• Have something to say? Register Now! and be posting in minutes!

Name Change

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rowdy

Well-Known Member
6,385
2,394
173
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Hoopla Cash
$ 11,828.65
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Believe it or not, there was already a parody website set up for the Washington Redhawks in 2017. Go Washington Redhawks!

Ah, that’s so 2017. This is a new era. Like I said there’s a Cherokee Indian chief named Redhawk. Not gonna happen
 

GNG

What Me Worry?
94,596
16,740
1,033
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Location
Wisconsin
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Washington Vultures.
 

gkekoa

Well-Known Member
21,938
3,650
293
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Location
somewhere over the rainbow
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
True that the conquering people normally just take over if that is their desire. Some integrate, like the Vikings in the British Isles. What made the land theirs …. they possessed it.

https://collegefund.org/

Association on American Indian Affairs

Who We Are

Donate - Native American Heritage Association

https://www.nicca.us/membership

If all you wanted to do was change a football teams name then you missed the mark.


So which tribe owns it? Quick history of the Black Hills...

So the Lakota arrived in the 18 century and rove out the other tribes.

The first to arrive were the Arikara, followed by Cheyenne, Crow, Kiowa, and Pawnee?

So who had a claim to the land and why is their claim greater than ours? Which year in history do we want to rewind land rights to?
 

Breed

Well-Known Member
16,143
7,079
533
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Location
The Boondocks
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
There’s also a fairly famous Indian Chief named Redhawk so that’s out.

Of course there is. But if the decision is made and that decision is RedHawks. It just needs to be made clear which particular RedHawk, the Native American chief or the US fighter jet, has been chosen I would think. Or I guess I should say I would hope.
 

Breed

Well-Known Member
16,143
7,079
533
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Location
The Boondocks
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Believe it or not, there was already a parody website set up for the Washington Redhawks in 2017. Go Washington Redhawks!

Not bad, not bad at all. Though with that particular logo can it be long before we hear cries from Eagles fans that we're bitin off their logo? If RedHawks is the choice. I think it has to be made clear that its the fighter jet the Skins are using. Which of course open up the potential can of worms for Jets fans to be butthurt.

Sigh...….its gonna be something lame like the Pentagons isn't it.
 

skinsdad62

US ARMY retired /mod.
91,811
16,112
1,033
Joined
Aug 7, 2011
Location
ada mi
Hoopla Cash
$ 4,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Can't say I see or understand your rationale for this ^^^^^. How would not being able to re-name the Skins the Warriors or Braves. Prove the premise of the Redskins name being a slur as false?



Now this rationale ^^^^^^ I certainly can see and given the world we live in today. I'd say its prudent. Though if the team were to go in the direction of Red Tails or RedHawks. I think they'd be on pretty safe n solid ground there. The thing I think that has to be avoided is naming the team anything that will be referred to as a person or peoples.

As an example. Redskins, Braves or Warriors will be/can be all looked at as a person/groups of people. Whereas Red Tails or RedHawks is specific to a type of fighter plane. And even if it was applied to a person, if someone were to say. He's a Red Tail or he's part of the RedHawk squadron. The origin of both comes from a source of something to be proud of. Who knows though. The original term Redskins wasn't meant as a slur and yet it was co-opted and turned into one over time, so...……

I'll just speak for myself and say. Since being made aware of where the term RedHawks comes by @chillerdab It has grown on me and I'm liking it more n more. It still won't feel the same as Redskins, but it is cool and it would be a damn sight better than Pentagons, Monuments or anything Washington-centric.
i was told that the changing of the redskins name is because of it being a racial slur .

so i say "ok " i agree so lets use braves or warriors . i dont see that as a slur. can someone be offended ? yes but is it a slur ? no
so if you cant use braves or warriors , then the original premise that the name change is being done because its a slur isnt totally true and then there is more to it because if the slur is erased and there still is an issue then its something more

another thing is are we going to be a society that doesnt offend anyone ? we have to choose a name that doesnt offend either ? if you are offended by warriors i cant help you (not saying you are ) braves and warriors with a logo like ours are pretty much interchangeable

i could see if the logo depicted was obliviously racist like the cleveland logo (indians ) bug our logo is dignified and if we use the lance i dont know how that's offensive to a reasonable person . of course we may not be dealing with reasonable people either
 

Breed

Well-Known Member
16,143
7,079
533
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Location
The Boondocks
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Can’t disagree with that but also know no other country in the world would consider doing what we did after the fact usually the defeated people ate the shit sandwich

gkekoa said:
Thank you actually. Believe me, I don’t think our history is perfect; however, I do believe it is the greatest in history, with fewer ills than any, and far greater good has been a result.

