OT: Don't They Have More Important Things To Worry About

[deep9er]

yes, you are right about Hawaiians originating from other south pacific islands, but that isn't the topic at hand.

the topic was Redskins and Native Americans, not Native Americans are originally from Asia?[/QUOTE]

You lost me. The point, I thought, was that Native Americans were just as guilty of stealing land they wanted away from weaker peoples as the Europeans were. And consequently, they have no gripe.

lets just end it here.

 

[TobyTyler]

lets just end it here.

Fair enough. You are a good dude; I don't want to piss you off.

 

[-AC-]

yes, you are right about Hawaiians originating from other south pacific islands, but that isn't the topic at hand.

the topic was Redskins and Native Americans, not Native Americans are originally from Asia?[/QUOTE]

You lost me. The point, I thought, was that Native Americans were just as guilty of stealing land they wanted away from weaker peoples as the Europeans were. And consequently, they have no gripe.

This is a pretty big exaggeration. To think that every piece of land was fought over is ridiculous. Sure there was battles between native Americans and some or even most might have been over land. But by in large most native Americans established land that was uninhibited.

I think certain people just want to argue for arguments sake...

 

[RobBase]

If the word "Redskins" is so offensive, why does the media use it 1000 times a week? If they were called the Washington N*****s would the media use the word n*****s every day?

 

[TobyTyler]

This is a pretty big exaggeration. To think that every piece of land was fought over is ridiculous. Sure there was battles between native Americans and some or even most might have been over land. But by in large most native Americans established land that was uninhibited.

I think certain people just want to argue for arguments sake...

You would be wrong. The American Indians, except for a few pockets on both coasts, were nomads; constantly on the move looking for better hunting grounds and milder climates. They had absolutely no qualms about taking what they wanted from weaker groups; none at all.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

If the word "Redskins" is so offensive, why does the media use it 1000 times a week? If they were called the Washington N*****s would the media use the word n*****s every day?

Yeah, its a word that was considered derogatory a long time ago, but I'm not sure there are too many people that use "redskin" as an insult these days. You have to go to the history books to justify equating it to "n*****". This is probably why the vast majority of native Americans don't give a **** about the name, and would prefer Congress focuses on more relevant topics that actually affect people.

This is an issue for busybodies who don't have any real problems to worry about, or politicians trying to create an image of compassion. Or, I suppose, just a flat out distraction.

 

[NinerSickness]

If the word "Redskins" is so offensive, why does the media use it 1000 times a week? If they were called the Washington N*****s would the media use the word n*****s every day?

That's an excellent point. Dr. Laura even lost her radio job by referencing how people in the music industry and the movies say 'N*****, N*****, N*****.'"

 

[TobyTyler]

That's an excellent point. Dr. Laura even lost her radio job by referencing how people in the music industry and the movies say 'N*****, N*****, N*****.'"

Using the term "N Word" cracks me up. It sounds like a bunch of children talking. Sounds like me as a little kid watching my dad watch a football game on TV and telling my brother "ooh, dad said the "F" word.

 

[NinerSickness]

Using the term "N Word" cracks me up. It sounds like a bunch of children talking. Sounds like me as a little kid watching my dad watch a football game on TV and telling my brother "ooh, dad said the "F" word.

It is silly, but people use the word (regardless of context) as an excuse to go ape shit on you, so I figure it's best not to even give 'em the opportunity.

 

[-AC-]

You would be wrong. The American Indians, except for a few pockets on both coasts, were nomads; constantly on the move looking for better hunting grounds and milder climates. They had absolutely no qualms about taking what they wanted from weaker groups; none at all.

They were regional... so if you want to consider them nomads, that is fine. However they were regional nomads that typically stayed within their own regions. You can trace back almost every notable tribes to what is now known as what state their regions were located. The native Americans had boundaries and not all of them warred with each other. Often smaller tribes would merge without a single battle. So let's at least recognize the whole picture and stop exaggerating points...

 

[deep9er]

Fair enough. You are a good dude; I don't want to piss you off.

a little frustrated, not pissed off. but yeah, i AM a good dude. haaa

all the land of Hawaii once belonged to Hawaiians, they settled these islands. the land in Hawaii doesn't belong to polynesians. if you go further back in time, yeah Hawaiians orignated SOMEWHERE in polynesia. the land was never previously owned/controlled by those suppodrf polynesians.

it is like saying Native Americans never owned their lands either, that it belongs to cavemen who came over the Beiring Strait.

 

[TobyTyler]

It is silly, but people use the word (regardless of context) as an excuse to go ape shit on you, so I figure it's best not to even give 'em the opportunity.

That's probably wise.

 

[TobyTyler]

They were regional... so if you want to consider them nomads, that is fine. However they were regional nomads that typically stayed within their own regions. You can trace back almost every notable tribes to what is now known as what state their regions were located. The native Americans had boundaries and not all of them warred with each other. Often smaller tribes would merge without a single battle. So let's at least recognize the whole picture and stop exaggerating points...

