Rocky Landing Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 So not supporting the name change means I think I'm better than Native Americans? Interesting leap. I can show you pictures of people with green beer and shamrocks on St Patrick's day. That's the exact same thing as dressing up as a cartoon Indian (except for the red face paint). I feel entitled to post this because I'm 1/32 Irish.http://o.onionstatic.com/images/7/7372/original/700.jpg?3640 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 1) What??? 2) Did you even read my response? 3) Does not apply to the conversation AND YOU KNOW IT. 4) I would call someone a brown person BEFORE I CALLED THEM COLORED!!! 1) Let me elaborate. You completely ignore the origin of the Redskins name. (Named after a Boston Redskins coach that was thought to be Indian). You know the team that played in the same park as the Boston Red Sox. But those things aren't relevant, it's racist! 2) Is led into by the fact that if you ignore the true origin of the Redskins name, you have to ignore the true origin of the Browns name. 3) It absolutely does. 4) Now I am racist . Sheesh. Like I said, the argument is absurd, just like the Redskins argument. If you don't like the name, don't watch or follow the team. You do not have the right to not be offended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 I feel entitled to post this because I'm 1/32 Irish. http://o.onionstatic...al/700.jpg?3640 Is that you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 Is that you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LB3 Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/05/27/nfl-players-urged-by-civil-rights-groups-to-oppose-washington-teams-name/ “Despite team officials claiming the name ‘honors’ Native Americans, the ‘R-word’ does exactly the opposite,” the letter states. “It was the word screamed at Native Americans as they were dragged at gunpoint off their lands, it is the word for the object needed to collect a bounty—literally ‘red skins’—ripped from dead Native American bodies and exchanged for money as proof of kill, and it is a term that still denigrates Native Americans today. The name does not honor people of color, instead it seeks to conceal a horrible segment of American history and the countless atrocities suffered by Native Americans.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 http://profootballta...ton-teams-name/ "Despite team officials claiming the name 'honors' Native Americans, the 'R-word' does exactly the opposite," the letter states. "It was the word screamed at Native Americans as they were dragged at gunpoint off their lands, it is the word for the object needed to collect a bounty—literally 'red skins'—ripped from dead Native American bodies and exchanged for money as proof of kill, and it is a term that still denigrates Native Americans today. The name does not honor people of color, instead it seeks to conceal a horrible segment of American history and the countless atrocities suffered by Native Americans." No, it's not. Stop claiming that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUFFALOKIE Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Just curious...are any of you actually bloods? Partial? Related to, married to, friends with, work with, acquainted with, actually spoken to any indigenous folks? I am partial, my children are more than half, I have many fine friends who are 100% "Skins". Most of them that I know are more offended by this entire discussion, than they are by the by some team name. Indian folk I know, for the most part, do not care. Many others like the recognition. But again, most just dont care what Whitey names there team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 (edited) I posted this in another thread, but for those interested in a factual (as opposed to fact free) take on the subject, here's the definitive article from the world's leading historical journal (The American Historical Review): http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1857900?uid=3739256&uid=2460338175&uid=2460337935&uid=2&uid=4&uid=83&uid=63&sid=21104079110377 . It's a pejorative term regardless of its origins in the 17th century, but I don't expect anyone who thinks otherwise to change their minds. Edited May 28, 2014 by dave mcbride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LB3 Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 No, it's not. Stop claiming that. I only quoted the article. Are you claiming that the term was never used in that context, or just disputing it's origin? If you are disputing the origin, then I agree with you. If you are saying that it was never used that way, I'd have to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drop Kick Flutie Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Just curious...are any of you actually bloods? Partial? Related to, married to, friends with, work with, acquainted with, actually spoken to any indigenous folks? I am partial, my children are more than half, I have many fine friends who are 100% "Skins". Most of them that I know are more offended by this entire discussion, than they are by the by some team name. Indian folk I know, for the most part, do not care. Many others like the recognition. But again, most just dont care what Whitey names there team. I know from researching my family tree that there is a better than likely chance I am part American Indian, but I don't really advertise it because I have no need to, I don't need to tell people I'm part Swedish either, the Irish is kind of out of the bag due to my name and all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Just curious...are any of you actually bloods? Partial? Related to, married to, friends with, work with, acquainted with, actually spoken to any indigenous folks? I am partial, my children are more than half, I have many fine friends who are 100% "Skins". Most of them that I know are more offended by this entire discussion, than they are by the by some team name. I figured as much. Native American values and mores as discussed by pasty-white people who've never listened to them to begin with? I'd rather rely on the opinions of the Native American nations than I would the opinion of the US Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 I figured as much. Native American values and mores as discussed by pasty-white people who've never listened to them to begin with? I'd rather rely on the opinions of the Native American nations than I would the opinion of the US Senate. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/11/27/native-american-leaders-speak-out-against-redskins-name/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 http://profootballta...-redskins-name/ "Nations." Not "leaders." Jesus... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 "Nations." Not "leaders." Jesus... And what is your excuse for ignoring the "leaders" of said "nations?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 And what is your excuse for ignoring the "leaders" of said "nations?" Because the President's opinion isn't mine? Thought that'd be obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Because the President's opinion isn't mine? Thought that'd be obvious. DC Tom was referring to the Native American nations, not our own. It just seems like an inconsistency to me that he would listen to "the opinions of the Native American nations" (his words), but not their leaders. And, had I not posted that article directly after he had made the comment, I don't believe he would have drawn the distinction. Indeed, I suspect that if the leaders of the Native American nations supported his position, he would be quoting them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 And what is your excuse for ignoring the "leaders" of said "nations?" Um...I don't care if the leaders are offended, I want to know what the people they represent think themselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Um...I don't care if the leaders are offended, I want to know what the people they represent think themselves? Gotcha... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Flutie Band Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 So not supporting the name change means I think I'm better than Native Americans? Interesting leap. Yes, it's especially interesting considering I didn't say that and you chose to write "I think I'm better than Native Americans". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Yes, it's especially interesting considering I didn't say that and you chose to write "I think I'm better than Native Americans". You wrote "bigoted people." So I'm a bigot because I don't support the name-change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts