Rick Reilly Gets One Right

[irishpat183]

NFL Have the people spoken? - ESPN

 

[50milesSE ND]

I would have to agree with this for sure. Political correctness is past the point of rediculousness.

 

[GATTACA!]

He's right on this one. Just like many other pc issues a lot of the loudest protestors of these issues don't belong to the "offended" demographic. Just people beating their chests so they can feel good about themselves.

If the Indians wanted to change there name to the feisty Italians I wouldn't be offended for one second. I would think its a dumb name though.

 

[irishfan]

I hate agreeing with Reilly.

 

[Bishop2b5]

"'Redskins' is not an insult to our kids. 'Wagon burners' is an insult. 'Prairie n-----s' is an insult. Those are very upsetting to our kids. But 'Redskins' is an honorable name we wear with pride."

And that's the point. Chiefs, Redskins, Braves, etc. are being used in a complimentary way that acknowledges the bravery, courage, and fighting spirit of a people, not in an insulting, demeaning, or derogatory way. I'm sick of the pc crap. Reilly nailed this one.

 

[IrishLax]

Just totally on point. Going to share this around.

 

[NDdomer2]

good thing Rick Reilly isn't on here i would've had to rep him

 

[Emcee77]

Oh man, this reminds me of a funny story. The subject of this story, who must remain anonymous, was a friend of a friend in college.

Quinn Emanuel Associate Has Reservations About ‘Redskin’ Victory « Above the Law: A Legal Web Site – News, Commentary, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law Schools, Law Suits, Judges and Courts + Career Resources

It turned out that the dude found out around the time of his email meltdown that he had failed the bar for the second time and was going to lose his job. I guess he figured he would go out in a blaze of glory by dogging his own firm's victory for the Redskins.

Second Bar Failure Is Proximate Cause for Quinn Associate’s Ouster « Above the Law: A Legal Web Site – News, Commentary, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law Schools, Law Suits, Judges and Courts + Career Resources

 

[Irish#1]

"'Redskins' is not an insult to our kids. 'Wagon burners' is an insult. 'Prairie n-----s' is an insult. Those are very upsetting to our kids. But 'Redskins' is an honorable name we wear with pride."

And that's the point. Chiefs, Redskins, Braves, etc. are being used in a complimentary way that acknowledges the bravery, courage, and fighting spirit of a people, not in an insulting, demeaning, or derogatory way. I'm sick of the pc crap. Reilly nailed this one.

I've always felt it was more to honor those for their bravery and courage, not to put anyone down.

 

[Irish#1]

Oh man, this reminds me of a funny story. The subject of this story, who must remain anonymous, was a friend of a friend in college.

Quinn Emanuel Associate Has Reservations About ‘Redskin’ Victory « Above the Law: A Legal Web Site – News, Commentary, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law Schools, Law Suits, Judges and Courts + Career Resources

It turned out that the dude found out around the time of his email meltdown that he had failed the bar for the second time and was going to lose his job. I guess he figured he would go out in a blaze of glory by dogging his own firm's victory for the Redskins.

Second Bar Failure Is Proximate Cause for Quinn Associate’s Ouster « Above the Law: A Legal Web Site – News, Commentary, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law Schools, Law Suits, Judges and Courts + Career Resources

Young and naive. Oh I long for those days.

 

[rikkitikki08]

When i agree with Rick Reilly a little part of my soul dies, with that being said he is spot on

 

[Bluto]

So heres a story. I recently worked on a job site with a burial midden. Everyone working on the site had to be blessed by a tribal rep and there were absolutely no pictures allowed. The development company spent millions excavating, cataloging remains and reburying the midden soil. Is that being overly PC? I would call that being respectful of those who came before us.

