulting manner.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

 

But that isn't the context I posed in my hypotheticals.

 

 

I did not see the merit to the was it was posed.

 

 

 We know that whites were considered superior.

 

You say were ... Do you feel that way now? does the color of a mans skin make any difference to you in the least? I'm glad I was not a part of that team of "Were".

---

Not even remotely reaching.  You're the one reaching by comparing it to the freaking Civil Rights Movement.  But that's what you do when you want to feel morally superior on an issue.

 

Word.  :thumbsup: 

---

 

Sammy dismissed the possibility of a descriptive term of someone's skin color as possibly being less than/other than factually descriptive.

 

 

I apologize, Bullseye, often times while at work I will skim post, which can also lead to a lack of content in my replies. I certainly am not attempting to be dismissive to the discussion itself.
 
If the discussion is going to venture into the consideration of dismissive behavior .... Wouldn't we start by discussing the fact that I consider the word/name Redskins to be worthy of nothing but honorable, and positive accolades (as do many others) is being dismissed in favor of a negative perception that I can at the very maximum vaguely understand?
 
I do think I have an idea of what I am being told, but that does not mean I can accept it to the point of dismissing my own understanding of how I feel about the name Redskins. Should I consider that a negative perception is more worthy of consideration than a positive one? I would prefer that others perceive the name in a positive manner as I do, rather than expect me to agree to a negative view that isn't in me.
 
I don't know if a majority of people find the name Redskins offensive, or if the number would be more in the vast minority. I just feel that the opponents to the name of Redskins (imo) don't seem to care either way. I get that even 1 person that is feeling that something is offensive to them is too many, we have been going down that path for a very long time. As long as we continue to consider "any" negative perception to be more important than a positive one, it is always going to be the way it is. It is possible I should just chalk it up to the changes in society.
 
Ha, maybe in the end we will all be 100% alike. Do you like Broccoli? I really don't want to give that up.

---

 

 

<div> 
 
I don't know if a majority of people find the name Redskins offensive, or if the number would be more in the vast minority. I just feel that the opponents to the name of Redskins (imo) don't seem to care either way. I get that even 1 person that is feeling that something is offensive to them is too many, we have been going down that path for a very long time. As long as we continue to consider "any" negative perception to be more important than a positive one, it is always going to be the way it is. It is possible I should just chalk it up to the changes in society.
 
Ha, maybe in the end we will all be 100% alike. Do you like Broccoli? I really don't want to give that up.
 

</div>

 

Well, we have disagreed often, lately....but we're in total agreement on the sentiment expressed above. :yes: 

---

So is the uproar because the term "Redskin" was at one point used as a derogatory term?

 

If that's the case what about the Yankees? That was ALWAYS a derogatory term in the South, heck I know people who still view it as a derogatory term. Do we need to change the Yankees name?

 

Maybe the Patriots, I mean that could be offensive, especially if we plan on expanding into England, you know they guys the Patriots fought and killed.

 

I bet some peolpe find the term Cowboy derogatory, so you tell me where does it end? Should we just have city names and drop team names all together?

---

 

 

....so you tell me where does it end? Should we just have city names and drop team names all together?

 

 

give it time...probably will happen. Someone always seems to be offended about something.

---