Rick Reilly Gets One Right

[IrishLax]

So Steve and Joe are indigenous names? This a just smacks of lazyness and privilege. Is it to much to ask to not have white people call jalapeños "jollypeenos"?

I'm sorry, but what the f*ck does this even mean? I was talking about historically when a foreign conqueror takes over a territory and decides to reside there, he often would take on an indigenous name and the local customs to fit in/make things easier.

Think Sean Connery in A Man who Would be King, Guillame de Normandie who changed his name to William (William the Conqueror), etc.

 

[IrishLax]

So people of ethnic backgrounds who name their children traditional names are on the same level as ignorant rednecks? Great.

So a white person from the boonies that names their child something that fits with their culture is "ignorant"... but a black person who names their child something that fits with their culture is "traditional." That's the most racist thing I've read in awhile.

Explain to me how something like Da'Rick is "traditional" but Ransom is "ignorant".

 

[Bluto]

That's ridiculous. That flies in the face of every basic scientific and statistical principle out there. Simply put, correlation does not equal causation.

So why are so many blacks and native Americans poor? Why do blacks get the death penalty more than whites? Why are there so many blacks in prison? Why are these groups educational and economic attainment so much lower than their white counterparts? Happenstance?

 

[Bluto]

So a white person from the boonies that names their child something that fits with their culture is "ignorant"... but a black person who names their child something that fits with their culture is "traditional." That's the most racist thing I've read in awhile.

Explain to me how something like Da'Rick is "traditional" but Ransom is "ignorant".

Uhmmm...you're making some pretty big leaps there and putting words in my mouth. Da'Rick is not what I would call "traditional" and I'm not sure why you assumed I was defending some of the more off the wall names people choose for their kids. I was thinking more along the lines of Ishmael, Barrack, Kaveh, Rogelio, Raymundo. Names that have been in families for generations and are as legitimate as Steve, Sam or Frank.

 

[IrishLax]

Uhmmm...you're making some pretty big leaps there and putting words in my mouth. Da'Rick is not what I would call "traditional" and I'm not sure why you assumed I was defending some of the more off the wall names people choose for their kids. I was thinking more along the lines of Ishmael, Barrack, Kaveh, Rogelio, Raymundo. Names that have been in families for generations and are as legitimate as Steve, Sam or Frank.

Well that's different then. That's not what I was talking about. I was talking specifically about off the wall stupid names. Nevermind.

 

[IrishLax]

So why are so many blacks and native Americans poor? Why do blacks get the death penalty more than whites? Why are there so many blacks in prison? Why are these groups educational and economic attainment so much lower than their white counterparts? Happenstance?

For lots of reasons. Almost none of which have to do with current "white man" policies. -Native Americans because they had all their lands and worldly goods taken, were put on reservations where alcoholism and other vices became prevalent, the education they're given by their tribes on the reservations are generally substandard (and often don't involve much teaching of the English language), etc.
-African Americans because they weren't treated as equal under the law until the late 60s and not in practicality until LONG after that. So the first generation of African Americans who got a fair shake just graduated college not long ago, whereas others have been able to accrue wealth for generations. Then you have the war on drugs and the like coupled with urban socio-economic factors that will take too long to even scratch the surface of. The war on drugs and minute practices like "stop and frisk" that compound the issue are the only 'policies' that come to mind.
-Latino and Hispanic Americans because many are 1st or 2nd generation immigrants, don't speak the language, etc. Lots of obvious reasons.
-Asians because... Asians do pretty well, right?
-Indian and Middle Eastern... same as Asians?

The real question you should be asking is why do Latinos, Blacks, Native Americans, etc. do worse than other despite better or equal representation in government, etc. Hint: it's not the "white man" for the most part... it has to do with previous law/policies coupled with cultural and socio-economic disadvantages.

 

[ickythump1225]

Hey look! A Rick Reilly article worth reading.

Hey look! A Rick Reilly article worth reading.

I guess this is where I'm supposed to fall in line and do what every other American sports writer is doing. I'm supposed to swear I won't ever write the words "Washington Redskins" anymore because it's racist and offensive and a slap in the face to all Native Americans who ever lived. Maybe it is.

