When did anyone give a crap what Bob Costas has to say. He along with his liberal media bias of the peacock network have to chime in on a football team name. Once again he doesn't say who maybe offended by the Redskin name. Instead he uses his PC agenda to say it is offensive so it should be changed. Why? Because I said so.
I agree with him that if blacks, hispanics or another group had a team named after them like negros or something of the like it probably would be changed. However those groups have consistently said they do not want to be called colored, or negros etc.. As Daniel Schneiders letter explained, the overwhelming majority of Native Americans either don't have a problem or haven't expressed an opinion. So where does Bob Costas feel the need to stand up for a group that really hasn't asked for help.
Hey Bob, sit down and just analyze the game.
Who's Daniel Schneider?
Definitely and E for effort at the least.
I don't color myself a liberal, but if that's the case, then I sure am.
Color me shocked.
Rob in NYC : 7:39 am : link : reply
Football fans can't figure out why the term "redskins" may be offensive.
Color me shocked.
He may also have a point about Obamacare and whether Charles Manson should be released from prison. We dont want to hear that at halftime either.
Being that it's what he gets paid to do and that it is actually related to football...I don't get the ire?
Because last time I checked, "Chief" isn't a derogatory word?
It's relevant.
The positionof those holding on to a preference for the peecieved racist name will find themselves in untenable position.
He may also have a point about Obamacare and whether Charles Manson should be released from prison. We dont want to hear that at halftime either.
So the rub here isn't the opinion, it's that a sports commentator is commentating on an issue relevant to sports? Sweet Jesus Tapdancing Christ. And if you can't distinguish the difference, meaning, intent, and impact between "Chief" and "Redskin" I'd be shocked to learn you can walk and breath at the same time.
We live in a society where people are allowed to have different opinions. Very sorry if that bothers you. Maybe you should not watch NBC?
If this issue goes through the courts and the team loses the trademark, which is the most likely way to force them to change their name, then anyone can print and sell "Redskins" apparel and merchandise without any legal repercussions.
No one can force them to change the name, but they can certainly lose their trademark. And that is a big part of the issue, because racial slurs can't be given trademark protection.
He obviously is clueless. ;-)
I see what you did there - failed.
And their new uniforms would look really awesome.
Love it.
I'm sure there are many Native Americans who appreciate Bob Costas' condescension but if this really is a bigger deal to them than "Yeah, I'm offended. What was I doing again?", I'm sure they can speak up for themselves.
Quote:
I tried to bold the "Color me shocked" part... Monday morning fail...
I see what you did there - failed.
Haters gonna hate.
The fact that they have tried in the past, regardless of how much energy they exerted should be enough, not how far a very small minority group (much smaller that blacks and women) got with their campaigns.
I'm sure there are many Native Americans who appreciate Bob Costas' condescension but if this really is a bigger deal to them than "Yeah, I'm offended. What was I doing again?", I'm sure they can speak up for themselves.
The problem with that is simply the demographics. There are just under 3 million people who are identified as Native American (according to the 2010 Census), or roughly less than 1% of the population. Of that less than 1% population, there are 30+ Tribal nations recognized by the US Gov't (which prevents a "singular voice"). Furthermore, there's very minimal concentration of the population geographically - and typically those with higher density are of much lower income (due to it most likely being a reservation). Compound the small number with the reality that the group has a median income of ~$35k and around 25% of the population living in poverty.
There isn't a singular, concentrated voice and the whole "Why don't they just speak up" doesn't really work when you're a dispersed and very small population and crushing poverty rates - what options do you really have to combat something like this?
Seriously, how hard would it be to get a few hundred of them to do a sit in at Redskins training camp, or demonstrate peacefully at the FedEx Field parking lot and put the onus on Danny Boy to remove them forcibly?
The idea that this is really important to Native Americans but at the same time they don't really do anything just doesn't pass the sniff test, IMO.
This issue is really just a hobby horse for bored journalists and people who like to be, as Stan Marsh once put it, "political and stuff".
Again - there's not a huge population and there's next to no concentration in the Maryland/DC/Virginia area. Those affluent enough to lead this are. Those who are struggling to keep food on the table are worrying about that instead.
There's more to a situation than expecting one group to behave the ways other's have historically - especially when you take the time to realize the socioeconomic situation of many doesn't permit the majority to travel to Landover, MD to protest this weekly in any great numbers.
This is the best post on the thread. Rob's is a close runner-up.
People annoyed at other people being "sensitive" seem awfully sensitive to being told they're wrong.
Again - there's not a huge population and there's next to no concentration in the Maryland/DC/Virginia area. Those affluent enough to lead this are. Those who are struggling to keep food on the table are worrying about that instead.
There's more to a situation than expecting one group to behave the ways other's have historically - especially when you take the time to realize the socioeconomic situation of many doesn't permit the majority to travel to Landover, MD to protest this weekly in any great numbers.
Then I guess they can feel fortunate to have such generous and benevolent backers as Costas and yourself.
The protests aren't very big, but they do exist. Apparently, it is important to Native Americans.
Link - ( New Window )
"Those negroes really ought to make a more concerted effort to make ignoramuses like me aware of their objections to the poll tax."
Deep, deep, deep in the echo chamber.
1. is there some slippery slope here where some perjoratives that are more popular may come under fire next?
2. not enough people are protesting or are offended? Taken to an extreme, would the word suddenly become OK to use if the U.S. had actually succeeded in its genocide of the native population?
3. the word isn't a slur?
