Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but paid users have great benefits. Paid member benefits:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2024 SX, MX, and SMX series (regularly $30).
following groups have passed resolutions or issued statements regarding their opposition to the name of the Washington NFL team:
Tribes
Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians[7]
Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma[7]
Comanche Nation of Oklahoma[7]
The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Washington)[7]
Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians (Michigan)
Hoh Indian Tribe[8]
Inter Tribal Council of Arizona[9]
Inter-Tribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes[10][11]
Juaneño Band of Mission Indians (California)[7]
Little River Band of Ottawa Indians (Michigan)
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians, Gun Lake Tribe (Michigan)[12]
Menominee Tribe of Indians (Wisconsin)[7]
Oneida Indian Nation (New York)[13]
Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin[7]
Osage Nation[14]
Navajo Nation Council[15]
Penobscot Nation[16]
Poarch Band of Creek Indians[17]
Rosebud Sioux (South Dakota)[18]
Samish Indian Nation (Washington)[19]
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians (Michigan)[20]
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (Idaho)[21]
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (North Dakota)
The Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation (North Dakota)[22]
United South and Eastern Tribes (USET)[23]
Organizations Edit
Advocates for American Indian Children (California)
American Indian Mental Health Association (Minnesota)
American Indian Movement[24]
American Indian Opportunities Industrialization Center of San Bernardino County
American Indian Student Services at the Ohio State University
American Indian High Education Consortium
American Indian College Fund
Americans for Indian Opportunity
Association on American Indian Affairs
Buncombe County Native American Inter-tribal Association (North Carolina)
Capitol Area Indian Resources (Sacramento, CA)
Concerned American Indian Parents (Minnesota)
Council for Indigenous North Americans (University of Southern Maine)
Eagle and Condor Indigenous Peoples’ Alliance
First Peoples Worldwide
Fontana Native American Indian Center, Inc. (California)
Governor’s Interstate Indian Council
Greater Tulsa Area Indian Affairs Commission[25]
Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Council (Wisconsin)
HONOR – Honor Our Neighbors Origins and Rights
Kansas Association for Native American Education
Maryland Commission on Indian Affairs
Medicine Wheel Inter-tribal Association (Louisiana)
Minnesota Indian Education Association
National Congress of American Indians (NCAI)
National Indian Child Welfare Association
National Indian Education Association
National Indian Youth Council
National Native American Law Student Association
Native American Caucus of the California Democratic Party
Native American Finance Officers Association (NAFOA)[26]
Native American Journalists Association[27]
Native American Indian Center of Central Ohio
Native American Rights Fund (NARF)
Native Voice Network
Nebraska Commission on Indian Affairs
Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi (Michigan)
Not Your Mascots, Inc.
North Carolina Commission of Indian Affairs
North Dakota Indian Education Association
Office of Native American Ministry, Diocese of Grand Rapids (Michigan)
Ohio Center for Native American Affairs
San Bernardino/Riverside Counties Native American Community Council
Seminole Nation of Oklahoma
Society of American Indian Government Employees (SAIGE)
Society of Indian Psychologists of the Americas
Southern California Indian Center
St. Cloud State University – American Indian Center
Tennessee Chapter of the National Coalition for the Preservation of Indigenous Cultures
Tennessee Commission of Indian Affairs
Tennessee Native Veterans Society
Tulsa Indian Coalition Against Racism[28]
The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
Unified Coalition for American Indian Concerns, Virginia
The United Indian Nations of Oklahoma
Virginia American Indian Cultural Resource Center
Wisconsin Indian Education Association
WIEA "Indian" Mascot and Logo Taskforce (Wisconsin)
Woodland Indian Community Center-Lansing (Michigan)
Youth "Indian" Mascot and Logo Task force (Wisconsin)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Washington_Redskins_name_change…
That's a good wiki article, but I'd venture to say you didn't read all the citations you block quoted. There's conflicting information in there.
And...there are other sources to read besides slanted wiki articles... you do realize who writes those?
Redskin football is not Indian motorcycles.
And...like I said...I live here in an Indian Nation. They/we don't care. . .
There are far more important issued to address here.. how about opiate abuse and overdoses among native Americans??
Let's get Pissed off about that...that's a killer.
This other stuff is silly. . .
You might be under the belief that you live in the only area of Native tribes and population. That'd be wrong, obviously. We have tribes/reservations all around us. Colvilles to the north, Yakama and Umatilla to the south, several Puget Sound tribes, Spokane to the east, etc.
