Hacker News Reader

Comment by iterationx | Hacker News Reader

For some reason, liberals like to be offended on behalf of other groups.

I see you've removed all agency from the 'other groups'. Kudos.

Maybe, but I've just seen a whole reservation take a vote on a name and be ignored by the NCAA. If you can honestly tell me that this came from the tribes and was voted on by their people, I'll believe it is an actual movement. Otherwise, its just more of the loud offended that don't really give a damn about.

You might want to look at this brief (and, in particular, see who the amici offering it are) in support of the plaintiffs' position in the preceding case raising the same issues (the present case is a rehash of that case, organized by the same group, with younger named plaintiffs to avoid the laches defense that ended up being a problem for the earlier case):

http://www.ncai.org/attachments/LegalBriefing_TByaxkdqYwYRDo...

Note that the first two listed are:

Amicus National Congress of American Indians ("NCAI") was established in 1944 and is the oldest and largest national intertribal organization; it represents over 250 tribes, nations, pueblos, and Alaska Native villages with a combined enrollment of over 1.2 million.

Amici Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, Comanche Nation of Oklahoma, Oneida Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, and Seminole Nation of Oklahoma are federally recognized Indian tribes that have adopted resolutions condemning the use of Indian names and mascots by sports teams.

Um, it did come from a Native American group. Not that your opinion on whether or not something is an "actual movement" matters to anyone but yourself...

You didn't actually read the document with the named-non-group plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs are individual persons because of the standing issues related to disparagement claims), and ones just past the age of legal adulthood specifically to negate the laches defense raised in the immediately previous case on the same issue (the Harjo case, whose procedural history is discussed at length in the decision, and whose trial record was adopted wholesale in this case by mutual consent of the parties, because the substantive issues in this case are a subset of those in the Harjo case.

So, while its nice that you read the named plaintiffs, it would probably help if you read the document beyond the names of the parties to get a clear understanding of what is actually going on.

I'm pretty well aware of what's going on, hard not to be where I'm standing. I didn't see the support I would want to see, but I wouldn't expect it given earlier actions.

No, the pearl-clutchers have pretty much got that covered.

Interesting that you characterize basic human decency as an overreaction.

haha! best comment I have read this morning. :)

If they want to be offended maybe they should look at the crappy government health care (search: don't get sick after june), or the federal prosecutor who won't prosecute non-indians who steal on the reservation (even if the rez has video), look at the high unemployment rate after shutting down the defense contractor, or maybe take crimes against children with some seriousness. Being offended by names is way the heck down on the list.

Oh, excuse me, all of those are failures of government and we cannot acknowledge that.

The organized groups that have been involved in protest against disparaging use of Native American slurs or images by sports teams are often also (and often far more) concerned about other failures of government related to treatment of Native Americans (of course, government granted monopolies like registered trademarks are as much actions of government as prosecutorial decisions, so its inconsistent to label only the latter as a failure of government.)

I mean, one of the organized groups that started protesting and lobbying against these sports uses the earliest was AIM [1], who, whatever else one might say, certainly cannot fairly be described as not interested in addressing "failures of government" affecting Native Americans.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Movement

AIM isn't behind this and I'm not sure AIM is even a going concern these days after everything that the FBI did to them. It would be hard to actually live on a reservation and not know about AIM or its history.

> AIM isn't behind this

AIM's history of involvement on this issue was among the pieces of evidence cited in the decision supporting the conclusion of fact that the marks at issue were disparaging to a substantial composite of Native Americans at the time registered.

> I'm not sure AIM is even a going concern these days after everything that the FBI did to them.

There clearly less active now than in the past, e.g., their most recent press release on their website is October 22, 2013 -- concerning the very issue here, interestingly enough.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com