Redskin trademark canceled. senators urge name change

[One Brow]

I've never seen the term "Redskin" used in a derogatory context, and I'm willing to bet that 95% of the people here haven't either.

You're probably right. Even if they had seen it, they wouldn't remember seeing it, because it did not affect them.

 

[One Brow]

Was 'Redskins' racist before white people decided it was racist? Srs question

Yes.

I think it would speak better about our society if the name just stayed and no one was bothered by it. Like, if everyone could just say, "oh okay, it's just the name of some dumb football team, nothing to see here"

That's easy to say when the derogatory name does not apply to you.

 

[nightmare3983]

I've never seen the term "Redskin" used in a derogatory context, and I'm willing to bet that 95% of the people here haven't either. If the team was called the "Indian Casino Lords" or "Washington Drunk Savages", then I could see a point.

Does this mean my favorite rugby team is doomed?

I believe the logic behind canceling the trademark is that the plaintiffs brought evidence that the term "Redskins" was being used as a derogatory term at the time the trademark was granted. Due to that being the case, it never should have been granted in the first place. I personally don't think that's good logic for canceling the trademark now.

 

[fishonjazz]

Was 'Redskins' racist before white people decided it was racist? Srs question

I think it would speak better about our society if the name just stayed and no one was bothered by it. Like, if everyone could just say, "oh okay, it's just the name of some dumb football team, nothing to see here"

yup.
but alas, whiny *** wussies gon wuss

 

[fishonjazz]

That's easy to say when the derogatory name does not apply to you.

BS

Im a white male
i want you to try to think of a football team name that would upset and offend me.

I bet you cant do it

 

[One Brow]

Im a white male
i want you to try to think of a football team name that would upset and offend me.

I bet you cant do it

That's kind of my point.

 

[fishonjazz]

That's kind of my point.

can you clarify your point please?

 

[babe]

Please reference the time and place that people were called "Irish" or "Fighting Irish" as an insult or the terms were used to denigrate.



Same for the Cowboys, Celtics, Cardinals, Dodgers, Giants, Steelers, Packers, Cardinals, Saints, Angels, and Knicks. I'm not aware of any sports teams called the TeaBaggers, Libs, Gays, Guys, and Girls, and I would object to four of them being in a team name.



The NFL gets generous anti-trust exemptions; some oversight goes along with that.



Which team is the Palefaces again? Is that a team name in Utah?

Wait, you're saying they don't pick insulting terms for white people as team names? How about that!

I grew up in a small town where the intensity of local hatred ran along the lines of Dixie Flyers vs. the Cedar Redskins. My dad ran the flying school that got the idea out about how neat it was to be a flyer, Cedar City had a local Paiute band that always showed up in full regalia at every event. Dixie had a Paiute reservation, too. My mom had me serve breakfast to the alcoholic still-drunk "Indians" I sometimes found sleeping int hay when I went out to milk the cow, and my grandpa prayed for them every Thanksgiving that they would become a "white and delightsome" rance like Mormons believed they will be one day.

The kind of bigotry and prejudice I saw was like Cliven Bundy's passing thoughts that socialism hasn't done them any good, like in bringing them up in their living circumstances to anything close to what someone who can actually plant tomatos or something else, say run some cattle on the desert in economic scale, can do. We didn't have "Colored" or "White" restrooms or drinking fountains or buses, and the indian kids sat in the same class and nobody picked on them. Some really stupid white kids got snickers when they didn't know ordinary stuff, but that was it.

I married a filipino when I was just too idealistic to imagine any reason not to, and am married to a Mexican citizen who boasts some cherokee ancestry, maybe some black ancestry as well.

In my youth it wasn't the "Redskins" in Cedar City that made the difference, it was the fact that they sometimes won the games, and sometimes too well. And we had pride. It was really a big deal when we won. Parades down main street and everything.

