TheGoodBits Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Weren't "Redskins" elite warriors who painted their faces red before battle? No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Didn't Harry Reid and 50 other Senators (all Democrats from what I've seen) bring politics into this topic? Nobody is saying every liberal or Democrat is against the name, but it's pretty obvious that those beating this name change drum tend to be mostly left-leaning in their beliefs. I see no Republicans or conservatives on this list. And all of that means a hill of turds. All they can do is write a letter, they did it months ago and barely a peep since. Politicians are, imagine,, politicians. and one thing about politicians is everyone, and that means line 86% of all of us HATE them.. so we aren't really represented as any complete group by what they do in their little bull**** world. The "us and them" simplicity is not represented here. Those beating the name change drum no more fall under any specific designation than those of us who want it kept. may as well give credence to that nonsense Stephen A. Smith spouted off. a bunch of confederate flag wavers want to keep the name, does that mean we should generalize that we are as racist as them or that our motivations are the same? Leave Steve Doocey's dopey act on TV where it belongs. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 this isn't a political issue for the lefties? really? ok I don't label the people against the name....I just think they're wrong Simple is as simple does. and that is how you have to think of it.. in the simplest terms possible. What can be gained, and what can be lost? can a politician actually gain anything by going any further with this 'issue', or can he lose anything by going further? So let's follow your theory. guy wants votes by saying he's against redskins name... ok, so he appeals to..hmm.. really not very many people. nationwide the numbers still say a large majority don't want a change, and among natives it says the same thing. It isn't really much of an issue to a lot of people. But all of them coming out against it? It's a stunt, political grandstanding.. makes them look like they give a crap about something that has no effect on them. Political theater,, to take it further is pointless to any of them except those VERY few who may have districts full of Native Americans who give a crap about the 'issue"... which most do NOT. and if they do pander to them, then based on what everyone who goes and talks to them says, they will tell him to shut it and concentrate on their real problems, which won't do well politically, now will it? Going in with a bull**** message and being told to blow it out of your butt for ignoring the real problems in your own district, maybe hundred of miles away from the nearest Pro football stadium\... how's that going to fly with the focus group? it won't. everyone else couldn't give a crap. For one, there's nothing they can do about it. They can't make anyone change the name. All they could do is what they have already done, and it's all they are going to do. play it out. Congressman somehow manages to convince constituents in someplace other than DC that this is important, promises to break first amendment and force a change. Fails, because you can't break the first amendment and force them to change no matter if you vacate the trademark or not. He can still use it, and you can't stop it. He is then voted out for failing and becoming an easy target for his opponents. Who controls him? His party. will his party let him do anything that will cost them his warm ass in the seat? No. this is not a "political issue", nor is it a 'liberal" issue,,, except maybe in Rushland where it could certainly be trumped up to look that way to folks who think everything is in the terms dictated by right and left... and the people who exploit that. If you believe this is an actual real political issue for any but the SMALLEST handful of politicians nationwide, you need to find some better outlets for your information. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAILSKINSNYC Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 the point of all the democrats coming out against the name is about portraying the Republicans as Racist......it's not about getting Native American votes. The only non native American that I take seriously on this issue, is the one who talks about the real problems for native Americans...someone whose been an advocate for their causes long before the name issue came up....I have a feeling that number is very very low Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 I still say this whole issue may have faded away if Snyder wasn't such a douche. He drew a hard line and in doing that, he's made others even more determined to pile on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Adam Schefter @AdamSchefter 5m NY Daily News editorial board declaring they will no longer use ""Redskins" to refer to Washington franchise. http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/sack-article-1.1926865#ixzz3CITGowZS … My response is getting a lot of play...... SWFLSKINS @johnnylocal 6m @AdamSchefter How can you call yourself an editorial board if you limit free speech? Collapse Reply Favorite More RETWEET1 FAVORITES5 Tony Petro, J_sun Rob_nsun and DILF favorited your Tweet 2m: @AdamSchefter How can you call yourself an editorial board if you limit free speech? I still say this whole issue may have faded away if Snyder wasn't such a douche. He drew a hard line and in doing that, he's made others even more determined to pile on. Disagree. If anything this has made Snyder to the majority of NFL fans and certainly to Redskins fans less douchey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 <p> Adam Schefter @AdamSchefter 5m NY Daily News editorial board declaring they will no longer use ""Redskins" to refer to Washington franchise. http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/sack-article-1.1926865#ixzz3CITGowZS … My response is getting a lot of play...... SWFLSKINS @johnnylocal 6m @AdamSchefter How can you call yourself an editorial board if you limit free speech? Collapse Reply Favorite More RETWEET1 FAVORITES5 Tony Petro, J_sun Rob_nsun and DILF favorited your Tweet 75] 2m: @AdamSchefter How can you call yourself an editorial board if you limit free speech? Disagree. If anything this has made Snyder to the majority of NFL fans and certainly to Redskins fans less douchey. Those aren't the people he's fighting against. The people that are against the name change are making any and every excuse to state that the name can't be offensive. They don't want to hear the contrary. There's no reasoning. Just like politics. Everyone has picked their side. Economics will change the name. As more people boycott using the name, pressure will build. The distraction level will rise. Once a sponsor bails, it's over. This won't happen soon, it's going to take bit longer. I bailed on this thread because no one cares what anyone else thinks. It's just about justification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Karim Amirali and 12 others favorited your Tweet 17m: @AdamSchefter How can you call yourself an editorial board if you limit free speech? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Those aren't the people he's fighting against. The people that are against the name change are making any and every excuse to state that the name can't be offensive. They don't want to hear the contrary. There's no reasoning. Just like politics. Everyone has picked their side. Economics will change the name. As more people boycott using the name, pressure will build. The distraction level will rise. Once a sponsor bails, it's over. This won't happen soon, it's going to take bit longer. I bailed on this thread because no one cares what anyone else thinks. It's just about justification. Sadly I think in the end, twenty to thirty years from now the NA's that claim they are so offended will be doing a huge disservice to the present day plight of the NA. They will be forgotten. This is just the beginning as for names go, and one by one if this domino falls the rest will be targeted. But alas, they are not going to like what they wished for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 The people that are against the name change are making any and every excuse to state that the name can't be offensive. . . . . . I bailed on this thread because no one cares what anyone else thinks. Nothing like a post where somebody posts, in a thread, that they "bailed on this thread". Because "no one cares what anyone else thinks". In which he leads off by making a completely untrue claim about what every single person who doesn't agree with him, thinks. What's that, three levels of irony, in one post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Nothing like a post where somebody posts, in a thread, that they "bailed on this thread". Because "no one cares what anyone else thinks". In which he leads off by making a completely untrue claim about what every single person who doesn't agree with him, thinks. What's that, three levels of irony, in one post? The thing is, I understand the point of view of those who don't agree that the name is offensive to the degree that most people are just not around NA's enough to honestly know if the word is offensive or not. I also agree that the team name is 100% not intended to be offensive. But when the majority of this thread is non NA's stating they are not offended (duh) and therefore it's not offensive is annoying. The facts are pretty simple. The word offends some NA's. It does not offend some NA's. All the other stuff is twisted to fit each persons argument. The real question in this is not if the word is offensive, because that has been answered, it is in fact offensive to some. The question is how many have to be offended before it's taken seriously. The other stuff is just BS to make someone's point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Adam Schefter @AdamSchefter 37m NY Daily News editorial board declaring they will no longer use ""Redskins" to refer to Washington franchise. http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/sack-article-1.1926865#ixzz3CITGowZS … Reply Retweet Favorite More Courtney and 18 others favorited your Tweet 1h: @AdamSchefter How can you call yourself an editorial board if you limit free speech? RETWEETS3 FAVORITES15 4:17 PM - 3 Sep 2014 The real question in this is not if the word is offensive, because that has been answered, it is in fact offensive to some. The question is how many have to be offended before it's taken seriously. The other stuff is just BS to make someone's point. I wholeheartedly disagree, if all the words that offended people were banished, the English language would be a challenge just o operate on a daily basis. Optimists hate the word stop, caution, danger etc. Skinny people hate 'all you can eat' To me this is how ridiculous this all is. My post earlier on this page says it all.....We the fans of the Redskins football team are not mocking the Native Americans or our mascot representing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 The thing is, I understand the point of view of those who don't agree that the name is offensive to the degree that most people are just not around NA's enough to honestly know if the word is offensive or not. My, how . . . condescending . . . of you. After announcing that every single person who disagrees with you is simply a fanatical liar who doesn't care about reality, and being called on it, you then grudgingly admit that well, it's possible that some of them are just ignorant. That must be the explanation for those 90% of natives who say it's not offensive, too, huh? Stupid Natives just don't know when to be offended. Good thing they have you, to tell them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 <p> Adam Schefter @AdamSchefter 37m NY Daily News editorial board declaring they will no longer use ""Redskins" to refer to Washington franchise. http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/sack-article-1.1926865#ixzz3CITGowZS … Reply Retweet Favorite More 45] Courtney and 18 others favorited your Tweet 75] 1h: @AdamSchefter How can you call yourself an editorial board if you limit free speech? RETWEETS3 FAVORITES15 4:17 PM - 3 Sep 2014I wholeheartedly disagree, if all the words that offended people were banished, the English language would be a challenge just o operate on a daily basis. Optimists hate the word stop, caution, danger etc. Skinny people hate 'all you can eat' To me this is how ridiculous this all is. My post earlier on this page says it all.....We the fans of the Redskins football team are not mocking the Native Americans or our mascot representing them. I completely agree that Redskin fans are not intending to mock them. It's also not the same as your other examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 this isn't a political issue for the lefties? really? ok I don't label the people against the name....I just think they're wrong The majority of the name changers lean left, however there are some Republicans congressman (McCain and Tom Cole) and one well known Reagan Supporter (Billy Mills) who want the name gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 The facts are pretty simple. The word offends some NA's. It does not offend some NA's. All the other stuff is twisted to fit each persons argument. The real question in this is not if the word is offensive, because that has been answered, it is in fact offensive to some. The question is how many have to be offended before it's taken seriously. The other stuff is just BS to make someone's point. i've always said this is the issue. whats the magic number of those saying they are offended? thats the question..... but i am curious about one thing. when i started hearing the reasons that those who claim to be offended were giving for being offended, it made me wonder what was going on here. heres what i see, in a nutshell (for anyone who cares)- there are a few extrememists, racist nuts (harjo and her followers) who have a history of redefining words as "offensive" to suit their agenda (see: 'squaw means vagina'). despite never backing up the claims with facts (this is because nobody wants to question native americans due to the ****ty hand they were deal at the hands of the europeans). this has been going on for decades, but nobody paid any real attention (as they shouldnt). a couple of years ago, the redskins got relevant for a bit, so, in the 24 hour 'breaking news!!!' media/blog cycle that exists these days, the nutjobs started to get traction, because, after all, 'red' skins must be racist, right? before you know it, columnists, bloggers, and anyone wanting to not sound like a jerk was proudly declaring they were no longer going to use the word, on account of the fact that 'some people say they are offended'. and political leaders (like our beloved, almost all liberal politicians, along with one opportunistic casino owner- ray halbritter- a man booted out of leadership by his own 'tribe', yet still recognized by the US government) boldly declared the word was- in fact and unequivocally- a slur. good stuff. only it turns out the reason given for being offended (redskins comes from scalps!) turns out to be a myth. an old wives tale. a traditional story passed down from one generation to the next. problem is, almost nobody bothered to ask 'why' they were offended. and those who did didn't seem to check the story out once they heard it. it was just accepted as fact. one poster put it this way- you say you hate me because you believe i ran over your cat. your hate is genuine. problem is, i never ran over your cat- turns out, somebody else did. but as long as you dont believe this, you cling to your belief, however false it may be. what are you supposed to do? their mind is made up. you are guilty of an offense that you never committed in someones mind. this is where we are with this issue. nobody bothered to ask "why". all of a sudden, a benign term that native americans themselves made up- used by a team whose very mascot was designed by a full blood blackfoot indian, the former president of the national congress of native americans; a word used by several native