As for the American Indian, I stand by the statement I have always made, and that is what made the land theirs? They killed off each other all the time in a fight for land and power. We fought better. This is true of every country in history but we are the only ones who ever feel guilt. I think it is pathetic.

As for the question G asks. What made the land their (the Natives) land? From multiple perspectives that question can be asked from. The only answer can be the Natives. There is one perspective though that doesn't concern itself with anything, but one question. That perspective is War and that question to the natives is. Can you hold the land? To the invaders that question is. Can you take the land? Throughout our history, that being the history of mankind. War has been the main perspective and that question and how its answered has superseded just about any other perspective on who's land it is.

So while I agree with both of you. The defeated are usually told to kick rocks, mostly subjugated to menial/secondary roles w/o their permission being given in the new society or systematically killed off in some instances. That wasn't the means that the victors (the US) decided to enter into in with the defeated (NAs) in this case for whatever reason. Agreed upon treaties and promises was the means that the US agreed upon/decided to enter into with the natives. Yet the US has used Manifest Destiny as the main reason for breaking the majority of promises and treaties that they have entered into with American Indian peoples.

If were the nation we claim to be, the nation we espouse to be. Then isn't it time to stop hiding behind the Manifest Destiny loophole we created and live up to some of the promises and treaties made to the American Indian?
 

Breed

Well-Known Member
16,143
7,079
533
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Location
The Boondocks
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
i was told that the changing of the redskins name is because of it being a racial slur .

so i say "ok " i agree so lets use braves or warriors . i dont see that as a slur. can someone be offended ? yes but is it a slur ? no
so if you cant use braves or warriors , then the original premise that the name change is being done because its a slur isnt totally true and then there is more to it because if the slur is erased and there still is an issue then its something more

another thing is are we going to be a society that doesnt offend anyone ? we have to choose a name that doesnt offend either ? if you are offended by warriors i cant help you (not saying you are ) braves and warriors with a logo like ours are pretty much interchangeable

i could see if the logo depicted was obliviously racist like the cleveland logo (indians ) bug our logo is dignified and if we use the lance i dont know how that's offensive to a reasonable person . of course we may not be dealing with reasonable people either

Fair enough. And you pose a very interesting question far as dealing with reasonable people. I'm not sure it can be said that all people are trying or even want to be reasonable.

Unfortunately we've become a land of extremes. Going from one side of the extreme, to the other side of the extreme. We've let the on the fringe voices have too much power.

In Los Angeles I saw on the news there's now an outfit that wants to defund the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. I can't say I've been a fan of all ICE has done in recent years, but to defund or get rid of ICE is what I think they mean by defund would be insane.
 

skinsdad62

US ARMY retired /mod.
91,811
16,112
1,033
Joined
Aug 7, 2011
Location
ada mi
Hoopla Cash
$ 4,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
As for the question G asks. What made the land their (the Natives) land? From multiple perspectives that question can be asked from. The only answer can be the Natives. There is one perspective though that doesn't concern itself with anything, but one question. That perspective is War and that question to the natives is. Can you hold the land? To the invaders that question is. Can you take the land? Throughout our history, that being the history of mankind. War has been the main perspective and that question and how its answered has superseded just about any other perspective on who's land it is.

So while I agree with both of you. The defeated are usually told to kick rocks, mostly subjugated to menial/secondary roles w/o their permission being given in the new society or systematically killed off in some instances. That wasn't the means that the victors (the US) decided to enter into in with the defeated (NAs) in this case for whatever reason. Agreed upon treaties and promises was the means that the US agreed upon/decided to enter into with the natives. Yet the US has used Manifest Destiny as the main reason for breaking the majority of promises and treaties that they have entered into with American Indian peoples.