What? They walked from Asia through Alaska before the separation of the continents and then spread all the way to the east coast of the United States. If you wanna call that "regional" well I guess we disagree on the meaning of regional.

 

[Rathman44]

:confused2:

It sounds like you're upset that the media & government pay more attention to latino / latina & black people more than they pay attention to Natives. I agree that's not right. However, Native Americans have been given considerations that no other group in the country have been given. And if an NFL franchise were called the blackskins or the brownskins for 80+ years, I still wouldn't support changing the name because those names wouldn't be derogatory. I've never heard someone called "'blackskin" or "brownskin" in my life. People use much more colourful terms when they're trying to be insulting.

Let's try to make this as simple as possible for you. The term "redskin" to most of the Native Americans that I know is still a very derogatory term. I used the term blackskin to make a point - I should have used the term N***** since you aren't making the connection. You don't hear the term redskin much anymore because there aren't as many Native Americans in existence. This is due to a number of different dark issues in our country's past. My grandmother was raised on a reservation and I visited often. I heard the term used on a number of occasions in the nearby town and I can assure you that it was never used in an endearing way. I think it is completely inappropriate to tell me, my family, or my tribe whether this term is still offensive or not.

So, I ask you, should the name be used to represent our nation's capital if it is highly offensive to most of the few remaining Native Americans? It is essentially a reminder of the disrespect and poor treatment the Natives of this land had to endure from this government - is this something that we should be celebrating? Should we start naming teams the San Francisco Fa***ts or the Atlanta N****** or the LA Ch*nks or the NY K*k*s? I mean, if the team is around long enough maybe in 80 years those terms won't be used that much and the name will be accepted by anybody that isn't directly offended by it.

:
I think this country bends over backwards (and ruins a lot of things) in the name of not offending anyone. Daniel Snyder didn't come up with the name of the franchise. The only people who really care about the team name are Redskin fans; the rest of us don't spend any significant time even paying attention to the franchise. You're not wrong for being offended, but that doesn't mean the vast majority who want to keep the name shouldn't be able to because you find it offensive. It's impossible to please everyone.

Changing the name of a football team is not bending over backwards. They have plenty of money and resources to easily make this happen and these grown men who have become attached to this name need to just grow up. I could care less about what this does to poor 'ole Daniel Snyder.

And you say the only people who really care about the team name are Redskin fans...this is 100% false. I care. My family and friends care. Most of the Native Americans I have met care. Do we not count? Just because everyone else isn't offended by the name does that make it ok? The vast majority want to keep the name so that's what should occur? Is that really your reasoning? This sort of logic is seen in many civil rights situations...what side do you think that sort of reasoning is usually on?

 

[-AC-]

What? They walked from Asia through Alaska before the separation of the continents and then spread all the way to the east coast of the United States. If you wanna call that "regional" well I guess we disagree on the meaning of regional.

^ This is only ONE theory ^

And even if it is the correct theory, I still find it extremely hard to beleive the small migrating groups could occupy every square mile of the America's. Even now, America still has vast amounts of area's that are uninhibited. So I don't understand what it is that is so hard to figure out here? Your series of posts contradicts one another. On one hand you say the the Native Americans forcably stole the land from the original migraters. Then you go on to to say they were traveling nomads with no real land?

The modern age Native Americans had established land and were regional. Some gained land through battle and some gained land by merging tribes. And most settled on uninhibbited lands that suited their needs. The larger tribes that we know now, are of course a mixture of smaller tribes that were molded into what we know now. Current events of the time dictated some of the reasons for this. Not all were forced into this, although some were. However, even "the savage redskins" at the time saw the benefit of strength in numbers (see the battle of little Bighorn for the perfect example). Native Americans were not all enemies that savagely killed each other to get what they wanted, contrary to what you or anyone else believes.

Of course, its the killings, battles and wars that history remembers the most and hilights in time. So I can understand how most might not know, or simply make the mistake of thinking this was all there was to it. Especially when they discuss these era's...

 

[NinerSickness]

Rathman, I don't think you care about the team name as much as Redskin fans do. I'm not saying you don't have an opinion about it, but I'll bet Redskin fans will spend about 100 times as much thought about the team name than you will. Football can be a huge deal to people as you can see from this forum.

I believe you that people around your grandmother have used the term not in an endearing way. But does that mean the term is always a racial slur? The term "*****" has been used as a slur, but that isn't always the context. In fact, I'd say it was very rarely used as a slur because N***** could easily be substituted when someone wants to use a racial slur. I could use the term "black guy" in a negative context: I can't believe she's dating a BLACK GUY! Or neutral: that black guy has a funny shirt. N***** or CH*** are ALWAYS racial slurs. Do you really think the team name is supposed to be a slight on Natives? And do you actually believe the team name hurts anyone?

