Native Americans not Offended by "Redskins"

[Grand Mal]

I don't minimize anything. The conquest of North America was a fearsomely violent three century war, bloody and cruel. That makes the establishment of the US just like the establishment of almost every other country on Earth. No country anywhere is today governed by its original inhabitants. Thus, there's nothing to justify. You might as well try to "justify" grass growing or rain falling. I don't minimize the violence, I just don't find it remarkable.

The conquest of the US was a fearsomely violent war. Want a little light reading? Look up Sitting Bull in Canada. He spent a few years here but I don't have a link at hand.

 

[Grand Mal]

It must have been an ancient Greek, or maybe a Roman emperor who said: "He who controls history, controls the future."

Which Nazi was it, Rosenberg I think, who wrote, "The Myth of the 20th Century"? About how racial superiority must be maintained, whatever the cost in lives or truth.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Oh God this is embarrassing to the know it it all got to tell us what is best for us and we had better listen lefties. And the only way out is to diminish the indians, claiming one way or nother that they are too stupid to know what is good for them, and that reason you can bet your inheritance on is that the indians are victims of white men so now they are stupid. White men are the cause of everything that is wrong or that we imagine with our very active imaginations is wrong don't ya know.....

Seriously.

THis white man takes a pass on the overtly political plays on my imaginary guilt, laid out in a nice big 1960's trippy trip.

 

[Jack Hays]

The conquest of the US was a fearsomely violent war. Want a little light reading? Look up Sitting Bull in Canada. He spent a few years here but I don't have a link at hand.

He went to Canada after Little Big Horn but came back after a few years because his band was starving.

 

[Jack Hays]

The conquest of the US was a fearsomely violent war. Want a little light reading? Look up Sitting Bull in Canada. He spent a few years here but I don't have a link at hand.

Doesn't sound like it was all rainbows and unicorns in Canada either.

Hidden from History: The Canadian Holocaust - Chronology of Events

 

[Grand Mal]

Doesn't sound like it was all rainbows and unicorns in Canada either.

Hidden from History: The Canadian Holocaust - Chronology of Events

yeah, right. Residential schools and tuberculosis. That offsets nthe American experience.
Done here, said what I have to say.

 

[Jack Hays]

yeah, right. Residential schools and tuberculosis. That offsets nthe American experience.
Done here, said what I have to say.

It's not a competition.

 

[Jack Hays]

Your national myth has no room for anything so disgraceful so you find ways to minimize it and justify it, even deny it happened at all, but there's almost no Natives left in your country so, no matter.

Aboriginal population in Canada was approximately 1.4M per the 2011 census. Latest figure for Native Americans in the U.S. is 5.4M. Just sayin' . . .

 

[Fearandloathing]

Greetings, F & L. :2wave:

I have bought "dream-catchers" made by Indian tribes, as well as some turquoise jewelry - which is beautiful - but that's it as far as souvenirs of native art goes when I have traveled to their area of our country. :thumbs:

That was an inside joke about the native art of this region. In fact it is very beautiful, but to most eyes it all looks alike with the same red and black colors.

 

[ThoughtEx.]

The historic Euro response would have been to enslave or exterminate the natives on the spot. The Trail of Tears, brutal as it was, represented an advance over that paradigm. Sort of a half way house on the way to the later reservation system.

They did try to enslave on the spot, Natives made terrible slaves. So Christopher Colombus junior, figured it was more profitable to bring slaves from Africa to the New world. And they did try to exterminate tribes on the spot... Calvaries would charge villages and slaughter them whole, children and all. I get it, it's hard to come to terms with the the fact our free land was built on crimes on par with Nazi germany (they at least put Jewish prisoners on trains to relocate and re educate them). But what I don't get is your sense of justification, you say they 'lost' the war. The war for their land, their cultural, and their future. It was an unprovoked war, amd a war against a race of people, not a unified nation. So go ahead say we don't know our historry, and justify whatever you like. Just know your justifying the same tactics Hitler used. In fact I think he did get the idea from us.

 

[eohrnberger]

Well now. This may change the course of public discussion.

Poll finds 9 in 10 Native Americans not offended by Redskins’ name
The new Washington Post survey indicates few American Indians support forcing the NFL team to change its moniker.

