Yes. The Washington Post is on the left side of moderate, so considering the results here contradict the leftist movement, they can be trusted. That being said, I don’t believe our nation has ever operated on the belief that a progressive policy should help out the minority of the minorities. Protect minorities? Always. But when a majority of a particular group don’t care about our progressive idea, we shouldn’t worry about it.
The great thing about America is we legitimize dissent and protect minorities. In this case, 10% of Native Americans are still offended.It is a balancing test of commerce, intellectual property, and the First Amendment. Last year, “The Slants” (an Asian-American Rockband) won their case, and the Court (12 judges) ruled that TMs could be offensive. This will likely be heard in the Supreme Court. No doubt, we should have our protection of Free Speech, but should the government allow entities to profit over disparaging words/terms? Sure, say “Redskin,” but why should the government protect your profits when using “Redskin”?
It should, especially if it means the conversation has been co-opted by white liberals trying to do good. The people who need to be heard are Native Americans. Their voice needs to be on the forefront of this conversation.
It certainly should, I am part of a nationally recognized Indian Tribe, and in no way am I offended by The Washington Redskins name. If you stop and think for a minute you will realize that for the most part America in general has forgotten about Native Americans, I believe this gives us a strong voice and represents our warrior past.
It will, but it shouldn’t. The moral imperative to “do no harm” has been superseded by a love of majority rule. There are times when majority rule is wrong, and it’s acceptable to bend to a minority. What’s the right number of people we’re allowed to harm? What’s an acceptable percentage towards whom we could be racist? I say this as a fan of the team and someone who’s sung the words: our debate indicates the moral problem, and it points to the clear moral solution.
All I have are a few questions: If the people supposedly affected by the epithet truly aren’t offended, what, other than colossal arrogance, gives me the right to tell them that they should be? Do I know what it’s like to be a Native -American more than they do? Hint: I don’t. And if they’re not offended, why can’t the brand stand? Because, I’m so offended for them? How patronizing is that?
Even if one assumes that this singular poll of just a few hundred individuals accurately represents the Native American population as a whole, that still leaves one in ten Native Americans who are offended. Is that okay? Are we alright with even that? I fail to grasp the reasons against changing the name as it appears to be saying that tradition and the past is more important than the thoughts and feelings of actual people.
Offensive language or rhetoric should not be defined as acceptable or unacceptable by the number of people offended or not. If specific language offends people to any capacity with racial condensation, then that language should be removed from public usage. The “Redskin” is still deemed offensive by 10% of the SMALL group of people polled. Just because an overwhelming majority doesn’t take offense to the name doesn’t mean the name should be acceptable. In this progressive culture we live in, the name should be changed to avoid further conflict and objection by Native Americans.
Once again a valiant try to highlight a perceived injustice towards an ethnic group. The polls show that most Native Americans, NFL fans, Redskin fans, & players across the NFL are not affected nor offended by the name of Snyders’ team. Everyone get that? Dan Snyder owns the Washington Redskins. He’s stated that he will not change the name, and rightfully so. In reality this is such a non-issue.
We are in an era of political correctness. It is demoralizing to think we can’t overcome the obvious. If there were a team nicknamed “Blackskins” how strong would the outcry be? As an African American I feel any nickname or logo that denongrates an ethnicity should not be tolerated. Daniel Snyder will defend his product merely on economics. So if we gauge the decision on the 90%, who will be the voice for the 10%?