I care about threat: genuine coercive threats are essentially actions, not speech, even if they take the form of speech. They are therefore entirely beyond the protection of freedom of speech.

I care about what I say. Accordingly, I care about what my country says, insofar as it speaks on my behalf. Likewise my end of the political spectrum, my country's allies, my subculture, any organization I belong to, and so on, all in proportion to the degree to which they speak for me. Trying to influence these things isn't abridging freedom of speech: it's participation in the political process (or cultural, or whatever).

I care about the results of various deliberations, and the actions of all the groups alluded to in the previous paragraph. So when something is said, that will affect people's actions in a way I don't like, I consider that reason to respond -- not by suppressing speech, but by disagreeing. Only in right-wing crazy-world does "freedom of speech" mean a guarantee of not having to have anyone disagree with you.

True hate-speech involves coercive threat, as I define it. Sometimes it's subtle, but it's always there, or else the speech doesn't count as true hate-speech in my book. The use of offensive racial team names and logos does not constitute such threat, as far as I can see. So there's no grounds for suppressing it.

It does fit the other categories, though. As a member of the (privileged) white subculture, I don't want us saying that, and I don't want us treating people the way that will contribute (slightly) to having us treat them.

I could point to comparable situations in Ireland or Israel/Palestine or other similar areas, but obviously, you and rational arguments decided to divorce many years ago.

Now I'm not advocating that you give up your land, or otherwise impoverish yourself. But what I am saying, and what is inherently obvious, is that the chain events that led up to you purchasing said land began with the murder of Native American populations. You need to know this, hell, I live within a mile of the last battle Tecumseh fought in Ohio. The continental United States is premised on the idea that it was ok to wage unprovoked aggressive war on Native Americans. It is a national shame. It is an indelible black mark on our history. It ranks with slavery. Changing the name of a football team that will be fundamentally unaffected by said change? It doesn't even rank.

The Germans as you so eloquently put it, paid out reparations in may. As that was just several months ago, its obvious that you were right. #yourefullofshitanddontknowwhatyouretalkingabout

I mean I had to do some serious research to find that article, googling "German reparations holocaust" took fucking hours out of my day. It was a real burden.

You need to acknowledge historical reality. You need to acknowledge that actions taken centuries ago affect the world we live in today. You can insist that not having basic empathy is a virtue, and that violent conquest justifies the ends it creates (you having a house on former Seminole land). OR........

you could look up the Nuremberg trials. You wanna know the basic crime of Nazi Germany? Not all the other awful inhuman shit they did, but the basic bit of international law they violated? They waged unprovoked aggressive war. And that was the legal justification for hanging them.

I don't know about you, but *I* sure as hell paid for my land...

I did not take it by force or deprive anyone of it, save the bank...

What you fail to comprehend is the Survival Of The Fittest reality..

The Native Americans were a conquered people. Such is life...

Are Germans still paying reparations for all the damage the Nazi's did???

No...

If you want to feel guilty about what was done to Native Americans a hundred, two hundred years ago, that is your right.. By all means, give your money, your possessions, your life to the service of those who ALSO haven't lost anything in their life..

But why should *I* have to suffer for YOUR skewed values???

If you want to do penance, knock yerself out..

But don't impose YOUR "morality" on others...

Or how about the incredibly famous massacre of wounded knee

Were you there???

Was I??

Was anyone alive today, there???

No???

Then why should anyone today have to suffer???

Let's say it was discovered that your great great great great grandfather killed my great great great great grandfather because of a drunken brawl..

Am I entitled to compensation from you???

Of course not...

THAT would be ridiculous, right???

MIchale

Michale"

Because we still directly benefit from the decisions made a hundred years ago, and Native Americans are still actively being hurt by those same decisions. It's called consequences, or cause and effect, or Newton's third law.

One of the most obvious examples of this is land. Apparently you live in Florida Michale, I live in Ohio. You know what both of those places have in common? The removal by FORCE of Native American populations. We didn't pay for the land, get it in a reasonable treaty settlement, no we went in with guns and murdered till they left.

