California governor bans Redskins name at public schools

[cigaretteman]

Four California schools will be forced to change mascots after Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation barring public schools from using the Redskins name for sports teams.

It was one of three sports-related bills Brown approved Sunday. He also signed a measure that bans using or possessing smokeless tobacco on the playing field at professional baseball parks and another that recognizes competitive cheerleading as a high school sport.


The mascot legislation will prevent public schools from using a term that American Indians regard as offensive. It goes into effect in 2017.

Only four schools still use the name. Messages seeking comment from school officials were not immediately returned Monday, a federal holiday.

Brown rejected separate legislation that bans naming parks, schools and other public property after Confederate leaders.

http://www.nonpareilonline.com/spor...cle_a23f7b35-4a6e-5fed-bd46-d83de1611d3e.html

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

"Brown rejected separate legislation that bans naming parks, schools and other public property after Confederate leaders."

Good to see we can still celebrate traitors on tax-supported public property.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I have never felt strongly about the Redskin thing, but if we have to make a decision, this is the better decision - assuming we are talking about public schools.

 

[JRHawk2003]

"Brown rejected separate legislation that bans naming parks, schools and other public property after Confederate leaders."

Good to see we can still celebrate traitors on tax-supported public property.

I am surprised there are any in that state at all.

 

[KitingHigh]

"Brown rejected separate legislation that bans naming parks, schools and other public property after Confederate leaders."

Good to see we can still celebrate traitors on tax-supported public property.

You Iowans really are some bigots sometimes.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

"Brown rejected separate legislation that bans naming parks, schools and other public property after Confederate leaders."

Good to see we can still celebrate traitors on tax-supported public property.

You realize this whole country was built off the backs of "traitors", right?

 

[naturalmwa]

You Iowans really are some bigots sometimes.

Bigots against bigots beget no bigotry.

 

[HotelAlphaWilcoKilo]

You realize this whole country was built off the backs of "traitors", right?

Winning traitors.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Winning traitors.

It always helps to win.

History is always written by the winners.

 

[BelemNole]

"Brown rejected separate legislation that bans naming parks, schools and other public property after Confederate leaders."

Good to see we can still celebrate traitors on tax-supported public property.

Brown is an interesting dude who puts a lot of thought into these things. Native Americans are a big group here in CA and growing in influence now that they are flush with casino money. Allowing state funded schools to keep using a racial slur as a school mascot name is a bad idea. Allowing parks, etc to have a name tied to an historic figure from the confederacy is completely different animal. It's not like we've got big weird shrines to the confederacy like Stone Mountain out here in CA.
I heard on NPR this am that Brown vetos 17% of all bills that come out of the state. He'd really make an interesting presidential candidate for the dems.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

You realize this whole country was built off the backs of "traitors", right?

Not traitors if you win.

 

[TexMichFan]

Listed below are the number of schools with Indian theme mascots. This list ranges from elementary schools through college.

Apache - 2
Braves - 26
Chiefs - 11
Indians - 55
Warriors - 85
Redskins - 6
TOTAL - 184

 

[naturalmwa]

Listed below are the number of schools with Indian theme mascots. This list ranges from elementary schools through college.

Apache - 2
Braves - 26
Chiefs - 11
Indians - 55
Warriors - 85
Redskins - 6
TOTAL - 184

So there were 6 or 4 that use a racial slur for Native Americans? Or were two of the school's named for apples?

 

[TexMichFan]

So there were 6 or 4 that use a racial slur for Native Americans? Or were two of the school's named for apples?

Be interesting braves, chiefs , and warriors change. I wonder if you could keep the name if you changed the mascot to a tree.

 

[naturalmwa]

Be interesting braves, chiefs , and warriors change. I wonder if you could keep the name if you changed the mascot to a tree.

Why do you think that's interesting or even relevant? When did those terms become radial slurs? That's the whole issue with Redskins. It's inherently derogatory. It's like the word fag. I can try to own the word and reclaim it, but it's still derogatory if you use it. It can mean a cigaret, but when you assign it to a person, it has inherent derogatory meaning. Why do you insist we talk to you like a child and explain this simple concept every time the subject comes up. Learn your lesson. Advance your argument. Stop wasting our time with this tired dodge.

