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

[redskinsfan]

I’m dropping my protest of Washington’s football team name

Interesting take on a Redskins fan, who personally thinks the name is still offensive, but who also is dropping his protest of the name. On the face of it, he seems to be taking a nuanced position. But when you take a look at his reasoning -- i.e., why should he care if a small minority of Native Americans don't think the name is offensive -- you kind of wonder why he's still against the name. If Native Americans aren't offended by the name, why should you?

And in a stark sense of irony, he uses "Indians" frequently throughout his article, a name that many would now consider at least socially gauche if not offensive when referring to Native Americans'

 

[Sharkinva]

I read that, and he touched on a couple of points i have made on this topic.

1. The whole name change agenda seemed more geared towards a token gesture than an actual needed thing. To me the non Native Americans who are against the name more often than not seemed to link it to the concept that we as a country did so much harm to this group of people, we need some form of saying Im sorry without actually saying it, or doing anything tangible to to make up for the damage done.

2. The fact that 90% of Native Americans associate the name with the football team and not some hurtful slur should be much more telling than the fact that it COULD be construed as a slur. I have said it before, the word boy said by the wrong person in the right context is MUCH more of a slur in this country. And yet you will never find that definition for the word in websters. But the last time I got stopped in GA in the middle of the night and the officer ask me "You aint from around these parts are you boy?" I damn sure dont think he was referring to my general youthful appearance.

 

[redskinsfan]

I read that, and he touched on a couple of points i have made on this topic.

1. The whole name change agenda seemed more geared towards a token gesture than an actual needed thing. To me the non Native Americans who are against the name more often than not seemed to link it to the concept that we as a country did so much harm to this group of people, we need some form of saying Im sorry without actually saying it, or doing anything tangible to to make up for the damage done.

2. The fact that 90% of Native Americans associate the name with the football team and not some hurtful slur should be much more telling than the fact that it COULD be construed as a slur. I have said it before, the word boy said by the wrong person in the right context is MUCH more of a slur in this country. And yet you will never find that definition for the word in websters. But the last time I got stopped in GA in the middle of the night and the officer ask me "You aint from around these parts are you boy?" I damn sure dont think he was referring to my general youthful appearance.

Yep. The overarching concept here is context; it's not how the word is normally used or defined, but how you use the word in a particular context. There are some words that a dictionary may define as offensive, such as "*****," which can be non-offensive when used under certain circumstances (e.g., "I've always admired ***** spirituals"). In contrast, there are others that, on their face, are non-offensive but can still be used offensively in certain ways. Remember when Parcells was the Pats coach? He used the word "she" (which is clearly not offensive) to refer to Terry Glenn.

And most of those opposing the name are a bunch of self-absorbed, white liberals who love to play professional victim. What do Peter King and Bob Costas do to help out Native Americans that really need assistance with things like alcoholism, unemployment, and various other societal problems on reservations? The closest they do to helping out is eating an Indian casino buffet.

 

[Sportster 72]

First I think is funny ... no make that hilarious that he threw out everything he owned to help native American's. How the hell did that help them? This has been my issue with the so called do-gooders since the beginning. Do some good first.

Secondly, were native peoples American's first or after they were conquered? I know, it is a play on words but if you think about it for a second it makes sense.

 

[redskinsfan]

First I think is funny ... no make that hilarious that he threw out everything he owned to help native American's. How the hell did that help them? This has been my issue with the so called do-gooders since the beginning. Do some good first.

Secondly, were native peoples American's first or after they were conquered? I know, it is a play on words but if you think about it for a second it makes sense.

There has been quite some debate about that, in particular whether nomadic tribes that inhabit or occupy lands episodically truly own them or whether someone settling a land is the true owner. Whichever way you want to cut it, someone conquering a land is, like it or not, its de facto (though perhaps not rightful) owner. Were it otherwise, people like Bob Costas and Peter King ought to give back the land they live on knowing that it was stolen from Native Americans and/or some other people that could claim rightful title to it.