Anyhow, why are so many white dudes so easily offended by and seem to never want to apologize to people asking for a little respect after being treated like crap by this society for its entire existence? In my mind a little humility would be the order of the day. If a majority Native American team wants to be called the "Redskins" good for them. It's akin to rappers using the n bomb. I'm sure the terms "Chief and Redskin" and the caricature "Indian" in Cleveland offend more than one person. On Halloween over the years when I see anyone "dressed" as a random "cholo" it pisses me off and I make sure I let said person know they are an idiot. Now, my African American buddy showing up to school on Halloween as a Klansman, that was awesome. This to me is much the same.

As to political correctness it seems to me that one can just as easily point to defending dumb and or extremely insensitive decisions of the past (these pro team names being a good example) as being politically correct. Change the name (teams do it all the time) and this issue goes away.

 

[NDWorld247]

So heres a story. I recently worked on a job site with a burial midden. Everyone working on the site had to be blessed by a tribal rep and there were absolutely no pictures allowed. The development company spent millions excavating, cataloging remains and reburying the midden soil. Is that being overly PC? I would call that being respectful of those who came before us.

Anyhow, why are so many white dudes so easily offended by and seem to never want to apologize to people asking for a little respect after being treated like crap by this society for its entire existence? In my mind a little humility would be the order of the day. If a majority Native American team wants to be called the "Redskins" good for them. It's akin to rappers using the n bomb. I'm sure the terms "Chief and Redskin" and the caricature "Indian" in Cleveland offend more than one person. On Halloween over the years when I see anyone "dressed" as a random "cholo" it pisses me off and I make sure I let said person know they are an idiot. Now, my African American buddy showing up to school on Halloween as a Klansman, that was awesome. This to me is much the same.

As to political correctness it seems to me that one can just as easily point to defending dumb and or extremely insensitive decisions of the past (these pro team names being a good example) as being politically correct. Change the name (teams do it all the time) and this issue goes away.

Why is this turning into a white vs. Native American issue? This isn't directed at you, Bluto. I liked Reilly's article, but the parts that rubbed me the wrong way were, "White America has spoken" and "I mean, when media stars like USA Today's Christine Brennan, a white woman from Ohio, and Peter King, a white man from Massachusetts, have jumped on a people's cause, there's no going back."

IIRC, this whole issue was raised (again) because some Congressman heard from his Native American constituency that they were offended and it was his duty to raise the issue on their behalf. I don't know his race or ethnicity, but he was speaking for Native Americans, not White America. Are there any Native Americans serving in Congress that are in a position to raise this issue? If the Congressman representing a heavily populated Native American district was black (again, I don't know their race but I'm assuming they were white) would this become Black America defending Native Americans? My point, why does the race of the Congressmen (or media) leading this charge matter?

I thought it was creative for Reilly to seek out high schools that a.) had the Redskins nickname and b.) were majority Native American, to help make his case. But, why did he ignore the Native American population that IS offended by this? Why must he portray this fight as White America speaking out of turn in defense of a population that isn't offended? That's inaccurate and journalistically irresponsible if you ask me.

The fact is, no matter how many Native Americans that agree with Reilly are interviewed, there is a segment of our population that is offended and they've asked their elected officials to do their job and raise the issue. I'm not saying the name should be changed because some people are offended (I liked Reilly's examples of other names that may offend a minority of people), but let's not blame all of White America for the actions of Congressmen doing their job and media that happen to share their opinion. I am sure White America is as divided as the Native American population on this issue, so why are some (e.g. Rick Reilly) trying to clump an entire ethnic group on one side or another?

/rant.

 

[Emcee77]

I thought it was creative for Reilly to seek out high schools that a.) had the Redskins nickname and b.) were majority Native American, to help make his case. But, why did he ignore the Native American population that IS offended by this? Why must he portray this fight as White America speaking out of turn in defense of a population that isn't offended? That's inaccurate and journalistically irresponsible if you ask me.


/rant.

No, I couldn't agree more.

I do want to give Reilly credit for writing a REALLY interesting article ... there's something fascinating about why some people get offended by something and other people don't. It's useful to consider that the name "Redskins" is not universally offensive to Native Americans. This is not a slur we are talking about.

