Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Two Minute Commericial Anti-"Redskins" Tonight


Recommended Posts

During halftime in tonight NBA playoff game there will be a two minute film about the slanderous, racist name "redskins". It ends by saying the American Indians are referred to by many names. Guess which one is unacceptable?

Compare this example to the Redskins name; if there was a swastika carved out or painted on any of the monuments like the Statue of Liberty in this country every means possible would be made to remove it ASAP and people would be teed off. Fans or not, all people in the Washington area should boycott the home games and if that does not work players must boycott the 2014 season until the name is changed. If that sounds radical just ask why that team INSISTS on keeping that name. Do they think it is cute? Is it a sign of pride or integrity. Boycott or change it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Compare this example to the Redskins name; if there was a swastika carved out or painted on any of the monuments like the Statue of Liberty in this country every means possible would be made to remove it ASAP and people would be teed off.e it.

 

Wow. That's such a terrible comparison. 

 

The name is definitely racist tho. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Until native Americans come out and say that it is utterly racist and demand change then I dont think they should change it. And I mean as a whol not with someone pushing there back saying it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Get the advertisers to pull out and Goodell will have it changed pretty quickly.  

 

I do agree it needs to be changed.  You can have native American mascots and not be racist but this is straight up racist.  

 

Tell you what, keep the same logo and re-name it The Washington Patawomecks.  After the Native American Tribe that used to live in the area before European settlements.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the few offended (most not even native american's) are trying to make something out of nothing personally. The term "Redskin" was coined by the native american nation. They called themselves this in solidarity..as a sign of strength and as a term of togetherness. Also the logo was designed by a native american....every time you check the vote always comes back like 90 some percent native americans have no problem with the name. Its a few people that want attention that get on these shows or write these articles trying to stir up controversy or gain notariety. If a majority of native americans felt this way I would say change it....but they don't. I hate when a few people try to make the world bend to their views because they yell the loudest. If I was native american I would be honored to have teams represent my heritage with a sports team nickname etc. Let's be honest. Without these team names....the average american would forget all about the proud history. We wouldn't even remember they are still here. If anything it allows them some modern relevancy by refering to them with these teams. The fight and bravery of native american warriors even if in the smallest way can be represented on the football field is better than nothing at all. Of course...imo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This wouldn't be an issue if Dan Snyder had any clue whatsoever when it comes to PR.  He's kind of been digging himself a hole throughout the whole manufactured controversy, which has been enough to keep it going when it would otherwise have fallen out of public interest.

 

Also doesn't help that he previously ticked off prominent local media like The Washington Post, who are now keen to jump all over every little misstep the organization makes.  There's a pretty tremendous anti-Snyder media market in DC that's being actively tapped due to stuff like this (and also the team just not being very good since he bought it).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to get into whether or not the name of the Redskins is racist and should be changed.

 

But, I would like to see those who are so adamantly against the name use their time and money for a different priority which is that of helping the American Indian reservations where there is high unemployment, a shortage of housing, homes without running water and electricity, poor healthcare and a very high infant mortality rate, substandard education . . . and those are only a few of their problems..

 

Then, they can get back to me regarding the nickname of an NFL team.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to get into whether or not the name of the Redskins is racist and should be changed.

 

But, I would like to see those who are so adamantly against the name use their time and money for a different priority which is that of helping the American Indian reservations where there is high unemployment, a shortage of housing, homes without running water and electricity, poor healthcare and a very high infant mortality rate, substandard education . . . and those are only a few of their problems..

 

Then, they can get back to me regarding the nickname of an NFL team.

Wow.  Very well said, shecolt!  One of the best posts I've read on here!

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. If it is not racist why then don't we ever hear that word except when describing the football team?

2. Is there a single sign or plaque on any reservation with the word "Redskin" on it?

3. Why have 50 senators signed a petition to have the name removed?.

4. 80 years ago this nation had slurs for every race and nationality on earth. Search for one today.

