Name Change

[Breed]

I am Native American and a former football player. Our history is much darker than racist mascots.

 

[gkekoa]

I am Native American and a former football player. Our history is much darker than racist mascots.

“There has been no acknowledgement that the origins of the game itself are a part of football’s racist involvement in Indigenous history.” This is an excerpt from the article. Where do they come up with this bullshit? There has been no acknowledgement because there is no reason to believe it. Just because some writer makes a baseless claim does not mean it is true.

So the real question from the article, why does an American Indian have a suicide rate three times that of other Americans? Maybe the writer should have clarified, are we talking real Indian or Elizabeth Warren type Indian who only used the moniker to steal a position from somebody else?

“There will still be worrying rates of chronic injuries to a largely Black player base.” Another excerpt to show the exceptional level of bias and hate. The players don’t have to play. They choose to play because they are paid incredible amounts of money. If they didn’t want to play, there are people of other races that would love to take their place and get the same injuries.

“There will be no guarantee that the stardom afforded those Black players will protect them from brutality off the field.” The final excerpt. The game hasn’t always been mostly black. Before that, white players risked their health as well, for far less and greater risk. Now the brutality off the field is worrisome, and I am assuming she is talking fights and death. So how many of these football players have been hurt by the cops? So, we are referring to brutality in their private lives. So let’s talk about that.

 

[skinsdad62]

if you choose to play the game , you know the risks involved . its called freedom and every individual has it . they weighed the risks and made a choice

 

[Breed]

Good grief. That was your takeaway from that article eh. Fake righteous indignant butthurt. And if anyone would know a baseless claim on this subject its probably you. Seeing as you continually make one claiming the word Redskins has never been used as a slur. Your hypocrisy on the issue is blinding you to the fact that the thing you complain most about. White liberals telling NAs that they should be offended by the name Redskins. Is the very thing you're guilty of. Telling NAs who are offended by the name Redskins that they have no right to be. Funny how that works eh.

You can't come up with a single reason why NA youth suicide and PTSD issues are 3.5 times the nat'l average? Not a one? Put the same effort into it as you did that shitty E Warren reference. It isn't that hard.

How is stating what surely will be factual for some players showing an exceptional level of bias n hate? Its also factual that the NFL player base is largely black. That in no way discounts, disqualifies or shows any bias or hate towards NFL players of a different skin color than black. Who will also have its share of players who will suffer from chronic injuries. And the articles doesn't pose any question or issue on whether a player, regardless of skin color, should or shouldn't play due to injuries they may incur.

First off. There's no she posing any questions which leads me to ask. Why did you even comment on the article? You ignored damn near the whole gist of what Taylor was trying to convey. And what you did comment on seems to have been triggered by possible biases you may possess concerning this issue.

 

[gkekoa]

Good grief. That was your takeaway from that article eh. Fake righteous indignant butthurt. And if anyone would know a baseless claim on this subject its probably you. Seeing as you continually make one claiming the word Redskins has never been used as a slur. Your hypocrisy on the issue is blinding you to the fact that the thing you complain most about. White liberals telling NAs that they should be offended by the name Redskins. Is the very thing you're guilty of. Telling NAs who are offended by the name Redskins that they have no right to be. Funny how that works eh.

You can't come up with a single reason why NA youth suicide and PTSD issues are 3.5 times the nat'l average? Not a one? Put the same effort into it as you did that shitty E Warren reference. It isn't that hard.

How is stating what surely will be factual for some players showing an exceptional level of bias n hate? Its also factual that the NFL player base is largely black. That in no way discounts, disqualifies or shows any bias or hate towards NFL players of a different skin color than black. Who will also have its share of players who will suffer from chronic injuries. And the articles doesn't pose any question or issue on whether a player, regardless of skin color, should or shouldn't play due to injuries they may incur.

First off. There's no she posing any questions which leads me to ask. Why did you even comment on the article? You ignored damn near the whole gist of what Taylor was trying to convey. And what you did comment on seems to have been triggered by possible biases you may possess concerning this issue.

