It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Redskins say name 'respectful,' suggest Senate Dems don't have all the facts

page: 6
18
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
Just more PC nonsense.

Redefine speech, ban words.

I don't think anyone's said anything about banning any words...? Where did this come from?

originally posted by: beezzer
Anyone who tries to inhibit free speech, inhibit free expression, anyone who tries to impose their version of what they deem as acceptable. . . . is offensive to me, ergo, they should all shut up.

So why are you not offended at yourself?

You literally just called it PC nonsense. You have no right to impose your own version of acceptability on the free speech of other people.

originally posted by: beezzer
Everyone has a right to speak out.

It is rude and insulting to even suggest that I would be against that.

And yet, you say this is merely PC nonsense. Oh, and I guess because people are objecting to a sports team's name, it's stifling freedom of expression or something. I'm not really clear on this, since the logic doesn't work... perhaps you can clarify?

originally posted by: beezzer
I'm all for discussion or else I wouldn't be here.

You're in it for the speech that would actually deny freedom.

Yes... and various groups are trying, through discussion, to get a team's name changed, because they think it offensive. I don't know where freedom of speech is being attacked here, save by you, since you call their speech PC nonsense.




posted on May, 27 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven




Yes... and various groups are trying, through discussion, to get a team's name changed, because they think it offensive. I don't know where freedom of speech is being attacked here, save by you, since you call their speech PC nonsense.


What about the Team Owner.

He doesn't want to change a name they have had for 80 years.

Does he have any Rights. Or, is this just some PC groups erasing a long tradition ?

It seems several Native Groups are upset as well. If they are, THEY should ask the Owner.

I would change it if I owned the Team. It seems the Team Owners Rights don't matter.
edit on 27-5-2014 by whyamIhere because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: whyamIhere


What about the Team Owner.

He doesn't want to change a name they have had for 80 years.

Does he have any Rights.



What about the men who didn't want women to have the vote?
What about slave owners who weren't ready to give up their slaves?

Just because someone may be butthurt doesn't mean squat.

The name needs to change and the owners feelings are irrelevant.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: stargatetravels
The name needs to change.....

Simple question ...... WHY? The vast majority of Native Americans don't care. So why should anyone else? And why should the team go through the huge expense of changing if it's not necessary? Convince me that it needs to be changed .... I'm listening ....



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: stargatetravels

I ask about the Team Owners Rights not his feelings.

Doesn't he have " The Right" to keep his brand ?



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 06:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: stargatetravels
The name needs to change and the owners feelings are irrelevant.



originally posted by: stargatetravels
Just because someone may be butthurt doesn't mean squat.


Yeah; you should try to not contradict yourself in a single post.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Well, now that all the blood has been shed, the ammunition used up, and people are rolling around on the ground after having made public spectacles of themselves, I wonder why the rage. Not national rage, but ATS rage.

Washington can choose their team name, they did, from what we should assume were harmless motives. They are perfectly free to keep it, the (I don't know what to call them) tribes, have a perfect right to complain. If they can persuade the team, the team will change. If not, the Al Sharptons of that particular group can go pour sand in their pants.

If they pass a law requiring a change, that's an illegal taking and violation of the First. So? What's to fight about? Some of you want the change, some don't, why are you throwing insults around? This is not the critical issue, it's not even an important issue, to get worked up over. Perhaps a First World Problem?



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: charles1952


Perhaps a First World Problem?


Part of the reason we have a first world is because these are the kinds of things we examine and then resolve to change - even if it isn't done unanimously - or without a lot of kicking and screaming

Just because some see it as a non-issue doesn't mean everyone does

Change for the sake of change is ridiculous

Change - because we no longer treat people as inferior things is worth it I think

As some have pointed out before me - tradition is not an excuse for maintaining a label that no longer fits in with the our world today

Tell me Charles - would you be comfortable with a team that was named The Coloreds?

Just words you might say - but words mean things - and infer a great deal

The owner will do as he wants of course - and he does have a great deal of support. Doesn't make it right. Doesn't mean this will go away

Funny how you declare it a non-issue. If it were - why would anybody even be talking about it?
edit on 5/29/2014 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan


The vast majority of Native Americans don't care.


Is that something you can prove?

Also - is it only a minority that should be concerned? Why is this sort of thing not something all people should care about?

There have been a few links and examples posted that say otherwise. Why do you ignore those?


edit on 5/29/2014 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: charles1952

I missed this part:

Some of you want the change, some don't, why are you throwing insults around?


:-)

Isn't it obvious? What are we talking about?

Sometimes it only matters when it's us...not them
edit on 5/29/2014 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Dear Spiramirabilis,

The "Redskins" issue is, no, let me change that. I think the issue is more of a "was." A lawsuit was started back around 1990, and for nearly 20 years it was fought through the courts, up to the Supreme Court. After that was resolved in favor of the WR, the controversy faded from view. It wasn't revived until the WR had a winning season in 2012.

It may also be worth noting that the renewed controversy began about 6 months after the 2012 elections and at a time when the Administration was being accused of looking for distractions from various serious scandals. But I do not know what the cause of the renewed interest in the question was. I do suspect that it is not honest offense, especially since the (whatever they prefer to be called) are receiving much worse treatment in many other areas. Protests against those aren't brought to the public's attention.