And the diversionary tactic of bringing up other issues assumes that people and groups can't pay attention to more than one issue at a time, which is obviously false.
If sports nicknames don't have meaning and don't really matter, why would there be an ounce of resistance to changing them?
"If sports nicknames don't have meaning and don't really matter, why would there be an ounce of resistance to changing them? "
??? If a team or company has the name or image for decades and decades.....why would they not fight to keep it? They would have to change the name and a total re-brand of everything.
In today's world.....everything seems to be offensive. Christ!
The Shop
Nor is the common refrain that this is only a recent issue that was never controversial in the past. This has been going on for decades. Here's some examples of some of the dialogue almost 50 years ago, when the team finally removed phrases like "scalp em" from their fight song........
------------------------------------
“Redskins/Rednecks,” by Tom Quinn, Washington Daily News, November 1971
Imagine the Syracuse University Orangemen called instead the Syracuse Kikes. The football players have little cash registers painted on the sides of their helmets. When the team wins, the student body stands up and shouts in unison, “Such a Deal!”
Repugnant? Cruel anti-semitism? What, then would be the reaction if, say, for just one game Ole Miss called itself The Darkies and dressed its cheerleaders up like Aunt Jemima shuffling to a Motown version of “Old Black Joe?”
That could be a mockery, eh?
Team nicknames are one of the most casual traditions in American sports. Usually, such names are chosen to add color to competition and most are based on animals or mythical figures like Vikings, Giants, Pirates. Some of the newer names understandably identify with technology: the New York Jets, Baltimore Bullets.
Except in one case that has repeated itself as often as history itself, no one picks on an ethnic minority for his mascot. And that one exception is the American Indian. Right now, in the racially tense 1970s, it seems perfectly acceptable to have teams known as the Bucks, Braves, Chiefs, Indians, Warriors, or, ahem, the Washington Redskins.
“For a lot of Indians, the name ‘Redskin’ is roughly equivalent to ‘Darky,’ explained Richard LaCourse, a Yakima Indian from the state of Washington who is the D.C. correspondent for the American Indian Press Association. “It depends on how it’s used. The worst thing about it, it keeps the cheap stereotypes of the Indian in circulation.”
The term does not particularly bother LaCourse, who, like many Indians interviewed on the subject yesterday, prefers to believe the whiteman simply knows not what he does. John Parker, however, a Choctaw from Oklahoma who works for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, was indignant. “They should change the name,” he said. “It lacks dignity, a haphazard slang word that refers to Indians in general but on a lower scale. It is the white people’s way of making a mockery, like they used to do to the blacks in the South.”
Parker would prefer to see the Washington football franchise look for a name from Indians who really lived in the area, like the Piscataways, who had a village along the Potomac approximately where today the George Washington Parkway spreads its blacktop belly.
Laura Wittstock, a Seneca from New York, recently went to the Washington Redskins ticket office at 1875 K St. NW, the walls of which are adorned with photographs of “famous Western Chiefs.” She felt like a florist in a shop of plastic flowers. “It makes me personally very angry and I would rather they not use the name Redskins,” Miss Wittstock said, “but the offense is very subtle.”
She said other minorities such as blacks, Jews and Italians have taken advantage of growing national sensitivity to…minorities to demand respect. “All is left is the Indian,” she said, “and this problem is beginning to stand out like a sore thumb.”
-------------------------------------------
“Do We Defame Native Americans?” by Paul Kaplan, Washington Star, 1972
LaDonna Harris, a woman of Comanche descent and an active worker in the pilgrimage to bring truth and respectability to the name and legend of the American Indian, apparently has made some real progress recently.
According to her husband, Mrs. Harris has gone directly to the Washington Redskins and received the support of three big-name players who are willing to back her in the push to do away with the team name of “Redskins,” which is considered offensive by many Indians.
“One of the players, a black, told me he’s ready to join in a demonstration,” said Fred Harris, the husband of LaDonna and the senator from Oklahoma, who at one time this year was a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination before withdrawing due to what he called a lack of funds…..
Not all Indians are complaining. Some think of the symbols as monuments to their strength and manhood. Others disagree, bitterly denouncing the derogation of their heritage, an ignorance of their culture and an unabashed commercialism in the sense that Indian names and heroes are exploited with no recompense whatsoever for our native Americans.