The clear fact of life I saw was that people need something, some "other" to direct their purpose in achievement. We need to hate something to just make it worthwhile being different. Liberrals today hate anyone who stands in the way of their ideologies. In the South, it was probably the Federal "Carpetbaggers" and bureaucrats that fueled the issue as much as anything. If we had just passed on the whole "Civil War" and moved on to the development of farm equipment that could make freeing the slaves an economic necessity, and maybe say instituted a federal purchase program on a larger scale, and instead of sending them off to "Liberia" given them all a homestead right, with a little assistance, they might have moved more directly towards real economic success.

The worst thing we ever did was wage genocidal campaigns against the "Indians", such as killing 60 million buffalo to starve the plains Indians in the 1870s-1880s, and maybe the Cherokee and Navajo "Trails of Tears". The Cherokees were adopting the economics and social institutions of the mainstream "Whites", but when gold was discovered on their land, the politics of greed took over, and President Andrew Jackson lawlessly ignored a Supreme Court decision in their favor, and order federal troops to assist in removing the Cherokees.

color of skin is only relevant in terms of the political uses of the issues. Today's "liberals" are the actual race-baiter hater folks because they see it as a way to power. They are busily building up a whole generation of "minorities" filled with race hatred for anyone who looks "successful" or who in any respect presents an obstacle to the political agenda. That's the view from the "Top" , if not from the dupes who fill the ranks of their political activist dullards who buy their propaganda and seriously believe it.

The use of that power is going to result in our federal government putting us all on "reservations", so to speak and taking away the right of all humans to have access to resources and the freedom to excel economically and prosper.

Cartelists and marxists have common cause in that campaign. The intended result is a modern "dark age" for mankind where the State has infinite and unquestionable absolute power over every man, woman, and child.

And that's why I will always take these stupid "divide and conquer" staged issues to the point that we are being manipulated into a tyrannical world mastered by a few very powerful folks.

And I will keep wondering how long OB can keep his blinders on and be so very insistent on buying into the propaganda that promotes it.

 

[♪alt13]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mx9pXSaAAps

 

[One Brow]

can you clarify your point please?

You're not a societal caricature. You're not a symbol, you're not boiled down to stereotypes, white people don't expect you to be a positive influence on society in order to redeem the image of white people, you're not otherized. There are no words in society that mean for you what "redskin" means to a native American. That means you really don't understand what it means to a Native American to hear that word. I don't understand it either, but when so many Native Americans tell me it is painful, I believe them. Why would I want to cause pain just so I can carelessly use a word?

 

[One Brow]

color of skin is only relevant in terms of the political uses of the issues. Today's "liberals" are the actual race-baiter hater folks because they see it as a way to power. They are busily building up a whole generation of "minorities" filled with race hatred for anyone who looks "successful" or who in any respect presents an obstacle to the political agenda. That's the view from the "Top" , if not from the dupes who fill the ranks of their political activist dullards who buy their propaganda and seriously believe it.

What a shame all those minorities are not as enlightened as you, and aren't smart enough to realize they are being duped by politicians acting against their own best interests.[/sarcasm]

 

[LogGrad98]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/new...offensive/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

Interesting read.

In fact, Mr. Goddard found, the earliest usages of “redskin” came from American Indians themselves in “statements made in 1769 by Illinois tribal chiefs involved in delicate negotiations with the British to switch loyalties away from the French,” the Post wrote.
“‘I shall be pleased to have you come to speak to me yourself,’ said one statement attributed to a chief named Mosquito. ‘And if any redskins do you harm, I shall be able to look out for you even at the peril of my life.’ The French used the phrase ‘peaux rouges’ — literally ‘red skins’ — to translate the chief’s words.”

While dozens of high schools across America have dropped the name, becoming the Utes or RedHawks or Raiders or Braves or Rams, three with a majority of American Indians in their student bodies have kept the name “Redskins,” in honor of their heritage.

I know exactly 3 American Indians (all of them of Navajo descent, one of them a descendant of one of the original navajo code talkers from WWII) and in an informal poll I can tell you that 100% of them find the term unoffensive.