If were the nation we claim to be, the nation we espouse to be. Then isn't it time to stop hiding behind the Manifest Destiny loophole we created and live up to some of the promises and treaties made to the American Indian?
Didn’t native Americans have treaties amongst themselves ? Answer yes . Did they break them ? Answer yes were they right to do it ? No so how is that different then what we did ? We were just as fucked up as they were . Every society was so why pick on ours ? Because we had flawed leaders ? So did everyone else
 

countryroads316

Well-Known Member
11,180
1,628
173
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Location
West Virginia
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Red Warriors ?


Meaning
A soldier who has served in, or supported the 1st Battalion 12th iInfantry Regiment is known to his fellow soldiers as a “Red Warrior.” A Red Warrior is a very special soldier who is dedicated to his duty. He is a comrade to his fellow soldiers, and fulfills his responsibilities as a team member.
 

Breed

Well-Known Member
16,143
7,079
533
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Location
The Boondocks
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Didn’t native Americans have treaties amongst themselves ? Answer yes . Did they break them ? Answer yes were they right to do it ? No so how is that different then what we did ? We were just as fucked up as they were . Every society was so why pick on ours ? Because we had flawed leaders ? So did everyone else

I don't know about any broken treaties amongst Native Americans. If there were treaties amongst various tribes I don't know why or how they were broken. I've even heard that NAs didn't know what a lie/lying was till it was introduced to them by the white man. All that, whether true or not, is besides the point. We're not talking about lies NA tribes told to one another. We're not talking about lies other societies may have engaged in and/or who they lied to. We're not talking about everyone else and who they lied to.

We're talking about the treaties and promises the US made to American Indians that were not lived up to. And I'm asking if we're the nation we say that we are. Don't we have a responsibility to live up to those promises and treaties regardless if we didn't live up to them originally.

If you don't think we should or don't have a responsibility to do so that's fine. Its just a football themed message board. We're not gonna solve any social issues here. I would hope though you would have a better answer than 'Cuz everyone else did it.' Because if that's your answer than we're (America) no better than any other country and in some respects worse, due to our continued insistence that we are.
 

kbso83432

Well-Known Member
11,429
4,881
293
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Redhawk Native American Arts Council Redhawk Native American Arts Council

Redhawks is starting to grow on me. You keep HTTR. You can still sing the fight song. It is way better than stupid ass Redtails. Yes, it has ties to Native Americans, but if Dan can really take that group on as his own ($$$) and help their cause I think it could work.

Warpath is still my favorite, but haven't heard much momentum on that.
 

skinsdad62

US ARMY retired /mod.
91,811
16,112
1,033
Joined
Aug 7, 2011
Location
ada mi
Hoopla Cash
$ 4,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
I don't know about any broken treaties amongst Native Americans. If there were treaties amongst various tribes I don't know why or how they were broken. I've even heard that NAs didn't know what a lie/lying was till it was introduced to them by the white man. All that, whether true or not, is besides the point. We're not talking about lies NA tribes told to one another. We're not talking about lies other societies may have engaged in and/or who they lied to. We're not talking about everyone else and who they lied to.

We're talking about the treaties and promises the US made to American Indians that were not lived up to. And I'm asking if we're the nation we say that we are. Don't we have a responsibility to live up to those promises and treaties regardless if we didn't live up to them originally.

If you don't think we should or don't have a responsibility to do so that's fine. Its just a football themed message board. We're not gonna solve any social issues here. I would hope though you would have a better answer than 'Cuz everyone else did it.' Because if that's your answer than we're (America) no better than any other country and in some respects worse, due to our continued insistence that we are.
You can’t point the finger at a particular “ sin “ one commits and condemn them for that sin when you yourself commit that sin , you better not have committed that sin yourself
 

gkekoa

Well-Known Member
21,938
3,650
293
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Location
somewhere over the rainbow
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
As for the question G asks. What made the land their (the Natives) land? From multiple perspectives that question can be asked from. The only answer can be the Natives. There is one perspective though that doesn't concern itself with anything, but one question. That perspective is War and that question to the natives is. Can you hold the land? To the invaders that question is. Can you take the land? Throughout our history, that being the history of mankind. War has been the main perspective and that question and how its answered has superseded just about any other perspective on who's land it is.