NICKNAME CONTROVERSY

The Washington Redskins are facing more pressure to change the team name, which many consider derogatory to Native Americans.

• OTL: Nickname racist? Video

Also see:
• Vote: Should Redskins change name?
• New York tribe challenges Redskins with radio ad Video

I just don't quite know how to tell my father-in-law, a Blackfeet Indian. He owns a steak restaurant on the reservation near Browning, Mont. He has a hard time seeing the slap-in-the-face part.

"The whole issue is so silly to me," says Bob Burns, my wife's father and a bundle holder in the Blackfeet tribe. "The name just doesn't bother me much. It's an issue that shouldn't be an issue, not with all the problems we've got in this country."

And I definitely don't know how I'll tell the athletes at Wellpinit (Wash.) High School -- where the student body is 91.2 percent Native American -- that the "Redskins" name they wear proudly across their chests is insulting them. Because they have no idea.

"I've talked to our students, our parents and our community about this and nobody finds any offense at all in it," says Tim Ames, the superintendent of Wellpinit schools. "'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. … In fact, I'd like to see somebody come up here and try to change it."

Boy, you try to help some people …

And it's not going to be easy telling the Kingston (Okla.) High School (57.7 percent Native American) Redskins that the name they've worn on their uniforms for 104 years has been a joke on them this whole time. Because they wear it with honor.

"We have two great tribes here," says Kingston assistant school superintendent Ron Whipkey, "the Chicasaw and the Choctaw. And not one member of those tribes has ever come to me or our school with a complaint. It is a prideful thing to them."

"It's a name that honors the people," says Kingston English teacher Brett Hayes, who is Choctaw. "The word 'Oklahoma' itself is Choctaw for 'red people.' The students here don't want it changed. To them, it seems like it's just people who have no connection with the Native American culture, people out there trying to draw attention to themselves.

"My kids are really afraid we're going to lose the Redskin name. They say to me, 'They're not going to take it from us, are they, Dad?'"

Too late. White America has spoken. You aren't offended, so we'll be offended for you.

Redskins name change not as easy as it sounds - ESPN

It's not very often I find myself nodding my head vigorously in agreement with Rick Reilly but this article succinctly sums up my feelings on the Redskins name controversy (read: non-issue). To me this issue may be the biggest waste of time I've ever seen and the groupthink in the media to get it changed is disgusting. No one is actually offended by the name Redskins except dumb white liberals in the media.

And even if someone is offended...who cares? I'm so tired of everything being dictated by someone's hurt feelings. It's the biggest crime you can commit these days, to hurt someone's feelings or offend their delicate little sensibilities. So bravo Rick Reilly for writing an article that needed to be written to break up the groupthink.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Positively interesting!

You know, if I had to pick two posters who would probably love to weigh in on this, it'd be nearly impossible for me. Butttt, gun to my head, I'd go with Bluto and IrishLax. Let's see if I'm right.

 

[BGIF]

8 posts below yours on the Front Page


http://www.irishenvy.com/forums/leprechaun-lounge/181675-rick-reilly-gets-one-right.html

 

[ThePiombino]

Redskins name change not as easy as it sounds - ESPN

It's not very often I find myself nodding my head vigorously in agreement with Rick Reilly but this article succinctly sums up my feelings on the Redskins name controversy (read: non-issue). To me this issue may be the biggest waste of time I've ever seen and the groupthink in the media to get it changed is disgusting. No one is actually offended by the name Redskins except dumb white liberals in the media.

And even if someone is offended...who cares? I'm so tired of everything being dictated by someone's hurt feelings. It's the biggest crime you can commit these days, to hurt someone's feelings or offend their delicate little sensibilities. So bravo Rick Reilly for writing an article that needed to be written to break up the groupthink.

http://www.irishenvy.com/forums/lep...rick-reilly-gets-one-right-2.html#post1117114

Positively interesting!

You know, if I had to pick two posters who would probably love to weigh in on this, it'd be nearly impossible for me. Butttt, gun to my head, I'd go with Bluto and IrishLax. Let's see if I'm right.

LMAO

 

[Bluto]

Positively interesting!

You know, if I had to pick two posters who would probably love to weigh in on this, it'd be nearly impossible for me. Butttt, gun to my head, I'd go with Bluto and IrishLax. Let's see if I'm right.

