Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, DougDew said:

IMO, its not so much the name, but the tactics used to change it.  Someone pointed out that for some reason the name Indians is bad, but not the Chiefs or the Braves, who have linkages to indian names, so where does it stop.

 

Someone has to stand up to the bullying tactics displayed by the mob, which now includes national and transnational corporations.  I'm not sure who gave them the authority to define to the rest of us what is offensive.

 

Simply say, no Fred Smith (ceo of Fed Ex) your'e dead wrong.  Redskins isn't an offensive name.  Its what they looked like by the people who named them.  Green skins would be offensive because it is incorrect.

I'm pretty sure the issue with the Cleveland Indians is less to do with the name and more to do with their mascot. They seem to be opting to just make a change before they face the same level of  scrutiny as the Redskins.

 

For decades Native Americans, led by the National Congress of American Indians, have opposed the name "Redskins" as a racial slur. I'd say the opinion of the people the slur is derogatory towards hold way more value than anyone else.

 

I also find it amusing that you complain about "the mob" having the authority to define something as offensive, then follow that up by expressing your own opinion as fact that it isn't offensive. Who are you to tell Native Americans that a slur towards them isn't offensive? Also, that's like saying the term "negro" isn't offensive, because "it's what they looked like by the people who named them".

 

This is a decades long fight that a few multi-national corporations decided to throw their weight behind, to support a minority group that has been asking for this change for a very long time.

 

13 hours ago, horseshoepower said:

2. the Ivy League shut down all sports the rest of the year, at first that is not a big deal to 99% of sports fans, but remember back to the up close and personal pre-mask world of March 10, 2020, the Ivy league, cancelled their NCAA hoops tournament and just a few days later... all sports vanished. 

That was the time period where almost everything shut down, so I wouldn't say the Ivy League canceling their NCAA tournament was a driving force of anything, just more of an event coinciding with a national lockdown.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shive said:

I'm pretty sure the issue with the Cleveland Indians is less to do with the name and more to do with their mascot. They seem to be opting to just make a change before they face the same level of  scrutiny as the Redskins.

 

For decades Native Americans, led by the National Congress of American Indians, have opposed the name "Redskins" as a racial slur. I'd say the opinion of the people the slur is derogatory towards hold way more value than anyone else.

 

I also find it amusing that you complain about "the mob" having the authority to define something as offensive, then follow that up by expressing your own opinion as fact that it isn't offensive. Who are you to tell Native Americans that a slur towards them isn't offensive? Also, that's like saying the term "negro" isn't offensive, because "it's what they looked like by the people who named them".

 

This is a decades long fight that a few multi-national corporations decided to throw their weight behind, to support a minority group that has been asking for this change for a very long time.

 

That was the time period where almost everything shut down, so I wouldn't say the Ivy League canceling their NCAA tournament was a driving force of anything, just more of an event coinciding with a national lockdown.

As a white person, who is a genetic descendant of the people who INVENTED the un-tribal concept of America, I am offended that a group of people who fought against that concept in order to maintain their inferior tribal way of life would try to use that word as a means to distinguish themselves from the rest of Americans.  We think of African Americans and Asian Americans as being a different race, because they are, but Native Americans are actually Asians in terms of race.  So to use the term Native Americans, they are actually distinguishing themselves from the rest of us based upon their heritage and culture...which was one that decidedly fought against the concept of America.  To try to now steal some sort of ownership of the word and use it for their own elevation of cultural status into an equal culture is offensive.  If they want to distinguish themselves from other Americans based upon their heritage then they should be called Natives and cease and desist using the word that is at the root of the differences.  Or we all can just call them Americans.

 

Its sad that most social studies teachers...and even PHDs, are simply too stupid or PC brainwashed to understand the root of the issue, and how offensive they are every time they call Indians Native Americans.

 

I don't really care what the name of the Redskins is, but the owner should be the one to decide.  The tactic that multinationals are using to bully others to behave like they want is close to extortion, which is conceptual extension of the simple tactic of a back-alley mugging or liquor store robbing.  They are trying to coerce someone else to do something they want him to do.

 

There is a simple way for Target, etc. to have the name changed.  Buy the team at market price.  Then change the name to the RedDots or whatever they want.  Same simple way to get money out of a cash register of a liquor store.  Buy the store.  I suppose in the end, its just less expensive to bully someone than to spend your own money or to do things the sincere way.  Typical tactic.  A short cut to effect change based upon laziness and ease, ultimately at the root.