• By John Woodrow Cox, Scott Clement and Theresa Vargas

• In their own words: Native Americans' opinions

Nine in 10 Native Americans say they are not offended by the Washington Redskins name, according to a new Washington Post poll that shows how few ordinary Indians have been persuaded by a national movement to change the football team’s moniker.
The survey of 504 people across every state and the District reveals that the minds of Native Americans have remained unchanged since a 2004 poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found the exact same result. Responses to The Post’s questions about the issue were broadly consistent regardless of age, income, education, political party or proximity to reservations.
[12 Native Americans talk about the furor over the Redskins name]
Among the Native Americans reached over a five-month period ending in April, more than 7 in 10 said they did not feel the word “Redskin” was disrespectful to Indians. An even higher number — 8 in 10 — said they would not be offended if a non-native called them that name. . . .

Oh my! The left denied, yet again, a cause dujour of theirs. :lamo

It shows quite plainly that they don't have a ****ing clue what hell they are talking about, and anything they say should be viewed with that level of suspicion and skepticism.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Oh my! The left denied, yet again, a cause dujour of theirs. :lamo

It shows quite plainly that they don't have a ****ing clue what hell they are talking about, and anything they say should be viewed with that level of suspicion and skepticism.

It is a sad day when the self appointed victim minders cant control the alleged victims.

 

[Jack Hays]

They did try to enslave on the spot, Natives made terrible slaves. So Christopher Colombus junior, figured it was more profitable to bring slaves from Africa to the New world. And they did try to exterminate tribes on the spot... Calvaries would charge villages and slaughter them whole, children and all. I get it, it's hard to come to terms with the the fact our free land was built on crimes on par with Nazi germany (they at least put Jewish prisoners on trains to relocate and re educate them). But what I don't get is your sense of justification, you say they 'lost' the war. The war for their land, their cultural, and their future. It was an unprovoked war, amd a war against a race of people, not a unified nation. So go ahead say we don't know our historry, and justify whatever you like. Just know your justifying the same tactics Hitler used. In fact I think he did get the idea from us.

You seem to have missed the point entirely. First, let's dispense with illusions. Our country, like almost all countries, was built on blood and conquest. No country in the world today is governed by the original inhabitants of its territory. They were defeated and expropriated long ago, many times over in some cases. Thus, I make no excuses for the way the US came about; no excuse is needed.

Now, in that context, the fact that treaties were offered at all (even though routinely broken) was an advance in humanity. The fact that reservations were set aside at all (even though often in terrible conditions) was an advance in humanity.

Your Hitler comparison does not merit reply, and is a Godwin violation in any case.

 

[Tigerace117]

They did try to enslave on the spot, Natives made terrible slaves. So Christopher Colombus junior, figured it was more profitable to bring slaves from Africa to the New world. And they did try to exterminate tribes on the spot... Calvaries would charge villages and slaughter them whole, children and all. I get it, it's hard to come to terms with the the fact our free land was built on crimes on par with Nazi germany (they at least put Jewish prisoners on trains to relocate and re educate them). But what I don't get is your sense of justification, you say they 'lost' the war. The war for their land, their cultural, and their future. It was an unprovoked war, amd a war against a race of people, not a unified nation. So go ahead say we don't know our historry, and justify whatever you like. Just know your justifying the same tactics Hitler used. In fact I think he did get the idea from us.

Not at all comparible. For one thing, the Jews never did anything to the Germans, where as there was a more or less steady stream of bush wars between the Settlers and the Native Americans, with both sides committing massacres.

The Native Americans had been fighting it out with each other for hundreds of years before any Europeans showed up. They certainly weren't living together in harmony before we showed up. Tribes were all too eager to help the Euros attack their ancestorial enemies.

It was a brutal war, but it certainly didn't lead to the Nazis. Both sides committed massacres.

 

[ThoughtEx.]

You seem to have missed the point entirely. First, let's dispense with illusions. Our country, like almost all countries, was built on blood and conquest. No country in the world today is governed by the original inhabitants of its territory. They were defeated and expropriated long ago, many times over in some cases. Thus, I make no excuses for the way the US came about; no excuse is needed.

Now, in that context, the fact that treaties were offered at all (even though routinely broken) was an advance in humanity. The fact that reservations were set aside at all (even though often in terrible conditions) was an advance in humanity.

Your Hitler comparison does not merit reply, and is a Godwin violation in any case.