 

[redskinsfan]

For anyone interested, the author of the linked article above explained his position on the Grant & Danny Show today. It's segment 15 and a pretty good listen: Grant and Danny by play.it on iTunes

 

[Sharkinva]

There has been quite some debate about that, in particular whether nomadic tribes that inhabit or occupy lands episodically truly own them or whether someone settling a land is the true owner. Whichever way you want to cut it, someone conquering a land is, like it or not, its de facto (though perhaps not rightful) owner. Were it otherwise, people like Bob Costas and Peter King ought to give back the land they live on knowing that it was stolen from Native Americans and/or some other people that could claim rightful title to it.

You only every really occupy one room of your house at a time, yet you consider yourself the owner of the whole thing. As you have not gone into the spare bedroom in months, do I have the right to break in, occupy it and claim it as mine?? And more so when i have gathered too much shit to occupy the room I stole to begin with, do I have the right to conquer the rest of the house and kill you if you decide to resist??

 

[gkekoa]

If you are offended by the Redskins name, then you don't actually understand people.

Nobody names their billion dollar purchase a name meant to be derogatory.

Look at the reason given for naming the team Redskins.

And that is all that matters...because if you take something not meant to be offensive, offensively, that is your problem.

 

[Sportster 72]

There has been quite some debate about that, in particular whether nomadic tribes that inhabit or occupy lands episodically truly own them or whether someone settling a land is the true owner. Whichever way you want to cut it, someone conquering a land is, like it or not, its de facto (though perhaps not rightful) owner. Were it otherwise, people like Bob Costas and Peter King ought to give back the land they live on knowing that it was stolen from Native Americans and/or some other people that could claim rightful title to it.

Yes I understand the act of conquering other peoples has been going on for as long as man has been around. Hell it went on in the neighborhood I grew up in. My statement/question wasn't about conquering but what do we call them .... native American's, native people, Indians etc. There isn't a real answer which I believe I eluded to. All semantics.

 

[Sportster 72]

For anyone interested, the author of the linked article above explained his position on the Grant & Danny Show today. It's segment 15 and a pretty good listen: Grant and Danny by play.it on iTunes

I listened to this on your advice and came away with two thoughts. I think it is great he said "if they aren't upset then maybe I shouldn't be upset for them."

2nd thought, he is a MORON. Oh wait, he isn't quite as smart as some other folks. (that's better than MORON, right?) He said on more than one occasion he based his original opinion on the dictionary definition and the fact that a majority of native American's said they were offended. Where the hell is this majority? NOW he believes the poll from 2004. C'mon dude.

As for Bob Costas, he isn't ever going to admit he is wrong or a midget .... I mean little person. Damn!!! I have a hard time keeping up with all these PC terms. Is it okay for me to refer to myself as a cracker now?

 

[Sharkinva]

Sportster, you can refer to yourself how ever you like. And as i have said many times before, its perfectly ok for non-blacks to use the N-word even in a room full of ghetto thugs.... provided they realize the possible ramifications of such an action.

 

[gkekoa]

Yes I understand the act of conquering other peoples has been going on for as long as man has been around. Hell it went on in the neighborhood I grew up in. My statement/question wasn't about conquering but what do we call them .... native American's, native people, Indians etc. There isn't a real answer which I believe I eluded to. All semantics.

Indians are not native or they are as native as we are.

1- person born in a specified place

2- indigenous

Even the liberal idea of native Americans is not native. They killed off the previous humanoids.

 

[Sharkinva]

Indians are not native or they are as native as we are.

1- person born in a specified place

2- indigenous

Even the liberal idea of native Americans is not native. They killed off the previous humanoids.

1..The majority of the Native Americans killed during the stealing of this country were born here and their families had been here for generations.

2.. There is no proof that they were NOT indigenous to this continent.

3... There is no proof that they came here and killed off the previous occupants and conquered this land. And even if there were proof, how does that in any way shape or form justify another race coming in and doing the same thing?? By that justification.... If China ever got the nerve to invade this country by force, they would be completely justified because we sir are apparently not native, and China is a sovereign nation thus they can claim the right to expand and ignore OUR claim to this land because it does not fit their agenda.