It is a baseless claim because the history of the word makes it so. Have you ever heard somebody in today’s society use the word in a degrading’s manner, even behind closed doors? Neither have I. Hell, I have never even spoken about the American Indian in any manner (other than this type of forum) because I simply don’t care about the Native American as a group of people. They are simply people, just like me.

It is a baseless claim because the term has not been an issue throughout their own history. They created the term, do we agree? They named their own school mascots Redskin. Now, as time has gone on, even though nobody uses the word, except to honor a school, the term has become more derogatory? Does this make any sense? Maybe, it is that white privilege being exercised by those white liberals telling the American Indian youth you should be upset, even those your ancestors were not, about a word, rather than actual issues plaguing the American Indian. We can see this because the school system is overrun by the white liberal.

Do I believe some American Indian are offended by the word? Sure, but let me ask you why they are offended. If their parents are not offended by the word, and nobody uses it as a slur, why are they offend3d? They must have been taught to be offended by the word, but by whom? Think about it. It will come to you.

I can easily come up with the answers but I asked you the question. Why can’t you answer? Here are a few though. The first is high rates of alcoholism, “The abuse of alcohol and drugs are unhealthy coping mechanisms that many American Indians learn to use at a young age by observing parental practices,” Cole, N. (2006). Trauma and the American Indian. In T. M. Witko (Ed.), Mental Health Care for Urban Indians: Clinical Insights from Native Practitioners (pp. 115-130). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Here is the evidence, Alcohol Abuse in the Native American Population

Single parent homes is another big issue. Children in single-parent families by race | KIDS COUNT Data Center. Over 50% of American Indian children live in single parent households.

High rates of domestic violence, Increasing Awareness of Domestic Violence and Intimate Partner Violence in Our Communities | October 2018 Blogs. My guess would be related to alcohol in some way.

Poor academic performance with easily too many sources to list. No, I do not believe it is because they are incapable. I believe it is cultural, learned in the home.

As with everything, I bring it back to the individual, which somehow makes me a racist. I believe the American Indian individual is capable of not drinking, and many do not. I believe if you don’t drink, alcohol being a depressant, you have a lower chance of committing suicide. I believe the American Indian individual is better off in a two parent household because statistics back this claim up in EVERY demographic. Now, that demographic is affected by domestic violence. I believe if you don’t beat your family or get beaten by your family, you have a lower chance of committing suicide. Finally, I believe if you do well at school and take it seriously, you will be more successful in life. I believe the American Indian individual is capable of doing well in school and the younger you take school seriously, the better. I also believe some people are pushed too much from society to continue their education, even though they do not have the prior foundations for future success. Again, this starts at home.

Her entire article essentially claimed the game of football was created because white men needed to continue their warring ways and the American Indian thwarted the efforts to subjugate those same people on the field. No it doesn’t pose any questions but shouldn’t we question everything in order to grow, especially the validity of claims? Here is the excerpt, “There will still be worrying rates of chronic injuries to a largely Black player base. There will be no guarantee that the stardom afforded those Black players will protect them from brutality off the field.“ This is why I commented on that portion. She made it racial. She is worried about their safety in a game she admitted was violent and they choose to play. Hell, the first sentence in the paragraph essentially made the entire paragraph about greed.

 

[reptec101]

"There will be no guarantee that the stardom afforded those Black players will protect them from brutality off the field."

Good grief is right. Perhaps she means as they drive thru the streets of Chicago, LA, Philly, DC etc etc... It seems that that's the far bigger threat. Listen, we all agree that blacks are far more "harassed" than whites when it comes to cops and we all feel that change is needed in that regard. But can we just get thru this covid pandemic first before we tackle all those issues. I mean ya'll protesters picked the worst fucking time to take to the streets to loot, burn and destroy. I mean Jesus people,,, one problem at a time.

