• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Califan007

  1. LOL...well put. This was my response(s) to Wise on twitter: @MikeWiseguy - If I avoided any and all things in US that have roots in racism and bigotry, I'd have to leave the country. A word of advice: don't try to tell Black men and women how they should deal with/feel about racism in America's history. "Walk the roads my forefathers walked/Climb the trees my forefathers hung from.." -Tennessee. We deal with it in many ways.
  2. When I'm in D.C. I see TONS of people in Redskins gear...I'm having a hard time believing that damn near all of them are receiving a "crap-storm" from strangers. I think fur wearers got more of a crap-storm from PETA than Skins fans are probably getting from the general public. At least PETA's efforts were organized, not random and sporadic.
  3. Not sure if anyone watches House Of Cards, but... In the 2nd season, there's a scene with Frank Underwood (congressman/Vice President) is meeting with a group of Native Americans in his office. When Frank arrives to the meeting, the scene shows one of the NAs staring at something on the wall. When Frank walks over to him the NA says "Is Andrew Jackson going to be joining us as well?"...Frank immediately apologizes and has one of his aids take down the portrait of Jackson that it turns out the NA was staring at. It was already mentioned in this thread, but the question would still remain: should Andrew Jackson be removed from the $20 bill? But even more to the point, would Mike "I have the IQ of a baked potato" Wise ever think of asking NAs "How do you feel accepting $20 bills throughout your regular life? If you've accepted them and used them, that says a lot about you" like he's saying towards Black Redskins fans who willingly sit in the GPM section of FedEx.
  4. Ah, well that's true...I work from home (freelance graphic designer) so I'm my own coworker lol...
  5. Stop hanging around on this thread or on sports message boards in general as much, and you'll be surprised at how little you hear about the name change.
  6. Get ready for some "Hitler did some good things, too" retorts lol...
  7. If ALL they are doing is saying "I'm offended", you're right. If, however, they are saying "My being offended should be more than enough to warrant stripping you of some of your rights and changing your identity", then sorry, but more is definitely needed than "I'm offended". In fact, the NAs wanting the name change realized this themselves, which is why they 1) introduced a bucketload of what they hoped would be seen as evidence that everyone, not just Indians, should see "redskin" as offensive, and 2) keep using the "redskin=scalp" story. They already know that "I'm offended" won't--and shouldn't--be enough to get the changes they are asking for. I don't think it's possible to argue someone's emotions and feelings as being "right" or "wrong". You feel what you feel. It's when we start giving the reasons why we feel what we feel that "right" and "wrong" (or correct and incorrect) start entering the discussion. If my girlfriend is livid at me and I ask her why, and she says "Because you ran over my cat this morning!"...well, her feelings of being livid at me aren't up for debate. But if I did not, in fact, run over her cat and someone else did, then yes I do get to say "You should not be angry at me". Now whether or not she'll listen or instead let her emotions and feelings dictate what "reality" is to her is another story lol...
  8. That question has been asked--and answered--a billion times over in this thread. And if the arguments for the name change were limited to "Native Americans are insulted when their culture is used for entertainment by the same country that 'systematically dehumanized and destroyed" them, there would be a completely different debate going on righ tnow. But that's not what the arguments have been. The arguments have been "Redskins-Scalps", "Snyder is racist", "Native Americans as a whole feel the exact same way about this", "Redskin is the equivalent of the "N-word" "....and a bunchy of other stances that have very little in common with reality. The sad part, though, is that some in the debate think that mentioning the history of violence against NAs is more than enough to render every single argument against a name change irrelevant.
  9. Just started watching House Of Csrds (halfway through the 2nd season)...this is some diabolical ****! lol
  10. Hail to them mf'ers Hail f'n victory F'ers on the warpath Fight for mf'n DC! I'm tellin' ya, as a name change the Washington MF'ers is the way to go.
