Does anyone remember the TV show F-Troop from the late 60's and early 70's.
I wonder why a liberal, progressive Hollywood would include such OFFENSIVE lyrics ? Perhaps it's not that offensive ???
The end of the Civil War was near When quite accidentally ,A hero who sneezed, abruptly seized Retreat and reversed it to victory!His Medal of Honor pleased and thrilled His proud little family group; While pinning it on, some blood was spilled And so it was planned he'd command... F TROOP! Where Indian fights are colorful sights And nobody takes a lickin',Where paleface and redskin All turn chicken! When drilling and fighting get them down They know their morale can't droop As long as they all relax in town Before they resume with a bang and a boom
<< <i>What would keyboard warriors do without google and wiki? It's only a short term talking point without any substance. >>
Yes, let's rely on one local news source (as you claim to do) without doing any additional verification or cross-checking of facts. I mean heaven forbid someone give factual representation of research done on the matter, if it flies in the face of your preconceived, prejudiced, and ignorant statements, let's brush it off!
<< <i> What happened to making your voice heard in protests and boycotts? Just seems so much more productive than whining about it on a card forum with a mouth full of Cheetos. >>
The same could be said about you, stown, instead of ranting here about how getting rid of the racially insensitive Redskin term is 'wussifying' the country, why aren't you out protesting for Dan Snyder to keep his team name? Too many cheetos in your face?
Most telling about all of this? Not one person has come forward with any reason of why they support the continuation of a racial slur as a team nickname. Quite interesting...
<< <i>What would keyboard warriors do without google and wiki? It's only a short term talking point without any substance. >>
Yes, let's rely on one local news source (as you claim to do) without doing any additional verification or cross-checking of facts. I mean heaven forbid someone give factual representation of research done on the matter, if it flies in the face of your preconceived, prejudiced, and ignorant statements, let's brush it off!
<< <i> What happened to making your voice heard in protests and boycotts? Just seems so much more productive than whining about it on a card forum with a mouth full of Cheetos. >>
The same could be said about you, stown, instead of ranting here about how getting rid of the racially insensitive Redskin term is 'wussifying' the country, why aren't you out protesting for Dan Snyder to keep his team name? Too many cheetos in your face?
Most telling about all of this? Not one person has come forward with any reason of why they support the continuation of a racial slur as a team nickname. Quite interesting... >>
What's even more interesting is how you slur others on this forum, yet you complain about the Redskins owner allowing a slur towards Native American Indians. First answer me why you feel it's ok for you to slur others here, (calling them hurtful names), and you've done in many times in your current and previous alts, and yet you complain about others slurring others.
Answer me why it's ok for you to slur, and not Dan Snyder, and then I'll answer your question.
<< <i> What's even more interesting is how you slur others on this forum, yet you complain about the Redskins owner allowing a slur towards Native American Indians. First answer me why you feel it's ok for you to slur others here, (calling them hurtful names), and you've done in many times in your current and previous alts, and yet you complain about others slurring others.
Answer me why it's ok for you to slur, and not Dan Snyder, and then I'll answer your question. >>
Trying to equate calling someone 'ignorant' or 'a fool' and a racial slur is proof positive you folks are fighting a fight you have no reason to, other than scary 'CHANGE!' that people like you hate. Now, tell me why you're so supportive of a football team continuing to use a racial slur as a nickname?
Trying to equate calling someone 'ignorant' or 'a fool' and a racial slur is proof positive you folks are fighting a fight you have no reason to, other than scary 'CHANGE!' that people like you hate. Now, tell me why you're so supportive of a football team continuing to use a racial slur as a nickname? >>
Slurs come in many shapes and forms my friends.
That come in racial forms. They come in political forms. They come in physically challenged forms. They come in marital forms.
You slur people left and right my friend. So I wonder how you feel you can attack Dan Snyder, yet you do it yourself 24/7.
If you can't differentiate between the term 'ignorant' and 'redskin', then there's no hope for you. The fact that you continue to this day to push the idea that Tim Tebow is a good QB is just further proof of this mindless, willful ignorance you partake in. A disagreement in a debate is hardly the same as the willful use of a racial slur for a football team's name.
