- This topic has 434 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I see we’ve come back to, the slippery slope, everything is offensive portion of the discussion, where people treat words nobody would hesitate to use the same as words that EVERYBODY admits they wouldn’t use.
Good times, good times.
look, I don’t know how obtuse you like to pretend, but EVERYBODY except the most extreme PC turds use REDSKINS to talk about the pro football team in DC
^
Paki,we live in a time where folks have a difficult time separating historically, and morally correct, from the battle cry of “politically correct.”Independant thought and conviction is surely bound to get one placed in some group or another.
Do you ever ponder why it is that when white culture gets to consulting Native Americans, it is usually regarding a team nickname or mascot?
When a particular tribe of a particular Nation gives positive feedback, we give a resounding, “See! It’s OK.”
What if that tribe were asked if they wanted the Black Hills, or Tampa back?
Masked bigotry is alive and well folks, as Wulfpacker has already pointed out.(If not…apologies to who did)
Some folks don’t even bother to mask it. This coming from someone who has a hard time with white loafers,Panama hats, and pink houses.It is just a matter of time before Snyder’s house comes tumbling down. Outside of the legal sustem, what is it going to take? Goodell? A large group of owners? His own fans? Former players? How about his heralded young QB?
And that will all happen in due time (some of it is well underway).
^<br>
Paki,we live in a time where folks have a difficult time separating historically, and morally correct, from the battle cry of “politically correct.”Independant thought and conviction is surely bound to get one placed in some group or another.
Do you ever ponder why it is that when white culture gets to consulting Native Americans, it is usually regarding a team nickname or mascot?
When a particular tribe of a particular Nation gives positive feedback, we give a resounding, “See! It’s OK.”
What if that tribe were asked if they wanted the Black Hills, or Tampa back?
Masked bigotry is alive and well folks, as Wulfpacker has already pointed out.(If not…apologies to who did)<br>
Some folks don’t even bother to mask it. This coming from someone who has a hard time with white loafers,Panama hats, and pink houses.Would we ask the Brits if they wanted the 13 colonies back? Read your post 2x and I can’t tell what point you think you are making.
Would we ask the Brits if they wanted the 13 colonies back? Read your post 2x and I can’t tell what point you think you are making.
If you want to head down that path, we’re about to hit some semi-esoteric philosophy on the concept of ownership, that I don’t think anybody is willing, or prepared to address.
The Native Americans were here ten thousand years before the British arrived. There’s no way to get from giving the Native Americans their land back, to giving the British back the colonies. Mostly because it’s the same turf, and the Native Americans have a much older claim.
If I were asked if you might get the point before I posted it…
I woulda said, “I doubt it.”
Think, man.
If I were asked if you might get the point before I posted it…
I woulda said, “I doubt it.”
Think, man.
Just spit that crap out dude. Quit being coy, it’s a waste of time. Why don’t you give your house back to some tribe? Think about that. I don’t know what “white culture” you are talking about because I am not a part of your PC gang. I would not consult anyone about God given rights.
lol, keep dreaming
It’s gonna happen, brotha.
No way this man is going to go from owning the Redskins, to not owning the Redskins because of your gang.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>StateRed44 wrote:</div>
Would we ask the Brits if they wanted the 13 colonies back? Read your post 2x and I can’t tell what point you think you are making.If you want to head down that path, we’re about to hit some semi-esoteric philosophy on the concept of ownership, that I don’t think anybody is willing, or prepared to address.
The Native Americans were here ten thousand years before the British arrived. There’s no way to get from giving the Native Americans their land back, to giving the British back the colonies. Mostly because it’s the same turf, and the Native Americans have a much older claim.
You just did that with your tribal americans owning the entire continent thingy there. You have to have an established government to properly own anything. Rule of law and all. That’s something these stone age guys never had. Along with the wheel.
No way this man is going to go from owning the Redskins, to not owning the Redskins because of your gang.
I didn’t say that would happen, not sure where you got that. I’m only talking about the name. At some point, the pressure to change it will prevail. There will be a tipping point as the pressure continues to mount.
My gang??? Not sure where that is coming from either. I’m only making assumptions (informed) on what I see clearly taking place, just as I did with the Paterno/Sandusky/PSU and Sterling issues. It was pretty clear to me what was going to go down. I feel the same way in this situation.
No way this man is going to go from owning the Redskins, to not owning the Redskins because of your gang.
I didn’t say that would happen, not sure where you got that. I’m only talking about the name. At some point, the pressure to change it will prevail. There will be a tipping point as the pressure continues to mount.
My gang??? Not sure where that is coming from either. I’m only making assumptions (informed) on what I see clearly taking place, just as I did with the Paterno/Sandusky/PSU and Sterling issues. It was pretty clear to me what was going to go down. I feel the same way in this situation.
