Beating A Live Horse: One Redskin Fan's Cessation Of Protesting The Name

[Sharkinva]

We could play this game all day. Had Michael Brown been white the president and half the nation wouldn't have come to his defense, wrongly I might add. The world would have simply said, oh well,,, just another dumb white kid getting himself killed. Had a black dude killed a church full of whites it wouldn't have been called a hate crime but just another nut with a gun who had his own agendas. I believe race is seldom the reason when different color kills different color, including those two cases. Yet we as a nation are hungry to call it just that. Racism. This Redskin name crap is a product of an ill informed world who loves to throw daggers. Everyone wants to be treated equal but wants different goals and guidelines to obtain that objective. Native Americans say their land was taken from them. I say it was inevitable. There are so many cities, towns, counties and team names and a whole bunch other shit that honor those indians and tribes of past. Their remembrance is in each one of these names... including that of the Redskins.

I will simply say this and leave it alone. Eventually it wont matter because more mixed race or children of non European decent are being born on the daily in this country. So within the next three or four generations, it will all be a moot point.

 

[redskinsfan]

The thing is, they owned or at a minimum had rights to the land according to their laws. Being as how it was here on this continent, I think it was rather shitty to have some one come in and apply their own set of rules for their own agenda. But I do agree its a huge difference, one would be called home invasion... the other was called attempted genocide.



Im not saying we need to give the land back. It would not be any more helpful than I think giving my home to a Native American family free of charge would be at this point. I am simply point out the preposterous nature of any one who says Europeans had some sore of rights to do what was done to build this country. There is no justification for how things went down other than the good old he who holds the biggest gun wins. And you do have to admit, had it turned out the other way and Native Americans or Africans done to Europeans what has been and to a degree still continues to be done to both cultures..... you would likely have the same sort of views as I do on these matters.

What laws were those? Native Americans then never permanently occupied the land or exerted any dominion over it. For that reason, it's a fair debate as to whether they owned it or what, if any, interests they had in the property. The killing off of the Native Americans is another issue, and one that we could probably agree on. But that's a whole lot different than what property rights they had.

And don't kid yourself, shark. If you're going to go on a rant about Native Americans' right to their land, you're basically admitting to receipt of stolen property. Let's also stop discussing the historical misgivings of conquest. Yes, subjugation of a people's sovereignty is theoretically abhorrent. But the historical reality is that conquering powers brought a whole lot of benefit with them as well, not the least of which was civilization. If you doubt this, go look up Rome's influence in Gaul and Judea, and Britain's rule in places like Myanmar and Nigeria (where I lived for three years) and look what happened after they left.

As for this country, you can make your own judgments about how the "white man" did when it came to these shores. If you think others could've made it better, you'd better think again. And this is coming from someone who's not white.

 

[redskinsfan]

And as I said... had T. Martin been a white kid and the same thing happened... no way does the "LAW" work out the same way.

Let's not talk about another situation, but what happened with Trayvon and George. Trayvon was trying to slam the guy's head into the cement. At that point, he began to use deadly force and Zimmerman's use of the same was warranted. Pretty simple, if you ask me.

 

[Sharkinva]

Let's not talk about another situation, but what happened with Trayvon and George. Trayvon was trying to slam the guy's head into the cement. At that point, he began to use deadly force and Zimmerman's use of the same was warranted. Pretty simple, if you ask me.

Trayvon had every right to defend himself against some one he considered an imminent threat to him. Now sure if you forget about the fact that Zimmerman followed him in his truck, then got out and confronted him first... then yes Martin was totally in the wrong. But remember the only persons word we have for how the confrontation went down is Zimmerman. BUt if you are telling me, I am justified in picking a fight then shooting some one when I realize Im getting my ass beat.... well IM shocked gun sales havent tripled since Goerge got off.

 

[redskinsfan]

Trayvon had every right to defend himself against some one he considered an imminent threat to him. Now sure if you forget about the fact that Zimmerman followed him in his truck, then got out and confronted him first... then yes Martin was totally in the wrong. But remember the only persons word we have for how the confrontation went down is Zimmerman. BUt if you are telling me, I am justified in picking a fight then shooting some one when I realize Im getting my ass beat.... well IM shocked gun sales havent tripled since Goerge got off.

Whatever right he had to defend himself was lost when he escalated it to a point where didn't need to defend himself anymore and then became the guy using deadly force. This isn't rocket science. Trayvon's case raises legitimate issues about racial profiling; but all that got lost when Trayvon decided to use deadly force when that wasn't necessary.