The facts that no one has stepped forward with anything resembling a cohesive argument for why a racial slur should still be used is most telling of all.
The facts that no one has stepped forward with anything resembling a cohesive argument for why a racial slur should still be used is most telling of all. >>
Why did Hollywood use REDSKIN in their TV Sitcom F-Troop in the late 60's and 70's ? Why did a liberal, progressive Hollywood use the word ??
Because 90% of the population accepts it as a non-racial slur.
Heck, in the late 60's a liberal progressive Hollywood was not allowed to show Jeannie's belly button. How do you think the word REDSKIN passed the sensors ???
Simple answer is REDSKIN is not a racial slur to 90% of Native American Indians. It's always the 10% minority that wants to make noise over nothing.
<< <i> Why did Hollywood use REDSKIN in their TV Sitcom F-Troop in the late 60's and 70's ? >>
Is it being used now, or was it deemed offensive and hence discontinued? Thank you for answering your own question.
<< <i>Why did a liberal, progressive Hollywood use the word ??
Because 90% of the population accepts it as a non-racial slur. >>
So because only 10% of the people are offended by it, that's ok? What's the cut off point in which we allow racial slurs to be used without abandon? 10%? 20%?
<< <i>Heck, in the late 60's a liberal progressive Hollywood was not allowed to show Jeannie's belly button. >>
You really aren't good at this, are you? What are you even talking about?
<< <i>How do you think the word REDSKIN passed the sensors ???
Simple answer is REDSKIN is not a racial slur to 90% of Native American Indians. It's always the 10% minority that wants to make noise over nothing. >>
So when Disney did 'Song of the South' in the 40s, and then it was subsequently scrubbed from existence, that was 'noise over nothing'? Tell me again what's the cutoff for the percentage of people that need to be offended by a racial slur for you to consider getting rid of it?
Now take your argument somewhere else, because you are dead wrong on this subject.
Notwithstanding the protests of activists, a 2002 poll commissioned by Sports Illustrated found that 75% of those American Indians surveyed had no objection to the Redskins name. The results of the poll have been criticized by American Indian activists due to Sports Illustrated's refusal to provide polling information (e.g. how participants were recruited and contacted, if they were concentrated in one region, if one ethnic group is over represented and the exact wording and order of questions). But in 2004, a poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania essentially confirmed the prior poll's findings, concluding that 91% of the American Indians surveyed in the 48 states on the mainland USA found the name acceptable and setting out in detail the exact wording of the questions
So according to you, because it was 'only' 9% of Native Americans took offense to the racially insensitive and slur of a team nickname, we shouldn't do anything?
With that 'logic', blacks would still be slaves. Women still wouldn't have the right to vote. The list goes on and on. I'll say this again, for those in the cheap seats:
it doesn't matter how many people are offended, a racial slur is a racial slur. And using said slur to promote a football team and make millions off said image and language is patently wrong. The fact that the supporters of this can't come up with a single point (other than to try to minimize the number of folks offended) is just further proof.
<< <i>So according to you, because it was 'only' 9% of Native Americans took offense to the racially insensitive and slur of a team nickname, we shouldn't do anything?
With that 'logic', blacks would still be slaves. Women still wouldn't have the right to vote. The list goes on and on. I'll say this again, for those in the cheap seats:
it doesn't matter how many people are offended, a racial slur is a racial slur. And using said slur to promote a football team and make millions off said image and language is patently wrong. The fact that the supporters of this can't come up with a single point (other than to try to minimize the number of folks offended) is just further proof. >>
Blacks would not be slaves because over 50% of the nation wanted them free (not 9%) Women would be voting because over 50% of the population wanted them to vote (not 9%)
<< <i>Because 91% of Native American Indians polled in 48 states feel the term Redskin is an appropriate name. We support these Indians.
