Who said that individual isn’t entitled to feel that way?DMac wrote: ↑Mon Jul 13, 2020 7:23 pmIt's an issue bigger than Stevens because the white man has made it bigger.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Jul 13, 2020 7:03 pmIt’s an issue bigger than Stevens. I am not going to lose any sleep over it. The Aunt Jemima folks had no problem with their family member being portrayed as a mammy either. Issue bigger than them. Unfortunately.youthathletics wrote: ↑Mon Jul 13, 2020 6:51 pmFrom the man who designed the Redskin Logo.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Jul 13, 2020 1:09 pmThat is a very good article. Dehumanization is central. It happens on a subconscious level in most instances. The overt examples are rare and unfortunately that’s the standard people use.DocBarrister wrote: ↑Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:22 amThat poll also wasn’t very scientific.
A more recent poll showed about half found the current Washington team name offensive.
https://www.washingtonian.com/2020/02/2 ... kins-name/
DocBarrister
https://www.wusa9.com/article/sports/nf ... OwmcqCd_Vo
From the article:
Everyone understood the name change we were all on board with that. Once they weren't going to use the logo, it was hard. It takes away from the Native Americans. When I see that logo, I take pride in it.
"If it were changed and it removed any derogatory feelings toward any person, then I think it’s a win. I don’t want that logo to be associated in a negative way, ever.”
Stevens and the Indians can't think for themselves so the white man will do it for them.
"When I see that logo, I take pride in it." Silly him, he doesn't get it.
"If it were changed and it removed any derogatory feelings toward any person, then I think it’s a win. I don’t want that logo to be associated in a negative way, ever.” It's the white man who says it's derogatory, it's the white man who is asscociating it in a negative way, so the white man is going to fix it all for the Indians (to make themselves feel so good and righteous).
80 years ago....In the 1940s the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) created a campaign to eliminate negative stereotyping of Native American people in the media. Over time, the campaign began to focus on Indian names and mascots in sports.[4] The NCAI maintains that teams with mascots such as the Braves and the Redskins perpetuate negative stereotypes of Native American people, and demean their native traditions and rituals.[5] The NCAI issued a new report in 2013 summarizing opposition to Indian mascots and team names general, and the Washington Redskins in particular.[6] In the trademark case, the TTAB placed significance on the NCAI opposition, estimating that the organization represented about 30% of the Native American population at the time the trademarks were granted, which met their criteria for a "substantial composite" of Native Americans finding the name disparaging.[7]
Natives have bigger issues than a mascot. It doesn’t mean there is no point in the Redskins finding another name. The name has never bothered me but I can see why it’s can be problematic. Let me ask a simple question. Do you believe that there is no harm in perpetuating stereotypes?
Something closer to home:
https://www.norwichbulletin.com/news/20 ... ate=ampart
I actually knew a guy that was fired for shoving the chief up against the wall when he came into a bank and was headed up to see the chairman. He had his buck knife and a shearling coat. He looked threatening....that dude was gone.
Topic change: did you see the movie Cold Pursuit. It’s entertaining. You might like it. It was good.