“Here’s the way to judge – no other living ethnic group is used as a symbol,” says Harris. “There’s no Washington Dagos or New York Kikes.”…
“The nickname Redskins is offensive,’ Harris says. “It won’t do any good to say ‘I’ve added them up and I have [illegible] who say it’s okay and [illegible] who say it’s offensive. The point is that it’s offensive to a large number of Indians.”
[Edward Bennett] Williams, who has been known in his profession as a champion of liberal causes, says the complaints have come mostly from the media.
“The mail I’ve received is the other way,” he said. “We’ve been urged by more Indians to keep the name than to do away with it. If the people of Washington want the name changed, it will be changed. But so far our polls have not shown this to be the case.”
-------------------------------------------------------------
“Williams’ Answer: What’s in a Name?” by Russ White, Washington Evening Star, January 1972
Edward Bennett Williams, the slick and erudite Washington barrister, may have to do some fast talking indeed if he ever finds himself up against a jury dominated by American Indians.
Williams, of course, doubles as president of the Washington Redskins. In this capacity he apparently has decided to ignore mounting protests from Indian groups that decry the use of Indian names and symbols as nicknames for sports teams.
Particularly annoying to 730,000 American Indians is the word “redskin.” To them, the word is a racist slur, no more acceptable than the word “nigger” is to a black man, and no more acceptable than the term “white trash” is among the poor in the South.
This week Williams received a letter from Hal Gross, director of the Indian Legal Information Development Service, in which Gross outlined several examples of how the Redskins are perpetuating stereotypical thinking about the American Indian.
“This is getting silly,” Williams said yesterday. “Suppose blacks get together and demanded Cleveland’s football team stopped calling itself the Browns, or ornithologists insisted that Baltimore was demeaning to birds because the name is the Orioles.”
--------------------------------------------------------
“Siegel at Large,” by Morris Siegel, Washington Star, January 1972
Already annoyed by enough current litigation against them to keep a taxi squad of lawyers occupied almost full time, the Redskins are in no mood to be pestered with another suit. This one, if it comes to pass, might be interpreted as coming from the blind side – an attempt to halt their use of the name Redskins, by which they have been known, mostly with affection, every year since 1932, their founding year, when they were the Braves, which happened to be the name of the ballpark they used in Boston.
Now comes a crusading Sioux, Russell Means, who insists the Redskins and other teams using Indian names are demeaning his people and wants it knocked off. He has filed a $9 million suit against the Cleveland Indians and threatens the Atlanta Braves, who have a half Chippewa mascot, Noc-A-Homa, and the Redskins who once had a coach named Lone Star Dietz and a full-blooded Indian player, Jack Jacobs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Indians Take on Williams,” by Steve Guback, Washington Star, January 1972
The Redskins are being asked to drop their nickname, which apparently means many different things to many different people.
A group of 11 persons representing various Indian organizations conferred with club President Edward Bennett Williams yesterday, suggesting a change…..
Williams [said] the nickname was [meant] to convey not disrespect but reverence for the Indian.
Stay tuned and circle the wagons, men.
------------------------------------------------------------------
“Indians Open War on Redskins,” by Shelby Coffee III, Washington Post, March 1972
A delegation of 11 people representing a variety of Indian organizations arrived yesterday afternoon at the elegantly appointed law offices of Edward Bennett Williams, president of the Washington Redskins football team, and requested that Williams become the president of the Washington “…” football team.
Among the group requesting that “the derogatory racial epithet “Redskins” be banished from the Washington sports scene were LaDonna Harris, wife of Sen. Fred Harris (D-Okla.) and president of the Americans for Indian Opportunity and Leon Cook, president of the National Congress of American Indians, which claims a membership of 350,000 Indians, according to the protesting group’s informal leader, Harold Gross, an attorney for another Indian organization.
The group entered Williams’ conference room — after Williams said he did not want the press included in what had been scheduled as a private meeting — and emerged an hour later, some happy, some frustrated, all waiting for Williams’ next move.
Then they went to the Farragut Lounge to discuss the results of the meeting and Mrs. Harris, with a veteran campaigner’s dazzling smile, trooped the line shaking hands as she left, saying “I think we did a pretty good day’s work.”
“I listened, and that’s all,” said Williams after the group had filed out. “It was a listening session for me.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------
“Williams, Indians in Showdown,” by Tom Quinn, Washington Daily News, March 1972
[After some drama, Edward Bennett] Williams closed this first meeting with the American Indians who claim his team nickname, “Redskins,” is a racial slur. It had not been an easy meeting, even for the man who once gave free legal services to the Indians who took over Alcatraz Island two years ago.
