Jump to content

So it's the Washington Commanders now?


stuvian

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, SoTier said:

 

Welcome to the 19th century.  Yeah, "Redskin" is a derogatory term for a Native American -- and has always been a derogatory term even 200 years ago.   "Indian" is simply an outdated term for Native American, much like "colored" or "*****" are outdated terms for African Americans.  

 

Apparently you missed the part where I said "fine, I'll concede that one".  I get called ethinic terms from the past that just don't offend me because, well, I am an adult.  I think what everyone just can't handle is the context in which it's being used.  Terms that were used 30 -40 years ago considered to be fine then many people get all bunched up about today.  I not only choose not to, but have the intellectual awareness to understand context.  apparently many do not.  If you have been playing along with my other responses to others willing to have a civil discussion, you'd find that I am actually OK with the name change which was not immediately apparent in my first post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, badassgixxer05 said:

That's why we need more books. We all need better education. The war wasn't fought over slavery. And by the way, the Union leaders were slave owners also.

Lots of flat out lies here.  There was only one reason that the Southern states chose to secede from the Unites States of America - slavery.  Just read the Ordnance of Secession.  Slavery is a focal point.  The other BS people pretend were the reasons are noticeably absent.

 

No, there were not many Union leaders who had been slave owners.  The Northern states had eliminated or put laws in place to gradually eliminate slavery by the early 1800s. The Civil War started in 1865.  They’d have had to have lived in the South to own people as property.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Disagree 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ArtVandalay said:

Okay, so a national activist doesn't like it, you will always find nonlocal activists that dislike everything... there's local support in Kansas City from the local people involved that it impacts... the team itself works with local trial communities. Nothing they are doing is wrong, they don't mock or disparage, they embrace. 

 

You can find plenty of military personnel that would oppose the Commanders name for the exact same reasons. 

 

It's a sports team, they are not disparaging anyone, people got to get over it. 


I disagree… there are many Native Americans both in Kansas City and beyond that find the teams depictions to be offensive.   It might not offend you, but it does actually offend some people of that ancestry.  
 

Curious…but what generation did you grow up in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, UConn James said:


The former Mrs. Butterworth’s ain’t maple syrup… it’s corn syrup.

 

Indians became the Guardians shortly after this last MLB season ended. And their logo is absolutely terrible.

None of those syrups are maple syrups unless it says they’re maple syrups. Unless it’s maple, they’re all corn syrups. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, K-9 said:

None of those syrups are maple syrups unless it says they’re maple syrups. Unless it’s maple, they’re all corn syrups. 

One of the things I resolved to never, ever do again as soon as I moved away from home many, many years ago: buy fake maple syrup.

The real stuff really isn't that expensive. There is no excuse for fake maple syrup.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TheyCallMeAndy said:

Doubt they’ll need to, the term ‘redskin’ is derogatory. Chief is not. 

It's really not that complicated of a situation, though it seems to confuse many.

 

 

1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Agreed.

But with one caveat: "Indian" is very much back as a term used by American Indians, including one of my American Indian co-workers. She much prefers it to "Native American" for a variety of reasons. And she gets to choose so I'm fine with that, as long as we understand that most people who use "Native American" around her mean no offense.

Calling them "native Americans" inherently describes and defines them through an "American" prism, which has absolutely nothing to do with them.  Their cultures (all of them) pre-date anything to do with "America" by a lot.

 

The Canadian "first nation" idea is a much better way to go.

 

Or "aboriginal people" or something like that, as they use in Australia.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Agreed.

But with one caveat: "Indian" is very much back as a term used by American Indians, including one of my American Indian co-workers. She much prefers it to "Native American" for a variety of reasons. And she gets to choose so I'm fine with that, as long as we understand that most people who use "Native American" around her mean no offense.

 

Exactly.  People who belong to a particular racial/ethnic group get to choose what they call themselves.  People who don't belong to that group should respect that. 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a very specific reason to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...