I have obviously been outdone, and I very much enjoyed it.
Once again, you missed the point. I never said there was anything right or wrong with their native american logo, an african american logo, or anything other logo. Had you read the article, you would have understood their perspective on why they are now changing the logo. Instead, your instinctive reaction was that "they caved...." The point I was making is, why do you have a strong opinion about how another company decides to run it's business? My initial question to you was, "...what other business decision or change has this company made in the history of its existence that bothers you as much as this does? The answer could have been a simple, "None"; or, you could have provided another instance when you were just a outspoken. Instead of providing another instance when you were just as outspoken, your response was that, "it really doesn't bother me."
Oh my goodness, Greg!!! No you did not just say that! Being referred to as a Chief is one thing. Being called Redskin is entirely something different. That's almost like saying a person should consider it a compliment being referred to as "Half-breed". Just because something may fit the description, doesn't mean it's appropriate to say publicly. LOL
See, we all can learn something new everyday. I did not know that. I thought "Chief" was okay, simply because the head of a native American tribe was always referred to by that name on television. As a child, I had always referred to native Americans as Indians, thinking it was okay. You quickly learn that not everything you hear or see on TV is appropriate and true.