5. As one post here stated have the sponsors threaten to pull out and I guarantee a name change over night.

6. "Decency" apparently means nothing to the responders here and to the rest of the give-a-damns none of which have a trace of Native American blood in them.

7. Racism takes many forms and is easily disguised and what the NFL is doing is playing verbal "gymnastics" as Keith Olberman defined it.

8. What strikes me as the most curious of all is the apparent insistance in keeping the name. Why? Recall the Atlanta Braves owner getting hammered for the tomahawk salute in Braves game which they stopped doing.

9. Last, it is repulsive to even contemplate whites and blacks deciding what is best for the Native Americans as this used to be the status quo when whites decided what is best for blacks. Remember?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to get into whether or not the name of the Redskins is racist and should be changed.

 

But, I would like to see those who are so adamantly against the name use their time and money for a different priority which is that of helping the American Indian reservations where there is high unemployment, a shortage of housing, homes without running water and electricity, poor healthcare and a very high infant mortality rate, substandard education . . . and those are only a few of their problems..

 

Then, they can get back to me regarding the nickname of an NFL team.

 

I find it odd that everyone always has an opinion on what a group or organization that they are not a part of nor have they ever contributed to has an opinion on what that group should be doing with it's money.  

 

It reminds me strongly of folks who have never sat in on a church budget meeting and are not a part of a church always having opinions on how a church should spend it's money.  Usually this stems from the fact that the church actually has different goals from what they think they aught to be.  For some reason everyone who doesn't attend church always thinks that poverty (and not the gospel) should be a church's primary concern.

 

If they want to get a name that they find offensive changed it's not an evil or wrong goal.  Just because you think their priorities should be different is meaningless.  

 

The fact that there is high poverty among Native Americans does not render the change of a racist team name unimportant.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. If it is not racist why then don't we ever hear that word except when describing the football team?

2. Is there a single sign or plaque on any reservation with the word "Redskin" on it?

3. Why have 50 senators signed a petition to have the name removed?.

4. 80 years ago this nation had slurs for every race and nationality on earth. Search for one today.

5. As one post here stated have the sponsors threaten to pull out and I guarantee a name change over night.

6. "Decency" apparently means nothing to the responders here and to the rest of the give-a-damns none of which have a trace of Native American blood in them.

7. Racism takes many forms and is easily disguised and what the NFL is doing is playing verbal "gymnastics" as Keith Olberman defined it.

8. What strikes me as the most curious of all is the apparent insistance in keeping the name. Why? Recall the Atlanta Braves owner getting hammered for the tomahawk salute in Braves game which they stopped doing.

9. Last, it is repulsive to even contemplate whites and blacks deciding what is best for the Native Americans as this used to be the status quo when whites decided what is best for blacks. Remember?

 

Argument 1 and 9 are very strong, I like them and agree.

 

3 is very weak, I could care less if the entire federal government signed the petition.  I don't trust their inherit ability to judge right from wrong just because they were elected to office.  In fact I could list off reasons as to why I don't believe they have any ability to judge right from wrong for any individual senator given the time to look up his/her views, positions, and statements.

 

I would be careful with #6.  There are a lot of people who have a trace of Native American blood in them.  That doesn't however give them any insight as to what it is to be a Native American.  My wife is like 1/32nd Cherokee meaning my son is 1/64th Cherokee.  They have a trace of Native American blood in them, but not enough to realistically be considered anything but Caucasian.  

 

The answer to #8 is the same answer as to why the South continues to fly the Confederate battle flag.  Tradition.  IMO however in both cases they lack the insight to see when a tradition is legitimately hurtful to many and it should end.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. If it is not racist why then don't we ever hear that word except when describing the football team?

2. Is there a single sign or plaque on any reservation with the word "Redskin" on it?

3. Why have 50 senators signed a petition to have the name removed?.

4. 80 years ago this nation had slurs for every race and nationality on earth. Search for one today.