Oh i missed no points, i just thinks yours is ridiculus... And none of your arguments really has anything to do with Sports, but rather why Natives should be grateful we only partly destroyed them. Please find your nearest Reservation, find a soapbox and make your feelings known. If you survive, maybe then your feelings on whether a violent act should be commited justified or not may be valid.

 

[Jack Hays]

Oh i missed no points, i just thinks yours is ridiculus... And none of your arguments really has anything to do with Sports, but rather why Natives should be grateful we only partly destroyed them. Please find your nearest Reservation, find a soapbox and make your feelings known. If you survive, maybe then your feelings on whether a violent act should be commited justified or not may be valid.

You may thank Grand Mal for introducing this non-sports tangent. History is history, no matter how much you wish it weren't so. As for opinions on the reservations, the survey that started this thread suggests you may have a less accurate understanding than you believe.

 

[ThoughtEx.]

Not at all comparible. For one thing, the Jews never did anything to the Germans, where as there was a more or less steady stream of bush wars between the Settlers and the Native Americans, with both sides committing massacres.

The Native Americans had been fighting it out with each other for hundreds of years before any Europeans showed up. They certainly weren't living together in harmony before we showed up. Tribes were all too eager to help the Euros attack their ancestorial enemies.

It was a brutal war, but it certainly didn't lead to the Nazis. Both sides committed massacres.

Ok, I will cross an ocean and find your house. Move in, start taking all your things, civilize you. And when you fight back and i beat you, then for fun rape your family, before kicking you out to the shed. At what point would you say, you yourself was an instagator? The difference is Hitler did it fast. Because he didn't want to fight. Thats the whole principle of Blitzkrieg. I am done talking in this thread. Good Day.

 

[Jack Hays]

Ok, I will cross an ocean and find your house. Move in, start taking all your things, civilize you. And when you fight back and i beat you, then for fun rape your family, before kicking you out to the shed. At what point would you say, you yourself was an instagator? The difference is Hitler did it fast. Because he didn't want to fight. Thats the whole principle of Blitzkrieg. I am done talking in this thread. Good Day.

Second Godwin violation, followed by retreat. Poor show.

 

[ThoughtEx.]

You may thank Grand Mal for introducing this non-sports tangent. History is history, no matter how much you wish it weren't so. As for opinions on the reservations, the survey that started this thread suggests you may have a less accurate understanding than you believe.

Really, my stance was they don't really care about the term Redskin. I'm telling you to go say your personal non sports related beliefs on a soap box and then refer back to us with the results. And I already have an opinion on the strength of your sources. Its not a good one, so forgive me if I am skeptical of your accepted version of history.

 

[Jack Hays]

Really, my stance was they don't really care about the term Redskin. I'm telling you to go say your personal non sports related beliefs on a soap box and then refer back to us with the results. And I already have an opinion on the strength of your sources. Its not a good one, so forgive me if I am skeptical of your accepted version of history.

Since I have not cited sources I doubt you can have any basis for an opinion.

 

[ThoughtEx.]

Second Godwin violation, followed by retreat. Poor show.

Wow, you sure showed me. I made the comparison of one genocide to another in a genocide related discussion. How smart you are...

 

[ThoughtEx.]

Since I have not cited sources I doubt you can have any basis for an opinion.

Of course you haven't cited any, because then you'd expose your factual history to scrutiny...

I was referring to other posts where youd did cite sources, ones i checked out and found wanting. I thus inferred your judgement on a source non optimal, then inferred when you say "History is History" your full of ****.

 

[Jack Hays]

Wow, you sure showed me. I made the comparison of one genocide to another in a genocide related discussion. How smart you are...

Unworthy of reply.

 

[Jack Hays]

Of course you haven't cited any, because then you'd expose your factual history to scrutiny...

I was referring to other posts where youd did cite sources, ones i checked out and found wanting. I thus inferred your judgement on a source non optimal, then inferred when you say "History is History" your full of ****.

Really? What sources did you find wanting?

 

[ThoughtEx.]

Really? What sources did you find wanting?

Why repeat this argument? I provided ample sources of my own in that thread to discredit yours. Your only response in that thread was to ignore them and then provide excuse as to why your opinion is more valid. Unless you have something constructive to discuss I am done, not because i cant find argument against you. But because there is no point, you will ignore it and spout some more nonsense.