Finally Someone is Challenging the Word "Redskins" [W:63]

[ecofarm]

Wait, really, you have no objection to the Braves? Isn't that celebrating the warlike aspect of a single "race" in the very same way? You really don't know much about american indian tribes do you?

It's assigning attributes to a job, not a skin color.



I'm tired of repeating these facts. Time for a new subject for me.

 

[ChrisL]

I was speaking to his decision. Do you think I was asking you to do something?

That's not up to you though is it? Why don't you buy the team and change the name yourself? Spend millions of dollars getting everything changed over to make some idiots feel good.

 

[ecofarm]

Lucky for us the name Redskins is a brand name and not a stereotype.

You forgot the eace

 

[ecofarm]

That's not up to you though is it? Why don't you buy the team and change the name yourself? Spend millions of dollars getting everything changed over to make some idiots feel good.

That's nonsense. Decisions beyond those of members are up for debate.

 

[ChrisL]

Read the thread.

I have and all I've read are nonsensical replies by you that do not address the question, and now here you are avoiding it again. It's because you cannot point out any negative consequences that were caused to society because of the name of this football team.

 

[Jack Hays]

You forgot the eace

That was deliberate.

 

[ecofarm]

That was deliberate.

I'm honored.


And a good day to this thread.

 

[ChrisL]

That's nonsense. Decisions beyond those of members are up for debate.

No it isn't. YOU cannot make any business change it's name without a lawsuit. Are you going to file one, and on what basis. What harm can you show and prove?

 

[Jack Hays]

I'm honored.


And a good day to this thread.

I've been wondering when you would recognize your defeat and withdraw.

 

[Zyphlin]

Yeah, but I think we should go further and start referring to other groups by the names made up for them by outsiders. As Bob Costas says, since the owner of the Washington team is a Jew, maybe we should ask him what nicknames he likes that have been made up by others to refer to his ethnic category. I'm sure we all know them. Lets ask Dan Snyder to pick one.

There's plenty of evidence that the term "Redskin" was not created by "outsiders" but rather by native american's themselves.

If you can find one of those nicknames of Jews where there's reason to believes Jews created the term and where it's happily utilized by predominantly Jewish schools as their moniker, then I'd be happy to compare two comparable instances. Otherwise, you're comparing things that aren't directly comparable.

But Bob Costas said so, thus it must be true :roll:

 

[ChrisL]

It's assigning attributes to a job, not a skin color.



I'm tired of repeating these facts. Time for a new subject for me.

That's because you have NO facts.

 

[polgara]

I haven't seen anybody defend the white cultural stereotypes that are brayed on here on a daily basis by the loons, nobody coming forward with an impassioned defense of assigning any stereotypes at all, nobody coming forward to explain the differences between members of the white race, some are warriors, some are bookworms, they're just all bad according to the Liberal members of this forum. Always have been, always will be, without redemption. Maybe assigning white stereotypes is not a "Harm to society?"

Next time, let's see some of this impassioned defense of whites rather than some sort of eliteist attempt to demonstrate oneness and misguided holiness by identifying with the Indians, most of whom don't care what people name their sports teams.

:agree: I wondered if anyone thought to ask any Native-American if "Washington Redskins" was offensive to them?

Greetings, Ray410. :2wave:

 

[clownboy]

It's assigning attributes to a job, not a skin color.



I'm tired of repeating these facts. Time for a new subject for me.

Nonsense, and your opinions (which are not facts) have been debunked. It wasn't a job, no other culture called their warriors "Braves", that's specifc to that "race".

 

[clownboy]

:agree: I wondered if anyone thought to ask any Native-American if "Washington Redskins" was offensive to them?

Greetings, Ray410. :2wave:

They did and it's not.

 

[polgara]

They did and it's not.

Why is ecofarm on this crusade, then? If the people supposedly being harmed don't care, why should it be such an important thing for him personally? Doesn't make sense!

Greetings, clownboy. :2wave:

 

[Jack Hays]

Why is ecofarm on this crusade, then? If the people supposedly being harmed don't care, why should it be such an important thing for him personally? Doesn't make sense!

Greetings, clownboy. :2wave:

My bet is that he's working out personal issues. Greetings, Polgara.:2wave:

 

[APACHERAT]

As a matter of history, the Native Americans defended themselves from outside aggression.

Before the white Europeans arrived in North America most Indian tribes were in constant warfare with neighboring tribes.

Even after the Europeans arrived in North America and introduced the horse, Indian tribes continued to wage war among each other. The Crow and Sioux were always at war with each other. The Mojave Indians on foot would travel hundreds of miles to wage war against the Maricopa and Pima.

The Comanche despised Mexicans and all indians who resided in what is Mexico today. The Comanche were warriors who raided other tribes for women and horses. The Mescalero, Chiricahua, Lipan and Jicarilla, Apaches were full time warriors.

There were many North American tribes who were known as warriors while other tribes who weren't known as being warriors like the Pima, Hopi and Yavapai.

The Mojave are incorrectly called the Apache Mojave even though the Mojave have nothing in common with the Apache. They were called the Apache Mojave because they were war like and always fighting other tribes like the Apache did.

Who conquered the Aztecs ? Not the Spaniards but the other tribes of Mexico who allied with the Spaniards.