Or how about the incredibly famous massacre of wounded knee?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Fort_Pitt

or that bit, in which we engaged in biological warfare.

Why do we have to atone? Because the very house you live in only exists because of the murder of Seminole Native Americans Michale. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Uh.. No..

The logo you are referring to would be the Cleveland Indians logo..

The Redskins logo is a very dignified silhouette of an American Indian...

Polling is incredibly useful, if it adheres to certain commonly established rules.

Key word being "IF"....

Few, if ANY polls, adhere to any sort of rules.

In and of themselves, 99.9% of all polls are useless. They are only good for showing the bias of the poll takers..

Give you a perfect example..

And frankly? We owe a serious debt to the Native Americans in the grand ole US of A.

Did you have anything to do with that??

I know I didn't..

That being the case, you and I and every American today has absolutely NO DEBT whatsoever in this matter..

Me?? Get huffy?? NEVER!! :D

Cause every time they have a legitimate grievance you scream bloody murder about nonsense traditions, political correctness, and defend the decisions of racist white dudes who have been dead for decades.

And anyone who has oppressed another race has ALSO "been dead for decades" Lots and LOTS of decades..

So, why are today's Americans obligated to atone for the acts committed by ignorant uncivilized people a hundred years ago???

Michale

...

I don't even know what to say, their logo explicitly depicts a stereotyped Native American, big nose, red skin, f**king feathers in the hair. 17th century woodcuts showed more tolerance for diversity than that.

And frankly I'm really disturbed how you dismiss polling, nuance and specifics. Polling is incredibly useful, if it adheres to certain commonly established rules. AKA all sources are not created equal. There's whole disciplines dedicated to it, just because you never took statistics in college doesn't mean it's bullshit. Further, nuance and specifics are the WHOLE of any argument.

And frankly? We owe a serious debt to the Native Americans in the grand ole US of A. WE have treated them in the most despicable way possible for CENTURIES. Changing an obviously offensive and racist sport team name is the very LEAST we can do in righting those wrongs.

You can get all huffy about all you like, post all the pictures of crying babies as you like, but it doesn't change the fact that your poll is terrible, fails to reach a representative sample, and is the worst source possible for your argument. Also the article you reference goes out of its way to emphasize how the poll is not representative.

You ever wonder why minorities never vote Republican? Cause every time they have a legitimate grievance you scream bloody murder about nonsense traditions, political correctness, and defend the decisions of racist white dudes who have been dead for decades.

Another clarification..

Until another poll is done that has such a widespread of respondents..

If you were to poll every member of the Political Group, CHANGE THE REDSKINS NAME BECAUSE IT'S OFFENSIVE!!, you would likely get a 100% of Native Americans who have a problem with the Washington Redskins...

But that wouldn't tell the story, now would it??

Which is why I always have a long standing (and consistent, I might add :D) against polls in general..

They are, for all intents and purposes, useless. They usually indicate the biases of the poll takers more so than the biases of the poll'ees..

The ONLY reason I use them is to tweak the tails of Weigantians who put so much faith in polls. At least the polls that "prove" the things they agree with.. :D

Your reaction to that Native American poll is a perfect example. If that poll had said that 90% of Native Americans think that the Washington Redskins name is offensive, you would not have had problem one with the methodology or the swath of those polled..

But, because the poll didn't support your position, it's (all of the sudden) a flawed poll...

That's always my side point when I use polls in my comments. :D

Michale

explain to me how lumping together all Native Americans based on skin color isn't racist?

Simple..

Because it DOESN'T lump all Native Americans together..

It lumps all members of a football team together..

Michale

Because we're not talking about the tremendous injustices of the last 500 years.

We're talking about the name of a football team..

As far as issues go, the two simply are not on the same planet...

So let me punt this back at you,

yuk yuk yuk... :D

explain to me how lumping together all Native Americans based on skin color isn't racist?