The vast majority want to keep the name so that's what should occur? Is that really your reasoning? This sort of logic is seen in many civil rights situations...what side do you think that sort of reasoning is usually on?

I hope you're not making this a civil rights issue. It's a sports team not a voting requirement. Most issues are decided by majority rule, and I wouldn't put this up there with crimes against humanity that are wrong regardless of popular opinion like the slave trade.

 

[-AC-]

Heres the problem, if two African Americans call each other the "N" word it is in a non deragatory way. BUT, we all know the "N" word is as deragatory as it gets. The term "Redskin" was used just like the "N" word to put down the Native Americans of the time. And we should all recognize and respect this fact...

As I stated in my first post in this thread. As a Native American myself it does not bother me. Like a lot of other Native Americans, we have turned a negative into a positive and I'm proud to be a Redskin! Similar to a Mexican and "Brown pride" I have embraced the term "Red"...

But that doesn't mean I can't see how it would offend several other Native Americans and even non Native Americans. I just wish it was'nt congress forcing the issue. Instead, I wish it was Mr.Snyder making the right decision...

 

[Rathman44]

Rathman, I don't think you care about the team name as much as Redskin fans do. I'm not saying you don't have an opinion about it, but I'll bet Redskin fans will spend about 100 times as much thought about the team name than you will. Football can be a huge deal to people as you can see from this forum.

I believe you that people around your grandmother have used the term not in an endearing way. But does that mean the term is always a racial slur? The term "*****" has been used as a slur, but that isn't always the context. In fact, I'd say it was very rarely used as a slur because N***** could easily be substituted when someone wants to use a racial slur. I could use the term "black guy" in a negative context: I can't believe she's dating a BLACK GUY! Or neutral: that black guy has a funny shirt. N***** or CH*** are ALWAYS racial slurs. Do you really think the team name is supposed to be a slight on Natives? And do you actually believe the team name hurts anyone?



I hope you're not making this a civil rights issue. It's a sports team not a voting requirement. Most issues are decided by majority rule, and I wouldn't put this up there with crimes against humanity that are wrong regardless of popular opinion like the slave trade.

Please don't tell me what's a racial slur to my people and what is not. You have no right to make this judgement. Every time I have heard the term used outside of football it has been used as a slur and it offends me. I was being sarcastic by saying it was not endearing...I thought it was obvious how offensive the term is. It is even more insulting that you would belittle our feelings regarding this issue by saying that the term carries more importance to football fans.

Further, it is truly sad to see how much you value a football team name and their fans over the feelings of the Native American community and the past suffering the name represents to most of us. It is sad that Americans like yourself are this out of touch with the Natives of this land.

And yes, I consider the use of racial slurs to be inclusive in civil rights issues, even though their use is protected by the constitution. I believe civil rights issues are resolved just as much in our culture as in our laws.

 

[MHSL82]

NolanNonsense, AC, and Deep9er's having troubles with the quote button today. It appears they are all upset with themselves and responding to how far off they are.

As to the subject at hand, it's best I stay out of it as far as history goes. I wouldn't have chosen that name, am glad I'm not a Washington fan, and I hope that we, whether we are fans, congress, or lay men, can respect all people, whether they are Native Americans, whites, blacks, Latinos, etc.

None of us were the people who took the lands from the tribes and thus shouldn't bear the blame (I can't give it back either), but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't also respect how they feel and try to limit insults to them.

I hope Natives, pro, ambivalent, and against, speak their mind, not stay silent nor just have a few people in litigation representing them all. I'm sure there are some from all degrees of thought on the issue. You'll find some Tibetans who didn't want to be freed, felt a connection with China, etc. But those who are offended should also speak up.

 

[MHSL82]

The term "*****" has been used as a slur, but that isn't always the context. In fact, I'd say it was very rarely used as a slur because N***** could easily be substituted when someone wants to use a racial slur. I could use the term "black guy" in a negative context: I can't believe she's dating a BLACK GUY! Or neutral: that black guy has a funny shirt. N***** or CH*** are ALWAYS racial slurs. Do you really think the team name is supposed to be a slight on Natives? And do you actually believe the team name hurts anyone?

As an analogy to your examples, couldn't "natives" could be like "negroes" and "redskins" be like "n******"? I mean, there are other words like savages, injuns, etc., but so are there about blacks and other groups. Who's to say what is the king insult? N****** > Negroes on its insult level, but where Redskins is to other names describing Native Americans isn't necessarily established yet.

Every time I have heard the term used outside of football it has been used as a slur and it offends me.

Maybe NS is viewing that the name isn't being used outside of football when the term is being used? That if someone called you that name without referencing the football team, it would be offensive, but if talking about the team, it isn't?