The eleven Indian representatives included LaDonna Harris, wife of Sen. Fred Harris (D-Okla.), and president of Americans for Indian Opportunity who moderated the discussions and, being of the establishment (so to speak) seemed to communicate best with Williams; Leon Cook, president of the National Congress of American Indians, which claims a membership of 300,000; Dennis J. Banks, national chairman of the American Indian Movement; and Hal Gross, attorney director of the Indian Legal Development Service in Washington.
“I just listened, and that’s all,” Williams said afterward. “It was just a listening session for me.”
Well, not exactly. Williams reportedly started off the meeting by saying, ‘It was never our intention to offend the American Indian. Our intent is and was exactly the opposite – to express reverence for the Indian.”
LaDonna Harris soon picked up the point. “And today, Mr. Bennett Williams,” she told him, “you have the chance to demonstrate the sensitivity you profess toward the Indian people. We are waiting.”
The Indians were still waiting when they left Williams’ plush offices. They had asked the Washington pro football team to:
• Change the ‘derogatory racial epithet, ‘Redskins.’
• Sponsor a campaign to get a new name.
• Get rid of the pseudo-Indian dancing girls called ‘Redskinettes,’ as well as the team song,’ Hail to the Redskins.’
• “Actively encourage other professional sports organizations to cease the use of similar stereotypes degrading America’s Indian people.”
“This is not a negotiating meeting,” Williams told them. And then he promised to report the Indians’ feelings to the team board of directors, and then report back the board’s reaction. Williams also agreed to arrange an appearance by a representative of the Indians at an NFL meeting in New York City in mid-May.
Williams reportedly asked if the nickname ‘Indian’ would be acceptable but the Indians told him no. Williams also tried to explain how a change of name would involve “thousands of dollars” in commitments to NFL Properties and NFL Films, an obviously weak attempt to overwhelm the Indians with dollar signs.
“You’ve made money off this Indian stereotype for years,” said Seneca Indian Laura Wittstock, “and we refuse to accept this kind of argument now. Any corporation that finds something wrong with its public relations or public image does not hesitate to change.”…
“We left Williams with a pure moral issue,” [Ron Aguilar, head of the National Youth Indian Council] said. “We know we are right and that we will win, but we are not sure that we can depend on Williams to act on purely moral principle.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
“Redskins Keep Names, Will Change Lyrics,” by George Solomon, Washington Post, July 1972
The American Indian groups attempting to persuade Washington’s pro football team to change its nickname because they believe it “racially demeaning” have achieved a small victory. The lyrics to the fight song “Hail to the Redskins” will be changed.
Indian representatives, however, were in no mood to celebrate yesterday after Redskins’ President Edward Bennett Williams, admitting misjudgments in the fight song, said the Washington Redskins will continue to be known as the Washington Redskins.
At least they’ll be the Redskins in 1972, or until somebody can convince Williams it should be otherwise.
“All the reaction I’ve received on the nickname question has been unsympathetic to the protesting Indian groups,” Williams said yesterday. “We would not carry a symbol offensive to any group. No one has persuaded me that the Redskins, as a symbol of our football team, is offensive.”
“Had I been persuaded,” Williams added, “we would have taken action accordingly.”
Williams stressed that he doesn’t have a “closed mind” on the subject.
Last March, Williams met with Indian representatives in his office to hear their charges that the nickname Redskins was insulting, as were the baton-twirling Redskinettes and other accompanying Indian depictions.
“They had some good points to make against the lyrics of our fight song,” Williams said. “The swamp ‘ems, scalp ‘ems and heap ‘ems is a mocking of dialect. We won’t use those lyrics anymore.”…
“The change of song lyrics is tokenism on Williams’ part,” said Laura Wittstock of the Indian Legal Information Development Services. “I don’t think he’d react favorably to our desires if 10,000 Indians wrote him. He’s unwilling simply because too much of a commercial loss would be involved.”…
Redskin halftime impresario Joel Margolis announced that henceforth the Redskinettes would no longer wear Indian-style wigs.
Noted Edward Bennett Williams: “If there was anything involved but the glorification of the American Indian, we would change our nickname.”
To this Laura Wittstock said, “Any commercial use of a race of people can’t be glorification.”
And on the topic of this thread , it must not be that big of as voice , because nothing has changed as of yet. Why? Because most don't find it offensive.