Screw that. It's game day!

 

[Great Lakes Irish]

I must admit that's haven't read through this whole discussion. It seems to maybe have veered off from the original topic somewhat, but I wanted to get some thoughts posted... specifically because I am a Native American and thus have a perspective on this that most others here likely do not.

First off, the article references the beliefs/viewpoint of the author's Father-in-law. This man raised the woman who eventually decided to spend the rest of her life with Rick Reilly. Put simply, this could imply that she may have been raised by a dumb f<€k. Maybe not. He is entitled to his own opinion, but I disagree.

Anyway, I know we're talking about the Redskins, but the above image reflects my feelings on this issue for most teams with names, mascots, and fans that make a caricature of my ethnicity. There are degrees to this, and Cleveland Indians' mascot is more bafoonish (insulting) than the Redskins, but to me it is splitting hairs. The ignorance for the true history of Native Americans is shameful. Unspeakable stuff I guess, so maybe that explains it...

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwo...eminder-how-cruel-assimilation-was—and-146664

We were treated like animals. I would hope that if people were more informed, they would be more respectful. (?) To be a mascot next to other mascots that are animals sucks. It's dehumanizing and it sucks.

 

[palinurus]

I must admit that's haven't read through this whole discussion. It seems to maybe have veered off from the original topic somewhat, but I wanted to get some thoughts posted... specifically because I am a Native American and thus have a perspective on this that most others here likely do not.

First off, the article references the beliefs/viewpoint of the author's Father-in-law. This man raised the woman who eventually decided to spend the rest of her life with Rick Reilly. Put simply, this could imply that she may have been raised by a dumb f<€k. Maybe not. He is entitled to his own opinion, but I disagree.

Anyway, I know we're talking about the Redskins, but the above image reflects my feelings on this issue for most teams with names, mascots, and fans that make a caricature of my ethnicity. There are degrees to this, and Cleveland Indians' mascot is more bafoonish (insulting) than the Redskins, but to me it is splitting hairs. The ignorance for the true history of Native Americans is shameful. Unspeakable stuff I guess, so maybe that explains it...

Indian Country Today Media Network.com

We were treated like animals. I would hope that if people were more informed, they would be more respectful. (?) To be a mascot next to other mascots that are animals sucks. It's dehumanizing and it sucks.

Not looking to argue, because you know best if you are offended, and I respect your opinion on that, but the names of teams that are chosen are chosen for positive reasons, not negative; it's deemed to invoke respect and admiration and to show belief in the characteristics of the team -- LSU Tigers (ferocity), Wisconsin Badgers (tenacity), Alabama Crimson Tide (overwhelming force). And Native Americans are not being placed "next to mascots that animals" in correlative way, any more than are dozens of schools/teams with human nicknames, such as the West Virginia Mountaineers, the New York Yankees, and...the Notre Dame Fighting Irish.

 

[Great Lakes Irish]

Not looking to argue, because you know best if you are offended, and I respect your opinion on that, but the names of teams that are chosen are chosen for positive reasons, not negative; it's deemed to invoke respect and admiration and to show belief in the characteristics of the team -- LSU Tigers (ferocity), Wisconsin Badgers (tenacity), Alabama Crimson Tide (overwhelming force). And Native Americans are not being placed "next to mascots that animals" in correlative way, any more than are dozens of schools/teams with human nicknames, such as the West Virginia Mountaineers, the New York Yankees, and...the Notre Dame Fighting Irish.

It's a good point, and I understand where you are coming from. Admittedly, the issue is relatively complicated. But to me, if the original purpose was to respect Indians (which it was not in my opinion), it's almost always negated in that it reinforces negative (racist) stereotypes and encourages caricaturizations by fans, which again, disrespects a whole ethnicity of people. It would be wholly different if that ethnicity had not been disrespected, attacked, killed, relocated, etc by the Federal Government and settlers from the beginning. The Cleveland Indians mascot is blindingly racist though. I don't think there could be any disagreement about that.

 

[ickythump1225]

I guess my thing is...I just don't really care that much that people get offended. I just don't understand why EVERYTHING in this day and age must be dictated by the whims of people's feelings and sensitivities.

