daveakl Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 As of 1200 on 11/26/15 You are correct. I was however correct with my preliminary post this morning about our team being the only one...but now I see the KC tweet from 9 hours ago. I shoulda re-checked the Twitter before I made that post a few hours ago. Okay so lemme ask you this...why hasn't there been a huge internet backlash against the Chiefs? Because people got on with their lives as the day went on and didn't care about those that were so outraged when the Redskins did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 Please don't associate this as a "liberal" vs. "conservative" thing. Â I'm pretty darn liberal, proud of it, and I don't have one damn problem with the Redskins name. Unfortunately it has become that (A Liberal vs Conservative thing) There Liberals that were Redskins fans that that changed their positions because their "team" has taken the anti-Redskin position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 I loled. I lol'ed at "huge Internet backlash" You want a huge Internet backlash? Watch twitter when the latest COD is released and the multi-player servers crash. That's a huge Internet backlash. It also comes from a place of more reasonable outrage. You pay 60 for the game and the damn devs can't keep the servers from crashing even though it happens every new release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 Unfortunately it has become that (A Liberal vs Conservative thing) There Liberals that were Redskins fans that that changed their positions because their "team" has taken the anti-Redskin position.  It is amusing to see the liberals in this thread who otherwise like the racist mantra, defend the name. I have always believed Snyder would make more money by changing the name. Sales of merchandise and logo material would go through the roof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 Unfortunately it has become that (A Liberal vs Conservative thing) There Liberals that were Redskins fans that that changed their positions because their "team" has taken the anti-Redskin position. There are some reasonable liberals. But yes, it's generally a political discussion now. The republicans are for the name because they're racists and the liberals are against the name because they are weak willed and full of white guilt. Sad that it's come to that. It is amusing to see the liberals in this thread who otherwise like the racist mantra, defend the name. I have always believed Snyder would make more money by changing the name. Sales of merchandise and logo material would go through the roof. I remember you saying that probably a couple of years ago. I said I'd stop rooting for the team if they changed the name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor703 Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 It is amusing to see the liberals in this thread who otherwise like the racist mantra, defend the name. I have always believed Snyder would make more money by changing the name. Sales of merchandise and logo material would go through the roof. Why would anyone believe this to be the case? So one of the leagues most popular franchises changes it's name and mascot and somehow that's supposed to make them more popular? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 3k retweets? Crap man we're in trouble.  It's at 8.6K RTs and 7.6K FAVs as of 2156  So not only were the Washington Redskins being nice, they were also the first team wirh an American Indian mascot to do so. And they still get **** on. There isn't an Internet backlash against the Chiefs because the Internet SJW's haven't decided to start attacking the Chiefs yet. I loled.  Chief isn't a dictionary defined slur. Unfortunately our team name is.  Because people got on with their lives as the day went on and didn't care about those that were so outraged when the Redskins did it.  I'm not outraged, but I'm also not a an indigenous person.  I have no right to tell a native american what he/she can or cannot be offended by.  Unfortunately it has become that (A Liberal vs Conservative thing) There Liberals that were Redskins fans that that changed their positions because their "team" has taken the anti-Redskin position.  Conservatives who back name change:  John McCain: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2014/05/03/john-mccain-would-probably-change-redskins-name/ Charles Krauthaimer: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-redskins-and-reason/2013/10/17/cbb11eee-374f-11e3-ae46-e4248e75c8ea_story.html rep. Tom Cole (Chickasaw Native): https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2013/01/18/oklahoma-congressman-calls-redskins-name-very-offensive/ Billy Mills, Gold medal winning Sioux track and field star. Great friend of the Reagan family Ben "Nighthorse" Campbell, retired republican sentaor: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-poll-finds-widespread-support-redskins-name  I'm also a registered republican. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 Okay so lemme ask you this...why hasn't there been a huge internet backlash against the Chiefs? You do realize that you are now actually arguing the point that wishing people Happy Thanksgiving isn't offensive, and people (including you) are pretending to be offended, just because "Redskins"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 Other professional sports teams have Native American nicknames, including the NFL's Kansas City Chiefs and baseball's Atlanta Braves and Cleveland Indians. But former U.S. Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado, who is Native American, said "Redskins" is much worse because of its origins and its use in connection with bounties on Indians.  "There's a derogatory name for every ethnic group in America, and we shouldn't be using those words," Campbell said, adding that many people don't realize how offensive the word is. "We probably haven't gotten our message out as well as it should be gotten out."  American Indians make up 1 percent of the population, according to Census figures   http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-poll-finds-widespread-support-redskins-name You do realize that you are now actually arguing the point that wishing people Happy Thanksgiving isn't offensive, and people (including you) are pretending to be offended, just because "Redskins"?  Yes, I already admitted my error in a previous post.  However there still indigenous peoples who aren't comfortable with this holiday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 It's at 8.6K RTs and 7.6K FAVs as of 2156 Has anyone informed Snyder yet? This is compelling stuff. Â However there still indigenous peoples who aren't comfortable with this holiday. Which is perfectly understandable, yet has nothing to do with the Redskins wishing people Happy Thanksgiving. Â Maybe the real cause here should be to remove Thanksgiving from the list of federal holidays and forcing people to stop celebrating it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-poll-finds-widespread-support-redskins-name  Yes, I already admitted my error in a previous post.  However there still indigenous peoples who aren't comfortable with this holiday. Observing that 1). The title of the article you linked, is "US poll finds widespread support for Redskins name"? (Although, I note that the article quotes from a poll, and gives us the results for all people, football fans and non fans, whites and non whites. But does not mention any results for Natives. Which is what I think is really the group that counts). (Although, said group doesn't seem to be all that important, to you. Or, near as I can tell, to any of the other name changers). 