5. As one post here stated have the sponsors threaten to pull out and I guarantee a name change over night.

6. "Decency" apparently means nothing to the responders here and to the rest of the give-a-damns none of which have a trace of Native American blood in them.

7. Racism takes many forms and is easily disguised and what the NFL is doing is playing verbal "gymnastics" as Keith Olberman defined it.

8. What strikes me as the most curious of all is the apparent insistance in keeping the name. Why? Recall the Atlanta Braves owner getting hammered for the tomahawk salute in Braves game which they stopped doing.

9. Last, it is repulsive to even contemplate whites and blacks deciding what is best for the Native Americans as this used to be the status quo when whites decided what is best for blacks. Remember?

 

Argument 1 actually goes against the point you are trying to make. It can be argued that "Redskin" is not a derogatory name because it is NEVER used as a direct racial slur the way other prominent racial slurs are. I'm 28 years old and I've never in my life heard the term "Redskin" used in the same context as words like "cracker, white trash, the n word, etc... "... I've never once heard, in popular media or in person, a native american referred to as a Redskin for purposed of degradation. 

 

In all honesty, if the Washington Redskins were not around, most folks would probably associate the term "redskin" with potatoes... as funny as it sounds. 

 

Also, it's been said and said countless times, but no one really has an issue with the team name other than politicians and a native american group that owns and operates, of all things, casinos. So this whole fiasco is just being done for publicity reasons in my opinion.

 

There are 70+ highschools nationwide that use the mascot Redskins... some of them being majority native american populated. 

 

Numerous native american groups have stepped up in support of the name and noted that they have always been Redskins fans and the name is fine. The national approval of the name is something like 87%.

 

With all that said, clearly the name is not even intended as a racial slur. Dan Snyder isn't trying to degrade native americans, he's simply keeping up the tradition of one of the oldest and most storied franchises in the NFL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Argument 1 actually goes against the point you are trying to make. It can be argued that "Redskin" is not a derogatory name because it is NEVER used as a direct racial slur the way other prominent racial slurs are. I'm 28 years old and I've never in my life heard the term "Redskin" used in the same context as words like "cracker, white trash, the n word, etc... "... I've never once heard, in popular media or in person, a native american referred to as a Redskin for purposed of degradation. 

 

In all honesty, if the Washington Redskins were not around, most folks would probably associate the term "redskin" with potatoes... as funny as it sounds. 

 

Also, it's been said and said countless times, but no one really has an issue with the team name other than politicians and a native american group that owns and operates, of all things, casinos. So this whole fiasco is just being done for publicity reasons in my opinion.

 

There are 70+ highschools nationwide that use the mascot Redskins... some of them being majority native american populated. 

 

Numerous native american groups have stepped up in support of the name and noted that they have always been Redskins fans and the name is fine. The national approval of the name is something like 87%.

 

With all that said, clearly the name is not even intended as a racial slur. Dan Snyder isn't trying to degrade native americans, he's simply keeping up the tradition of one of the oldest and most storied franchises in the NFL.

 

Please source

 

As for with your last sentence . . . sometimes traditions are offensive and just plain wrong.  

 

As with your first claim. . . would you refer to a Native American as a redskin?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

What? The Redskins do not compare to a genocidal superiority sect who engaged the entire world in a war on their bid for conquest and extermination.

 

 

Um, Actually they do. America has killed way more Natives than any country combined when you want to go into specifics of genocide.

 

No one likes to bring it up cause they'll say "but it happened a long time ago" but it did happen. All that flag waving nationalism don't erase the blood stains that birthed this nation. This country was founded on the blood shed of mass genocide to the original occupiers to the land. America killed way, way more Natives and Africans (slave trade) than the Nazi's killed of the Jews, and even if you combine all the deaths of the communists in the Eastern Bloc that the Nazi's murdered (they killed plenty of Eastern people too, the first people the Nazi's murdered were the communists, if you want to be accurate) it still don't come close to the numbers of America the great's death toll to what they did to the Natives. In fact the Nazi's even praised the founding fathers for their extermination of the Natives. Hitler wrote nice things about them and praised them for it.

