I appreciate the extremely detailed reply
no problem
and I acknowledge your points, and if I were so inclined I could argue them point by point.
I'm sure you could. But not all arguments are created equally. I know we'll differ on the legitimation of the self-reference as some sort of justifiable cause - and that's fine. I don't see any substantial explanation for it, but it's your opinion and you're entitled to it.
That's why I foreground my point with the notes about Goddard that didn't make it into your response but are, I feel, pretty relevant to the discussion. And if you're going to cite something as support, then presenting it fairly and more completely - i.e. more than just a secondary source that has its own thesis to pursue - is better.
If you want to cite Goddard, then link to Goddard and include his points. After all, you seemed like you wanted to present it in a sort of "decide for yourself" sort of way. That's hard to do when it's presented pretty one-sidedly. Present it all - it's possible to still fall on your side of the argument, but it should at least be presented more even-handedly, imo.
But as I said in the message above, I feel this is a waste of not only my time,
That's fine. I just understood 7 posts within a day or so, totaling nearly 2000 words and a handful of links (which I'm presuming you took time to read) suggested to me that it was more than just a waste of your time.
but certainly the time of our nation when it appears that the Native Americans themselves for the the most part are not offended,
Are you basing this on the SI study? If so, you should know that there were inherent methodological problems with the quantitative elicitation of that data which compounds the problems of the conclusions drawn.
So until there comes a time when the Native Americans can organize a movement that is represented by actual Native Americans and not liberal activists
but see, this is part of the problem - for years, marginalization of such groups/communities has made it so that autonomic agency is somewhat problematic. Without getting into the liberal/conservative end of things, I'll just say that our national history is full of instances where small, oppressed, marginalized groups have primarily found or effected change through the intercession of a dominant group. I mean, you could look at things as broadly as Civil Rights or suffrage. Or, you could look at things as specific or relatively small as things in my fields. The support and education of students with disabilities or mental health issues that can inhibit learning. Or the plight of incarcerated youth across the country.
If it seemed that Native Americans were wholly and completely disinterested, then you might be approaching a point. I'm still not sure you'd get there because this is about following a reasonable law in a way that's consistent with previous decisions - and it appears to be.
who feel the need to right the wrongs of the world one trivial issue at a time,
This might be trivial to you. But there are lots of people that it is not trivial to. Among the groups I work with up here have included native populations - because the representation of indigenous youth in the penal system up here is far out of line with general population. There are a lot of reasons for this, but I can say that there are natives who do not see this as trivial. They don't like the word. They don't use the word. And they really, really do not think it's a word that should be condoned or used by the outside majority as an acceptable reference.
Now, is this name of an NFL team going to impact all sorts of problems with the treatment of them? Or the problems they wrestle with internally?
Of course not. I haven't seen a single person advocate that. And I think it would be pollyannishly naive to think it would. But I will say that a symbolic gesture of rejection for something like this sends a signal from the eurocentric majority decision makers (in the US and Canada) that these sorts of things are not tolerated and that society rejects language considered derogatory and racial.
What comes from that is increasing trust. There's a lot of mistrust up here of white people in some of the native areas. Some of the law enforcement have a really tough time and it's taken a lot of time and trust and care to find inroads.
You know what makes that tougher? Institutionalized racial slurs that are accepted.
So nobody believes it's the only step, a one-stop panacea for writing all the wrongs. But it is a step.
ANd while I think it's foolish for someone to overstate the impact it would have, I think it's also foolish to understate - dismiss it as "trivial" or act like it would have no meaning whatsoever.
The truth is, its impact would probably fall somewhere between those two poles.
What Caucasians think is irrelevant
I think it's absolutely relevant. Just like what every other person - no matter their ethnicity - think. It's especially important for the normative majority to be conscious of the way they think and talk and what that might signify to minority groups if we truly believe in things like tolerance and acceptance and plurality.
Like I referenced above, there are lots of historical issues - great and small - that were changed for the better because people outside of the most affected group were involved and interested.
I actually think that's a very key ingredient as to why our country works and it's one of the things I am most proud of in being American (risking the cliche, I know)
Through work, I've had the opportunity and privilege to work with and learn from some of very marginalized and vulnerable groups and in order for improvements to be made in these areas, and those experiences have only cemented, for me, the reality that needed change only happens when there is mobilization by groups that have more power and influence than the marginalized groups.
The changes in youth penal institutions aren't carried out by the kids themselves. Rather, it's the staff, administration, local, and state governments that make the change - and these groups aren't made up of lower class kids. Most of them are middle-upper class men.
anyway, I'm sure I've bored everyone enough by now...
:
I can live with that...