grego Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 Here are the historical facts that we know: Marshall was a known racist and a showman. Dietz was most certainly NOT a Native American but rather an imposter and a showman as well who loved attention. Both of these facts lead to the fact that naming the team the "Redskins" was not a term used as respect towards Native American culture, but rather a more racially-charged term than Braves and one used to promote the team (along with hiring a "Native American" head coach, wearing ridiculous feathered headdresses and all), garnering attention and $$$. Why on earth would we continue to use this name knowing the past behind it? There is no respect there. Only ignorance. Wake up. you are out of your mind. a cursory glance at your comments and its apparent you havent read ives goddards paper on the name. heres a clue, since you want to preach without knowing what the **** you are talking about and youre apparently too lazy or closed minded to realize you dont know what you dont know. http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf the first paragraph addresses the origin of the name. and, no, just because some idiot with an agenda types words on a page does not make his or her words gospel. you should choose your sources a little more carefully rather than just choosing those that agree with your pre-determined position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 And here is the first time I have been called a Redskin. Congrats. Still not offensive, sorry. Hope that doesn't burst your bubble. And I did indeed read the part where you stated that you had not read the thread. I had hoped at this point you would have to give yourself an informed opinion instead of a biased one, which really has no bearing on the true feelings of most Redskins fans...and most Native Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 But reading the thread would ad least have the possibility of him learning something. (Although, right now, my money would be against it.) He didn't come in here to learn. He came to preach to the ignorant savages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 You did read the part where the poll asked men/women around the DC area, right. Not just Native Americans. Please tell me that you read that part right? I told you the poll may not be everything you wanted to hear. My point was the group rallying to change the name, the group that discounts the Annenberg poll as out of date, asked a bunch of cleverly phrased questions but neglected to directly ask " Do you think the name should be changed ". BTW the Washington Post did a poll of DC residents asking the question directly last year and got the highest positive responses I have seen, ~20%. DC is probably as sympathetic a population as you are going to find for the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonYoungEra Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 And here is the first time I have been called a Redskin. Congrats. Still not offensive, sorry. Hope that doesn't burst your bubble. why the hell would you be offended? you've clearly stated several times that you were not offended by the term, hence my use of it. i'm not here to offend anybody. And millions of them aren't. And you won't even mention them, and are crusading for their opinions to be overridden. Sorry, I thought you could figure out that 9% is in the minority. And that the poll WAS 10 years ago and the numbers are likely much higher than 9% now (and rising). Regardless of numbers (yet again), enough people are offended by the term that I'd like to see it changed. you are out of your mind. a cursory glance at your comments and its apparent you havent read ives goddards paper on the name. heres a clue, since you want to preach without knowing what the **** you are talking about and youre apparently too lazy or closed minded to realize you dont know what you dont know. http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf the first paragraph addresses the origin of the name. and, no, just because some idiot with an agenda types words on a page does not make his or her words gospel. you should choose your sources a little more carefully rather than just choosing those that agree with your pre-determined position. You're missing the point completely. Regardless of the origin of the name, hundreds of thousands of Native Americans are offended by the term "redskin." Do you disagree with that? If you were to walk up to a random Native American on the street and say, "What's up, redskin?" do you think that you'll have enough time to explain to him that you meant it as a term of "honor" before he punches you square in the nose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Regardless of the origin of the name, hundreds of thousands of Native Americans are offended by the term "redskin." And millions of them are not. How come that fact has been pointed out to you, probably a dozen times, and you have yet to so much as mention that they exist? Your opinion of how much importance a Native's opinion carries, appears to be very closely related to whether they agree with you or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonYoungEra Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 And millions of them are not. How come that fact has been pointed out to you, probably a dozen times, and you have yet to so much as mention that they exist? Your opinion of how much importance a Native's opinion carries, appears to be very closely related to whether they agree with you or not. See above. I thought most could figure that 9% is the minority. What this all boils down to is why wouldn't we change a name that is offensive to hundreds of thousands of people from a specific culture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 If you were to walk up to a random Native American on the street and say, "What's up, redskin?" do you think that you'll have enough time to explain to him that you meant it as a term of "honor" before he punches you square in the nose? You got a problem understanding simple communication, boy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 And here I thought I was going to have to respond. Thank you gentlemen for taking on my light work. Larry, I will indeed buy you, Bang, and Spear, and many others in this thread a beer at some point. It might break the bank, but it's worth it for the quality of information and points that have been made through this 77 pages of posts. :cheers: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonYoungEra Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 You got a problem understanding simple communication, boy? So, would you or would you not say that to a Native American you randomly met on the street? And here I thought I was going to have to respond. Thank you gentlemen for taking on my light work. Larry, I will indeed buy you, Bang, and Spear, and many others in this thread a beer at some point. It might break the bank, but it's worth it for the quality of information and points that have been made through this 77 pages of posts. :cheers: In other words, you have nothing to state other than that you're a Native and that you're not offended. x100. Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 I suspect it's all doomed, though. If I had to predict, I'd say that within 10 years, the media will have sold the untrue story that the name is offensive. They will have made their untrue claims, true. Even though it's not true, now. 10 years from now, it will be one of those things that "everybody knows". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonYoungEra Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Larry, why won't you answer my question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 In other words, you have nothing to state other than that you're a Native and that you're not offended. x100. Got it. And the pale face has no right to tell me EVER what I should be offended by. Glad you get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 So, would you or would you not say that to a Native American you randomly met on the street? I just did say it. To you. You got a problem with that, boy? That offend you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Fakeman Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Im highly offended by the Paleface River in Minnesota. My white friends and I have decided to get together, form a council, and vote to oppose the river's name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonYoungEra Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 And the pale face has no right to tell me EVER what I should be offended by. Glad you get it. When did I tell you what to be offended by? I just did say it. To you. You got a problem with that, boy? That offend you? Yeah, that's what I thought. You wouldn't approach a Native American and and call them a "redskins" because they just may be offended by that, huh? Do you see the problem with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 When did I tell you what to be offended by? Every single time you decided that the folks who agreed with you were more important than his feelings? Just a theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Fakeman Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Its funny watching late-comers to this debate like FireInHisBelly say stupid things like... "Would you ever go up to a Native American and call him a redskin....." When you know he would never go up to a Native and call him "Chief"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonYoungEra Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Every single time you decided that the folks who agreed with you were more important than his feelings? Just a theory. When did I ever state that his feelings aren't important? I respect that countless times that he said he's not offended by the term. I've never said that his opinion is wrong. Y'all are ridiculous. Its funny watching late-comers to this debate like FireInHisBelly say stupid things like... "Would you ever go up to a Native American and call him a redskin....." When you know he would never go up to a Native and call him "Chief"... Chief was never a term used as a racial slur. How do you not understand that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Fakeman Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Clearly the 93% native student body and faculty at Red Mesa high school, in Apache county, on a Navajo reservation, are racist by having "redskin" as their mascot. FireInHisBelly understands this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Yeah, that's what I thought. You wouldn't approach a Native American and and call them a "redskins" because they just may be offended by that, huh? Do you see the problem with that? Have we now established that the word "boy" can be used in an offensive manner? Even a racially offensive manner? Chief was never a term used as a racial slur. How do you not understand that? Uh, just my opinion, here. But I kinda suspect that if you were to address a Native that way, he would probably think you were using it as a racial slur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonYoungEra Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 This is my assumption, and I don't know for certain because I'm white, but I feel like some Native Americans can call their friends "redskins" much the same as some African Americans can call their friends ""n-word"." It's a sense of pride between them as they share a common bond and a history of struggles against oppression in our country. I can understand that. But I don't think that it gives me, a white man, the privilege to use the same verbiage. Have we now established that the word "boy" can be used in an offensive manner? Even a racially offensive manner? Uh, just my opinion, here. But I kinda suspect that if you were to address a Native that way, he would probably think you were using it as a racial slur. Super - than we're in agreement that Native Americans can be offended by the term "redskin" and perhaps "chief." And that we wouldn't use those terms to address a Native American (progress!). Now if K.C. wants to change their name or not is on their owner/team. I'm here to talk about our football team and their racist team name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Fakeman Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 So...this is your argument. If Dan Snyder wasn't white and was Native...he could keep the name "Redskins" ~ taking away the racist intent that you feel is obviously there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Super - than we're in agreement that Native Americans can be offended by the term "redskin" and perhaps "chief." And that we wouldn't use those terms to address a Native American (progress!). Now if K.C. wants to change their name or not is on their owner/team. I'm here to talk about our football team and their racist team name. There was a question, at the beginning of my post, you quoted. (Actually two, but they're kinda related.) They're those funny sentences with a symbol like this >>>>----> ? . . . at the end of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonYoungEra Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 So...this is your argument. If Dan Snyder wasn't white and was Native...he could keep the name "Redskins" ~ taking away the racist intent that you feel is obviously there? That's ridiculous. My statement is this: the term "redskins" is a name that has a history of being a racial slur. Over half a million people in our country are offended by this term. I would like to see our beloved football team change the name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.