So while I agree with both of you. The defeated are usually told to kick rocks, mostly subjugated to menial/secondary roles w/o their permission being given in the new society or systematically killed off in some instances. That wasn't the means that the victors (the US) decided to enter into in with the defeated (NAs) in this case for whatever reason. Agreed upon treaties and promises was the means that the US agreed upon/decided to enter into with the natives. Yet the US has used Manifest Destiny as the main reason for breaking the majority of promises and treaties that they have entered into with American Indian peoples.

If were the nation we claim to be, the nation we espouse to be. Then isn't it time to stop hiding behind the Manifest Destiny loophole we created and live up to some of the promises and treaties made to the American Indian?

Which natives and why them? Let’s just take the Black Hills for example. The Lakota is who people claim we took the land from. The Lakota weren’t the first there. They took it from the Cheyenne, Crow, Kiowa, and Pawnee. They weren’t native either. They took over from the Arikara. If we keep digging, I am sure we can find who they took it from. So who gets it?

Yep...and I have no problem with it. You can’t have a nation within a nation.

Nope. Shouldn’t the American Indian simply be American? Or should we continually divide people by race, color, creed, sex, and any other bullshit to keep us at each other’s throats?

I will say this...I truly respect how you have actually agreed and understood the other point of view. I believe you may be the first from the left to do so. So if I sounded like an ass in the earlier portion of the reply, I apologize.
 

Ruzious

Well-Known Member
1,365
216
63
Joined
Apr 26, 2016
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Which natives and why them? Let’s just take the Black Hills for example. The Lakota is who people claim we took the land from. The Lakota weren’t the first there. They took it from the Cheyenne, Crow, Kiowa, and Pawnee. They weren’t native either. They took over from the Arikara. If we keep digging, I am sure we can find who they took it from. So who gets it?

Yep...and I have no problem with it. You can’t have a nation within a nation.

Nope. Shouldn’t the American Indian simply be American? Or should we continually divide people by race, color, creed, sex, and any other bullshit to keep us at each other’s throats?

I will say this...I truly respect how you have actually agreed and understood the other point of view. I believe you may be the first from the left to do so. So if I sounded like an ass in the earlier portion of the reply, I apologize.
Does one have to be from the left to have Breed's views there?
 

Breed

Well-Known Member
16,143
7,079
533
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Location
The Boondocks
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Which natives and why them? Let’s just take the Black Hills for example. The Lakota is who people claim we took the land from. The Lakota weren’t the first there. They took it from the Cheyenne, Crow, Kiowa, and Pawnee. They weren’t native either. They took over from the Arikara. If we keep digging, I am sure we can find who they took it from. So who gets it?

That's easy. Any n all tribes the US broke a treaty or promise to.

Yep...and I have no problem with it. You can’t have a nation within a nation.

I agree. Not when the nation who agreed to let you be a nation within a nation keeps pulling Manifest Destiny out their ass and pushing you further n further off said agreed upon nation.

Nope. Shouldn’t the American Indian simply be American? Or should we continually divide people by race, color, creed, sex, and any other bullshit to keep us at each other’s throats?

Why is it that this ^^^^ argument only seems to ever pertain to a few select groups. If the Irish can be Irish American and the Italian, Italian American and the Polish, Polish American. Why can't the Indian be an American Indian? Also it wouldn't hurt if we actually treated them like Americans as well.

I will say this...I truly respect how you have actually agreed and understood the other point of view. I believe you may be the first from the left to do so. So if I sounded like an ass in the earlier portion of the reply, I apologize.

Its all good. I don't think you came off like an ass. Besides, you feel how you feel and one of the bigger problems with our country imo is that certain people haven't been able to say how they really feel. If we were able to do that w/o threat of repercussion. We might truly be able to come to an understanding. While maybe learning a little something about one another in the process.
 

Breed

Well-Known Member
16,143
7,079
533
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Location
The Boondocks
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
You can’t point the finger at a particular “ sin “ one commits and condemn them for that sin when you yourself commit that sin , you better not have committed that sin yourself

So if someone else commits a sin against another person. That makes it alright for you to commit that same sin against the person who originally sinned?

I don't think that's how that's supposed to work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top