 

By the way, therm negro is derived from latin to denote Black.  We now call Negros African Americans because they are Black, not because they are from Africa, which they are not. 

 

So why would one term for Black be more offensive than another term for Black?  We moved on from calling black people negros to calling black people African Americans.  Wow, what a significant accomplishment....

 

When will people wise up.  It only takes mild analysis, peeling the onion back only one or two layers, and willingness to use it to see how most social studies issues in America have been taught backwards and stupidly since the 60s.  Just think, people now in their 60s have led an entire life being brainwashed into wrongmindedness about so many racial issues.  Its just easier to believe than to fight, so they believe, and reinforce, and validate.  Beats actually thinking about it.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shive said:

 

 

For decades Native Americans, led by the National Congress of American Indians, have opposed the name "Redskins" as a racial slur. I'd say the opinion of the people the slur is derogatory towards hold way more value than anyone else.

 

 

On ESPN, they said that in a recent poll, 90% of native Americans did not find the name offensive.   They considered it an honor of sorts.  I didn't see the data, but since ESPN is usually on board with the left, it was surprising to hear them report that.   

After a Google search, it appears to be true.

So is it more important to force a change that goes against the group involved than to let the majority rule?

 

I really don't care one way or another.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Myles said:

On ESPN, they said that in a recent poll, 90% of native Americans did not find the name offensive.   They considered it an honor of sorts.  I didn't see the data, but since ESPN is usually on board with the left, it was surprising to hear them report that.   

After a Google search, it appears to be true.

So is it more important to force a change that goes against the group involved than to let the majority rule?

 

I really don't care one way or another.  

There were some big issues taken with how that poll was conducted. This 2020 study found much different results:

https://www.washingtonian.com/2020/02/21/a-new-study-contradicts-a-washington-post-poll-about-how-native-americans-view-the-redskins-name/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1+1=2

 

DougDew - You cannot prove even that 1=1. That is not proven, it is only a theory and postulate that we deem true because we do so. Have any of you ever of a time when up with which we will put not such?

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Shive said:

I'm pretty sure the issue with the Cleveland Indians is less to do with the name and more to do with their mascot. They seem to be opting to just make a change before they face the same level of  scrutiny as the Redskins.

 

For decades Native Americans, led by the National Congress of American Indians, have opposed the name "Redskins" as a racial slur. I'd say the opinion of the people the slur is derogatory towards hold way more value than anyone else.

 

I also find it amusing that you complain about "the mob" having the authority to define something as offensive, then follow that up by expressing your own opinion as fact that it isn't offensive. Who are you to tell Native Americans that a slur towards them isn't offensive? Also, that's like saying the term "negro" isn't offensive, because "it's what they looked like by the people who named them".

 

This is a decades long fight that a few multi-national corporations decided to throw their weight behind, to support a minority group that has been asking for this change for a very long time.

 

That was the time period where almost everything shut down, so I wouldn't say the Ivy League canceling their NCAA tournament was a driving force of anything, just more of an event coinciding with a national lockdown.

One day after the Ivy League cancelled the entire season, the Big 10 just cancelled their non-conference schedule, Pac 12 will be next, so again the Ivy League seems to be one step ahead of everyone a second time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, horseshoepower said:

One day after the Ivy League cancelled the entire season, the Big 10 just cancelled their non-conference schedule, Pac 12 will be next, so again the Ivy League seems to be one step ahead of everyone a second time.

Ahhh. I get what you're saying and can see some of the logic.

 

My only thoughts about how the fall sports could be different is that a school like Alabama makes SO much more money from a football season than an Ivy league school does. Money is a huge driving factor for a lot of these schools and conferences.

 

I think it may be easier for an Ivy League school to shut down its sports programs because they tend to not be the biggest money makers for them, which allows them to make the better decisions for their student athletes.

 

It'll be interesting to see if the Ivy League really is the "canary in the coal mine" and other conferences/leagues follow suit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Shive said:

Ahhh. I get what you're saying and can see some of the logic.

 

My only thoughts about how the fall sports could be different is that a school like Alabama makes SO much more money from a football season than an Ivy league school does. Money is a huge driving factor for a lot of these schools and conferences.

 

I think it may be easier for an Ivy League school to shut down its sports programs because they tend to not be the biggest money makers for them, which allows them to make the better decisions for their student athletes.

 

It'll be interesting to see if the Ivy League really is the "canary in the coal mine" and other conferences/leagues follow suit.