But he basically ignores a large group of Native Americans who absolutely are offended by names like "Redskins." I mean, the story I linked above is about a Native American group suing the NFL and the Washington Redskins over the name. You don't do that because you think it's a compliment. Reilly makes it sound like these people are just wackos on the fringes, but I don't think that's right.

 

[greyhammer90]

For once he has a point, but it's still an intentionally misleading article.

Can't expect Rick to fix all his deficiencies as journalist in one article though.

 

[IrishLax]

Here's the thing... polling data shows the VAST majority of Native Americans don't find it offensive. Polling data also shows that far more of the "general populous" (about 50%) think it could be offensive, but the vast majority either don't think it is a big deal or don't think the Redskins should have to change their name.

Reilly's point is that you're letting a subjectively offended minority potentially make determinations that the VAST majority doesn't support. Go read Deadspin and they say "it doesn't matter if anyone offended, it's a racist slur and therefor should be banned"... such a conclusion is based on nothing more than subjectivity and the belief that you "know better" than those who don't think it's a big deal. That's Reilly's argument, and deserves consideration.

 

[alaskandomer]

One of our villages, Aniak, has a nickname that drives the PC police nuts. They are the Halfbreeds. They tell folks they are proud of their name, because that's who they are.

 

[IrishLax]

Daniel Tosh once said that when you start treating groups of people as "untouchable" or "in need of protection" you're implicitly saying they are lesser than the majority of "normal" people. I think that applies in some aspects to this situation and what alaskandomer just brought up.

I can't imagine what it would be like to be one of those people and have others tell me I should be offended or hurt or outraged... or that I can't make up my own mind or aren't tough enough to handle a word/joke/etc. It would be absolutely infuriating.

 

[Emcee77]

That reminds me of the debate over the word "queer." It was originally a derogatory term for homosexuals, but then at some point homosexuals reappropriated it and began to use it to describe themselves.

Queer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[NDWorld247]

Here's the thing... polling data shows the VAST majority of Native Americans don't find it offensive. Polling data also shows that far more of the "general populous" (about 50%) think it could be offensive, but the vast majority either don't think it is a big deal or don't think the Redskins should have to change their name.

Reilly's point is that you're letting a subjectively offended minority potentially make determinations that the VAST majority doesn't support. Go read Deadspin and they say "it doesn't matter if anyone offended, it's a racist slur and therefor should be banned"... such a conclusion is based on nothing more than subjectivity and the belief that you "know better" than those who don't think it's a big deal. That's Reilly's argument, and deserves consideration.

If this is Reilly's point, isn't it contradictory as it relates to his White America comments? The VAST majority of "White America" doesn't think it's a big deal or that it should be changed, yet, according to Reilly, "White America" is sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. You could argue Reilly is hypocritical on purpose to show how ridiculous it is to categorize an entire race, but he's not that clever.

Again, I thought his article was interesting and raised some good points, but, ironically considering this is a race issue, he injected a racial angle into his argument that was simply not necessary to make his point.

And I'm not making the argument the name should be changed (personally I don't think it should be), but does that 10% not deserve to have their voice heard? Are they not allowed to feel offended because they are in the minority? Reilly assumes those that care (i.e. White America) are doing so for the Native Americans that don't care and completely ignores the Native Americans that do care. But, according to Reilly, they are so far in the minority that anyone who speaks on their behalf simply knows what's best for everyone.

 

[IrishLax]

NDWorld you raise good points but I want to clarify a couple things.

If this is Reilly's point, isn't it contradictory as it relates to his White America comments? The VAST majority of "White America" doesn't think it's a big deal or that it should be changed, yet, according to Reilly, "White America" is sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. You could argue Reilly is hypocritical on purpose to show how ridiculous it is to categorize an entire race, but he's not that clever.

