The Right To Be Offended

[Wyman]

Of course, one is allowed to voice any opinion, no matter how crass, but not all opinions are worthy of respect. Opinions which deny other people's feelings are near the bottom of the respectable scale, I think.


I didn't say that I was 'in a better position,' did I?
Then you know you have no basis for your "There's nothing insulting about taking on the persona of a tribe or Indian warrior chief" assertion.

Hmm, I didn't deny anyone's feelings. I guess I said I thought something was not offensive and you are saying that it is. This is a difference of opinion between me and you. If a Native American came to me and said, 'the Atlanta Braves hurt my feelings by using 'Braves' as a team name,' I would probably engage him in a discussion and find out why. That hasn't happened. If he had reasons that I thought persuasive, I would change my mind. But it would be based on 'reasons,' not a perfunctory 'It just does, and you should respect that.' That would be akin to believing that I should base my opinions, not on reasons, but on the feelings of any individual, anywhere, including those who are stupid, irrational, insane, etc. just because they all have 'feelings.'

Let's look at your other statement: You have no basis for your opinion since you are not 'in a better position' than a Native American to know what is insulting to a Native American.

I take your meaning to be - people can have 'no basis' for an opinion about what is insulting unless they are part of the group being insulted. That's what I take you to mean here. What if the group is not unanimous? Does a bigot, who is searching for the best insult to hurl at his opponent, come up short because he has 'no basis' for an opinion as to what is insulting?

[SpheresOfBalance]

As native Americans have negligible money or power, and are for all intents and purposes invisible and a joke to most Americans, then of course no one will take any notice of them.

What is an an American Native Indian anyway? What percentage of true blood is accepted to be Indians?

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

All humans have human blood.

Exactly the case!

Though the point obviously, is that the American Indians have been and are still being persecuted, and for them to qualify for that persecution, what are the criterion, how much blood is required, for one to be locked up on a reservation.

I'm just the messenger, and by no means subscribe to such actions or notions as indicated above. Please remember that there are always two sides of a coin, or dichotomy, and one should never jump the gun as to which side, a supposed rival, is actually on.

[SpheresOfBalance]

There's nothing insulting about taking on the persona of a tribe or Indian warrior chief.

Are you sure? Are you in a position to understand better than Native Americans why they find a term insulting?
If you were an American Indian, in the same situation, wouldn't you try and grapple for any scrap of retaliation you could muster? I know I would!
Does America owe the Native Americans anything? How about the entire country. Just like most other nations of the day, owe some previously indigenous people.

I can see why Henry is ambivalent.
I don't think Henry's "Do Indians have a bee in their collective bonnet over 'redskin', or, is it just a buncha friggin' busy bodies (with too much free time) makin' a stink over nuthin'?" was particularly ambivalent.

You 'guys' are going to love this, I actually hate football, and all other head to head sports. Characterizing them as "impure" sports. To me a "pure" sport is one where competition is done side by side, like the original Olympic game sports, and the one that I voluntarily did in High School, Swimming. I really liked the rule that one is disqualified, if they in any way enter the other swimmers lane, or impede his progress in any direct way. And I have adopted this as a metaphor for life. That one's case is disqualified, if they do not 'stay' in their 'own' lane of life, if in 'any way' they impede the progress of their fellow swimmers in life. Their reason/s for doing so is/are automatically disqualified. This includes religion, or any other BS dogma, or otherwise.

Right, as if any other human could, or has the right, to tell one how they must conduct their version of this finite, one way ticketed, life. I think absolutely not!! And if you don't see the beauty, it goes for everyone, then the only one being outraged, is the one that is neurotic/psychotic, that just has to dominate others, forcing them to do things their way, in order for them to qualify their decisions, on how their version of life must proceed.

[Stuartp523]

You believe the team owners' struggle against the liberals isn't principled or noble? Me neither. I think they are cynical, self-centred, short-sighted arseholes.

For the struggle against liberals to be noble, one must do so with a broad picture in mind, and with the realization that victories in that struggle aren't generally worth the cost of further hypocrisy. Which is why there are probably few specifically spending much time opposing the name change who're doing so for noble purposes.

I know nothing of the team owners motives, so can only speculate based on what I know about other team owners, and people running large businesses in general. Just because they're aren't immediately giving in doesn't mean they're doing so to fight liberals. They probably are liberal minded in most things. But, being that it's personal for them, they need not be hypocrites for keeping the situation grounded in this one matter. I think the question of whether they're noble or not, may rely on little other than two situations; either they've given their word publically to let the team go under or sell it before changing the name. Or they've only done so privately, and publically have refused to say much in the matter at all.

[mickthinks]

... [The NCAI] is not the one at the forefront of the current disagreement.

It stands behind those who are calling for the name to be changed. What do you mean by the forefront, and why do you think that should matter to us?

More an expression of my own distaste for their position [than a judgement of unreasonableness].

I believe that's a false dichotomy, Henry.