Besides this, I always find it ironic and sometimes hilarious that America is the one country likes to remind everyone in the world about who kills people, but no one can ever bring up the bloody history that founded this very own country where we still are one of the most racist and sexist countries in the world, and it's all in the name of profit. Thank you capitalism!

 

America has a very long history of being cruel to anything that's not white, (and women too, seeing we still treat them like second class citizens) if you want to go into this, when the Irish and Italians first came to America, they too had to face racial discrimination from the white Christians, cause according to them, the Irish weren't white enough for them. There is books and historical documentation written about this. Same goes for the Jewish people too, America was pretty mean to them too before the Third Reich even existed, and still to this day, we have stereotypical imagery of Jewish people and even Italians, though it's no where near as bad as all the sexist objectification of women that we see everyday in advertising and entertainment. 

It all goes back to capitalism and the exploitation of race, religion, and gender.

 

If they changed the name, it would make a lot of people happy. As the only ones unhappy would be the typical "this is muh Murica!" group of people who's opinion mean absolutely nothing to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, Actually they do. America has killed way more Natives than any country combined when you want to go into specifics of genocide.

 

No one likes to bring it up cause they'll say "but it happened a long time ago" but it did happen. All that flag waving nationalism don't erase the blood stains that birthed this nation. This country was founded on the blood shed of mass genocide to the original occupiers to the land. America killed way, way more Natives and Africans (slave trade) than the Nazi's killed of the Jews, and even if you combine all the deaths of the communists in the Eastern Bloc that the Nazi's murdered (they killed plenty of Eastern people too, the first people the Nazi's murdered were the communists, if you want to be accurate) it still don't come close to the numbers of America the great's death toll to what they did to the Natives. In fact the Nazi's even praised the founding fathers for their extermination of the Natives. Hitler wrote nice things about them and praised them for it.

Besides this, I always find it ironic and sometimes hilarious that America is the one country likes to remind everyone in the world about who kills people, but no one can ever bring up the bloody history that founded this very own country where we still are one of the most racist and sexist countries in the world, and it's all in the name of profit. Thank you capitalism!

 

America has a very long history of being cruel to anything that's not white, (and women too, seeing we still treat them like second class citizens) if you want to go into this, when the Irish and Italians first came to America, they too had to face racial discrimination from the white Christians, cause according to them, the Irish weren't white enough for them. There is books and historical documentation written about this. Same goes for the Jewish people too, America was pretty mean to them too before the Third Reich even existed, and still to this day, we have stereotypical imagery of Jewish people and even Italians, though it's no where near as bad as all the sexist objectification of women that we see everyday in advertising and entertainment. 

It all goes back to capitalism and the exploitation of race, religion, and gender.

 

If they changed the name, it would make a lot of people happy. As the only ones unhappy would be the typical "this is muh Murica!" group of people who's opinion mean absolutely nothing to me.

It's still a terrible comparison. He compared Redskins to Nazi's... not Redskins to Jewish People.

 

The term "Redskins" is predominately associated with a football team. Whereas swastikas are associated with Nazi Germany/ Adolph Hitler / Mass Murder... etc etc... 

 

Terrible comparison.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, Actually they do. America has killed way more Natives than any country combined when you want to go into specifics of genocide.

 

No one likes to bring it up cause they'll say "but it happened a long time ago" but it did happen. All that flag waving nationalism don't erase the blood stains that birthed this nation. This country was founded on the blood shed of mass genocide to the original occupiers to the land. America killed way, way more Natives and Africans (slave trade) than the Nazi's killed of the Jews, and even if you combine all the deaths of the communists in the Eastern Bloc that the Nazi's murdered (they killed plenty of Eastern people too, the first people the Nazi's murdered were the communists, if you want to be accurate) it still don't come close to the numbers of America the great's death toll to what they did to the Natives. In fact the Nazi's even praised the founding fathers for their extermination of the Natives. Hitler wrote nice things about them and praised them for it.