The word is unquestionably a slur - we can argue how frequently it gets used or how recently its been used, but I don't see the validity of those arguments - do those arguments support bringing back "Sambo's" restaurants?
the line between "offensive" and "so offensive that it requires immediate action" is a little clearer and, as Pork and Beans suggested above, gets even clearer if there is money and power behind the movement. Native Americans simply don't have enough of either one to advance their agenda.
i feel badly for them that they can't, but i think they'd be better served addressing the real problems they face like substance abuse and poverty. the name of a football team is pretty meaningless in comparison and is yet another way to distract a constituency from focusing on the issues which truly require their focus.
it's somewhat wasted effort, in my view.
I don't see a high opportunity cost for changing the name. In exchange for giving NAs a bit more dignity, sports fans have to re-associate with a new name for a team? Or white guys have to feel the frightening grip of political correctness tighten? What exactly is the cost of changing the teams name and how is it not worth giving NAs a bit more dignity, and frankly, giving all Americans a bit dignity.
whatever is being done about it, it's not nearly enough.
personally, i'd prefer to see guys like Costas USE the team name issue as a means to promote awareness of other, more serious issues. but that doesn't happen. it's all about football.
Link - ( New Window )
if the league and the team care about native americans so much, where is the anti-alcohol message? oh wait, that'd conflict with the beer sponsorships. never mind.
So then if he speaks out against NA alcoholism (whatever that would mean), would he then be criticized for not speaking out against more important issues (affecting more people) like global food security?
Native American alcoholism is a COMMUNITY issue, therefore the efforts to combat it need to be done on a community level.
If you think a random white dude at halftime of a football game should take the opportunity to discuss a social issue that should be handled on a community level rather then a football issue that should be handled on a national level......
He will make lots of $$. Everything will be OK.
Daniel Snyder is a private owner of a private corporation. he can call his company and/or its team, pretty much anything he wants. the only legitimate "control" we, the people, have over that is the power of our purse. he could rename the team tomorrow the "Washington Wifebeaters" and there's not a damn thing we can do about it, other than to stop going to the games and stop buying the merchandise, etc. maybe we could write to our Congresspersons as well, but they have better shit to do, or so i would hope.
anything else, including grandstanding by Bob Costas or Rick Reilly, is simply noise from people who don't realize that their noise doesn't mean nearly as much as their money.
the alcoholism issue is very much a social, community issue, as you mentioned, but the community in question has already demonstrated an inability to handle it and address it effectively. in fact, the problem is quite clearly getting worse. in that situation, i would much prefer a national conversation about it because we actually can control, prevent, correct and address alcoholism in the Native American community, without having to beg our way home from a single person. there is no "Indian Chief" for terribly unfortunate lack of a better term, who is in charge of whether Native Americans drink alcohol.
should we ignore it simply because they can't fix it?
while we're at it, why can't northeastern Americans solve the blithe straw man argument question?
all i'm saying is, if Costas is going to really try to help Native Americans, his effort would be more useful if directed elsewhere.
As an example, crime and violence can be directly linked to lack of economic opportunity and quality education, hardly something that can be handled at the community level completely.
but you do get an E for effort.
lol
what ensued was discussion about where Costas fits into that. he's promoting a national conversation about something which, on the national scale and in the grand scheme of things, doesn't matter nearly as much as the 25% of Native Americans who die from chronic liver disease.
Similarly I have a hard time creating a moral equivalency between two groups that haven't been enslaved or the target of genocide in this country with two that have.
Is it that hard to actually argue against what people write, rather than what you think they said?
Astonishing that people can read the last part of a post and miss the words the directly precede it.
Anyway, I'm still curious, what is it about today's world that makes it impossible to lead at least an uneventful, nondescript life?
Not everyone enjoys that benefit and it often makes a huge difference. One legislates according to the median person.
Exactly what is my motivation to respond to you at this point?
Maybe the answer is as simple as there are a lot of people who are just incapable of doing things that honestly seem very basic to me. If people want to "help" them, I don't see a reason to object. I just prefer to continue working with the other end of the human spectrum.
That said, if I can't make the moral case for these people, surely the pragmatic case makes sense.
I can't be sure what motivates you to do anything but I suspect real intellectual curiosity is a strong possibility based on your overall history on BBI. I like reading your opinion and thought process even when we disagree. I don't want to get into a pissing match with you because I think that's time poorly spent. I think we fundamentally disagree on an issue and I'd be interested in knowing your thought process on this, not just your conclusions. If you don't feel like going into that, that's fine, too. Maybe we can do it another time or not at all.
MadPlaid thanks for the inacturate Lecture, try not being an arrogant JERK! if you are offended by the name why not give up watching football and watch something more your style like Ice skating or womens Volley Ball.
"Self-inflicted" with regards to Native American problems is a pretty hilarious statement. Obviously they have to take some responsibility in this day and age, but you can't possibly actually believe most N.A. problems can be reduced to "they should fix it themselves."
Haha, people who find a racial slur to be objectionable are really just weak women.
Double down!
MadPlaid thanks for the inacturate Lecture, try not being an arrogant JERK! if you are offended by the name why not give up watching football and watch something more your style like Ice skating or womens Volley Ball.
Wow, that's the best you can do? I apologize for calling you an obtuse cretin as that is an insult to obtuse cretins everywhere. I'm offended by racism, why aren't you?
By the way, don't knock women's volley ball. Have you seen the outfits they wear. Nice butts!