I'm a man of Norwegian ancestry and I'm from Minnesota. There are some "buffoonish" caricaturizations of Norse people with the Vikings nickname and their promotions but you know what, so what? Sticks and stones. This issue is so much larger than just a team name, it speaks to the larger culture of political correctness and the dictatorship of hurt feelings. When Roger Goodell came out and said that "if even one person is offended" they would look into it that made me want to vomit.

The team we all cheer for has their nickname derived directly from negative stereotypes and "racism" but I see nary a word raised to have the Fighting Irish change their name. What's with the selective activism?

 

[illmatic630]

Not in the slightest. If I'm hiring someone for customer service and of two equal candidates one is named something stupid like Danger or Ace and the other equally qualified candidate is named Joe I'm going to hire Joe 10 out of 10 times.

Why do you think people change names for show business? Or representatives in India for customer service? There's a lot to a name. It's a personal choice and professionally you have to deal with the consequences. There's nothing wrong with it... just like there is nothing wrong with a Mohawk, piercings, tats, etc... but be prepared to accept the consequences of what you call yourself.

If that is how you look at things, then that's a problem. No reason why anybody's name should stop somebody from getting a job. If a company rather hire Aaron instead of Enrique 10 out of 10 times, then that is discriminatory. Name should not be a factor whatsoever.

I'm sorry, but your post is a load of crap.

 

[GoIrish41]

I guess my thing is...I just don't really care that much that people get offended. I just don't understand why EVERYTHING in this day and age must be dictated by the whims of people's feelings and sensitivities.

I'm a man of Norwegian ancestry and I'm from Minnesota. There are some "buffoonish" caricaturizations of Norse people with the Vikings nickname and their promotions but you know what, so what? Sticks and stones. This issue is so much larger than just a team name, it speaks to the larger culture of political correctness and the dictatorship of hurt feelings. When Roger Goodell came out and said that "if even one person is offended" they would look into it that made me want to vomit.

The team we all cheer for has their nickname derived directly from negative stereotypes and "racism" but I see nary a word raised to have the Fighting Irish change their name. What's with the selective activism?

Maybe that is the problem. Show me a person who complains about political correctness, and I'll show you a person who doesn't understand the concept of civility and is defending their propensity to disregard human dignity. The world would be a better place if everyone wouldn't think they have the right disregard the feelings of other people because "they don't understand" why they should be offended. Isn't the fact that they are offended enough for people to make small concessions?

 

[IrishLax]

If that is how you look at things, then that's a problem. No reason why anybody's name should stop somebody from getting a job. If a company rather hire Aaron instead of Enrique 10 out of 10 times, then that is discriminatory. Name should not be a factor whatsoever.

I'm sorry, but your post is a load of crap.

This is just moronic. As a I said clearly, I'm not talking about Aaron versus Enrique.

Depending on the job, if you have two completely equal candidates and one is named Ransom or Da'Rick or Lemonjello or Buttface and another is named Joe, I'm hiring Joe. What you call yourself, how you dress, how you do you hair, etc. are all personal choices. If I don't hire someone because I don't like their tattoos that's discrimination, too. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Start living in the real world.

 

[GoIrish41]

This is just moronic. As a I said clearly, I'm not talking about Aaron versus Enrique.

Depending on the job, if you have two completely equal candidates and one is named Ransom or Da'Rick or Lemonjello or Buttface and another is named Joe, I'm hiring Joe. What you call yourself, how you dress, how you do you hair, etc. are all personal choices. If I don't hire someone because I don't like their tattoos that's discrimination, too. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Start living in the real world.

If it is discrimination, how is there nothing wrong with that? In the "real world" discrimination is illegal. Also, in the "real world" people don't choose their own names ... their parents do. So, if someone's parents made a bad decision 25 years ago, you are going to hire Joe just because the other person's name happens to be Da'Rick. There is absolutely something wrong with that. I get that how people dress, speak and whether they choose to have tatoos or peircings says something about them, but it doesn't really say EVERYTHING about them. Heck, Joe might have a tat but you just hired him because his name isn't Lemonjello.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Maybe that is the problem. Show me a person who complains about political correctness, and I'll show you a person who doesn't understand the concept of civility and is defending their propensity to disregard human dignity. The world would be a better place if everyone wouldn't think they have the right disregard the feelings of other people because "they don't understand" why they should be offended. Isn't the fact that they are offended enough for people to make small concessions?