Third question, regardless of the poll (which as your article points out has serious problems in proving it has a representative sample (THE WHOLE POINT OF POLLING)) if one of the largest blocs of Native Americans are actively saying the name is offensive, and further are seeking legal recourse, how is that irrelevant?

Because the group you mention is a POLITICAL group..

Ergo, it's nothing more than Political Correctness run amok...

Again, let's keep it in context.

We're talking about a football team...

Until there is another poll done, the current poll is the only relevant data..

And it says that 90% of Native Americans don't give a flying fig about the Washington Redskins...

My *guess* is that said 90% think there are more important things to worry about than a frakin' football team name..

And I would have to agree...

Michale

So let me punt this back at you, explain to me how lumping together all Native Americans based on skin color isn't racist?

Third question, regardless of the poll (which as your article points out has serious problems in proving it has a representative sample (THE WHOLE POINT OF POLLING)) if one of the largest blocs of Native Americans are actively saying the name is offensive, and further are seeking legal recourse, how is that irrelevant?

What it all boils down to is the wisdom of Sarek..

Once you understand that simple concept, all of the whining and crying of the Left over the PC rules becomes moot...

Michale

Grrrrrrr.... Sorry... Those should have been posted to the previous commentary..... It's hard to keep things straight when so much is happening...

My apologies...

Michale

Ya see.. It IS the Democrats who are taking hostages...

One of those pesky facts ya'all LOVE to ignore...

Michale

Anyone wanna talk about that??

No???

Didna think so.. :D

Michale

But liberals who set themselves up as the Politically Correct Police are trying to impose THEIR values on other people.

This country would be a lot better off if they would just get a life and leave everyone to their own lives...

Michale

Changing things because of a few snooty liberal malcontents who get offended at the drop of a dime is a much dumberer reason to change things...

http://www.stanfisk.com/Special/DemocraticSeal.jpg

Pretty much says it all.....

Michale

Doesn't matter..

The ONLY relevant data available is that poll..

And that said 90% of Native Americans do not give a rat's ass...

You wouldn't have a problem with the poll if it said what you wanted it to say..

You don't think it's current?

Fine.. Commission another one..

Until you do, the data stands as fact...

Michale

First of all, 768 people is a really small statistical sample, especially when the article you reference says that there is around 5.2 million Native Americans. Further, supporters of the suit include (again from the same article) the National Congress of American Indians, which represents 1.2 million Native Americans. So on one side we have 691 people, who are anonymous, their actual demographic information is also unknown, which doesn't exactly bode well for the poll being a representative sample. And on the other we have 1.2 million people who find it offensive.

...

Also the person who named the team? A serious racist.

" He was the last NFL owner who refused to sign black players — the federal government forced him to integrate in 1962 by threatening to cancel the lease on his stadium. When he died in 1969, his will created a Redskins Foundation but stipulated that it never support “the principle of racial integration in any form.” "

And this is all from your article Michale.

Tradition is a really dumb reason to keep doing things btw. I am not beholden to racists who have been dead for over 40 years. Am I against every tradition? Of course not, I work on a case by case basis. Lots of traditions are innocuous and fun. Like holidays for example, most of them are pretty arbitrary, though they do tend to have a deep historical context. Take Christmas for instance, a celebration near the winter solstice? Why then? Well because the Romans had big mardi gras/halloween bash called Saturnalia at that time of the year. And then it was co-opted by the early Church because it was a popular way to get people celebrating Christianity, but I do love presents.

I am also constrained to point out that there is nothing denigrating in the word 'red skin'...

Blacks use the n-word constantly to refer to themselves and others.

So, obviously, the word itself is neither good nor bad..

It's the INTENT at the time it's deployed that is the determining factor..

Again, the wisdom of Sarek shines thru...

"There can be no offense where none is taken."

Michale

In 2004, the National Annenberg Election Survey asked 768 people who identified themselves as Indian whether they found the name “Washington Redskins” offensive. Almost 90 percent said it did not bother them.