I have a feeling it had more to do with the timing of the conference meeting 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shive said:

Ahhh. I get what you're saying and can see some of the logic.

 

My only thoughts about how the fall sports could be different is that a school like Alabama makes SO much more money from a football season than an Ivy league school does. Money is a huge driving factor for a lot of these schools and conferences.

 

I think it may be easier for an Ivy League school to shut down its sports programs because they tend to not be the biggest money makers for them, which allows them to make the better decisions for their student athletes.

 

It'll be interesting to see if the Ivy League really is the "canary in the coal mine" and other conferences/leagues follow suit.

Alabama would be the last to cancel, but they are probably not going to play a 12 game schedule. the USC vs Alabama game will most likely be cancelled in a matter of days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, DougDew said:

As a white person, who is a genetic descendant of the people who INVENTED the un-tribal concept of America, I am offended that a group of people who fought against that concept in order to maintain their inferior tribal way of life would try to use that word as a means to distinguish themselves from the rest of Americans.  We think of African Americans and Asian Americans as being a different race, because they are, but Native Americans are actually Asians in terms of race.  So to use the term Native Americans, they are actually distinguishing themselves from the rest of us based upon their heritage and culture...which was one that decidedly fought against the concept of America.  To try to now steal some sort of ownership of the word and use it for their own elevation of cultural status into an equal culture is offensive.  If they want to distinguish themselves from other Americans based upon their heritage then they should be called Natives and cease and desist using the word that is at the root of the differences.  Or we all can just call them Americans.

 

Its sad that most social studies teachers...and even PHDs, are simply too stupid or PC brainwashed to understand the root of the issue, and how offensive they are every time they call Indians Native Americans.

 

I don't really care what the name of the Redskins is, but the owner should be the one to decide.  The tactic that multinationals are using to bully others to behave like they want is close to extortion, which is conceptual extension of the simple tactic of a back-alley mugging or liquor store robbing.  They are trying to coerce someone else to do something they want him to do.

 

There is a simple way for Target, etc. to have the name changed.  Buy the team at market price.  Then change the name to the RedDots or whatever they want.  Same simple way to get money out of a cash register of a liquor store.  Buy the store.  I suppose in the end, its just less expensive to bully someone than to spend your own money or to do things the sincere way.  Typical tactic.  A short cut to effect change based upon laziness and ease, ultimately at the root.

 

By the way, therm negro is derived from latin to denote Black.  We now call Negros African Americans because they are Black, not because they are from Africa, which they are not. 

 

So why would one term for Black be more offensive than another term for Black?  We moved on from calling black people negros to calling black people African Americans.  Wow, what a significant accomplishment....

 

When will people wise up.  It only takes mild analysis, peeling the onion back only one or two layers, and willingness to use it to see how most social studies issues in America have been taught backwards and stupidly since the 60s.  Just think, people now in their 60s have led an entire life being brainwashed into wrongmindedness about so many racial issues.  Its just easier to believe than to fight, so they believe, and reinforce, and validate.  Beats actually thinking about it.

I wanted to give this a day before I responded, because I was absolutely floored by this post. My instant reaction would have likely gotten me banned for the choice words I had. I will only say that based on this post and many of your other posts, it's obvious that you have a very skewed point of view and sense of reality. Now that I realize this, it's clear there is no reason for me to continue to engage with you, as there will never be an undistorted discussion with you. It just seems like every thought get filtered through a house a mirrors on it's way out and there's no reasoning with that. Best of luck.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Shive said:

I wanted to give this a day before I responded, because I was absolutely floored by this post. My instant reaction would have likely gotten me banned for the choice words I had. I will only say that based on this post and many of your other posts, it's obvious that you have a very skewed point of view and sense of reality. Now that I realize this, it's clear there is no reason for me to continue to engage with you, as there will never be an undistorted discussion with you. It just seems like every thought get filtered through a house a mirrors on it's way out and there's no reasoning with that. Best of luck.

He has some flooring posts that is for sure, that may have been his most flooring. I think he does it for attention. I have been here for 5 years and have seen many.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2020 at 11:29 AM, chad72 said:

The problem is we can't play Spock "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few" in real life. 

 

I found this nice read for those who like Spock.

 

Key words in it:

 

Far from being an expression of logic, Spock’s claim that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few is an arbitrary assertion and a restatement of the baseless moral theory known as utilitarianism, which asserts that each individual should act to serve the greatest good for the greatest number. 

 

Apparently, some people have never heard of a Nash Equilibrium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CoachLite said:

Apparently, some people have never heard of a Nash Equilibrium.