 

[TexMichFan]

Why do you think that's interesting or even relevant? When did those terms become radial slurs? That's the whole issue with Redskins. It's inherently derogatory. It's like the word fag. I can try to own the word and reclaim it, but it's still derogatory if you use it. It can mean a cigaret, but when you assign it to a person, it has inherent derogatory meaning. Why do you insist we talk to you like a child and explain this simple concept every time the subject comes up. Learn your lesson. Advance your argument. Stop wasting our time with this tired dodge.

Some of us are slow learners so you have to continue to explain things in simple terms.

 

[Todd Lickliter]

What a bizarre thing for a state government to spend its time on.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

This is California's decision as far as I'm concerned. It's not like they are going after private schools.

 

[KitingHigh]

Why do you think that's interesting or even relevant? When did those terms become radial slurs? That's the whole issue with Redskins. It's inherently derogatory. It's like the word fag. I can try to own the word and reclaim it, but it's still derogatory if you use it. It can mean a cigaret, but when you assign it to a person, it has inherent derogatory meaning. Why do you insist we talk to you like a child and explain this simple concept every time the subject comes up. Learn your lesson. Advance your argument. Stop wasting our time with this tired dodge.

Interesting. I would say you aren't really owning the word if only you can use it. Owning it would be more like Yankee or Coonass. Both of which were derogatory terms that damn Yankees and us Coonasses have taken ownership of and now don't get offended regardless of who says it. Same for redneck. You can say it and mean to offend, but a real redneck won't give a rats butt about it.

 

[naturalmwa]

Interesting. I would say you aren't really owning the word if only you can use it. Owning it would be more like Yankee or Coonass. Both of which were derogatory terms that damn Yankees and us Coonasses have taken ownership of and now don't get offended regardless of who says it. Same for redneck. You can say it and mean to offend, but a real redneck won't give a rats butt about it.

I didn't say I did own it. And that's why you can't use Redskin. Again with the obtuse arguments.

 

[Chuck C]

Not traitors if you win.

Never would have guessed you as a Might Eguals Right proponent.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Never would have guessed you as a Might Eguals Right proponent.

All these "liberals" are might makes right people, as long as they're getting their way.

 

[Todd Lickliter]

Isn't that socialism Ina nutshell? Disgerarding proper owners and producers of things and redistributing based on majority rule and need?

 

[iammrhawkeyes]

Why do you think that's interesting or even relevant? When did those terms become radial slurs? That's the whole issue with Redskins. It's inherently derogatory. It's like the word fag. I can try to own the word and reclaim it, but it's still derogatory if you use it. It can mean a cigaret, but when you assign it to a person, it has inherent derogatory meaning. Why do you insist we talk to you like a child and explain this simple concept every time the subject comes up. Learn your lesson. Advance your argument. Stop wasting our time with this tired dodge.

Not even close. The original use and meaning of Redskin wasn't inherently derogatory. The Indians called themselves Redskins before Paleface did. Did Fags refer to themselves as Fags first? This is like the Teabaggers calling themselves Teabaggers but getting pissed off at others calling them Teabaggers. I went to one of the high schools listed my 9th/10th grade years (Tulare Union). The mascot was this hot Portuguese chick in a "traditional" Indian mini-dress.

 

[naturalmwa]

Not even close. The original use and meaning of Redskin wasn't inherently derogatory. The Indians called themselves Redskins before Paleface did. Did Fags refer to themselves as Fags first? This is like the Teabaggers calling themselves Teabaggers but getting pissed off at others calling them Teabaggers. I went to one of the high schools listed my 9th/10th grade years (Tulare Union). The mascot was this hot Portuguese chick in a "traditional" Indian mini-dress.

Very close. When the team was named Redskins the term was defined as a slur.

 

[iammrhawkeyes]

Very close. When the team was named Redskins the term was defined as a slur.

Here's a good history of the word. I've posted this for you before. Learn it, know it, live it.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_...hington_football_team_s_name_incorrectly.html

 

[naturalmwa]

Here's a good history of the word. I've posted this for you before. Learn it, know it, live it.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_...hington_football_team_s_name_incorrectly.html

That supports my claim. By the time the NFL team was named the term was a slur. Chief or brave or warrior do not have that inherent definition.