Recent polling data showed that a tiny bit more than 50% the "general populous" (re: "White America") thinks the name could be offensive. But of that same group, most thought the Redskins should be able to keep their name and/or didn't care. But it's the 20% of that group of "White America" that Reilly is talking about. Whereas 90% of Native Americans aren't offended, "White America" is offended for them at a MUCH higher rate and those are the people writing all of the editorials.

Again, I thought his article was interesting and raised some good points, but, ironically considering this is a race issue, he injected a racial angle into his argument that was simply not necessary to make his point.

And I'm not making the argument the name should be changed (personally I don't think it should be), but does that 10% not deserve to have their voice heard? Are they not allowed to feel offended because they are in the minority? Reilly assumes those that care (i.e. White America) are doing so for the Native Americans that don't care and completely ignores the Native Americans that do care. But, according to Reilly, they are so far in the minority that anyone who speaks on their behalf simply knows what's best for everyone.

All good points... the problem is determining what constitutes having their voice heard. Their voice is clearly being heard as evidenced by all of the columns, court cases, etc. to change the name. I think what Reilly was getting at is the 90% who aren't offended are the ones who aren't having their voices heard in all of this. They have far less representation in the media (i.e. "White America").

I think his phrasing + ending were horrible and agree with your general premise that he interjected an angle he didn't need to because he is too poor of a writer to make better language choices.

 

[NDWorld247]

Recent polling data showed that a tiny bit more than 50% the "general populous" (re: "White America") thinks the name could be offensive. But of that same group, most thought the Redskins should be able to keep their name and/or didn't care. But it's the 20% of that group of "White America" that Reilly is talking about. Whereas 90% of Native Americans aren't offended, "White America" is offended for them at a MUCH higher rate and those are the people writing all of the editorials.



All good points... the problem is determining what constitutes having their voice heard. Their voice is clearly being heard as evidenced by all of the columns, court cases, etc. to change the name. I think what Reilly was getting at is the 90% who aren't offended are the ones who aren't having their voices heard in all of this. They have far less representation in the media (i.e. "White America").

I think his phrasing + ending were horrible and agree with your general premise that he interjected an angle he didn't need to because he is too poor of a writer to make better language choices.

I think the bolded is a fair point. Unfortunately for that 90%, Reilly has now become the media voice behind their cause.

I did a quick google search to see how each side was represented (i.e. were there more articles defending the name or calling for a change) to test your theory that those who are offended are having their voice heard at a much higher rate than those who aren't. It didn't get very far because most of the recent news articles posted were bashing Reilly's article.

Here are two I found interesting:

Rick Reilly Offers a Poor Defense of the Redskins Name - Brian Feldman - The Atlantic Wire

Rick Reilly and the Most Irredeemably Stupid Defense of the Redskins Name You Will Ever Read | The Nation

 

[ulukinatme]

I think the bolded is a fair point. Unfortunately for that 90%, Reilly has now become the media voice behind their cause.

I did a quick google search to see how each side was represented (i.e. were there more articles defending the name or calling for a change) to test your theory that those who are offended are having their voice heard at a much higher rate than those who aren't. It didn't get very far because most of the recent news articles posted were bashing Reilly's article.

Here are two I found interesting:

Rick Reilly Offers a Poor Defense of the Redskins Name - Brian Feldman - The Atlantic Wire

Rick Reilly and the Most Irredeemably Stupid Defense of the Redskins Name You Will Ever Read | The Nation

I found this quote interesting from one of those articles bashing Reilly:

Reilly then goes on to write of all the Native American school districts that “wear the [Redskins] name with honor” (he names three). Reilly ignores, however, the students in Cooperstown, New York, who organized a successful grassroots campaign to throw the name Redskins in the garbage over the summer.

Yeah, Cooperstown changed their name from the Redskins...but Native Americans also make up .10% of the population. Yes, 1/10 of a percent. I don't know who or what prompted the name change in that town, but I'm guessing it wasn't the Native American population. What a poor example to bolster your story! If Reilly has examples of communities that have large Native American populations that aren't offended by the name, I'm more inclined to side with them than Cooperstown, NY with .10% Native American representation (BTW, in a town with population 1,852, that equates to less than 2 Native Americans). If there was ever a poster town for White Americans being offended for Native Americans, with little or no input from actual Native Americans, it's Cooperstown, NY.