Just had a thought. The other bad treatment the (whatevers) are receiving is coming from the government. Is it possible that they are either afraid to protest against the government, or are willing to accept the treatment because they support the Obama administration? That might be why, when Senators were asked to sign a letter in an attempt to pressure the team, only Democrat Senators were asked to sign.

I have more to add, but I should directly address your fine response.

Change - because we no longer treat people as inferior things is worth it I think
How have the Redskins actually mis-treated the (whatevers)? By failing to do something (change their name)? Has there been any allegation of damage besides some (whatevers) saying "I don't happen to like it?"

Somewhere, I take you to be saying, over the last 80 years, we stopped treating (whatevers) as inferior things. When did we stop treating them as things? I don't believe they were ever treated as things, ever. Perhaps at one time they were treated as savages, but never as things. So, you are saying, sometime after the mid-30s we went from treating them as inferior people to what "average," "normal" people? When did this switch occur? Perhaps it was the 1940s, when they won fame as "code-talkers?" What policy change did we have that stopped treating them as inferior? The only people I see treating them as inferior are members of the government who keep insisting they can't live without serious government help.


As some have pointed out before me - tradition is not an excuse for maintaining a label that no longer fits in with the our world today
As I asked earlier, when did it stop fitting? What caused it to stop fitting? Better yet, who says it has stopped fitting? Why does "Fighting Irish," displaying a drunken Leprechaun still fit, when it uses a stereotype from the early immigrant days, and "Fighting Sioux," displaying a noble and serious profile, was banned and a college had to change a long standing name? Has the world stopped fitting only certain words? Is it a lie that both the Sioux and the Irish had a reputation for fighting?


Tell me Charles - would you be comfortable with a team that was named The Coloreds?
Dear Spiramirablis, you could name a team the "Niggah Drag Queen White Bitch Ho Slappers" if you so desire. (Although, trying to envision their logo is beyond my poor imagination. I suppose the uniform would have lots of sequins.) Would I be comfortable with it? No, but I'm not comfortable with the art of Jackson Pollock and many consider him a genius. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF I AM COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT SOMEONE ELSE DOES. If that was the requirement, Gay marriages would not exist.

The owners who invested a ton of money in the team, and the fans who pay, no doubt ridiculous prices, to watch players run around the grass, are the only people who should have a say in the matter. Oops, I'm wrong. Why do the sports media keep referring to them as the Redskins? Surely, we have recognized that ESPN is sensitive to such political matters. So is MSNBC. You're shooting at the wrong target. Go after the media.

Another thought. I enjoy using fountain pens and have received two extremely nice ones during my lifetime. I will bet you any amount of money plus the entire Reptillian ill-gotten gain that I would win the following bet. Think of the situation where I spoke to every adult American who was printing something out and said, "I find cursive to be far more aesthetically pleasing, and smoother. And if I have to write, I much prefer to do it with an elegant fountain pen." The bet is that I will find as many Americans offended by my fountain pen, as there are who were offended by "Redskins," three years ago. I require though, that the individual answer, not the five member board which claims to speak for 500,000 Americans.


Just words you might say - but words mean things - and infer a great deal
May I differ? Does "Chink" refer to a gap in someone's armor, or someone from China? How about "Pen?" are we talking about pigs, prisoners, or fountain. "Queer?" means odd, or a favorable name used by some gays about themselves, or an unfavorable name. For me, I will never forgive that movement for destroying the perfectly could word "gay" which connoted a carefree happiness, a light-heartedness, before the movement reversed the definition.

The effect of the word depends on the context and the speaker. This is an historic organization labeling itself. If it actually was an insult, you would have to believe that the organization has continually insulted itself for 80 years and refuses to quit insulting itself. This situation is entirely different from a man walking up to a (whatever) on the street and shouting out "Hey! Redskin! You want-um some firewater? Where can I get-um a squaw?" To discuss this at all, we have to see the difference. Unfortunately, many don't.


The owner will do as he wants of course - and he does have a great deal of support. Doesn't make it right. Doesn't mean this will go away
I agree completely. The owner has the law and the majority of Americans on his side. that doesn't mean it's right or the discussion is over. In that you take a view opposite to our president's on Obamacare. He and his staff have often said that Obamacare is here, it's the law, let's move on. Or the famous "Obama won, get over it."

We must all continue to fight for the right. Unfortunately, many Americans don't accept that the Constitution is right, or that the nation's Judaeo-Christian heritage is right (or even common sense and logic in some cases). Those people largely accept what academics say, as filtered and passed on by the various media. Or, perhaps, "I've decided for myself that Judaeo-Christianity is wrong and I accept some other tradition." The problem comes when they start saying "I know I'm right, and I'll keep fighting and attempting to disrupt things until I can force people to change."


Funny how you declare it a non-issue. If it were - why would anybody even be talking about it?
I did say I wasn't confused by the national rage. I also said it wasn't an important issue, not that it was a non-issue. I was hoping it would be treated more reasonably here. I'm out of space.