Besides this, I always find it ironic and sometimes hilarious that America is the one country likes to remind everyone in the world about who kills people, but no one can ever bring up the bloody history that founded this very own country where we still are one of the most racist and sexist countries in the world, and it's all in the name of profit. Thank you capitalism!

 

America has a very long history of being cruel to anything that's not white, (and women too, seeing we still treat them like second class citizens) if you want to go into this, when the Irish and Italians first came to America, they too had to face racial discrimination from the white Christians, cause according to them, the Irish weren't white enough for them. There is books and historical documentation written about this. Same goes for the Jewish people too, America was pretty mean to them too before the Third Reich even existed, and still to this day, we have stereotypical imagery of Jewish people and even Italians, though it's no where near as bad as all the sexist objectification of women that we see everyday in advertising and entertainment. 

It all goes back to capitalism and the exploitation of race, religion, and gender.

 

If they changed the name, it would make a lot of people happy. As the only ones unhappy would be the typical "this is muh Murica!" group of people who's opinion mean absolutely nothing to me.

 

Ok this is just over the top.

 

First of all you are ignoring the fact that most of the drop in Native populations was due to disease brought over from Europe long before the United States even became a thing.

 

Then you are ignoring further that genocide being a crime of intent there was a severe lack of intent to call it genocide.  That doesn't make it right or good.  But what was done to the Native population is nothing like the wholesale slaughter of 13 million Jews.  Most deaths were do to disease and forced relocation.  No forced relocation isn't a good thing, but it's not the same as outright killing someone.

 

Agree with you every bit about how we as a country seem to ignore it.  Which is why I can not understand the South's continued use of the confederate battle flag or this name.

 

We are not a racist or sexist society as a whole.  Does racism and sexism still exist. . . yes it does at varying levels.  For most people it is simple stereotypes.  But stereotypes get applied to everyone not just women and minorities.  

 

Race and sex don't limit people in this country nearly as much money or the lack thereof does.

 

The idea that women are second class citizens is quite frankly laughable.  Last I checked they didn't have to, by law place their life at risk at the demands of the state in order to get the right to vote or receive financial aid to go to college.  

 

Your political slant is really clouding your judgement and hurting this cause IMO.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, Actually they do. America has killed way more Natives than any country combined when you want to go into specifics of genocide.

 

No one likes to bring it up cause they'll say "but it happened a long time ago" but it did happen. All that flag waving nationalism don't erase the blood stains that birthed this nation. This country was founded on the blood shed of mass genocide to the original occupiers to the land. America killed way, way more Natives and Africans (slave trade) than the Nazi's killed of the Jews, and even if you combine all the deaths of the communists in the Eastern Bloc that the Nazi's murdered (they killed plenty of Eastern people too, the first people the Nazi's murdered were the communists, if you want to be accurate) it still don't come close to the numbers of America the great's death toll to what they did to the Natives. In fact the Nazi's even praised the founding fathers for their extermination of the Natives. Hitler wrote nice things about them and praised them for it.

Besides this, I always find it ironic and sometimes hilarious that America is the one country likes to remind everyone in the world about who kills people, but no one can ever bring up the bloody history that founded this very own country where we still are one of the most racist and sexist countries in the world, and it's all in the name of profit. Thank you capitalism!

 

America has a very long history of being cruel to anything that's not white, (and women too, seeing we still treat them like second class citizens) if you want to go into this, when the Irish and Italians first came to America, they too had to face racial discrimination from the white Christians, cause according to them, the Irish weren't white enough for them. There is books and historical documentation written about this. Same goes for the Jewish people too, America was pretty mean to them too before the Third Reich even existed, and still to this day, we have stereotypical imagery of Jewish people and even Italians, though it's no where near as bad as all the sexist objectification of women that we see everyday in advertising and entertainment. 