 

[iammrhawkeyes]

That supports my claim. By the time the NFL team was named the term was a slur. Chief or brave or warrior do not have that inherent definition.

Nope. The inherent definition was given by Indians.

 

[naturalmwa]

Nope. The inherent definition was given by Indians.

No. If that were the standard fag would mean a bundle of sticks and the N word would be a color option for your car. Inherent is the essential characteristic of the word. The essential charictoristic of the word redskin has been a derogatory racial slur for over a century. Inherent does not mean the original definition.

 

[ping72]

I was more interested in the fact that you can no longer use chew in 1/6 of major league baseball stadiums.

 

[strummingram]

I didn't say I did own it. And that's why you can't use Redskin. Again with the obtuse arguments.

You just used it. Some of us knew you weren't using it as an insult. See how context works?

 

[strummingram]

No. If that were the standard fag would mean a bundle of sticks and the N word would be a color option for your car. Inherent is the essential characteristic of the word. The essential charictoristic of the word redskin has been a derogatory racial slur for over a century. Inherent does not mean the original definition.

If it doesn't bother you to SAY Fag, then it shouldn't bother you to HEAR Fag. It should bother you to call a person a fag with intent to insult them. It should also bother YOU (probably would bounce off of me) to be called a Fag with an intention to insult you. And, I'm sure if it were done in-person, you'd know.

These double standards are ruining you guys' arguments. But, have fun.

 

[strummingram]

That supports my claim. By the time the NFL team was named the term was a slur. Chief or brave or warrior do not have that inherent definition.

But they mean exactly the same thing in the context of referring to a football (sports) team. You weren't restricting your understanding when you were displaying the ability to discern context when the word queer was being used. Why are you always failing to find the same understanding with Redskin. My guess is you're doing it selectively, on purpose, so as to create a double standard... that means you lose.

 

[naturalmwa]

If it doesn't bother you to SAY Fag, then it shouldn't bother you to HEAR Fag. It should bother you to call a person a fag with intent to insult them. It should also bother YOU (probably would bounce off of me) to be called a Fag with an intention to insult you. And, I'm sure if it were done in-person, you'd know.

These double standards are ruining you guys' arguments. But, have fun.

Speaking of double standards I thought you didn't get to tell other people what should bother them?

 

[strummingram]

That supports my claim. By the time the NFL team was named the term was a slur. Chief or brave or warrior do not have that inherent definition.

You have proven, time and time again, that even slurs are not always slurs. Either stick with that reality, or get out of the debate. Changing the rules and creating double standards is cheating. Cheating is losing.

 

[strummingram]

Speaking of double standards I thought you didn't get to tell other people what should bother them?

Well, hey! If it doesn't bother you, then awesome. I was using your standard of assuming victimization. My bad. So, now, politely stop crying over these alleged slurs.

Hearing and saying the words isn't what's bothering anyone. What is bothering them is feeling the contempt from the user. The word is innocent.

 

[naturalmwa]

You have proven, time and time again, that even slurs are not always slurs. Either stick with that reality, or get out of the debate. Changing the rules and creating double standards is cheating. Cheating is losing.

There are different rules. Sorry you can't deal with context. Its your albatross.

 

[naturalmwa]

Well, hey! If it doesn't bother you, then awesome. I was using your standard of assuming victimization. My bad. So, now, politely stop crying over these alleged slurs.

Hearing and saying the words isn't what's bothering anyone. What is bothering them is feeling the contempt from the user. The word is innocent.

Nope, you continue to ignore context.

 

[strummingram]

Very close. When the team was named Redskins the term was defined as a slur.

But, it's not being used as a slur. That's why the Red Mesa High School uses the name Redskins. It's not being used as a slur. Just like queer is not always USED as a slur. Keep up.

 

[strummingram]

There are different rules. Sorry you can't deal with context. Its your albatross.

Yeah, that's why you lose this argument every time. You're creating double standards. That's not my albatross. You're resorting to tactics you claim to be against when it's not working in your favor. When are double standards a good thing and healthy for society?