 

People practice it in real life without knowing they're doing it. They follow randomized strategies and don't deviate after considering an opponent's choice anyways. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2020 at 11:44 AM, Shive said:

I wanted to give this a day before I responded, because I was absolutely floored by this post. My instant reaction would have likely gotten me banned for the choice words I had. I will only say that based on this post and many of your other posts, it's obvious that you have a very skewed point of view and sense of reality. Now that I realize this, it's clear there is no reason for me to continue to engage with you, as there will never be an undistorted discussion with you. It just seems like every thought get filtered through a house a mirrors on it's way out and there's no reasoning with that. Best of luck.

The word America is not native.  Its pretty simple.  The fruits of  colonial invention and moral evolution that welcomes all regardless of race, creed, color, or national origin is what America is.  As long as a person adopts those criteria as a way of life, they have the right to use the name American.  America did not exist until the colonists built it.  And many natives wanted to assimilate and become Americans.  Some did not and wanted to maintain there way of life and heritage.  They were given land to do this.  Why do all natives now enjoy the benefit of having the term America associated with them when they worked so hard to segregate their attitudes from the rest? 

 

The term native american kind of implies that they owned America first, then colonialists stole it.  That's false.  They owned nothing.  Colonialists invented America and built it, or else it wouldn't be here. Anybody who doesn't adopt the American way of life at the same time rejecting the former life they used to have, regardless of national origin, should not have the right to claim they are American.

 

That's not a twisted way to look at it.  Its the correct way to look at it.  The way that 100% of our institutions and 95% of the people who listen to those institutions are the ones looking at it in a twisted fashion.   

 

Getting back to the topic.  I see where the owner of the Redskins decided to retire the name, out of pressure by others I assume.  They could not relocate to a 90% black city unless they changed their name.  Funny, I wonder if the stadium will be 90% black attended.  Based upon the profile.....call it stereotyping within the first 30 seconds of thinking about it......my guess is the attendance will be populated by northern Virginia white suburbanites (who found it a pain to commute all the way into Maryland) and government connected DC residents. 

 

I'm sure the new name will help them absolve some of that phony guilt they've been taught to have as they root on the new named home team.

 

Based upon a correct sterotype (which most inherently are) I think the new name should be the 

 

WASHINGTON ELITES. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2020 at 2:19 PM, DougDew said:

As a white person, who is a genetic descendant of the people who INVENTED the un-tribal concept of America, I am offended that a group of people who fought against that concept in order to maintain their inferior tribal way of life would try to use that word as a means to distinguish themselves from the rest of Americans.  We think of African Americans and Asian Americans as being a different race, because they are, but Native Americans are actually Asians in terms of race.  So to use the term Native Americans, they are actually distinguishing themselves from the rest of us based upon their heritage and culture...which was one that decidedly fought against the concept of America.  To try to now steal some sort of ownership of the word and use it for their own elevation of cultural status into an equal culture is offensive.  If they want to distinguish themselves from other Americans based upon their heritage then they should be called Natives and cease and desist using the word that is at the root of the differences.  Or we all can just call them Americans.

 

Its sad that most social studies teachers...and even PHDs, are simply too stupid or PC brainwashed to understand the root of the issue, and how offensive they are every time they call Indians Native Americans.

 

I don't really care what the name of the Redskins is, but the owner should be the one to decide.  The tactic that multinationals are using to bully others to behave like they want is close to extortion, which is conceptual extension of the simple tactic of a back-alley mugging or liquor store robbing.  They are trying to coerce someone else to do something they want him to do.

 

There is a simple way for Target, etc. to have the name changed.  Buy the team at market price.  Then change the name to the RedDots or whatever they want.  Same simple way to get money out of a cash register of a liquor store.  Buy the store.  I suppose in the end, its just less expensive to bully someone than to spend your own money or to do things the sincere way.  Typical tactic.  A short cut to effect change based upon laziness and ease, ultimately at the root.

 

By the way, therm negro is derived from latin to denote Black.  We now call Negros African Americans because they are Black, not because they are from Africa, which they are not. 

 

So why would one term for Black be more offensive than another term for Black?  We moved on from calling black people negros to calling black people African Americans.  Wow, what a significant accomplishment....

 

When will people wise up.  It only takes mild analysis, peeling the onion back only one or two layers, and willingness to use it to see how most social studies issues in America have been taught backwards and stupidly since the 60s.  Just think, people now in their 60s have led an entire life being brainwashed into wrongmindedness about so many racial issues.  Its just easier to believe than to fight, so they believe, and reinforce, and validate.  Beats actually thinking about it.