It all goes back to capitalism and the exploitation of race, religion, and gender.

 

If they changed the name, it would make a lot of people happy. As the only ones unhappy would be the typical "this is muh Murica!" group of people who's opinion mean absolutely nothing to me.

 

1HWQIPa.gif

 

I've been debating whether to block you for some time, but this nailed the coffin. Thanks. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority of people in this country do not find it to be a racist word. Therefore, it's not racist. A word only has meaning when people give it one. For a word to have meaning, the "people" have to be the majority. Difference between this word and actual racist words is that most people don't use redskins in a racist manner. The word refers to the football team or the type of potato way more often than not. People need to get over trying to make everything 100% politically correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority of people in this country do not find it to be a racist word. Therefore, it's not racist. A word only has meaning when people give it one. For a word to have meaning, the "people" have to be the majority. Difference between this word and actual racist words is that most people don't use redskins in a racist manner. The word refers to the football team or the type of potato way more often than not. People need to get over trying to make everything 100% politically correct.

 

Meh, lets not go there. The people in this country will go along with many things just to follow the crowd.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority of people in this country do not find it to be a racist word. Therefore, it's not racist. A word only has meaning when people give it one. For a word to have meaning, the "people" have to be the majority. Difference between this word and actual racist words is that most people don't use redskins in a racist manner. The word refers to the football team or the type of potato way more often than not. People need to get over trying to make everything 100% politically correct.

This. I've never in my 21 years, even in school, heard the tern 'redskin' used in a derogatory manner. It is used only for the mascots and the team itself...and I am sure that poverty-stricken Native Americans care more about the government helping them get out of poverty than trying to change a sport's team name.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is some politics behind the push to change the name but, I can see that it offends.

 

I would never refer to anyone with that word........

 

I don't get people being angry that some people want it changed.  What is that about?  Why dismiss it as some 'ridiculous pc garbage'?

 

As far as it being racist, I think it was not intended that way but today it is.

 

The meaning of words change.  The are a lot of words that we don't use any more in reference to people because they became offensive and divisive.

 

For example people with developmental disabilities used to be officially called imbeciles.

 

I'm sure that most of use would not like being called that although I think it first it was a fairly clinical term........over time it became something else.

 

I don't think majority rules is appropriate in this case. The word doesn't refer to the majority so how is that fair?

 

Small price to pay for a lack of divisiveness.

 

People are more important that words or team names.

 

The only concern that I have with this drive to remove any reference to Native Americans from sports is just that..........it erases them as part of this country.

 

Not sure that is what they want.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think as time goes on and people learn more and do more research......they will find many things are more degrading then they used to be. For example, my generation...or "some" of us think a lot of things are offensive that my parents or grandparents did not. Times change, people change.....it should be part of our natural advancement in society but much of it can be held back.

 

A lot of things are racist or sexist in today's world. But, most don't want to change anything since it's the way it has always been. Change is not always bad though, it can be liberating and refreshing if done properly but it's tough to do since so many are afraid of true change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think as time goes on and people learn more and do more research......they will find many things are more degrading then they used to be. For example, my generation...or "some" of us think a lot of things are offensive that my parents or grandparents did not. Times change, people change.....it should be part of our natural advancement in society but much of it can be held back.

 

A lot of things are racist or sexist in today's world. But, most don't want to change anything since it's the way it has always been. Change is not always bad though, it can be liberating and refreshing if done properly but it's tough to do since so many are afraid of true change.

 

I think part of the potential issue is that, as more and more words and sayings get added to the blacklist, we will have homogenized society as a whole, and everyone will be the same, nothing will be interesting. Of course that's playing to the extreme, but there are a lot of terms that aren't acceptable anymore that many people never found offensive. What happened is that a vocal group of people made a fuss, and everyone gave in. Not arguing that people should continue using words that are offensive, even to a small group of people. But I do think some of the societal correction can be petty. All it takes for something to be considered offensive is for someone to be offended loud enough.