Why are you so offended that anyone would like to have a racial slur removed as a nickname for a sports team?
It's not a term of honor, it's a slur......
The excerpts posted above include this appropriate point:
Imagine the Syracuse University Orangemen called instead the Syracuse Kikes. The football players have little cash registers painted on the sides of their helmets. When the team wins, the student body stands up and shouts in unison, “Such a Deal!”
Repugnant? Cruel anti-semitism? What, then would be the reaction if, say, for just one game Ole Miss called itself The Darkies and dressed its cheerleaders up like Aunt Jemima shuffling to a Motown version of “Old Black Joe?”
That could be a mockery, eh?
What do you think about the 100's of teams across the globe called the " Spartan's "?
You don't think that those teams are actually honoring them? Do you see any people from Greece protesting it as a slur?
I’ve never heard Spartan used as a racial/ethnic slur. Has anyone? I’d say that our views are definitely pretty different if you see protesting the use of a racial slur as merely a stunt.
On the other hand you have the "I liked the way it was" crowd, whose best argument is that they are sensitive and offended that anyone is being sensitive and offended.
I gotta ask, if the one group is arguing for social justice or equality, and you're against that group, are you anti-equality? Or are you just of the belief that social justice doesnt exist? Or that it should be accepted? It's such a odd platform to fight from.
It's super evident how little some here have read on the topic both current and in historical context. If y'all spent any legitimate amount of time researching prior to forming your opinion, you'd realize that your stand/arguments parallel the same talking points those made to argue the merits of slavery or why women shouldnt vote, etc. And I think you'd be extremely embarrassed at the angle you've currently chosen. White men telling others what they are allowed to be offended by has never aged well.
I've met a few people who consciously want to be racist. They do exist. I dont really see that here in this thread. Most simply dont realize how racist they are and what's worst, have zero interest in finding out. Because, you know, it might hurt their "feelings" to do some research and look hard in the mirror.
I've spoken to a lot of minorities on the topic. And seen polls run, etc. Blatant racism isnt what bothers or scares minorities the most. It's all the people who are racists yet think they are not that are holding progress back. The subversive stuff is actually what is doing the most damage. But again, if there is no willingness to learn on a topic, I dont know how you find common ground.
It's very similar to the #MeToo Movement. Which (just like BLM or SJW) is not without it's flaws. But the big picture fact still remains: There's no way a white male in America can even remotely fathom what it's like to be a woman in this culture. Even for men who have experienced sexual assault, it's still a very difficult topic to articulate so that non-victims fully understand the topic. As a male who has been sexually assaulted, it gave me a small glimpse into what women experience and really opened my eyes as to how hard it is for women to speak on the topic. And made me realize how much more we need to listen and be ok with not being able to personally relate to something in order to support it.
If you're a white male in this culture and you dont understand racial inequality, that's ok to admit. It's also ok to simply not have an opinion on the topic or accept the fact that hindsight will not be kind to our old ways of thinking.
News flash......white guys are the biggest target in society right now. Have been for quite some time. Everything is our fault , because of our skin tone. Even though MOST of us , don't care what color your skin is. And quit blaming me and everyone else , for a few nazi shit heads!
Pit Row
And there seems to be two general responses. One is men like Jeffro who think for themselves and stand by their own convictions and say no I don't think so, fuck off. And then their is men that are afraid of being wrong or called out so they go along with what they think will be accepted by the majority of their peers.
A few posts back you said you didn't fully understand the redskins thing or the uproar about monster girls but were afraid of the ramifications of being on the wrong side. But on the next page your an expert that has done all the research ?
You have made multiple generalizations about white males in your posts . That is the definition of racism.
Anyway, what if they just they changed the name to Native Americans. Or instead of Washington Redskins, how about Washington Rednecks then everyone could feel equally offended.
How about the New England Patriots. Seems like Patriot has been become recognized as an offensive word to a lot of people, that's gonna have to go too I guess.
Meanwhile, old white men, rich white men , whitey, white boy, cracker, white priviledge, redneck, hillbilly, etc. Perfectly acceptable and should be used to remind all white males of the guilt and shame they own for being white.
Oh crap! That sounds exactly like a Richard Spencer recruiting slogan.
As a middle class white male, I have to say that the notion that my racial and gender class is the most discriminated against is absolutely absurd. And delusional.