I'm certainly not a Reilly supporter, and his delivery was a little rough, but the general message is right I think.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

Whether you agree or not, that was an awful article that probably does more to hurt the cause of keeping the name than help it.

 

[Bluto]

Daniel Tosh once said that when you start treating groups of people as "untouchable" or "in need of protection" you're implicitly saying they are lesser than the majority of "normal" people. I think that applies in some aspects to this situation and what alaskandomer just brought up.

I can't imagine what it would be like to be one of those people and have others tell me I should be offended or hurt or outraged... or that I can't make up my own mind or aren't tough enough to handle a word/joke/etc. It would be absolutely infuriating.

That's an intersting statement because that is exactly what whites (beginning with the W.A.S.P's) did in this country to create a white supremist power structure. If you look at the history of this country that is the exact dynamic that was used to empower whites and justifiy all kinds of disgusting behavior against the "native savages", "negro menace", "yellow peril" and on and on.

 

[palinurus]

That's an intersting statement because that is exactly what whites (beginning with the W.A.S.P's) did in this country to create a white supremist power structure. If you look at the history of this country that is the exact dynamic that was used to empower whites and justifiy all kinds of disgusting behavior against the "native savages", "negro menace", "yellow peril" and on and on.

Well, then, you must agree with IrishLAX.

The bolded language is gross, irresponsible overstatement, btw.

 

[Bluto]

Well, then, you must agree with IrishLAX.

The bolded language is gross, irresponsible overstatement, btw.

No you need to re-read what I wrote. It would seem that that type of labeling can be used to empower one group. I'm glad you think that the US has never had a white supremist power structure. If you look at the demographic data of the President's cabinet, Congress, the Supreme Court, most state legislatures and or governorships and who controls the major corporations and finacial institutions as opposed to who is poor, who goes to prison and who gets the death penalty in this country it would be easy to argue that it still does and racism has become built in to our society and institutionalized.

 

[palinurus]

No you need to re-read what I wrote. It would seem that that type of labeling can be used to empower one group. I'm glad you think that the US has never had a white supremist power structure. If you look at the demographic data of the President's cabinet, Congress, the Supreme Court, most state legislatures and or governorships and who controls the major corporations and finacial institutions in this country it would be easy to argue that it still does.

"Easy to argue" only if you use illogical race-based criteria. You are using the very race identity considerations ("the percentages don't line up, so it must be racism; bean-counting, race-based quotas in the cabinet, etc., prove equality") you claim to deplore. So much for a colorblind, merit-based society.

 

[IrishLax]

Bluto, I don't know if anyone really understands what you're saying. I've tried reading your last couple posts multiple times now and I don't really understand what you're getting at so you might want to rephrase.

To your point about "If you look at the demographic data of the President's cabinet, Congress, the Supreme Court, most state legislatures and or governorships and who controls the major corporations and finacial institutions as opposed to who is poor, who goes to prison and who gets the death penalty in this country it would be easy to argue that it still does and racism has become built in to our society and institutionalized." ... if you actually believe that the United States is still run by white supremacists and has institutionalized racism I don't know what to say.

President = multi-racial, part African American
Supreme Court = 1 African American justice (11%), 2 Latino/Hispanic (22%)... that's very in line or exceeds national demographics (13% and 17% respectively).
I don't have time to look up all congressman, governors, etc. so if you have that data I'd love to see it... but simply put, there are a LOT of factors that play into the demographics of certain jobs besides someone's race. That should be obvious to anyone.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

Of course the US has institutionalized racism. Look at conviction rates for drug charges. The War on Drugs is one huge form of institutionalized racism. Black president does not mean racism is gone.