The name is the whole thing. Its not the Redskins anymore once the name changes.
Its not the Redskins anymore once the name changes.
There would still be football to be played. I don’t think 90,000 fans will suddenly decide to stay away from the stadium because their team is now called the Generals, or whatever else. But that might just be me.
Or, the fanatics will decide to boycott…until the Cowboys or Giants come to town next fall.
I think we’re a little more durable of a people than that.
The Native Americans were here ten thousand years before the British arrived.
Before the British, true. But if you keep up with the science journals, you know that accepted ‘history’ is getting rewritten all the time. European remains have been found along the Eastern seaboard that predate the accepted date of native Americans by tens of thousands of years.
But that’s irrelevant. Native Americans were hardly peace loving utopians. The fought, killed, and warred with each other. Those that won turf battles took the land.
That doesn’t mean Native Americans didn’t get a raw deal from the white man. I find it ironic though that those more so aligned with the PC argument are also more in line with a liberal inclination when in comes to politics. It wasn’t white people that lied and screwed the red man out of his lands, it was the government in Washington.
The same government many of you want made ever more powerful, the same government responsible for true oppression forced upon native Americans living on reservations.
Typical. You bitch about words but defend the source of true oppression. Give em bigger sticks and stones, but dammit, take away those hurtful names.
Then just do away with team names and monikers then if it means nothing. Address each team by city name and hope the Indianapolis team doesn’t get sued by the pc patrol for offensive tribal word associations.
Before the British, true. But if you keep up with the science journals, you know that accepted ‘history’ is getting rewritten all the time. European remains have been found along the Eastern seaboard that predate the accepted date of native Americans by tens of thousands of years.
I’ve seen some mention of Vikings making it to the Eastern seaboard, but that was in the 1200s. Do you have a source for predating Native Americans by “tens of thousands of years”?
Then just do away with team names and monikers then if it means nothing. Address each team by city name and hope the Indianapolis team doesn’t get sued by the pc patrol for offensive tribal word associations.
Back to slippery slope, everything is offensive on the same page. Well done people! We’ll crack this nut eventually….
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>StateRed44 wrote:</div>
Then just do away with team names and monikers then if it means nothing. Address each team by city name and hope the Indianapolis team doesn’t get sued by the pc patrol for offensive tribal word associations.Back to slippery slope, everything is offensive on the same page. Well done people! We’ll crack this nut eventually….
Who are you to say what is and what is not offensive to anybody? Stop acting as if the “protected” groups are more important than anyone else. They aren’t.
Who are you to say what is and what is not offensive to anybody? Stop acting as if the “protected” groups are more important than anyone else. They aren’t.
Who said protected groups are more important than anyone else? Do you find Indianapolis offensive? The Braves? Chiefs? Reds? Oklahoma? Any of those? Would you use them in a sentence with no reservation (ha) in 99% of circumstances?
Just curious, because we’re still trying to treat literally everything as equivalent to the word redskins, which, again, and again, everyone has admitted, no, they wouldn’t use it to refer to Native Americans.
There is a clear, discernible difference between a word you would say under any circumstance, and a word you wouldn’t say under some circumstances. Why is this so hard to comprehend.
Again, the name isn’t being taken away from the Redskins, only a level of trademark protection. They’re still free to call themselves anything they want.
Those Indians don’t care about the name “redskins”. Pssshhhhhhhttt. They just want to be paid off to keep quiet. I have no proof, mind you, but it’d be real hard to convince me otherwise.
Have they ever held up a picket sign, or held any public demonstration about this? That’s when you know people are pissed. But they’re not upset.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>StateRed44 wrote:</div>
Who are you to say what is and what is not offensive to anybody? Stop acting as if the “protected” groups are more important than anyone else. They aren’t.Who said protected groups are more important than anyone else? Do you find Indianapolis offensive? The Braves? Chiefs? Reds? Oklahoma? Any of those? Would you use them in a sentence with no reservation (ha) in 99% of circumstances?
Just curious, because we’re still trying to treat literally everything as equivalent to the word redskins, which, again, and again, everyone has admitted, no, they wouldn’t use it to refer to Native Americans.
There is a clear, discernible difference between a word you would say under any circumstance, and a word you wouldn’t say under some circumstances. Why is this so hard to comprehend.
Again, the name isn’t being taken away from the Redskins, only a level of trademark protection. They’re still free to call themselves anything they want.
Have you thought it’s because “redskins” was never ever widely used as a derogatory term? If it was derogatory why does a tribal american high school use the term? Can you find me any instance from all history where a purposely derogatory name was used for a mascot? This whole thing is BULLCRAP
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
