Livo Posted October 9, 2013 Posted October 9, 2013 Not sure if anyone posted this yet. Got it from the team today. http://links.pro-football.mkt4831.com/ctt?kn=3&ms=NzEzMjM1NAS2&r=MzA4ODQxODY3NzcS1&b=0&j=OTIzMDQ3MTIS1&mt=1&rt=0
Orion21 Posted October 9, 2013 Posted October 9, 2013 Excellent letter. It speaks to the reason for this "controversy" stemming from the view of a minority. A very vocal minority, but minority all the same. It also points to the way people will choose to be offended just because someone says you should be offended. The fact that the team consulted with Indians about the name in the 70's says it all and then worked with Indians to design a logo that they respected says even more. The Redskins logo is a badge of honor and should be viewed that way.
Marker Posted October 9, 2013 Posted October 9, 2013 The native americans found a way to officially endorse the team in the 70s. I don't think we get to reverse their stance 40 years later unless the same tribal counsel puts out a proclamation stating such. Until then this is all white noise. Then again, it would seem callous they would endorse the team then 40 years later rescind that. That would be Indian giving.
SCgarman Posted October 9, 2013 Posted October 9, 2013 Oh shoot, not you didn't Aaron, since you reside out in Phoenix way, what vibes are you getting from the native Americans there regarding this deal?
Orion21 Posted October 9, 2013 Posted October 9, 2013 This was the first I have heard of this issue. We had a similar issue when Janet "don't call me Bull" Napalitano was governor. We had an outside group want the name of a local mountain changed from "Squaw Peak" to something that didn't offend them. They claimed the term "Squaw" was a derogatory term towards female Indians. They went as far as to say the term Squaw was on par with a prostitute. Nothing ever happened until the first woman in the US Military died in action. This woman happened to be from Arizona AND an Indian. In my view the politicians at the time, Janet et al, seized on this moment to make a political statement. They pushed thru the name change of Squaw Peak to Piestewa Peak (Piestewa being the last name of the woman killed). The politicians used the lobbying talking points of Squaw meaning prostitute and that that offensive name couldn't remain. That it would be wonderful to honor the fallen solider with the renaming, while fighting against racism. Anyone who opposed the name change was called a racist, against the military etc. Basically, everyone backed down. Later we come to find the claim of Squaw meaning prostitute was basically made up, but now Squaw is considered an offensive term: Squaw is an English languageloan-word, used as a noun or adjective, whose present meaning is an indigenous woman of North America. It is derived from the eastern Algonquianmorpheme meaning 'woman' that appears in numerous Algonquian languages variously spelled squa, skwa, esqua, sqeh, skwe, que, kwa, ikwe, exkwew, xkwe, etc. At present, the term is often held to be offensive. Here is another example. I have a friend who believes calling Mexican's Mexican is offensive. I asked a friend of mine who is Mexican if he considers his origin to be Hispanic or Mexican. With a proud boom he said "Mexican, of course Mexican! It's where my family was born, it's where my grandparents are burried." I sad, great, but I have another friend who thinks if I refer to you as Mexican, that that is offensive because during the whole immigration reform mess the term "Mexican" was made offensive. His response was a blank stare and a wave of his hand and "crazy."
Ken Gargett Posted October 9, 2013 Posted October 9, 2013 Not sure if anyone posted this yet. Got it from the team today. http://links.pro-foo...MTIS1&mt=1&rt=0 was just about to post it. arrived this morning. it does suggest the skins organisation feel they have solid and legitimate grounds for maintaining the name. also, drunkenmonkey, while i understand you are offended, you tend to misquote a touch.my point was how long before the whackjob greenies made that decision and was rather obviously tongue-in-cheek. to suggest i might have really thought that bears would be wandering around upset really is a stretch.
DrunkenMonkey Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 No worries, Ken, I understand what you meant, although I didn't realize at the time that you were joking about the bear thing. So as I think about this more, I can certainly understand why anyone who has been a fan of that team for years would want to keep it. It's the name you've associated with your favorite football team (God help you) for years. I understand that, and I totally get it. If the Steelers were being pressured to change their name, I'd feel much the same way, reflexively defensive, and I would oppose it on principle. The principle being, of course, that I had always been a steelers fan, and not a fan of whatever they would be changing the name to. I get it. But then, Steelers isn't a racist name, so I won't have to worry about that happening.