The high school football team in his district is the Red Mesa Redskins
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/

Brief aside, cracker is a very old term, goes back to the pre-civil war era in which it referred to poor white southeners.

I had recently learned (or thought I had learned) that "cracker" comes from a person who employed a whip against slaves...

The point is that the Washington football team could pick any number of Native American related names, but the one they have is the one that denigrates Native Americans based on skin color.

There is something called "tradition" here in this country. I know, I know, the Left would have Americans give up EVERY tradition we have, because there is ALWAYS someone who might be offended.. Or WANTS to be offended... Or LOOKS for things to be offended about...

Brings to mind a while back a bunch of snotty liberal types came down here to my neck of the woods and started making a stink about the FL Seminoles college football team.

The chief of the Seminole tribe not so kindly told those agitators to kindly shut the frak up, that the Seminole Tribe was honored to have their name as the Florida State team..

An important lesson for the Left to learn, if they weren't so stuck up as to think that they know what's best for everyone else..

And that's my whole point..

The Left should take a lesson from the venerable Sarek...

"There can be no offense where none is taken"

Michale

In any event, the point isn't what you or I find offensive, or even what percentages find the term redskins, or other racial slurs offensive. (Source please for the 90%)

Brief aside, cracker is a very old term, goes back to the pre-civil war era in which it referred to poor white southeners. Still offensive, as it has big negative connotations, but yah, nothing to do with 20th century saltines.

The point is that the Washington football team could pick any number of Native American related names, but the one they have is the one that denigrates Native Americans based on skin color. It's offensive, it's more than a bit racist, and it's shameful that people only really want to keep the name because that's just how its been. It's a sports Franchise for crying out loud, it's not like the world will end if they switched their name to something that didn't lump an incredibly diverse and artistically rich culture together by skin color, and a false assumption of skin color no less.

Further, the history of United States and it's relationship with Native Americans is one of the most shameful, violent, and despicable threads of our history. I'm not sure into how much detail I need to go into here, but most people have at least heard of the trail of tears and smallpox blankets. And those two incidents are just the tip of the iceberg.

Just because it doesn't offend you, doesn't mean a team in the most popular sport in America needs to emblazon the fact that we haven't treated Native Americans with the respect they deserve as human beings until very recently in our history. (and even then not very well)

Top WH adviser accidentally tweets the 'N' word...
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/10/dan-pfeiffer-tweet-n-word-bigger.html

Sure, it's obviously a typo..

Not any really big deal..

Except for the fact, of course, that the Left would have gone utterly and hysterically ballistic if this same typo had occurred in a GOP Administration...

I'm just sayin'.....

Goose... Gander...

"If only... If only..."
-Hades, HERCULES

Michale.....

If it's all the same to you, can you refer to me as "Honkie Michale"...

I have always liked the sound of the racial slur "honkie"... :D

Reminds me of someone's pet goose...

Michale

I never claimed that.

I simply state (with the facts to back it up) that ya'all only want to talk about Majority rule when Democrats have the majority.

When Democrats have the minority, the Left whines and complains about the "tyranny of the majority"...

All I ask for is a little consistency...

But asking for consistency from partisan ideologues enslaved by Party dogma is like asking the sun to rise in the west and set in the east.

It likely ain't gonna happen...

Of course, amongst the Left here in Weigantia, there ARE exceptions. Ya'all know who you are.. :D

Well I don't find the term cracker offensive, mind if I call you that from now on? I know! I'll even make a new sports franchise, the Michale Crackers.

I don't mind. Up until recently, I thought the "cracker" racist slur came from the fact that saltine crackers are white.. :D

After all it only matters if a majority of people find it offensive.

You might be right. But, in THIS case, the majority of people find the moniker NOT to be offensive..

Just in case you failed elementary math, 90% is a pretty big majority.. :D

Michale

90% of Native Americans don't have a problem with the Washington team using "Redskins"...

The Left should learn to quit making problems where none exist...

Michale