There's a HUGE difference between reasonable civility, respect, and consideration for others' feelings & dignity, and political correctness run amok or wielded like a weapon by the self-appointed thought police. Most normal people try to be respectful and considerate of others, but there are too many out there who are walking around just looking for something to be offended by. How did we become such a nation of hyper-sensitive, easily offended 12-year-old junior high school girls who cry every five minutes because we think somebody might have sorta maybe unintentionally hurt our feelings?

 

[ickythump1225]

Maybe that is the problem. Show me a person who complains about political correctness, and I'll show you a person who doesn't understand the concept of civility and is defending their propensity to disregard human dignity. The world would be a better place if everyone wouldn't think they have the right disregard the feelings of other people because "they don't understand" why they should be offended. Isn't the fact that they are offended enough for people to make small concessions?

Absolutely not. People are offended by all sorts of stupid crap and many people are offended by the truth. I won't comprise my integrity or the truth because it may hurt someone's feelings. It always starts out with "small concessions" and before you know it we're trapped in box with mountains of "small concessions" surrounding us. Seriously I don't have the time of day to worry about everything that comes out of my mouth offending someone.

The world would actually be a much better and less hostile place if people were allowed to say what's on their damn minds without worrying about hurting someone's delicate little feelings. Everything everyone says has to be filtered and couched in the most bland PC language imaginable lest they hit by the PC police. In countries around the world, and to a less extent this country, people go to jail for thoughtcrimes. This is what "small concessions" leads to.

Oh and "human dignity?" Please give me a break. No one's "human dignity" has ever been taken away by words. Life is hard so wear a helmet. If you truly feel like your human dignity can be taken away because someone said mean words to you then you need not venture beyond your front door. Whatever happened to sticks and stones may break my bones, but words WILL NEVER hurt?

 

[ickythump1225]

There's a HUGE difference between reasonable civility, respect, and consideration for others' feelings & dignity, and political correctness run amok or wielded like a weapon by the self-appointed thought police. Most normal people try to be respectful and considerate of others, but there are too many out there who are walking around just looking for something to be offended by. How did we become such a nation of hyper-sensitive, easily offended 12-year-old junior high school girls who cry every five minutes because we think somebody might have sorta maybe unintentionally hurt our feelings?

 

[ickythump1225]

If it is discrimination, how is there nothing wrong with that? In the "real world" discrimination is illegal. Also, in the "real world" people don't choose their own names ... their parents do. So, if someone's parents made a bad decision 25 years ago, you are going to hire Joe just because the other person's name happens to be Da'Rick. There is absolutely something wrong with that. I get that how people dress, speak and whether they choose to have tatoos or peircings says something about them, but it doesn't really say EVERYTHING about them. Heck, Joe might have a tat but you just hired him because his name isn't Lemonjello.

Whatever happened to people being able to run their own businesses how they see fit? An employer should be able to hire whoever they want for whatever reasons they want. That business owner will pay the price if they continually make poor choices and then they won't be in business very long so that'll be one less thing in the world for you to be offended by.

 

[GoIrish41]

There's a HUGE difference between reasonable civility, respect, and consideration for others' feelings & dignity, and political correctness run amok or wielded like a weapon by the self-appointed thought police. Most normal people try to be respectful and considerate of others, but there are too many out there who are walking around just looking for something to be offended by. How did we become such a nation of hyper-sensitive, easily offended 12-year-old junior high school girls who cry every five minutes because we think somebody might have sorta maybe unintentionally hurt our feelings?

I agree with this, but it is well beyond the scope of the debate on this thread. A racial slur promoted by a professional sports league is a little bit beyond simple unfortunate language. Asian people don't like being referred to by the color of their skin. Nor do hispanics or African Americans. Why is it OK to do it to Native Americans? Look at the mascot for the Indians posted earlier in this thread. How is that not offensive? Do you think that is a demonstration being respectful and considerate of others. Do you think Native Americans who are offended by that are just looking for something to be offended by? This isn't a matter of political correctness going amok, these are plainly derogatory depictions of Native Americans.