The difference here is if I dont understand something, Im ok with not having an opinion. If your side of the debate doesnt understand something, you are quick to jump to a conclusion anyways, in this case proclaiming that a racial slur isnt offensive.
But the words are very much what he would say. Do you disagree?
You're not being targeted Jeffro. If you were, you'd have a lot more compassion and empathy for those whom legitimately are being targeted. Like I said earlier, I had no idea what sexual assault really meant until it happened to me. Until you've been racially profiled and held at gunpoint by a racist cop, it's going to be very difficult to understand what it's like to be a minority in America. That's the most difficult part of this whole debate is finding common ground. All of our experiences are so damn different. Heck, our culture still has problems with gender equality. Men have daughters and yet still think of their own daughters as less than. And that isnt even by choice, it's so deeply ingrained in our culture.
There is no greater advantage in life right now than being born as a white male in America. The fact that you think you are being targeted is laughable. You wouldnt trade places with any minority or gender if given the choice. Nobody is asking me to feel guilty or ashamed of the fact that Im white. It just is what it is and I'd be ignorant to pretend it doesnt exist.
It makes a lot of people uncomfortable to realize that despite every advantage, they've still accomplished so little in life. That is a sobering thought and understandable why it would be hard to accept for many. The ego is a powerful self defense mechanism. Remind a American minority how much better they have it than a minority in a 3rd world country and watch their head spin.
Everyone thinks they've had to overcome great odds. I know my personal story has seemed difficult. Could I have done it if I was a woman or minority? It would have been much harder, if not impossible. I know this from sitting in board rooms and rubbing shoulders with people who own businesses. Racial & gender biases are way more commonplace than anyone honestly wants to admit. I dont need to feel "guilty" in order to accept that. I dont need to blindly deny it either just so my ego stays in tact.
Lets say for a moment, just for arguments sake, the naysayers such as yourself admit white privilege exists. Is the thought of losing your advantage a scary one?
If someone wants to have a discussion about whether biases are just human nature and something we need to learn to live with, Im open to that discussion as a good argument could be made that tribalism is a survival mechanism hardwired into the human psyche. And as a result it manifests itself in a million seemingly fucked up ways. But let's please not sit here and squabble over if the biases actually exist or not. That's like debating on if imperialism exists. I'd much rather argue it's moral merits or justifications.
Back to the original topic......
"Redskins" is a racial slur.
The Indian motorcycle logo is offensive.
Let it go, it's pretty simple. Why jump in front of that bus?
I dont fully understand the grid girls debate the same way many men at one time didnt understand why women wanted the right to vote. I'll pick more relevant battles to fight. I know that if my daughter ended up a grid girl, I'd feel as if I failed as a father. I know I dont want my daughter looking up to grid girls as a role model. I also know that me and my wife is the single greatest influence and to blame third party role models is a cop out. If I want my daughter to see herself as more valuable to the world than just a accessory on the race track, that's entirely up to us as parents. But I can also understand why F1 as a brand & business would want to distance itself from that sort of male-centric thinking. Im not gonna get butthurt that the grid girls are going away. The alternative was adding "grid boys". Which caught equal backlash from fans. In 50 years the youth will look back at ALL OF US and marvel at our ignorance. It took a damn civil war to get rid of slavery. And today I'd hope we look back and ask what was the debate? Humans are a often stupid and stubborn bunch, regardless of gender or race.
Your words.
I dont want to harp on it too much. As you seem to be coming around on the topic and credit needs to be given.
One thing I dont think the SJW/BLM/Minority movement give enough credence too is just how difficult it is to bend on these topics. They live such a different reality that you and me. It's easy for them to see. Everyone's own reality is their periscope. Couple in personal beliefs and it shouldnt be any surprise why there is so much division on these topics.
Have fun. I'm out of this conversation.
I think this thread anwered my original question. A lot of people see nothing wrong with the Indian head with flowing feathers on a motorcycle, the same people that are okay with Christmas trees, people thanking the lord on the podium, and football teams mascots etc
Others are going to find offense with it just like they do with school plays, standing up for the flag, statues of historical figures, etc
So just like everything in life we all have our different opinions and really we are all allowed to think for ourselves and behave as we want as long as it doesn’t hurt others. Well if I buy a Indian I have no doubt I’m going to offend someone but Im sure I offend people while riding a Harley. I’m going to get a Indian and wear my Washington Redskins jersey And take a ride out to Pala and I’ll let you know how it goes
Post a reply to: Are Indian motorcycles racist?