Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let me make it simple for you since you seem determined to miss the point and change the subject.
I did? Lets look and see. I'm going to break your ENTIRE post into sections...
You Said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Votre_Chef
And not everyone that flies or supports the flying of the Confederate flag is doing so to symbolize racism. But those people don't get to definitively define the meaning of the symbol. They don't get to say: "it's not racist, because it's not racist to me." That's all well and good, but it's racist to other people.
I replied:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoniDanko
So what if it's racist to other people. The other people need to get over it. And to your other comment, these small minority of Native Americans do not get to define to everyone else what the intent of a name is meant to be. If it does not symbolize racism to the majority of people, and regardless of this fact, a small minority of people still decide to become offended, then that's their problem. If I see someone flying the Confederate flag or any other symbolic symbol that offends me, I ignore it. It has absolutely no affect on my life. I do not obsess over it or beg and plead with the owner to take it down or remove it.
You Said Also Said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Votre_Chef
And what is the principle underlying this defense? Is it because they've always been called that? Were you upset when--
the Sonics were renamed the Thunder?
Browns renamed the Ravens?
Gems became the Lakers?
Nationals became the 76ers?
Staleys became the Bears?
Oilers became the Titans?
Jets became the Coyotes?
And then Thrashers became the Jets?
Expos became the Nationals?
When Darkie Toothpaste changed it's name to Darlie?
And so on?
I doubt it. There's certainly no principle of tradition that undergirds this defense. It looks a lot more like some people once again refusing to pass up an opportunity to rush to defend a symbol that's offensive to a minority group, because there's nothing they like better than giving the middle finger (a symbol that has a meaning I'm sure we can all agree on) to a minority group and then griping when they get called racists.
I replied:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoniDanko
I'm going to state the obvious for you. No I was not upset when any of those teams were renamed because a combination of the following: 1) I wasn't born yet and did not grow up knowing those teams by their former names 2) those aren't my teams that I support 3) they, as in the team owners, decided to make the change instead of allowing a bunch of thin skinned cry babies forcing them to do so. Now, if the NY Nicks, NY Giants, Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, Yankees, Redsox, and/or any other long standing current team decided to change there name, then the same resistance to a name change would be met. My defense is logical and factual. You had to resort to such desperate measure as to ask me to compare my feelings to name changes that happened decades ago. No I would obviously have no objection to those name changes TODAY because I've always known the teams by their CURRENT names Einstein.
You Said Also Said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Votre_Chef
If there's nothing racist about the symbol, then by all means, tell me if you actually think the NFL, MLB, NBA or NHL would allow a new expansion team to have that name (they wouldn't)? What do you think would happen if a major celebrity or politician referred to American Indians as "redskins" (all Hell would break loose)? If Obama had casually referred to American Indians as "redskins" in his SOTU speech last week, that's the only part of it we would've talked about. So don't give me this load that it's not racist symbol. You know that the symbol's offensive to American Indians, that's the entire reason why you're defending it.
I replied:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoniDanko
You all bypass all common sense, logic, and rational just so that you can come to a conclusion that someone who disagrees with you is racist. You all are pathetic, sick, and need help. No one gives a damn about Native Americans enough to waste the effort to hate them. They're only barely 1% of the US population, and many in that 1% are of mixed race. Yet all you thin skinned paranoid race baiters want everyone else to believe that this is some big plot to be racist against these people.
You all completely ignore that a majority of Native Americans that were asked said they did not care and weren't offended. Why aren't you accusing them of being racist? What about the Blacks and all the other races who, just like most Native Americans, think the Redskins should keep the name? Why aren't all of them racist? What about all the Liberals who support the name? Why aren't you all mentioning them? Oh I get it, when they do it, it's just a nonracial opinion, but when a White person has the same exact opinion for the same exact reason, you all refuse to pass up an opportunity to rush to judgment that all White people are racist. 90% of Native Americans polled said they weren't offended. 79% of the people living in the Liberal DC area that were polled said they support keeping the name. Nationally, only 28% are in favor of a name change. In a national poll, even a majority (59%) of race baiting Liberal Democrats say they support the name. But this all has to do with White Republican racism??? Give me a f'n break...
Now the best you can do is accuse me of changing a subject? You conveniently ignored everything in my post because YOU know I'm right. All you can do is keep repeating the same exact crap. The name Redskins is copyrighted. The most popular and most watched sport in the U.S. allows the same. Most Native Americans and other Americans of all races and political affiliations do not mind the name. The test of whether it was offensive has already been done when 90% of Native Americans said you are wrong. Just because YOUR thin skinned, whiny, and offended behind makes an assertion that I'm wrong does not change the fact that 90% of your own people disagree with you. I suggest you get over it. If you do not like the name they choose, then don't watch football. It's just that simple.