 

[GoIrish41]

Whatever happened to people being able to run their own businesses how they see fit? An employer should be able to hire whoever they want for whatever reasons they want. That business owner will pay the price if they continually make poor choices and then they won't be in business very long so that'll be one less thing in the world for you to be offended by.

You mean what ever happened to blatant discrimination? It became illegal when this country made a commitment to equal rights for all of its citizens. You believe an employer should be allowed to hire all white people because they believe ALL black people and hispanics to be lazy? Do you also want to go back to sharecropping and separate public restrooms? A market solution to discrimination? C'mon man.

 

[illmatic630]

This is just moronic. As a I said clearly, I'm not talking about Aaron versus Enrique.

Depending on the job, if you have two completely equal candidates and one is named Ransom or Da'Rick or Lemonjello or Buttface and another is named Joe, I'm hiring Joe. What you call yourself, how you dress, how you do you hair, etc. are all personal choices. If I don't hire someone because I don't like their tattoos that's discrimination, too. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Start living in the real world.

Not talking Aaron vs Enrique, but Joe vs Da'Rick or Lemonjello. And if somebody's last name happens to be Buttface, you say he should change his name to something that will get him hired, like Wilson, or Rogers, etc. Come on man.

Also, what is wrong with Da'Rick?

 

[ickythump1225]

You mean what ever happened to blatant discrimination? It became illegal when this country made a commitment to equal rights for all of its citizens. You believe an employer should be allowed to hire all white people because they believe ALL black people and hispanics to be lazy? Do you also want to go back to sharecropping and separate public restrooms? A market solution to discrimination? C'mon man.

I believe an employer should be able to do just about whatever they want on their property. It is their property after all. If you don't like you're more than welcome to go elsewhere.

 

[illmatic630]

Whatever happened to people being able to run their own businesses how they see fit? An employer should be able to hire whoever they want for whatever reasons they want. That business owner will pay the price if they continually make poor choices and then they won't be in business very long so that'll be one less thing in the world for you to be offended by.

Not sure what bad choices have to do with hiring Joe or Da'Rick.

 

[ickythump1225]

I agree with this, but it is well beyond the scope of the debate on this thread. A racial slur promoted by a professional sports league is a little bit beyond simple unfortunate language. Asian people don't like being referred to by the color of their skin. Nor do hispanics or African Americans. Why is it OK to do it to Native Americans? Look at the mascot for the Indians posted earlier in this thread. How is that not offensive? Do you think that is a demonstration being respectful and considerate of others. Do you think Native Americans who are offended by that are just looking for something to be offended by? This isn't a matter of political correctness going amok, these are plainly derogatory depictions of Native Americans.

Where are they? All I see is stupid white liberals looking for something to whine and complain about. Poll show the vast majority of Indians don't give a damn one way or the other. This is just some 1st world white leftist problem.

 

[IrishLax]

If it is discrimination, how is there nothing wrong with that? In the "real world" discrimination is illegal.

Uhhhh.... no it isn't. Only specific types of discrimination are protected against. If I don't like people with facial piercings I'm allowed to discriminate against them. Similarly, if I don't want to hire someone named Buttface for a sales position because of their name, then I don't have to.

Also, in the "real world" people don't choose their own names ... their parents do. So, if someone's parents made a bad decision 25 years ago, you are going to hire Joe just because the other person's name happens to be Da'Rick. There is absolutely something wrong with that. I get that how people dress, speak and whether they choose to have tatoos or peircings says something about them, but it doesn't really say EVERYTHING about them. Heck, Joe might have a tat but you just hired him because his name isn't Lemonjello.

This is just dumb. I mean this is flat out one of the stupidest things I've ever read on this board.

Yes, you are legally given a name when you're born. Once you get to the age of employment you easily can change your name if you feel it's a detriment to professional prospects.... or if you don't want to, you can at the very least change what you go by. I've heard stories of people trying to name their children things like Labia or Vagina because they "thought it sounded pretty"... as an infant, you can't stop your parents from doing that. Once you get older, you can absolutely choose what you are known as.

This is different than your race, gender, skin color, sexual orientation, etc. which are things you CANNOT change. That's why those forms of discrimination are often legally protected against. Don't get it twisted.