And that the American Indian was part of the land, lived with mother nature and were stewards of the land is all PC revisionist history BS.
When an Indian wanted a nut from a tree, he cut down the tree to get to the nut.
Before the American plains Indians adopted those illegal alien horses from Europe, a buffalo hunt was setting fire to the land to force thousands of buffalo to stampede to their deaths over cliffs so the Indian could gather the hides and meat of a couple hundred buffalo leaving thousands to rot.

 

[radcen]

Am I the only one here who sees that he's playing y'all like a fiddle? He's inconsistent and all over the place to the point that I have long since concluded that he doesn't even believe what he's saying.

 

[Jack Hays]

Am I the only one here who sees that he's playing y'all like a fiddle? He's inconsistent and all over the place to the point that I have long since concluded that he doesn't even believe what he's saying.

I had fun frustrating him. He was amusing.

 

[VanceMack]

Before the white Europeans arrived in North America most Indian tribes were in constant warfare with neighboring tribes.

Even after the Europeans arrived in North America and introduced the horse, Indian tribes continued to wage war among each other. The Crow and Sioux were always at war with each other. The Mojave Indians on foot would travel hundreds of miles to wage war against the Maricopa and Pima.

The Comanche despised Mexicans and all indians who resided in what is Mexico today. The Comanche were warriors who raided other tribes for women and horses. The Mescalero, Chiricahua, Lipan and Jicarilla, Apaches were full time warriors.

There were many North American tribes who were known as warriors while other tribes who weren't known as being warriors like the Pima, Hopi and Yavapai.

The Mojave are incorrectly called the Apache Mojave even though the Mojave have nothing in common with the Apache. They were called the Apache Mojave because they were war like and always fighting other tribes like the Apache did.

Who conquered the Aztecs ? Not the Spaniards but the other tribes of Mexico who allied with the Spaniards.

And that the American Indian was part of the land, lived with mother nature and were stewards of the land is all PC revisionist history BS.
When an Indian wanted a nut from a tree, he cut down the tree to get to the nut.
Before the American plains Indians adopted those illegal alien horses from Europe, a buffalo hunt was setting fire to the land to force thousands of buffalo to stampede to their deaths over cliffs so the Indian could gather the hides and meat of a couple hundred buffalo leaving thousands to rot.

not that that's a bad thing...

 

[APACHERAT]

not that that's a bad thing...

Most North American (USA) Indians, the people as a whole are warriors just like Germanic people as a whole from northern Europe are known for being warriors.

Some ethnicities are just not warriors but make good soldiers.

Many European military historians consider the plains Sioux,and other northern plains tribes and even the Comanche as some of the best light calvary in history.

Just like the English, Dutch, Germans, Scandinavians and the Hawaiians always made good sailors.

America's "Declaration of Independence" refers to Indian as being "savages." Some tribes in the north/east did meet that definition, with the practice of rape, murder, cannibalism and torturing of captives.

Now I would find naming a NFL team the "Redskin Savages" as being offensive. Naming a team the "Redskin Warriors" would be a honor.

 

[VanceMack]

Most North American (USA) Indians, the people as a whole are warriors just like Germanic people as a whole from northern Europe are known for being warriors.

Some ethnicities are just not warriors but make good soldiers.

Many European military historians consider the plains Sioux,and other northern plains tribes and even the Comanche as some of the best light calvary in history.

Just like the English, Dutch, Germans, Scandinavians and the Hawaiians always made good sailors.

America's "Declaration of Independence" refers to Indian as being "savages." Some tribes in the north/east did meet that definition, with the practice of rape, murder, cannibalism and torturing of captives.

Now I would find naming a NFL team the "Redskin Savages" as being offensive. Naming a team the "Redskin Warriors" would be a honor.

as ABC reported, most Indians don't care and a significant number of them are just fine with the name. Indian schools are SO fine with the name they have adopted the name themselves. I dare say the only people upset with this are those Indians looking for a 'cause' and their 15 minutes of fame and the usually PC crowd. That we are even discussing this considering so many REAL and deadly problems facing Indians every day...well...that's just goofy.

 

[APACHERAT]

as ABC reported, most Indians don't care and a significant number of them are just fine with the name. Indian schools are SO fine with the name they have adopted the name themselves. I dare say the only people upset with this are those Indians looking for a 'cause' and their 15 minutes of fame and the usually PC crowd. That we are even discussing this considering so many REAL and deadly problems facing Indians every day...well...that's just goofy.

I concur.

I've lived on the Rez and those living on the rez have bigger problems to deal with than if some sports team is honoring their people, culture, customs and history.

 

[gslack]

The Iroquois were not defending themselves from European invaders?

LOL, the Iroquois controlled all of the ohio valley, the great lakes, what is now western New York, and into Canada, and all of this before whites were even in those areas.. I expected somebody so concerned about native american affairs to be at least somewhat familiar with this..

And they were not the first or even only tribe to control large sections of this country, pre-european colonies. They took and held the lands by the same means any other similarly developed people would and have in the past; by force or the threat of force. You seem to be under the false impression that all native americans got along before we came along...

 

[American]

Washington DC should be renamed because it's named after a racist, white, rich, slaveowner................right? Liberals should love that.