If you have a problem with the term, please contact these 91% of American Indians, and ask them why they support the term Redskin. >>
So because 'only' 9% are offended by the racial slur we should ignore them? Got it. You're a bigot, as long as the number support your bigoted view you're cool with it. Thanks for the clarification, bigot.
<< <i>Because 91% of Native American Indians polled in 48 states feel the term Redskin is an appropriate name. We support these Indians.
If you have a problem with the term, please contact these 91% of American Indians, and ask them why they support the term Redskin. >>
So because 'only' 9% are offended by the racial slur we should ignore them? Got it. You're a bigot, as long as the number support your bigoted view you're cool with it. Thanks for the clarification, bigot. >>
Thanks for calling 91% of Native Americans bigots. Just because these 91% do not agree with your view of the term Redskin, you feel you have the right to slur them.
<< <i> I'm so glad they'll never read this message board to hear your vile. >>
Why wouldn't they ever read this message board? Stereotype much? Oh wait, yes, a white guy who is also a proponent of a racial slur for a team name. It all makes sense now.
<< <i>I deem the following NFL team names offensive. While I may or may not personally know of a person that feels violated, I'm taking it upon myself because I know better than everyone else.
Patriots: Offensive to non-Americans Jets: Offensive to anti-war advocates Ravens: Offensive to the ancestors of Edgar Allen Poe, since he was born in Boston Browns: Offensive to persons of Hispanic and Middle Eastern decent Chiefs: Offensive to Native Americans Raiders: Offensive to the victims of past crimes committed by Pirates Cowboys: Offensive to Native Americans Giants: Offensive to persons that are vertically challenged Vikings: Offensive to persons of Nordic decent, while also offensive to the victims of past crimes committed by said Vikings Saints: Offensive to persons that do not believe in religion Buccaneers: Offensive to the victims of past crimes committed by Pirates 49ers: Offensive to Native Americans >>
I can't tell if you're kidding or not. In case you're seriously worked up about the prospect that the word "Redskin" is going to go away and this list is your way of expressing yourself, let me help you so you can do a better job of making a point next time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
<< <i> I'm so glad they'll never read this message board to hear your vile. >>
Why wouldn't they ever read this message board? Stereotype much? Oh wait, yes, a white guy who is also a proponent of a racial slur for a team name. It all makes sense now. >>
I'm Jewish. I know all about racial slurs, and I know that most Jews, like Native American Indians do not get worked up about such things.
You never hear a Jew complain about being called racial slurs. We're used to it, that's all. If someone says it, we ignore them and move on. We also feel a little sorry for them, but we don't fight over it.
Oh, what's that? There aren't any? Now, do you understand the difference? >>
You know nothing about European soccer, do you ? You know nothing about Middle Eastern soccer, do you ? >>
Why don't you list the European and Middle Eastern soccer team names that are Jewish slurs then? Or maybe realize that we're talking about AMERICAN sports (i.e. the NFL in particular) this argument holds no water. I am sure you are referring to Tottenham, whose FANS have adopted a Jewish slur as a rallying cry, but team names? Good gravy you are reaching now.
<< <i><<<The country is becoming more and more PC (for better or worse)>>>
It is infinitely worse. No matter how small the minority, we cater to every person that is "offended" in this country. It's nauseating. >>
Spoken like a true white, Christian, man. Look at it from the minorities perspective rather than your own. While some people of any different minority groups would prefer the PC stuff not be talked about there are plenty of others who really do care; no matter how small or insignificant it may be to you. >>
Yeah, there's a pretty good chance this is what's happening here. The fact that this somehow turned into a right vs. left political issue is kind of revealing as well. This forum often reeks of talk radio influence.
I gotta tell you that as someone without a dog in the fight (I genuinely could care less if they change the name or not, I just think it's bound to happen), the people who get outraged over what outrages others end up looking so unbelievably dumb with every new word in every post. Its like watching a child copy everything another child says when they are overtired.