With respect,
Charles1952
edit on 29-5-2014 by charles1952 because: Brackets



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: charles1952
Charles - you took the long way home, working towards a lengthy rationalization that - in the end - doesn't answer my question:

Tell me Charles - would you be comfortable with a team that was named The Coloreds?

It's a question nobody seems to want to answer

By the way Charles - you may find gay people being able to marry same as all people offensive - but that's a human rights issue. You compare that to not caring for the work of Jackson Pollock?

Unfortunately, many Americans don't accept that the Constitution is right, or that the nation's Judaeo-Christian heritage is right

Your Judaeo-Christian beliefs do not get to decide human rights issues for everyone else

An insult is an interesting thing. It's meant to injure and demean - put someone in their place. Funny how some can hurl insults with the crowd cheering them on when it's directed at a group - the sort of people who say something nasty then follow it up with 'just kidding'

They never seem to handle it near as well when it's about them and it becomes personal

Why is that do you think?

:-)

If it comes from behind a duck-blind of anonymity and rationalization - aimed at something general and not specific, it gets a free pass. From some. It''s not personal - they feel free to say what they like. Said directly to a person - well, that is bad form, isn't it?

You want to explain how this is all semantics and perspective. Maybe - in a discussion for discussion's sake, we can reduce things to whatever we want them to be. You're not really fooling anyone though

In real life - there are actual living human beings that are saying it's offensive. Have been saying it for a while. Never stopped. It's not just the Native Americans - it's Americans

What some people are saying in response is - we simply do not care

And there you go

_________________________

Not that you'll read through this - but I found this very interesting:
Redskins' Attempt To Troll Senator On Twitter Did NOT Go Well

And that's just a small sampling

edit on 5/31/2014 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: stargatetravels

What about the men who didn't want women to have the vote?
What about slave owners who weren't ready to give up their slaves?


Really? A sports team name is up there with suffrage and enslavement?


Just because someone may be butthurt doesn't mean squat.


Apparently it does otherwise this wouldnt be an issue. 'Butthurt' goes both ways.



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Dear Spiramirabilis,

I am truly sorry to disappoint you with my answer. It wasn't intentional, I have too much respect for you to try something like that. Let me, then, have another chance at it.

I would not be comfortable with using The Coloreds as a team name. Similarly, I would be uncomfortable with the name The Blacks, especially if the names popped up right now in today's society. I currently am uncomfortable with a High School which names it's teams (including football), The Blooming Prairie Blossoms. In my opinion, that actual name treads very close to child abuse. And how are we to regard the name applied to the teams of Faribault, Minnesota early in the 20th century? Who would willingly announce today that they were part of the defensive line of The Faribault Fairies?

Dear Spiramirabilis, you can not begin to imagine the number of things that make me uncomfortable. But, I don't think that's the question.

Who is responsible for those ridiculous names? The School District, the parents, maybe the voters in that little town. Even if those names are plastered across the nation in headlines, it is not the business of the good citizens of Denver, Colorado.

There is discomfort in the world, all over and every day. The question is what should be done about each of the discomforts we face. In the case of the Redskins, there was no issue until people started saying to others "You must change your team's name whether you want to or not, solely because we want you to." Not surprisingly, the response of most Americans is, properly, "Butt out."

Outside of hurt feelings, I don't see the harm. And if we decide to ban things that hurt others' feelings, many things which you may support will be banned.

Have I answered your question? I hope so.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: charles1952


Have I answered your question? I hope so.


Yes Charles - you have :-)

And I thank you

Much to agree with there - which is the whole point of having an honest, direct and open back and forth

But I'll disagree with one part of it - and this is where I think free speech is both amazing - and misunderstood

A people (as in - us Americans) have the right to demand - that doesn't automatically mean we (always) get what we want

It's a more informal, less constrained or rigid (and possibly more effective) form of democracy

We suggest and request, we entreat and implore - we beg and demand - we refuse, we threaten...

And tides are turned, minds are changed - our ways are changed

We can always argue about for the better or worse - in a system like this someone will always be disappointed

But until someone makes it a law - nobody is being forced. And there again we are free to argue - about what is and isn't, should or shouldn't be legal...it's a living process that we should all be grateful for even when it makes us cross

:-)

I believe that the team owner will change his tune at some point. Even if it's only a public relations move - so it goes

I believe in a lot of things - I am often disappointed - but not today

Thank you Charles



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 11:15 AM
link   


:-)

Truth is in the funny



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: stargatetravels

Just because someone may be butthurt doesn't mean squat.

The name needs to change and the owners feelings are irrelevant.




Hmmm, you wouldn't happen to be schizophrenic would you?:

edit on 17-6-2014 by Lipton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Listen to this speech towards to the U.S. senate - Refreshing to hear & TRUTH spoken with a compassionate fire!!

Rare in todays age:





This will give the younger generation on ATS how Native's were viewed/treated back then. Remember there was NO 'terrorist', 9/11 jihadist - Natives WERE still the 'terrorist'.


- Listen to that beautiful language.
edit on 22-6-2014 by JWash because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join