 

[Sharkinva]

What laws were those? Native Americans then never permanently occupied the land or exerted any dominion over it. For that reason, it's a fair debate as to whether they owned it or what, if any, interests they had in the property. The killing off of the Native Americans is another issue, and one that we could probably agree on. But that's a whole lot different than what property rights they had.

And don't kid yourself, shark. If you're going to go on a rant about Native Americans' right to their land, you're basically admitting to receipt of stolen property. Let's also stop discussing the historical misgivings of conquest. Yes, subjugation of a people's sovereignty is theoretically abhorrent. But the historical reality is that conquering powers brought a whole lot of benefit with them as well, not the least of which was civilization. If you doubt this, go look up Rome's influence in Gaul and Judea, and Britain's rule in places like Myanmar and Nigeria (where I lived for three years) and look what happened after they left.

As for this country, you can make your own judgments about how the "white man" did when it came to these shores. If you think others could've made it better, you'd better think again. And this is coming from someone who's not white.

You do realize, this is like telling a r*pe victim.. i realize you were taken against your will and abused in ways most people couldnt imagine... But hey you got that kid you always wanted out of the deal.. so smile.

My point being, this country can NEVER make amends for what was done to the Native American, or the African's who were subjected to slavery. But to sit there and say, hey you benefited out of it in the end and you should just get over it is a joke. I dont even want the country to try and make amends, but I find it deplorable when people try and justify and minimize what did actually happen. We should feel guilty about the how this country came to being. And trying to minimize or justify it just makes it that much worse in my opinion.

 

[Sharkinva]

Whatever right he had to defend himself was lost when he escalated it to a point where didn't need to defend himself anymore and then became the guy using deadly force. This isn't rocket science. Trayvon's case raises legitimate issues about racial profiling; but all that got lost when Trayvon decided to use deadly force when that wasn't necessary.

Got to disagree, because again we do not know if Martin felt his life was in danger. Thus he was justified in using deadly force. Zimmerman knew he had a gun, thus any defense of imminent danger SHOULD have gone out the window. ONly by ignoring the crimes Zimmerman committed before the altercation, can you come ot the conclusion that he had a right to defend himself.

 

[redskinsfan]

You do realize, this is like telling a r*pe victim.. i realize you were taken against your will and abused in ways most people couldnt imagine... But hey you got that kid you always wanted out of the deal.. so smile.

My point being, this country can NEVER make amends for what was done to the Native American, or the African's who were subjected to slavery. But to sit there and say, hey you benefited out of it in the end and you should just get over it is a joke. I dont even want the country to try and make amends, but I find it deplorable when people try and justify and minimize what did actually happen. We should feel guilty about the how this country came to being. And trying to minimize or justify it just makes it that much worse in my opinion.

You should be ashamed at using r*pe as an analogy to the issue we're discussing. Setting that aside, slavery is different than my point about conquest, just the same as appropriating Native American "property" is different than what we did to Native Americans (eg Trail of Tears). And guess what? Under your theory, you're guilty of possessing stolen property. No two ways about that.

 

[redskinsfan]

Got to disagree, because again we do not know if Martin felt his life was in danger. Thus he was justified in using deadly force. Zimmerman knew he had a gun, thus any defense of imminent danger SHOULD have gone out the window. ONly by ignoring the crimes Zimmerman committed before the altercation, can you come ot the conclusion that he had a right to defend himself.

The evidence in the trial established that Martin was on top of Zimmerman slamming his head into the ground. How you conclude that didn't entitle Zimmerman to use deadly force to defend himself is beyond me.

 

[Sharkinva]

You should be ashamed at using r*pe as an analogy to the issue we're discussing. Setting that aside, slavery is different than my point about conquest, just the same as appropriating Native American "property" is different than what we did to Native Americans (eg Trail of Tears). And guess what? Under your theory, you're guilty of possessing stolen property. No two ways about that.

Why?? you think that mass murder, subjugation for generations, and a still prevalent societal mindset that both ethnic groups are some what sub-classes doesnt fit into what was done to build this country?? And yep, I guess I am guilty of possessing stolen property. So if the Government decided to impose a repayment tax to help out Native Americans and assessed it against my home... I would not complain one bit. Provided they paid the same tax on every bit of federal land in this country.

 

[Sharkinva]

The evidence in the trial established that Martin was on top of Zimmerman slamming his head into the ground. How you conclude that didn't entitle Zimmerman to use deadly force to defend himself is beyond me.

Simply put, if you take action to put yourself in a position to lose your life, you dont then get to claim self defense and take the other persons life. Zimmerman started a fight. And as the only statement we get is from the guy who ultimately won the fight, how can you simply ignore the fact that his actions directly lead to him being in that situation??