american high schools- not as a slur- but the opposite, a term of pride- is now verboten. (at least, according to a few activists and those who choose to listen to them) i find that many peoples minds are made up- this, despite not knowing the facts surrounding the name. I believe that the more people know the history of the name, the more good, smart people like chris cooley continue to speak out about it, the more people will see the truth behind this issue. anyway, thats my .02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 I completely agree that Redskin fans are not intending to mock them. It's also not the same as your other examples. Oh I agree they are not the same, but if this can happen how extreme can it go? what's next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 I still say this whole issue may have faded away if Snyder wasn't such a douche. He drew a hard line and in doing that, he's made others even more determined to pile on. the opposite has also happened as well. The fans and others have become even more determined to fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueskin Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 I spoke to a member of a southern Tribe today (can't remember the name, unfortunately, but he showed me his ID card) at work, he a rep for a med supply company, me a client. He explained (civilly, of course) that after talking to his friends, he decided to support the name change. He mentioned that the name Redskin is akin to the N-word (of course, I took immediate issue with that, but not as forcefully as I could've). He said that the Redskins magical Mystery Reservation Tour (my words not his- admittedly it does seem rather gauche) was PR-- I pointed out that the same could be said about the pro-Name changers. He agreed to that statement. In the end, we agreed that: Redskins fans aren't by and large racist, that politicians should stay the **** out of it, and that an accomodation between the Native nations and our team should be reached, hopefully, in a mutually beneficial way; similar to the arrangement the Seminole Nation has with FSU. He and I also agreed, I think, that the opinions that matter are the team's and the Native Americans themselves. He acknowleged that Indians aren't monolithic, and different nations will feel differently (he suggested the REdskins and NAIC should be the ones negotiating this). He really couldn't/didn't rebut when I brought up my imminent movement against the mascot that targets some of my Norse ancestors. And I must say, that I have to take his (and other anti-Name NA's) stance seriously. But, a couple things that got me, during our discussion, was how he dismissed the Native Americans who embraced the name as ignorant on their reservations until the dawn of internet (???), and basically stating that only Indians should use 'redskin', again as we African Americans (not me) use the n-word internally. Also, that Fightin Irish is fine cause its a mythical creature, not the Irish in general. I didn't have time to ask how he felt about the Indians, the Braves, the State of Oklahoma, etc. Look, I have IMMENSE respect for Native Americans, and part of the allure to me of our team, the Washington Redskins, is the pride and the mystique of the Indian warrior, who fought tooth and nail against the encroaching euros to maintain their way of life. I support the name because I am not convinced, no matter what the current PR mouthpieces are saying, that it is anything other than a moniker of respect, rather than a slur. I am open minded enough to be wrong, if anyone can PROVE it was never used as anything but a slur. I would, if it has to change, to keep some ambience of the culture, though. But, if the name changes to some crappy, homogenized, 'safe and PC' abomination, I will consider the franchise dead, and abandon watching the NFL. Oh, one more thing? Does anyone know if Lone star Dietz was an Elizabeth Warren-type Native american, or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 I But, a couple things that got me, during our discussion, was how he dismissed the Native Americans who embraced the name as ignorant on their reservations until the dawn of internet (???), and basically stating that only Indians should use 'redskin', again as we African Americans (not me) use the n-word internally. Also, that Fightin Irish is fine cause its a mythical creature, not the Irish in general. I didn't have time to ask how he felt about the Indians, the Braves, the State of Oklahoma, etc. So, he's against the name Redskins, but has the audacity to say the Fighting Irish is okay. I've heard numerous times that only NAs have the right to say the word "Redskins" isn't offensive, yet he basically tells the Irish they have nothing to be offended about lol. There are Irish out there who do find Fighting Irish offensive. http://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/others/outdated-and-offensive-the-redskins-and-notre-dames-leprechaun-229519311-238259701.