 

17 minutes ago, DougDew said:

The word America is not native.  Its pretty simple.  The fruits of  colonial invention and moral evolution that welcomes all regardless of race, creed, color, or national origin is what America is.  As long as a person adopts those criteria as a way of life, they have the right to use the name American.  America did not exist until the colonists built it.  And many natives wanted to assimilate and become Americans.  Some did not and wanted to maintain there way of life and heritage.  They were given land to do this.  Why do all natives now enjoy the benefit of having the term America associated with them when they worked so hard to segregate their attitudes from the rest? 

 

The term native american kind of implies that they owned America first, then colonialists stole it.  That's false.  They owned nothing.  Colonialists invented America and built it, or else it wouldn't be here. Anybody who doesn't adopt the American way of life at the same time rejecting the former life they used to have, regardless of national origin, should not have the right to claim they are American.

 

That's not a twisted way to look at it.  Its the correct way to look at it.  The way that 100% of our institutions and 95% of the people who listen to those institutions are the ones looking at it in a twisted fashion.   

 

Getting back to the topic.  I see where the owner of the Redskins decided to retire the name, out of pressure by others I assume.  They could not relocate to a 90% black city unless they changed their name.  Funny, I wonder if the stadium will be 90% black attended.  Based upon the profile.....call it stereotyping within the first 30 seconds of thinking about it......my guess is the attendance will be populated by northern Virginia white suburbanites (who found it a pain to commute all the way into Maryland) and government connected DC residents. 

 

I'm sure the new name will help absolve them of some of that phony guilt they've been taught to have as they root on the new named home team.

 

Based upon a correct sterotype (which most inherently are) I think the new name should be the 

 

WASHINGTON ELITES. 

 

These two posts are by far the worst two posts I've ever seen on this site.

 

In the long history of your shameful posts, these two are the most shameful.

 

But you won't be ashamed of them because your posts show a complete lack of sensitivity, empathy, and human decency.

 

:scorebad:

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, DougDew said:

The word America is not native.  Its pretty simple.  The fruits of  colonial invention and moral evolution that welcomes all regardless of race, creed, color, or national origin is what America is.  As long as a person adopts those criteria as a way of life, they have the right to use the name American.  America did not exist until the colonists built it.  And many natives wanted to assimilate and become Americans.  Some did not and wanted to maintain there way of life and heritage.  They were given land to do this.  Why do all natives now enjoy the benefit of having the term America associated with them when they worked so hard to segregate their attitudes from the rest? 

 

The term native american kind of implies that they owned America first, then colonialists stole it.  That's false.  They owned nothing.  Colonialists invented America and built it, or else it wouldn't be here. Anybody who doesn't adopt the American way of life at the same time rejecting the former life they used to have, regardless of national origin, should not have the right to claim they are American.

 

That's not a twisted way to look at it.  Its the correct way to look at it.  The way that 100% of our institutions and 95% of the people who listen to those institutions are the ones looking at it in a twisted fashion.   

 

Getting back to the topic.  I see where the owner of the Redskins decided to retire the name, out of pressure by others I assume.  They could not relocate to a 90% black city unless they changed their name.  Funny, I wonder if the stadium will be 90% black attended.  Based upon the profile.....call it stereotyping within the first 30 seconds of thinking about it......my guess is the attendance will be populated by northern Virginia white suburbanites (who found it a pain to commute all the way into Maryland) and government connected DC residents. 

 

I'm sure the new name will help absolve them of some of that phony guilt they've been taught to have as they root on the new named home team.

 

Based upon a correct sterotype (which most inherently are) I think the new name should be the 

 

WASHINGTON ELITES. 

Wow....you doubled down...

 

I don't think you understood me. I'm not arguing any specific point that you made. What I'm saying is that, in my opinion, the lens that you view the world through is fractured and skewed (again, a house of mirrors comes to mind). It has seemed to me in the past that you just hold some unpopular opinions when it comes to football and the Colts and are too stubborn to see other's perspective.

 

Your 2 past posts on this thread show that it's not just unpopular opinions, it's an entirely warped sense of reality. This is telling in that you state your vision of what the reality is, then cite that everyone else's view of this is incorrect and only your point of view is correct. Again, I'm going to refrain from name calling, because that's not productive, but the word I will use is unwell.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, changing the name has certainly made us all happier........