2). And really, the guy you're trying to hold up as an authority, somebody who knows more about whether the name is offensive, than the people supposedly offended do, is going to say that "Redskins is worse because of its origins"? Is he (and you) ignorant of it's origins, or does he just figure everybody else is? However there still indigenous peoples who aren't comfortable with this holiday. There are people who aren't comfortable crossing the street. Feel like telling us how many? Or are you just going to keep mentioning that someone, somewhere, doesn't like something (while not mentioning that there are ten times as many, who don't feel that way)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salistala Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015  2). And really, the guy you're trying to hold up as an authority, somebody who knows more about whether the name is offensive, than the people supposedly offended do, is going to say that "Redskins is worse because of its origins"? Is he (and you) ignorant of it's origins, or does he just figure everybody else is?  Ben Nighthorse Campbell  That name seem un-Native American to you? He's a Chief of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Tribe and a former US Senator. I don't think he is supposedly offended, I think he is clearly offended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 Ben Nighthorse Campbell  That name seem un-Native American to you? He's a Chief of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Tribe and a former US Senator. I don't think he is supposedly offended, I think he is clearly offended. Didn't read what I wrote? Or couldn't argue with it, so you decided to argue with something I didn't say, instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 Serious question - what exactly is thanksgiving? And what do we know about native Americans involvement in it? Look up Nat Geo's "Saints and Strangers". It was as accurate a portrayal as I've seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-poll-finds-widespread-support-redskins-name Yes, I already admitted my error in a previous post. However there still indigenous peoples who aren't comfortable with this holiday. Ben nighthorse Campbell believes the oft repeated myth that redskins comes from scalps. Glad you posted that. Not sure why you posted that, unless you were unaware that that position is a bull****, historically unfounded myth. Again, I believe that if you just ask "why" one is OFFENDED (I know, crazy, right?), you would find a lot of this drivel. People choosing to believe fairy tales is not even close to being a reason to change the name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015   http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-poll-finds-widespread-support-redskins-name    This so disappointing to me on 2 levels.  1- The Native American cites a fallacy, believes it  2- Supposes that Redskin is equivalent to 'every races derogatory word' for NA's  I don't refute that anyone can be offended by anything, that's inarguable. We highlighted here PETA members offended at Packers name. But what I will critique is why... If it's ludicrous in it's reasoning, why should I care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 Just reflecting on the fact that what I'm taking away from the last day of this thread, is the impression that the name changers appear to exhibit pretty much the same behavior towards the words "Happy Thanksgiving" as they exhibit towards the words "Washington Redskins".  The notable difference being that, after arguing for a few hours, employing remarkably similar tactics and arguments, many of them will reluctantly admit that it was all an act that they're putting on, as part of their cause.  Now, this similarity, IMO, does not prove anything about the validity of the name change cause. (A cause which I, personally, can see validity in.)  (I think you could argue that it does prove something about the individual posters.)  But it certainly does go in the mental file, to be referred to, later.  Again, just my opinion. But I think y'all have really hurt the credibility of your cause, with this demonstration, last day or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 People choosing to believe fairy tales is not even close to being a reason to change the name. Â At one point didn't we all choose to believe the fairy tale about Lone Star Dietz? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 At one point didn't we all choose to believe the fairy tale about Lone Star Dietz? Noting that the above poster is actually arguing that pushing untrue claims (after they have been proven untrue) is an action he will defend. (When it helps his cause). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 Noting that the above poster is actually arguing that pushing untrue claims (after they have been proven untrue) is an action he will defend. (When it helps his cause). The claims are only "untrue" because they don't fit YOUR definition of a redskin. Nobody wants our team associated with genocide. Why would we? Not even the Raiders would want that.  I'll counterclaim that your definition of a redskin is growing untrue, proven by the outdated myth of the noble savage warrior from centuries past. Our football redskin is a vehicle of fantasy, not reality. It was created in a romantic period when indigenous people were no longer a perceived threat to the advancement of civilization, and their welfare not yet a concern to most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 This thread has truly jumped the shark but it's obvious why it continues based on 1 of the posters history.Transgenders now get more attention than native Americans when it comes to the issue of names and how we refer to them. The native American population is far greater than the transgender population. In our liberal politically correct society, the name should be changed. Not that I agree with it, but it is the table we set for every other minority group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 Merry Day of Possibly being About Jesus But Is Most Likely A Compromise Holiday Invented When Christianity Started to Infringe Upon Long Standing Pagan Holidays. Â This is what I'm giving all my internet friends this year. Â Apply liberally. Eat some, even. Â ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 The claims are only "untrue" because they don't fit YOUR definition of a redskin. Nobody wants our team associated with genocide. Why would we? Not even the Raiders would want that. I'll counterclaim that your definition of a redskin is growing untrue, proven by the outdated myth of the noble savage warrior from centuries past. Our football redskin is a vehicle of fantasy, not reality. It was created in a romantic period when indigenous people were no longer a perceived threat to the advancement of civilization, and their welfare not yet a concern to most. I'm not sure what the heck you are talking about, but I recognize that it would do no use to ask. It's just a diversion, change of the subject when another bull**** argument gets exposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 I'm not sure what the heck you are talking about, but I recognize that it would do no use to ask. It's just a diversion, change of the subject when another bull**** argument gets exposed. Glad I'm not the only one who felt that way when reading it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 The claims are only "untrue" because they don't fit YOUR definition of a redskin. No. They're untrue because they're untrue. The origin of the term "redskin", to refer to the indigenous people of the continental US, is that said people invented the word, to refer to themselves. This is a documented historical fact. And sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling real loud will not make you (or the person you're defending) right. Nor will it make your cause appear any better. In fact (there's that pesky word, again) it's making it appear more fanatical and dishonest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.