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Blackhorse really pissed me off last night. No one challenged anything she said. The thing that pissed me off the most was that she made some outrageous claim, something along the lines of how the name has persecuted her and damaged her. I can't remember her exact quote but it was eye-roll worthy. No one challenged it! Could she provide a specific example about how a football team several states away has made her life worse? After talking about it with a buddy at work today, maybe she should actually be thankful that there's a team named the Redskins. Let's be honest, living in the DC area, how much attention do we give Native Americans on a daily basis? Are there any Native American restaurants around here? Not that I'm aware of. But I can walk outside of my apartment in Arlington and be around several restaurants of different cultures, everything from Vietnamese, Chinese, Mexican...everything. Native American art? Native American movie stars? Hardly ever prevalent. The most Native American thing that I can notice on a semi daily basis is a dreamcatcher hanging off some stupid teenagers rearview mirror, which isn't even where the ****ing thing belongs. Where is Native American culture in our everyday American culture? In my average, daily life, it's practically nowhere to be found. It's absolutely sad, to think about, but unless you live near an NA casino or a reservation, you probably don't give them much thought. Which made me think of Blackhorse and her incessant ****ing about this issue. Part of me thinks she should be flattered that there are a few sports teams that use Native American imagery to keep their identity in front of the masses because it's practically the only thing that is. Part of me thinks she should be thankful that someone might actually want to crack a book and learn more about her culture because their favorite team is the Redskins, Braves or Blackhawks and they'd like to know more about what that name means. And maybe then they'd learn what a travesty has been done to those people and donate money (or something even more precious, time) to their cause to help them out. One of the items that frustrates me the most about this whole debate is that if the name were changed tomorrow, it doesn't take care of any of the real issues that plagues their society. Blackhorse's appearance was the saddest thing about that whole show last night, she can't offer any real example of how the name of a football team has hurt her or made her daily life worse. Her opponent in the debate, Doore, brought up the real issues that plague her people and all she could do to defend herself was to accuse him of being paid off by Snyder which is a brilliant debate tactic if there ever was one. She then made some dumb statement about how she's asked Snyder to call her a Redskin to her face and hasn't had a reply, but I wouldn't call her a Redskin either. I'd call Robert Griffin III, Alfred Morris, Pierre Garcon, Brian Orakpo, Ryan Kerrigan, Doug Williams, Gary Clark, Art Monk, Ricky Sanders, Darrell Green, Joey T, John Riggins and many others Redskins to their faces WAY before I'd ever say it to her face because...well, she really isn't one. She doesn't put on pads every Sunday in the fall and go out and hit the gridiron. Nope, instead she's on a rampage to really wipe away any remaining daily reminder of Indians. I will say it's a shame that the only reminders there are of Native Americans on a daily basis in the USA is the fact that there are sports teams named after them, but that's the reality of the situation. And if she wants to continue the fight to take away erase any evidence of them in popular culture while at the same time ignoring the real issues that plague her people, it's her prerogative. I hope she fails miserably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skin'emAlive Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Well this probably means nothing, but ill share it anyways. I took a new job in SF and drove there from MD about 4 weeks ago. While driving to SF i stopped at multiple reservations. This includes Cherokee Nation, Navajo Nation, Seminole Nation, and Pawnee Nation. Each time i stopped, whether it was for gas, sight-seeing, or gifts, i had a breif chat with them about the name. Between every single one of them, they either didnt care at all, or were proud of the Redskins name representing them on a national stage. This is a very small sample size, but i felt no hostility at all around the name. The only real issue was the sudden uneasiness I have found in myself about asking these questions. Why is it that now i should feel bad about a name that i have used and worn proudly on my body from birth? I am saddened/enraged that the national media has made it their mission to create this tension that never was. Whether some of you agree or not, this team is my a part of me. Ive had many friends, lovers, careers, and homes come and go, but ive always been a redskins fan. They are a part of me and most of you more than many other things that others deem important. We redskins fans are as devoted and loyal as they come. Ive lived in Hagerstown, Baltimore, DC, Chicago, NY, Savannah, Atlanta, Beijing, and now SF and there is always a group of diehards ready to watch our team, win or lose in a bar regardless of the time or record. The name means something to us all. Ive never even met a fan of an opposing team that has a problem with this name. In fact they have all been supportive. Why should i let ass clowns like Bob Costas, ESPN, Washington Post, and Deadspin media zealots tell me that i should feel offended and ashamed about something that has been a part of me since my birth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 nevermind. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 i've always said this is the issue. whats the magic number of those saying they are offended? thats the question..... but i am curious about one thing. when i started hearing the reasons that those who claim to be offended were giving for being offended, it made me wonder what was going on here. heres what i see, in a nutshell (for anyone who cares)- there are a few extrememists, racist nuts (harjo and her followers) who have a history of redefining words as "offensive" to suit their agenda (see: 'squaw means vagina'). despite never backing up the claims with facts (this is because nobody wants to question native americans due to the ****ty hand they were deal at the hands of the europeans). this has been going on for decades, but nobody paid any real attention (as they shouldnt). a couple of years ago, the redskins got relevant for a bit, so, in the 24 hour 'breaking news!!!' media/blog cycle that exists these days, the nutjobs started to get traction, because, after all, 'red' skins must be racist, right? before you know it, columnists, bloggers, and anyone wanting to not sound like a jerk was proudly declaring they were no longer going to use the word, on account of the fact that 'some people say they are offended'. and political leaders (like our beloved, almost all liberal politicians, along with one opportunistic casino owner- ray halbritter- a man booted out of leadership by his own 'tribe', yet still recognized by the US government) boldly declared the word was- in fact and unequivocally- a slur. good stuff. only it turns out the reason given for being offended (redskins comes from scalps!) turns out to be a myth. an old wives tale. a traditional story passed down from one generation to the next. problem is, almost nobody bothered to ask 'why' they were offended. and those who did didn't seem to check the story out once they heard it. it was just accepted as fact. one poster put it this way- you say you hate me because you believe i ran over your cat. your hate is genuine. problem is, i never ran over your cat- turns out, somebody else did. but as long as you dont believe this, you cling to your belief, however false it may be. what are you supposed to do? their mind is made up. you are guilty of an offense that you never committed in someones mind. this is where we are with this issue. nobody bothered to ask "why". all of a sudden, a benign term that native americans themselves made up- used by a team whose very mascot was designed by a full blood blackfoot indian, the former president of the national congress of native americans; a word used by several native american high schools- not as a slur- but the opposite, a term of pride- is now verboten. (at least, according to a few activists and those who choose to listen to them) i find that many peoples minds are made up- this, despite not knowing the facts surrounding the name. I believe that the more people know the history of the name, the more good, smart people like chris cooley continue to speak out about it, the more people will see the truth behind this issue. anyway, thats my .02 Great post. I'll ask this though, and I've asked it before and this is not directed toward you or your post, but; What is the endgame? Many within this thread say there is an agenda. What is that agenda? What do the people win if the name is changed? If the people who say they are offended "win the battle" and the name is changed, what do they win? What do they get? Do they get money? That's the whole thing that I have trouble with in regards to those that are hammering the people complaining. Again, I AM NOT OFFENDED BY THE TEAM NAME. As I've said, I've personally witnessed the word used as a slur multiple times while in Montana where there are a large number of Blackfeet Indians. That doesn't mean that ALL of the NA's are offended, clearly, that's not true at all. I can totally see why NA's would be proud that there are teams using NA imagery. I agree with others that have posted that the teams using NA imagery are keeping NA history alive. But couldn't we also agree there there are probably a lot of NA's that hate European Americans? Again, look at both sides. But again, back to the agenda... Usually when people have an agenda, there is an end game. If this agenda was as deceitful as some claim, then what is it they are trying to gain? I'm open to ideas. But to me, I can't bash Harjo or what ever his name is because if the name changes from it, I don't see him profiting from the effort. Me personally, I wouldn't waste my time. All he's done is made a crap ton of people hate him. I try to put myself in the place of a NA and I see a lot of different things. On one hand, I'm proud that there are sports teams using NA imagery. On the other hand, I do think it would annoy me that non NA people are trying to tell me what should and/or should not offend me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueskin Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 anyway, this morning I have proof that I'm a diehard Redskins fan.I didn't sleep a wink last night thinking about this. Being of mixed heritage, I have been heard slurs from both black and white. In Nigeria, I was called oyinbo, which over there means whiteman. Here in the US, I've been called "n-word" and oreo. Oreo. By black brothers and sisters as well. I hear NA that support the name are called 'apples'. Anyway, no point I guess, except this: any word can be transformed into a slur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.