 

[redskinsfan]

Why?? you think that mass murder, subjugation for generations, and a still prevalent societal mindset that both ethnic groups are some what sub-classes doesnt fit into what was done to build this country?? And yep, I guess I am guilty of possessing stolen property. So if the Government decided to impose a repayment tax to help out Native Americans and assessed it against my home... I would not complain one bit. Provided they paid the same tax on every bit of federal land in this country.

Read my posts again. I was using conquest in a general, abstract sense as opposed to the varying manifestations it can bring. Indeed, sometimes conquest is beneficial (post WWII Germany and Japan) and actually asked for (Myanmar and the oppressed people their begging for us to come rescue them). And if you know you've got stolen property, you give it back. Why on earth would the government owe you anything? You're an admitted criminal.

 

[Sharkinva]

But just to make sure I got it right... the systematic r*pe, subjugation and murder of two entire cultures, should not be compared to what could happen to a single individual. Because if it happens to one person, its a deplorable crime. If it happens to two entirely separate races... its called conquest and empire building. Got it.

 

[Sharkinva]

Read my posts again. I was using conquest in a general, abstract sense as opposed to the varying manifestations it can bring. Indeed, sometimes conquest is beneficial (post WWII Germany and Japan) and actually asked for (Myanmar and the oppressed people their begging for us to come rescue them). And if you know you've got stolen property, you give it back. Why on earth would the government owe you anything? You're an admitted criminal.

I didnt say the government owed me anything. But I do think if the government is going to make me pay for a crime they are continuing to commit, there should be some balance. But again dude, you are simply trying to deflect the reality. Kinda like saying well if you think Slavery was so wrong, go back to Africa. As I have said, there is no realistic way to make amends for the conquest of this country. But trying to minimize it is a complete and utter joke.

 

[redskinsfan]

Simply put, if you take action to put yourself in a position to lose your life, you dont then get to claim self defense and take the other persons life. Zimmerman started a fight. And as the only statement we get is from the guy who ultimately won the fight, how can you simply ignore the fact that his actions directly lead to him being in that situation??

You're wrong, shark. If you start a fight and the other guy escalates it to a point where his self defense becomes excessive, you then can use reasonable force to defend yourself. The problem in Trayvon's case is that people didn't (want to) understand this. Like you, they believed if you racially profile someone and start a fight, you've got no right to self defense, much less use of deadly force in that regard. If that were really true, the judge in Trayvon's case should never have given a jury instruction on that particular issue.

 

[redskinsfan]

But just to make sure I got it right... the systematic r*pe, subjugation and murder of two entire cultures, should not be compared to what could happen to a single individual. Because if it happens to one person, its a deplorable crime. If it happens to two entirely separate races... its called conquest and empire building. Got it.

I'm not saying it can't be appropriate but that in the context of my discussion, it's inapt.

 

[skinsdad62]

guys we have gone off the pardon the pun reservation on this . perhaps its time to put a lid on it

 

[Sharkinva]

You're wrong, shark. If you start a fight and the other guy escalates it to a point where his self defense becomes excessive, you then can use reasonable force to defend yourself. The problem in Trayvon's case is that people didn't (want to) understand this. Like you, they believed if you racially profile someone and start a fight, you've got no right to self defense, much less use of deadly force in that regard. If that were really true, the judge in Trayvon's case should never have given a jury instruction on that particular issue.

You know I actually agree. Except for the fact that the only person who can comment on this is DEAD. So forgive me if Im not too willing to believe the guy who walked into the fight with the gun felt in fear of his life. Maybe its the Marine in me, the black guy in me or both.. but if you follow me, confront me and I feel you mean to do me harm.... damn right Im going to try and crack your skull and make sure you cant come after me again.

 

[skinsdad62]

You know I actually agree. Except for the fact that the only person who can comment on this is DEAD. So forgive me if Im not too willing to believe the guy who walked into the fight with the gun felt in fear of his life. Maybe its the Marine in me, the black guy in me or both.. but if you follow me, confront me and I feel you mean to do me harm.... damn right Im going to try and crack your skull and make sure you cant come after me again.

zimmerman did one thing a good soldier should do , shark and he left only one side of the story to be told to me zimmerman committed a crime . what the crime is is open to debate

 

[redskinsfan]

You know I actually agree. Except for the fact that the only person who can comment on this is DEAD. So forgive me if Im not too willing to believe the guy who walked into the fight with the gun felt in fear of his life. Maybe its the Marine in me, the black guy in me or both.. but if you follow me, confront me and I feel you mean to do me harm.... damn right Im going to try and crack your skull and make sure you cant come after me again.

Yes, the other guy isn't there. But that's going to be the case in every matter involving a death. The question is whether the evidence supports one side or another. In Trayvon's case, it clearly supported Paul Blart.