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still hoping they choose not to have a nickname.   Just the Washington football team.   

 

So are we on to the Patriots.   Those patriots were slave owners and killed natives.    

The vikings raped, killed and pillaged.   

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Myles said:

I'm still hoping they choose not to have a nickname.   Just the Washington football team.   

 

So are we on to the Patriots.   Those patriots were slave owners and killed natives.    

The vikings raped, killed and pillaged.   

Dolphins eat other fish.

Browns, well, say no more..... they stink.

Saints? Privileged

And on, and on....

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, buccolts said:

Dolphins eat other fish.

Browns, well, say no more..... they stink.

Saints? Privileged

And on, and on....

Uh oh...Bills fans....

 

"Buffalo Bill started working at the age of eleven, after his father's death, and became a rider for the Pony Express at age 15. During the American Civil War, he served the Union from 1863 to the end of the war in 1865. Later he served as a civilian scout for the US Army during the Indian Wars, receiving the Medal of Honor in 1872.

 

You see, there is no end to this.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:applause: I'm gonna like the NFL so much better now, that we've trashed those freaking Redskins! 

 

Have a cookie NFL. *Bends over* to take my lumps from those who want to give me lashes.

 

P.s. have run standing, sittings, kneeling and getting your cardio in BEFORE the game starts.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, buccolts said:

Dolphins eat other fish.

Browns, well, say no more..... they stink.

Saints? Privileged

And on, and on....

Cowboys? I mean come on.. for decades cowboys vs Indians was an actual RIVALRY!  I'm appalled at the NFL for this :woah:. You know what, shut the whole dang thing down! They can't recover from that crap!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Chrisaaron1023 said:

Cowboys? I mean come on.. for decades cowboys vs Indians was an actual RIVALRY!  I'm appalled at the NFL for this :woah:. You know what, shut the whole dang thing down! They can't recover from that crap!

 

I'm just ashamed to be me, these days, to tell you the truth.

Even if they played, under whatever names, I'm not sure I'm worthy.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad, but predictable, and in keeping with the nonsense and slow cook, passive, brainwashing our institutions have been performing on our society for decades about this issue; the president of the Navaho Nation, released a short statement.  It reveals quite clearly to anybody with an open mind willing to cleanse themselves of the passive coersion, about how he identifies his people as being different...self segregating....from the rest of Americans, and tries to foist the wrongminded notion that colonist stole this great country from them.  Just like stupid people with PHDs in sociology and Amercian History try to do. 

 

He calls his people "First Americans".  LOL, obviously the way we've been taught for decades, and the basis of the nonsensical name "native Americans"  The entire PC name is an attempt to slow cook brainwash America into thinking the colonists stole America from them.  Flat out says, First Americans, finally and probably unintentionally revealing the passive intent of the decades old coinage of the term Native Americans, when it should just be Natives. 

 

Its such an offensive statement and concept, trying to claim his people thought of America before the colonists.

 

How dare he tries to steal America away from the people who built it. invented it out of their own brains.  He should be called out, then sued for attempted robbery.  And I should get a refund on my tuition and tax dollars for all of the sociology classes I had to take.  Having to pay money for an attempted brainwashing.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/navajo-nation-releases-statement-washington-redskins-retire-team-name-logo

 

Having said that. the code talkers were quite an asset in WWII and their contribution should be elevated to common knowledge, honored, and cherished.  But it would be a stupid name for a football team.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DougDew said:

obviously the way we've been taught for decades, and the basis of the nonsensical name "native Americans"  The entire PC name is an attempt to slow cook brainwash America into thinking the colonists stole America from them.  Flat out says, First Americans, finally and probably unintentionally revealing the passive intent of the decades old coinage of the term Native Americans, when it should just be Natives.

 

How dare he tries to steal America away from the people who built it. invented it out of their own brains.  He should be called out, then sued for attempted robbery.  And I should get a refund on my tuition and tax dollars for all of the sociology classes I had to take.  Having to pay money for an attempted brainwashing.

 

So... is your gripe just with the use of the word "America/Americans"?  Cuz according to your sig line: "names will never hurt me"... so... it seems ironic that you're getting so worked up about a name...  :scratch:

 

3 hours ago, DougDew said:

Its such an offensive statement and concept, trying to claim his people thought of America before the colonists.

 

Like... more offensive than the colonists killing most of the people already living here and making the rest move so that the colonists could take over the land?!?

 

urtzn65o1mw41.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...