Here's an ad about R--skins that its makers don't have the money to show during Sunday's Superbowl
That wonderful video, "Proud to Be," was released by the National Congress of American Indians just in time for the Super Bowl in its effort to eliminate the offensive R--skins from the national vocabulary and let people know that we Indians are not mascots.
Now the best you can do is accuse me of changing a subject?
Now I think you're just avoiding it.
You conveniently ignored everything in my post because YOU know I'm right.
I don't think you've said anything right.
All you can do is keep repeating the same exact crap. The name Redskins is copyrighted.
See, that's avoiding it. I'm aware the name is copyrighted, I asked you a question twice now and you haven't answered it. Did I have to say: "let's say the Washington Redskins didn't exist.." first? Really? Did you really not understand the question?
The most popular and most watched sport in the U.S. allows the same. Most Native Americans and other Americans of all races and political affiliations do not mind the name. The test of whether it was offensive has already been done when 90% of Native Americans said you are wrong.
That sounds spurious. And the questionable poll is 10 years old.
Just because YOUR thin skinned, whiny, and offended behind makes an assertion that I'm wrong does not change the fact that 90% of your own people disagree with you. I suggest you get over it. If you do not like the name they choose, then don't watch football. It's just that simple.
Weak, weak, weak. Deferring to questionable popularity polls now are we?
Let's look at the name one more time, the one you think isn't racist.
It was chosen by owner Preston Marshall, who had to be forced by the US government to allow black players onto his team in 1962 (16 years after Jackie Robinson, they were the last NFL team to integrate, and only did so when forced) and in his will establishing the Redskins Foundation, he forbid the foundation from supporting racial integration in any form.
Now let's try it one more time. Let's see if you get the bat off your shoulder this time, champ.
Let's say there were no Washington Redskins (didn't think including that was necessary, but either the context eluded you or you wish to be obtuse), do you think the MLB, NHL, NBA, or NFL would allow a new team to use that name in 2014?
If you say "yes," I can only respond with derisive laughter. You know the name is offensive.
If a major celebrity or politician, like the President, referred to American Indians as "redskins," what do you think would happen?
If you say "nothing," again, derisive laughter.
I have twice asked you these questions. You have twice ignored them. Your avoidance is becoming rather suspicious.
An Indian can call a Caucasian person white, but we can't call Native Americans red? We call blacks black, they call us white. So what's the problem? Its a color. I don't see why this angers some Native Americans. It is not meant to be an insult.
It's the same as calling someone with downs syndrome a Mongoloid or retard or an African American a nijjer or a Mexican a sp!c. Redskin is an offensive term. We are letting you know, if you didn't already. If we tell you this is offensive then that should be enough.
You're obviously not an NDN. Calling a Washington, DC football team the 'Redskins" is no different than calling the Oakland football team the Oakland N!jjers or the New England team the New England Honkies or the Dallas team the Dallas TeaBaggers. How About the Pittsburgh Pollacks? Maybe the San Francisco Dagos?
Does the Miami "White Devils" have a nice ring to your ears?
Let''s stop right here for just a small common sense check.
First, to disparage or insult someone with a slur, unflattering nickname, or offensive association, the remark, the term, the name, or the word would have to be DIRECTED AT THEM., and with intent to insult them either directly or indirectly.
Now, if I called you a whiny dumb arse, you'd have every right to be insulted. But if I said I am a dumb arse, how on earth could you possibly be offended, when the remark was directed at myself, not you?
In order for your "outrage" to have any legitimacy whatsoever, you first need to convince someone that a Billion Dollar organization would choose to name THEMSELVES a disparaging or unflattering name. This of course is antithetical to any form of common sense, and miserably fails out of the gate.
Next, you'd have to be ignorant of, or ignore the historical context in which the term "Redskin" was born. It was not the creation of white men as an unflattering label placed on Idians ... no ... it was a term used AMONG Indians when distinguishing themselves from white skins ... i. e., "Running Bear ... the bandits that stole our horses .. were the white men?". No, Chief, they were Redskins".
The unsavory and genocidal whites brutalizing Indians had other terms they used as labels for Indians ... like "savages" and "heathens" and "animals" ..... not Redskins. Redskin was never a slur or insult, until modern times among those who insist upon being insulted by everything, and take this desire to such an extreme as to reject the sincere promise that no insult is intended.
Furthermore, words themselves can and often do have multiple meanings, depending on the context to which the words are used ... for example:
1) Animal ... when used to describe a dog or other creature, the term animal is commonly used. There is not so much of a hint of offensiveness in this context.