 

[Ruzious]

It is a baseless claim because the history of the word makes it so. Have you ever heard somebody in today’s society use the word in a degrading’s manner, even behind closed doors? Neither have I. Hell, I have never even spoken about the American Indian in any manner (other than this type of forum) because I simply don’t care about the Native American as a group of people. They are simply people, just like me.

It is a baseless claim because the term has not been an issue throughout their own history. They created the term, do we agree? They named their own school mascots Redskin. Now, as time has gone on, even though nobody uses the word, except to honor a school, the term has become more derogatory? Does this make any sense? Maybe, it is that white privilege being exercised by those white liberals telling the American Indian youth you should be upset, even those your ancestors were not, about a word, rather than actual issues plaguing the American Indian. We can see this because the school system is overrun by the white liberal.

Do I believe some American Indian are offended by the word? Sure, but let me ask you why they are offended. If their parents are not offended by the word, and nobody uses it as a slur, why are they offend3d? They must have been taught to be offended by the word, but by whom? Think about it. It will come to you.

I can easily come up with the answers but I asked you the question. Why can’t you answer? Here are a few though. The first is high rates of alcoholism, “The abuse of alcohol and drugs are unhealthy coping mechanisms that many American Indians learn to use at a young age by observing parental practices,” Cole, N. (2006). Trauma and the American Indian. In T. M. Witko (Ed.), Mental Health Care for Urban Indians: Clinical Insights from Native Practitioners (pp. 115-130). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Here is the evidence, Alcohol Abuse in the Native American Population

Single parent homes is another big issue. Children in single-parent families by race | KIDS COUNT Data Center. Over 50% of American Indian children live in single parent households.

High rates of domestic violence, Increasing Awareness of Domestic Violence and Intimate Partner Violence in Our Communities | October 2018 Blogs. My guess would be related to alcohol in some way.

Poor academic performance with easily too many sources to list. No, I do not believe it is because they are incapable. I believe it is cultural, learned in the home.

As with everything, I bring it back to the individual, which somehow makes me a racist. I believe the American Indian individual is capable of not drinking, and many do not. I believe if you don’t drink, alcohol being a depressant, you have a lower chance of committing suicide. I believe the American Indian individual is better off in a two parent household because statistics back this claim up in EVERY demographic. Now, that demographic is affected by domestic violence. I believe if you don’t beat your family or get beaten by your family, you have a lower chance of committing suicide. Finally, I believe if you do well at school and take it seriously, you will be more successful in life. I believe the American Indian individual is capable of doing well in school and the younger you take school seriously, the better. I also believe some people are pushed too much from society to continue their education, even though they do not have the prior foundations for future success. Again, this starts at home.

Her entire article essentially claimed the game of football was created because white men needed to continue their warring ways and the American Indian thwarted the efforts to subjugate those same people on the field. No it doesn’t pose any questions but shouldn’t we question everything in order to grow, especially the validity of claims? Here is the excerpt, “There will still be worrying rates of chronic injuries to a largely Black player base. There will be no guarantee that the stardom afforded those Black players will protect them from brutality off the field.“ This is why I commented on that portion. She made it racial. She is worried about their safety in a game she admitted was violent and they choose to play. Hell, the first sentence in the paragraph essentially made the entire paragraph about greed.

Sticking to the subject... So your argument is that they're taught to be offended. To a normal person that makes absolutely no sense. It's like saying they have no ability to think for themselves. Not to mention, there's no incentive for NA's teaching their children anything but the truth.

It's an occam's razor situation. It's blatantly obvious why it's offensive to many NA's. Everything else is inventing strawmen and rationalizing. They are offended for an obvious reason, and whether or not you think they should be is irrelevant.

 

[gkekoa]

Sticking to the subject... So your argument is that they're taught to be offended. To a normal person that makes absolutely no sense. It's like saying they have no ability to think for themselves. Not to mention, there's no incentive for NA's teaching their children anything but the truth.