 

In the case of "redskins," I think I get why it's considered offensive. Like the Washington fan in this thread said, the issue could have been handled better by the team's PR unit and by Daniel Snyder himself. He's come off as standoffish and insensitive, and that's by his own doing. But it is absolutely true that some Native American groups support the name, so this is far from an open and shut case. I don't have a strong opinion on it, one way or the other, but in the long run, I don't see this helping the team. I think, eventually, they're going to be pressured to change the name. And that being the case, they could have taken the long view several years ago, before this became so controversial, and been proactive about it. The way it's going, Snyder will be known as being on the wrong side of this issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok this is just over the top.

 

First of all you are ignoring the fact that most of the drop in Native populations was due to disease brought over from Europe long before the United States even became a thing.

 

Please don't forget that American Indians were sold blankets laden with smallpox in them designed to annihilate tribes quickly courtesy of own federal government. 

 

Then you are ignoring further that genocide being a crime of intent there was a severe lack of intent to call it genocide.  That doesn't make it right or good.  But what was done to the Native population is nothing like the wholesale slaughter of 13 million Jews.  Most deaths were do to disease and forced relocation.  No forced relocation isn't a good thing, but it's not the same as outright killing someone. 

 

"wholesale slaughter of 13 million Jews? I have no idea how to even interpret that statement. Was that intended to be humorous? Relocating a native population is always done with a malicious intent. You rob a culture of their surroundings, you force them to speak a different language, you cut their hair, & you systematically engrain this population with the idea that they are subhuman & need to re-programmed by another nation who will rid you of your falsely percieved backward ways. NAZI's may have practiced instant extermination but the US government's treatment of American Indians was just as deadly don't kid yourself. 

 

Agree with you every bit about how we as a country seem to ignore it.  Which is why I can not understand the South's continued use of the confederate battle flag or this name.

 

We are not a racist or sexist society as a whole.  Does racism and sexism still exist. . . yes it does at varying levels.  For most people it is simple stereotypes.  But stereotypes get applied to everyone not just women and minorities.  

 

I like to believe that people are genuinely good, but racism will never die. It only goes further underground waiting for the right moment to rear it's ugly head. 

 

Race and sex don't limit people in this country nearly as much money or the lack thereof does.

 

The idea that women are second class citizens is quite frankly laughable.  Last I checked they didn't have to, by law place their life at risk at the demands of the state in order to get the right to vote or receive financial aid to go to college.  

 

Are women paid the same as men for the same work as their male counterpart in the same profession with the same level of experience? Nope. Are men who run for President ever asked if they would fail to handle a crisis at a certain time of the month? Nope. I respect women & their intellect, but sadly this world is very sexist who treats that gender as second class citizens & I always stand up for equality among women. 

 

Your political slant is really clouding your judgement and hurting this cause IMO.  

 

I  didn't see Bogie's statement as a political slant at all. Until the American Indian community chimes in on this NFL name controversy, I can't read the tea leafs or see which direction the wind is really blowing here. Synder won't move here until the NFL Commission gives Dan a sweetheart financial deal to make it worth his while to change the name. Money talks & for the right price Dan will play ball. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Relocating a native population is always done with a malicious intent. You rob a culture of their surroundings, you force them to speak a different language, you cut their hair, & you systematically engrain this population with the idea that they are subhuman & need to re-programmed by another nation who will rid you of your falsely perceived backward ways. NAZI's may have practiced instant extermination but the US government's treatment of American Indians was just as deadly. Don't kid yourself.

Well said, SW.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, Actually they do. America has killed way more Natives than any country combined when you want to go into specifics of genocide.