Ken Gargett Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 sometimes i really am just not as funny as i thought. i might have to put jokes in italics. understand what you say and i suspect you are safe with 'steelers'. that said, you'd like to think that when they used the name 'redskins' in the first place (and from what synder is saying, they certainly didn't - indeed the opposite), they had no hint of racism then or in the future. who's to know that in another 80 years some people won't find 'steelers' offensive for a reason we can't see as yet? or any of the other names? you'd like to think that if there was the slightest deliberate attempt to offend then or now that the name would be changed - or more likely, no one would support the team in the first place.
Skyfall Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 I just want to point out a couple of things: 1) There was a statement earlier about "Embarrassing the NFL" ummmmmmm, the NFL pretty much made Ray Lewis their poster child last year and turned him into a Saint.....................and he murdered people. Now if Families of murder victims wanted to protest Ray Lewis being in the Super Bowl, I get that,l that makes sense, it's pretty embarrassing to have a murderer get so much air time and reverence. See that is offensive acrss the board. If you are a living human who doesn't want to be murdered, that is offensive.(see also OJ Simpson, Aaron Hernandez, Adam Jones and 100's of others who disgrace the league.) Let's work on cleaning up some of the actual players first before time is wasted on trying to clean up a team name or mascot! After all, the players who get into trouble actually hurt "real" people and cause "real" problems. 2)The world has always experienced natural selection since the beginning of time,and it will continue to until the end of time. 3) If someone wanted to let me open up my own casino and make my own rules and become a multi-millionaire due to some suffering experienced by my great great great relatives - SIGN ME UP!!!! Why don't you go ask some of these million dollar casino owners if they would be ok changing their names and logo's too. 4) I live an hour away from the largest Indian Casino in the entire world, and on a daily basis you can go witness them taking advantage of the weak, of the ignorant, of the down trodden, of the unlucky ect... They prey on people's weakness, especially their own kind, all for the mighty $$$$$$$! Where are the protesters for that? Where are the voices for the weak for that? Where are the weeping hearts for that? In addition, they make up their own rules, and I've witnessed on several occasions, people who win large jackpots, and because they are not governed by the gaming commission, create some BS excuse (faulty equipment, bad motherboard ect) and deny paying out the winnings, because they can. I'd say all of this causes much more "actual" and relevant damage and destruction, especially to their own people, than a name of a football team. If you are a Native American living on one of these reservations with a casino, you can literally get your govt. check, walk 10 feet to the casino, sign over your govt. check for chips, and they will take it all. I bet you anything, you walk up to any Native American today, and tell them you will give them a free casino on their reservation land, under the condition that it is called, "The Redskin Gaming Palace" - there would be a line a mile long hoping for a chance!!!!! At the end of the day, money & logic will always beat bleeding heart , attention seeking "martyrs" .
DrunkenMonkey Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 I'm almost afraid to ask, but what do you think natural selection has to do with any of this?
Ken Gargett Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 on a daily basis you can go whiteness them taking advantage of the weak, of the ignorant, of the down trodden, of the unlucky i think we have the freudian slip of the decade! and i am not suggesting anything other than it was completely unintentional.
khomeinist Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 Please elaborate on the Social Darwinism Skyfall (now where's my popcorn?) PS: nice catch Ken. Sort of gets to the root of the issue. Symbols and social construction of identity. Good times. Where's my pipe and smoking jacket to go with my salty snacks?
Skyfall Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 I'm almost afraid to ask, but what do you think natural selection has to do with any of this? The short answer that will cause the least issue = Timeline: Lots of Cavemen killed lots of other Cavemen Fast-forward Lots of Romans killed lots of Christians Fast-forward Lots of Spaniards killed lots of Indians Lots of Native South/Central Americans Tribes killed lots of Spaniards Lots of British and French (now called white Americans) killed lots of everybody Lots of formerly British and French now called white Americans killed lots of Indians Lots of Indians killed lots of white Americans (people tend to forget this) Lots of Mexicans killed lots of Texans and other Americans Lots of Spaniards and British killed lots of Africans (and sent a lot to Canada, Central America, Caribbean and America) Lots of American, Central Americans and Caribes killed lots of Africans Lots of the North killed lots of the South Lots of the South killed lots of the North Lots of Russians and Germans killed lots of everyone (even their own) Lots of Chinese and Japanese killed lots of everyone (even their own) Lots of British and French killed lots of Vietnamese Lots of Vietnamese killed lots of British and French and their own Lots of Americans killed lots of Vietnamese Lots of Vietnamese killed lots of Americans Lots of Black Americans killed lots of many races in America Lots of White Americans killed lots of many races in America Lost of all races killed lots of other races in America Lots of Middle Easterners killed lots of other Middle Easterners Lots of Eastern Europeans killed lots of their own Lots of Middle Easterners killed lots of other Middle Easterners...again Lots of Middle Easterners killed lots of allied Countries Lots of allied Countries killed lots of Middle Easterners Lots of Middle Easterners killed lots of Innocent people and continue to do so. and so on and so on and so on........ It happens, it's cyclical and for the most part plays out as a necessary evil of natural selection.