2) When referring to a person who just racked up 2 homers and a double, with 5 RBIs in a baseball game. "You are an animal!" Would be intended as a compliment. It would be highly ignorant of the person to assume he'd just been insulted .... actually, braindead stupid, to be; precise.
3) If, on the other hand, a person that had committed a violent or vile act was called an "animal", then we can assume the term was used as a derogatory label. See the difference?
Words themselves carry no inherent offense of their own, other than what people assign to them, and the context in which they are used. In response to a really smart action or demonstration of intelligence, being called a genius is high praise ... yet, in response to tripping over your own feet, or knocking over a glass of wine, spilling it's contents all over that fine white tablecloth, being called a "genius" would not be high praise.
So, the smart thing to do is present yourself as intelligent AND mature, by accepting the promise that the Washington Redskins mean no insult to Indians ... and that you understand the simple logic supporting that promise which rejects the idea that the team would insult themselves by adpoting an insulting name for themselves.
And if that's too much to ask ... at least igore the name, rather than going on about it endlessly like a 5 year old wanting mommy to punish your little sister for calling you "stupid head". There is no place for this type of childishness from grown adults, and only diverts attention away from more meaningful and important matters us grown ups should be discussing.
Let''s stop right here for just a small common sense check.
First, to disparage or insult someone with a slur, unflattering nickname, or offensive association, the remark, the term, the name, or the word would have to be DIRECTED AT THEM., and with intent to insult them either directly or indirectly.
Now, if I called you a whiny dumb arse, you'd have every right to be insulted. But if I said I am a dumb arse, how on earth could you possibly be offended, when the remark was directed at myself, not you?
In order for your "outrage" to have any legitimacy whatsoever, you first need to convince someone that a Billion Dollar organization would choose to name THEMSELVES a disparaging or unflattering name. This of course is antithetical to any form of common sense, and miserably fails out of the gate.
Next, you'd have to be ignorant of, or ignore the historical context in which the term "Redskin" was born. It was not the creation of white men as an unflattering label placed on Idians ... no ... it was a term used AMONG Indians when distinguishing themselves from white skins ... i. e., "Running Bear ... the bandits that stole our horses .. were the white men?". No, Chief, they were Redskins".
The unsavory and genocidal whites brutalizing Indians had other terms they used as labels for Indians ... like "savages" and "heathens" and "animals" ..... not Redskins. Redskin was never a slur or insult, until modern times among those who insist upon being insulted by everything, and take this desire to such an extreme as to reject the sincere promise that no insult is intended.
Furthermore, words themselves can and often do have multiple meanings, depending on the context to which the words are used ... for example:
1) Animal ... when used to describe a dog or other creature, the term animal is commonly used. There is not so much of a hint of offensiveness in this context.
2) When referring to a person who just racked up 2 homers and a double, with 5 RBIs in a baseball game. "You are an animal!" Would be intended as a compliment. It would be highly ignorant of the person to assume he'd just been insulted .... actually, braindead stupid, to be; precise.
3) If, on the other hand, a person that had committed a violent or vile act was called an "animal", then we can assume the term was used as a derogatory label. See the difference?
Words themselves carry no inherent offense of their own, other than what people assign to them, and the context in which they are used. In response to a really smart action or demonstration of intelligence, being called a genius is high praise ... yet, in response to tripping over your own feet, or knocking over a glass of wine, spilling it's contents all over that fine white tablecloth, being called a "genius" would not be high praise.
So, the smart thing to do is present yourself as intelligent AND mature, by accepting the promise that the Washington Redskins mean no insult to Indians ... and that you understand the simple logic supporting that promise which rejects the idea that the team would insult themselves by adpoting an insulting name for themselves.
And if that's too much to ask ... at least igore the name, rather than going on about it endlessly like a 5 year old wanting mommy to punish your little sister for calling you "stupid head". There is no place for this type of childishness from grown adults, and only diverts attention away from more meaningful and important matters us grown ups should be discussing.
Is your soapbox screed against me in particular or against all the tribes who put together the informative video in the OP?
as Kerby W-R so appropriately put it.........
"It's the same as calling someone with downs syndrome a Mongoloid or retard or an African American a nijjer or a Mexican a sp!c. Redskin is an offensive term. We are letting you know, if you didn't already. If we tell you this is offensive then that should be enough."
I stand by this statement in response to your post.
It's the same as calling someone with downs syndrome a Mongoloid or retard or an African American a nijjer or a Mexican a sp!c. Redskin is an offensive term. We are letting you know, if you didn't already. If we tell you this is offensive then that should be enough.
Well said
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