 

[reptec101]

All this effin history shit about why it is or isn't offensive is a waste of time. Logic and common sense should tell you everything you need to know about the name Redskins. 1% of Native Americans find the name offensive. That's the equivalence of the 11 offensive starters for the skins themselves out of the entire other 31 teams entire NFL rosters combined. That tells me everything I need to know,,, Everything I already knew.

The name isn't on the same level as the N-word... never has been never will be. Let's move on.

Had the skins been forced to change the name the ramifications would have been staggering. Redskins are part of the originals in the history of its league. Could you even imagine calling your fav team the Washington Federals, or Generals, or whatever crappy ass name they came up with. I thank God for an owner with balls big enough to stand up against the weight of a pansy ass liberal nation. I give a toast to an owner who fought and stood tall for every fan of this team. Many other owners would have crumbled... not ours. HTTR.

 

[gkekoa]

1..The majority of the Native Americans killed during the stealing of this country were born here and their families had been here for generations.

2.. There is no proof that they were NOT indigenous to this continent.

3... There is no proof that they came here and killed off the previous occupants and conquered this land. And even if there were proof, how does that in any way shape or form justify another race coming in and doing the same thing?? By that justification.... If China ever got the nerve to invade this country by force, they would be completely justified because we sir are apparently not native, and China is a sovereign nation thus they can claim the right to expand and ignore OUR claim to this land because it does not fit their agenda.

1- I was born here and my ancestors have been here for hundreds of years. Indians are no more native than I am.

2- Actually, the evidence says they went across the land bridge from Russia or came in boats from the Pacific Islands.

3- Who Were The First Americans?

As for China invading, we are a sovereign nation. The Indians were not a sovereign nation. Furthermore, I am fine with expansionism. If China wants to get froggy...let them jump.

 

[RobBase]

For anyone interested, the author of the linked article above explained his position on the Grant & Danny Show today. It's segment 15 and a pretty good listen: Grant and Danny by play.it on iTunes

It's hilarious how important some people think they are. I wouldn't wipe my ass with this guys opinion.

 

[Sportster 72]

It's hilarious how important some people think they are. I wouldn't wipe my ass with this guys opinion.

I forgot that part of post after listening. My initial thought was "I wouldn't want to go have 10 beers with that guy."

 

[Sharkinva]

1- I was born here and my ancestors have been here for hundreds of years. Indians are no more native than I am.

2- Actually, the evidence says they went across the land bridge from Russia or came in boats from the Pacific Islands.

3- Who Were The First Americans?

As for China invading, we are a sovereign nation. The Indians were not a sovereign nation. Furthermore, I am fine with expansionism. If China wants to get froggy...let them jump.

At the risk of sounding a little racist.... Spoken like a guy born into the race that won. Trump will appreciate your vote sir.

 

[gkekoa]

At the risk of sounding a little racist.... Spoken like a guy born into the race that won. Trump will appreciate your vote sir.

He will have it but not because I like him. He will get my vote because the alternative is Hilary choosing liberal justices who believe men should use whatever restroom they pretend to want.

I was born into the human race and realize living in the past that we have nothing to do with does nothing for the future except breed contempt.

 

[Sharkinva]

He will have it but not because I like him. He will get my vote because the alternative is Hilary choosing liberal justices who believe men should use whatever restroom they pretend to want.

I was born into the human race and realize living in the past that we have nothing to do with does nothing for the future except breed contempt.

Like I said, spoken like some one who has never had to deal with issues of race, discrimination and the like. The fact that you can try and justify the atrocities by saying well they werent the first ones here, and they werent a sovereign nation is crap and you know it. The people who stole this nation did so because they felt they were racially superior to those they killed, raped and enslaved on the way to becoming this great nation. And I find it funny that the only types of people saying we need to forget the past are those who as a race benefited from that past they want us to forget.