Skyfall Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 i think we have the freudian slip of the decade! and i am not suggesting anything other than it was completely unintentional. HAHA! fixed it
DrunkenMonkey Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 I think you have a very unique understanding of natural selection. So do you see Ray Lewis's murder as another example of "natural selection"?
El Presidente Posted October 10, 2013 Author Posted October 10, 2013 HAHA! fixed it Personally I don't post after 4pm
Ken Gargett Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 The short answer that will cause the least issue = Timeline: Lots of Cavemen killed lots of other Cavemen Fast-forward Lots of Romans killed lots of Christians Fast-forward Lots of Spaniards killed lots of Indians Lots of Native South/Central Americans Tribes killed lots of Spaniards Lots of British and French (now called white Americans) killed lots of everybody Lots of formerly British and French now called white Americans killed lots of Indians Lots of Indians killed lots of white Americans (people tend to forget this) Lots of Mexicans killed lots of Texans and other Americans Lots of Spaniards and British killed lots of Africans (and sent a lot to Canada, Central America, Caribbean and America) Lots of American, Central Americans and Caribes killed lots of Africans Lots of the North killed lots of the South Lots of the South killed lots of the North Lots of Russians and Germans killed lots of everyone (even their own) Lots of Chinese and Japanese killed lots of everyone (even their own) Lots of British and French killed lots of Vietnamese Lots of Vietnamese killed lots of British and French and their own Lots of Americans killed lots of Vietnamese Lots of Vietnamese killed lots of Americans Lots of Black Americans killed lots of many races in America Lots of White Americans killed lots of many races in America Lost of all races killed lots of other races in America Lots of Middle Easterners killed lots of other Middle Easterners Lots of Eastern Europeans killed lots of their own Lots of Middle Easterners killed lots of other Middle Easterners...again Lots of Middle Easterners killed lots of allied Countries Lots of allied Countries killed lots of Middle Easterners Lots of Middle Easterners killed lots of Innocent people and continue to do so. and so on and so on and so on........ It happens, it's cyclical and for the most part plays out as a necessary evil of natural selection. so rob, what was your original post? i reckon i've got a year's leeway after this.
khomeinist Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 I support the change of Dallas' team name to the COWBOIS to honor those who may now enter into civil unions. Gender neutral team names. This must happen. Damn slippery slopes.
SCgarman Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 I think El Presidente got more than he bargained for with this thread? lol!
El Presidente Posted October 10, 2013 Author Posted October 10, 2013 so rob, what was your original post? i reckon i've got a year's leeway after this. Ken....I have often over the years picked up the phone and explained..."moderator = moderation".....if we wanted inflamation (not a word I know) we would call the position "inflamator"....not "moderator". Yes....it has always fallen on deaf ears
El Presidente Posted October 10, 2013 Author Posted October 10, 2013 I think El Presidente got more than he bargained for with this thread? lol! For the love of God.....tell me about it!!!!! I just wanted some background...opinion. I now ...no doubt... am on the UN watch list for "hate crimes".
Ken Gargett Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 Ken....I have often over the years picked up the phone and explained..."moderator = moderation".....if we wanted inflamation (not a word I know) we would call the position "inflamator"....not "moderator". Yes....it has always fallen on deaf ears you'll never know how often i have refrained. and how much it hurts. what is funny is that a little while ago, i thought of raising this to see what people thought, especially in america as we get a different view at times. but i decided it definitely was too inflammatory. and yes, inflammation is a word (at least it is if you spell it correctly).
.png.15b5f6bc4159a73805a9f118f79a68ca.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now