It's an occam's razor situation. It's blatantly obvious why it's offensive to many NA's. Everything else is inventing strawmen and rationalizing. They are offended for an obvious reason, and whether or not you think they should be is irrelevant.

You miss my point about who is teaching the offense.

Can we agree that the level of discrimination and poor treatment of the American Indian has decreased over generations, meaning American Indians today are treated much better than previous generations?

Can we then agree that American Indians of previous generations were less offended by the term and that the offensiveness of the term has increased slowly over the years?

Can we also agree that we teach our children to think like we do and not opposed to how we think?

If we can agree on the above three things, then we must include an outside force is teaching our children what we disagree with. Is that a correct statement?

 

[gkekoa]

Sticking to the subject... So your argument is that they're taught to be offended. To a normal person that makes absolutely no sense. It's like saying they have no ability to think for themselves. Not to mention, there's no incentive for NA's teaching their children anything but the truth.

It's an occam's razor situation. It's blatantly obvious why it's offensive to many NA's. Everything else is inventing strawmen and rationalizing. They are offended for an obvious reason, and whether or not you think they should be is irrelevant.

Please educate me on why it is blatantly obvious why the term Redskin is offensive; yet, the term is used pretty much exclusively by the American Indian?

 

[Buffalo_Nickel_1]

 

[Rowdy]

Seeing too much of this talk lately

 

[skinsdad62]

Seeing too much of this talk lately

i hope not

 

[skinsdad62]

 

[Rowdy]

Hopefully this dude is right

 

[Sportster 72]

Seeing too much of this talk lately

I heard DC Sentinels on the radio today as a possibility. Terrible name.

 

[chillerdab]

Good grief. That was your takeaway from that article eh. Fake righteous indignant butthurt. And if anyone would know a baseless claim on this subject its probably you. Seeing as you continually make one claiming the word Redskins has never been used as a slur. Your hypocrisy on the issue is blinding you to the fact that the thing you complain most about. White liberals telling NAs that they should be offended by the name Redskins. Is the very thing you're guilty of. Telling NAs who are offended by the name Redskins that they have no right to be. Funny how that works eh.

You can't come up with a single reason why NA youth suicide and PTSD issues are 3.5 times the nat'l average? Not a one? Put the same effort into it as you did that shitty E Warren reference. It isn't that hard.

How is stating what surely will be factual for some players showing an exceptional level of bias n hate? Its also factual that the NFL player base is largely black. That in no way discounts, disqualifies or shows any bias or hate towards NFL players of a different skin color than black. Who will also have its share of players who will suffer from chronic injuries. And the articles doesn't pose any question or issue on whether a player, regardless of skin color, should or shouldn't play due to injuries they may incur.

First off. There's no she posing any questions which leads me to ask. Why did you even comment on the article? You ignored damn near the whole gist of what Taylor was trying to convey. And what you did comment on seems to have been triggered by possible biases you may possess concerning this issue.

Preach!

 

[Rowdy]

 

[skinsdad62]

 

[Ruzious]

You miss my point about who is teaching the offense.

Can we agree that the level of discrimination and poor treatment of the American Indian has decreased over generations, meaning American Indians today are treated much better than previous generations?

Can we then agree that American Indians of previous generations were less offended by the term and that the offensiveness of the term has increased slowly over the years?

Can we also agree that we teach our children to think like we do and not opposed to how we think?

If we can agree on the above three things, then we must include an outside force is teaching our children what we disagree with. Is that a correct statement?

While some of those might be important issues, they are irrelevant to the topic.

For folks who are against the name change, I'd recommend reading this article. Washington Redskins’ name, Native mascots offend more than previously reported

 

[Ruzious]

Please educate me on why it is blatantly obvious why the term Redskin is offensive; yet, the term is used pretty much exclusively by the American Indian?

I don't know if your conclusion there is true or not, but it's not relevant. We know that not every tribe is offended by it.