No one likes to bring it up cause they'll say "but it happened a long time ago" but it did happen. All that flag waving nationalism don't erase the blood stains that birthed this nation. This country was founded on the blood shed of mass genocide to the original occupiers to the land. America killed way, way more Natives and Africans (slave trade) than the Nazi's killed of the Jews, and even if you combine all the deaths of the communists in the Eastern Bloc that the Nazi's murdered (they killed plenty of Eastern people too, the first people the Nazi's murdered were the communists, if you want to be accurate) it still don't come close to the numbers of America the great's death toll to what they did to the Natives. In fact the Nazi's even praised the founding fathers for their extermination of the Natives. Hitler wrote nice things about them and praised them for it.

Besides this, I always find it ironic and sometimes hilarious that America is the one country likes to remind everyone in the world about who kills people, but no one can ever bring up the bloody history that founded this very own country where we still are one of the most racist and sexist countries in the world, and it's all in the name of profit. Thank you capitalism!

America has a very long history of being cruel to anything that's not white, (and women too, seeing we still treat them like second class citizens) if you want to go into this, when the Irish and Italians first came to America, they too had to face racial discrimination from the white Christians, cause according to them, the Irish weren't white enough for them. There is books and historical documentation written about this. Same goes for the Jewish people too, America was pretty mean to them too before the Third Reich even existed, and still to this day, we have stereotypical imagery of Jewish people and even Italians, though it's no where near as bad as all the sexist objectification of women that we see everyday in advertising and entertainment.

It all goes back to capitalism and the exploitation of race, religion, and gender.

If they changed the name, it would make a lot of people happy. As the only ones unhappy would be the typical "this is muh Murica!" group of people who's opinion mean absolutely nothing to me.

yeah, almost all of this is inaccurate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it odd that everyone always has an opinion on what a group or organization that they are not a part of nor have they ever contributed to has an opinion on what that group should be doing with it's money.  

 

It reminds me strongly of folks who have never sat in on a church budget meeting and are not a part of a church always having opinions on how a church should spend it's money.  Usually this stems from the fact that the church actually has different goals from what they think they aught to be.  For some reason everyone who doesn't attend church always thinks that poverty (and not the gospel) should be a church's primary concern.

 

If they want to get a name that they find offensive changed it's not an evil or wrong goal.  Just because you think their priorities should be different is meaningless.  

 

The fact that there is high poverty among Native Americans does not render the change of a racist team name unimportant.  

 

Excuse me!  Where in my post did I say that changing the name was an evil or wrong goal or that it was unimportant?

 

I'm sorry that you find my desire to have more concentration put on the plight of those in reservations rather than on a nickname to be meaningless. 

 

Btw, aren't you the same guy who said that the pic of Lebron wearing a pink bra and a headband with a pink bow wasn't sexist because guys just do things like that . . . they insult one another by saying that the other has female characteristics because that's just guys bonding???

 

If so, you certainly do blow hot and cold.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a BIG difference between something that is RACIAL and something that is RACIST. 

 

Big corporations have research departments that gather data for marketing and product development.  Their "demographic research" breaks down the data in many different ways, including race, gender, religion.....three things that are illegal to discriminate against.  But because this "discriminatory data" is used in a POSITIVE way, to deliver a product or service to that group, it is not considered racIST.  Its merely racIAL.

 

Take the exact same data and use it negatively, to harm a group, and it becomes racist.  Its not the data, or even the stereotyping that is the problem, it is using it negatively, or forming a negative stereotype, that is the problem.

 

The term "Redskins" is a racial term.  But it is used in an honorable way.  Just like the term Negro is a racial term, and can be used the same way (although there isn't a good example of positive use of the term in our society.  In fact, it has been converted into a permanently negative word, the n word). 

 

The use of the word 'Redskin" depicts a group of people of native american heritage who "bravely and vigorously defended territory".  Pretty darn honorable.  That's why many sports teams use similar Indian nicknames.  And "brave and vigorous defenders of territory" is also very appropriate for a football team.

 

Redskins is a POSITIVE term.  Simply because it has the word "skin" preceeded by a color, does not make it racist.  It is merely racial. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...