  11. Yes, because the colors burgundy and gold have long been offensive to Native Americans.
  12. Ahhhh, no lol.... Besides, aren't the Patriots' uniforms red, white and blue? I'd be ok with the name the Washington MF'ers *thumbsup*... this could be on the side of the helmet:
  13. No, the point is since it's impossible to force--legally or otherwise--the entire country to not sing Hail To The Redskins, worrying about coming up with alternative lyrics is an unnecessary waste of time. And what do you think TV stations will do when a stadium full of Skins fans start singing "Hail To The Redskins"? Bleep out the word "Redskins"?...Cut away to commercial break? Don't you think that singing HTTR would be the Skins fans' way of both showing solidarity with the team's name and protesting the name change movement? It would be an incredibly easy thing to do and organize. But feel free to self-righteously sing "Hail To Our Bretheren" instead, snug tight in the knowledge that no Native Americans have been harmed in the process.
  14. I'm gonna take that as "No, I didn't think about that..."
  15. planter, You know it's impossible to force 80,000+ fans to not sing Hail To The Redskins, right?
  16. The entire song stays...and there's nothing anyone will be able to do about it.
  17. Out of curiosity, which do you feel is more likely to happen: - NA activists acknowledging that the "redskin=scalps of Indians" is probably not accurate. Or - The "redskin=scalps of Indians" gets inserted into the history books of public schools as fact.
  18. That's not what he said, though lol...he said specifically that " many Native Americans, the term “redskin” has long meant the act of our ancestor’s scalps being collected for bounty." So if he thinks whether or not the scalping story is true should take a back seat in all this to what NAs only believe to be true, that's frightening. And in reality, that's exactly what is happening. This actually illustrates one of the things that is so damn frustrating about all of this: "We're offended" is being played like a "get out of jail free" card. Lies? Misinformation? Incorrect facts? Revisionist history? None of that matters. "We're offended" is the shield that keeps away the criticism, no matter how valid that criticism may be. "You don't get to tell us we're not offended!"...Well guess what, I wasn't/we aren't. But don't you dare use revisionist history in an attempt to manipulate the public's emotions to explain why you are, and why they should be, too. And don't ask us to ignore it when you do--or worse, claim it doesn't matter--all because "We're offended". Or if you're someone arguing on behalf of NAs, "They're offended." Believe it or not, that is NOT the only thing that matters. And it doesn't negate every argument given by the opposite viewpoint. lol @ the part on bold
  19. I don't know if anyone else read the rebuttal piece from that Esquire writer, the one where he claims to prove "redskin" does indeed originate from the bounty for Indian scalps...but if not, he said something that is damn near frightening: "What is germane to the conversation? What is semantics? That is debatable. The fact remains that to many Native Americans, the term “redskin” has long meant the act of our ancestor’s scalps being collected for bounty." If I'm understanding his point correctly, he's saying that what Native American's believe to be true should trump any historical recorded fact to the contrary...and should be used as the prevailing reason for a governmental forced change to a privately own entity. It doesn't matter if it's actually true or not...Native Americans just have to believe it is. That's enough. One billion percent true *nod*...and just read my last post as more evidence of this lol.
  20. Really good read...there is so much more going on that simply "Redskin is a racist slur". I hope people take the time to read the entire thing and keep an open mind.
  21. Oh, and in the Esquire writer's rebuttal about 'redskin' never proven to mean bloody scalps of Indians, he says this doozy: So my question is, what if it's proven to be wrong? Do we still change the team's name because a certain percentage of Native Americans believe in a myth? Because this guy is basically saying "WE believe the story to be true, that's all that matters". Somebody else in the comments section said this, which is completely true:
  22. ^^^ OMFG...Wise somehow goes even further on the down escalator of ridiculousness lol.
  23. Some of the comments: And one comment (part in bold) I absolutely love: Another good one: I am heartened to see the responses in the comments section. Not all of them are like the ones I posted, but enough of them are to temper my irritation lol...