Another point is if the Fighting Sioux have to change one would think the REDSKINS would too.
But that is beside the point. No, we don't get to vote on what is offensive. Additionally, no the Native Americans don't get to vote on what is offensive to themselves unless you think it is appropriate to stereotype them and believe that they all have to have the same ideas and values. We clearly don't share the same values, why do minorities have to share theirs?
What you can have an opinion on is whether you think it is OK to use offensive and abusive language or mascots. They are offensive to people, that is indisputable. If you think it is OK to offend those that are, well I guess that is an opinion you can have, though I don't know why one would want to be associated with such a stance.
For me, the question is what are we clinging to? Why do we (as a society or fan base or whatever) need to keep Chief Wahoo, the Redskins or the Tomahawk Chop? I'll admit that those things are part of that specific fan base and their experience and I am not a member of that group. However, teams and organizations change things all the time and it doesn't change the overall, long-term fan experience. The Twins won two World Series titles in the Metrodome and we all happily migrated down to Target Field when it was built. Is popularity more important than morality?
If we're clinging to free speech, then I could start to understand. Of course, offensive speech isn't protected under free speech, so that doesn't really work.
Intent shouldn't be important. If I go out and drive my car recklessly and crash into someone's garage, I can't just say that I didn't mean to do that. It should be the same with words and emotion. If I throw around a word that doesn't offend me, but offends someone else, it's not ok. Emotional wellness is just as important as physical wellness, but we rarely equate the two. If what I say recklessly is hurtful to another person, I should be willing to change my behavior because it will make another person feel better.
If a mascot or an action or a nickname offends people emotionally, we should be willing to change those behaviors and labels for the better of society. If something is inoffensive to you, think of something that does offend you. How does that make you feel? That is how another human feels about the thing that you are indifferent about. Personally, I care a lot more about the person who feels offended than the person who doesn't really care one way or another.
How crazy is it that the Washington Bullets changed their name because of negative connotations regarding bullets and violence while Redskins still remains?
All and all an interesting discussion that has a lot of elements to it.
However, regardless of all the elements and complexities of the discussion, the Cleveland Logo is about as subtle as Sambo or a 1930's Aunt Jemina and I am amazed it was not jettisoned years ago.
No less a noble, Constitution-affirming body than the ACLU would take serious issue with your assertion https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speec...fensive-speech :
"But even truly offensive speech is protected by the First Amendment. That the very point of the First Amendment is in protecting the right of free expression to someone even as vile as Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Chuch...and whether Phelps could be held liable, encourages the suppression of unpopular speech, and is clearly at odds with the First Amendment..."
Uh, where did you ever get the idea that my view is all minorities must think alike. Quite Orwellian. Quite the absolute opposite. Citing a poll (yes there are problems with every poll) and showing that a majority of those who you'd think would be the ones offended, but are not, don't mean I think they all should believe this. What it shows is that those you'd' think are closest and most deeply hurt (if hurt at all) would be those making the loudest noise.
Empirically we know this to be false. The loudest noise come from the selectively and anachronistically outraged do-gooders, stamping out every last vestige of possible offense and racial stereotype no matter the cost.
Again, if this is really an important issue for you, you'll be speaking out against all perceived offenses. There are many to choose from, so I wonder what the next target will be?
No thought about the consistency of using one's voice to change perceived offensive in sports but not going after newspapers?
Bigger and final point. What are we achieving by this if the names/logos are changed? Will this really help to finally once and for all end racial stereotypes/bigotry? Will it have an impact at all.
How will we know and agree that the new names and logos are not offense to somebody somewhere? Will it matter?
I suppose it's just the right thing to do…. until it isn't, and then we can change it again.
We ought to get rid of the distinction of 1st degree murder and manslaughter? Oh boy.
If a murder does not qualify by statute for first-degree murder, it is charged as second-degree murder.
A second-degree murder may be downgraded to Manslaughter if mitigating factors were involved in the killing, such as adequate provocation by the victim, or the absence of intent or recklessness on the part of the defendant.
First degree murder:
A killing which is deliberate and premeditated (planned, after lying in wait, by poison or as part of a scheme), in conjunction with felonies such as rape, burglary, arson, involving multiple deaths, the killing of certain types of people (such as a child, a police officer, a prison guard, a fellow prisoner), or with certain weapons, particularly a gun. The specific criteria for first degree murder are established by statute in each state and by the United States Code in federal prosecutions. It is distinguished from second degree murder in which premeditation is usually absent, and from manslaughter which lacks premeditation and suggests that at most there was intent to harm rather than to kill
Other than River outing himself for me to throw popcorn at during hockey games. Doesn't this simply boil down to we can be better as human being than using names like Redskins, Indians, or whatever (be they caricatures or otherwise) if offends people. If we can't just be better to each other, let's think fiscally. The changes will come with a huge upswing in merchandising. We in the high northern area of Grand Forks can attest to the large demand for the old merchandise, and you better believe I'm buying a new ND polo with whatever logo we decide on. It's just a logo/mascot.
It seems obvious that a nickname change is something that we as human beings can get over with relative ease, but you can probably speak to it better than most. When the nickname was up against the wall and everyone was fighting for every inch they could, I'm sure it seemed much more integral to your idenity than it does now that it's gone. After all, you're a fan of the school and the team and the players much, much more than you are of the cartoon on the front of the uniform.
My point is that intent is not important in the specific case of offensive speech, logos, mascots, whatever. If something is offensive to someone, it does not matter to me if the offensive action was intentional. That is how I feel. I'm not embarrassed, mad or wrong.
Gee willikers - get rid of the damn names for goodness sakes.
When I see the Chief Wahoo and Redskins logo, it makes me think of genocide. Who the hell wants those thoughts going through their heads? I certainly don't.
The Cleveland Indians should become the Cleveland Spiders in honor of the National League Cleveland ball club that existed in the late 1800's. I am sure there is some cool things you could do with that name.
I am not sure what you would rename the Washington Redskins, but I came up with a logo.
Strange that over 100 years ago the team knew the best way to bestow "honor" on someone was by using an actual indivudual's name. For some reason now we show "honor" by using cartoons, racist names and derogatory stereotypes. Ah what an enlightened time was 1903.