<grumble grumble> PC idiots! These sissies get offended about everything!! <grumble, spittle, grumble> Be tough and traditional like me! <shaking fists> Nothing ever offends me.....except everyone else with a different opinion. Only my agitation matters!! <prehistoric grumble grumble>
I am still (as of today) offended that my black teammate and roommate would call me "honkey fa--ot" on and off the court. Isn't that a racial slur and a sexual orientation slur? Where is the outrage?
<< <i>You never hear a Jew complain about being called racial slurs. >>
Has anyone ever explained to you the dangers of dealing in absolutes? Generalizing to make a point is akin to lying.
I can't imagine why this topic has hit such a nerve with you, but there is a position you can take that makes sense. It's fascinating to watch and see if you will ever find it!!!
<< <i>I am still (as of today) offended that my black teammate and roommate would call me "honkey fa--ot" on and off the court. Isn't that a racial slur and a sexual orientation slur? Where is the outrage? >>
If that was the team name of the Washington football club, don't you think there would be outrage?
<< <i>I am still (as of today) offended that my black teammate and roommate would call me "honkey fa--ot" on and off the court. Isn't that a racial slur and a sexual orientation slur? Where is the outrage? >>
And then where is the outrage about the outrage?!!!?
Hollywod negatively portrayed the American Indian for decades, so I would not use them to support the contention that the term redskin is not offensive. Marlon Brando refused to accept his 1973 Oscar because of what he pereceived as hollywood"s negative portrayal of the American Indian in film and sent Sacheen Littlefeather to read a speech instead, except the so- called liberal Hollywood types threatened her with forceful removal and arrest if she tried to do so. She was heckled on stage, too.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>If Dan Snyder was 100 per cent American Indian would it be ok if he did not change the name of his team? >>
He's not so the point is irrelevant. There was a great post on the onion highlighting the hypocrisy of this Jewish man relishing in using a racial slur for his team's name, and adamantly refusing to change it. Don't worry, Danny boy, that decision is about to be made for you.
<< <i><<<As far as the numbers which way or another, it DOESN'T MATTER. >>>
Really? So if only one Native American was offended, Snyder should be forced to change the name? If an equal number of Native Americans take pride in the name Redskins, and would be upset if the name was changed, that doesn't count for anything?
<<<the term itself is racially charged>>>
How can a word be racially charged when the vast majority of people don't even know what it means? I'd bet 98% of Americans (maybe more) had no idea it was a racial slur until the Matthew Berry's and Peter King's of the world told us its a bad word (and in the irony of ironies, Berry is Redskins fan). The "N-word" is racially charged. Certain Mexican slurs are racially charged. In those communities, when an outsider uses those terms, it is almost universally accepted that those are "fighting words". White people fully understand the implications of using those words. When Rick Reilly says he's interviewed hundreds of Native Americans and the majority of them take zero offense to the term, that makes me think the term isn't very "racially charged".
<<<How exactly well received would a team called the 'Blackies', for example, with a black man being depicted? >>>
As an FYI, New Zealand's rugby team nickname is the "All Blacks". >>
Come on, man. The NZ rugby team is called the 'All Blacks' because of the color of their jerseys. It's not a name that has anything to do with race. You're a smart guy- don't act stupid.
I'm still waiting for someone to answer Dallas' original question, which (to paraphrase) is: "Why are some people who are not Redskin fans so passionate about defending the Redskin name?" What is it about keeping this name that matters so much to you?
<< <i>I'm still waiting for someone to answer Dallas' original question, which (to paraphrase) is: "Why are some people who are not Redskin fans so passionate about defending the Redskin name?" What is it about keeping this name that matters so much to you? >>
Because of the PC element here. Many people disdain the PC movement. It also centers around the majority rules element. And the overwhelming majority supports the Redskin name. Like 91% of Native Americans.
Still waiting for 1985fan to explain how he can slur people, but others can't. It seems that he is a holier than thou individual, where he can do bad things that others can't.
<< <i>Hey Fitz you come up with those Jewish slur team names yet? We're all patiently waiting. >>
The name Gunner has German origins. It also means being very ambitious. When the Jews were being rounded up by Hitler, some people were being warned not to be taken by the Gunners. The term also refers to machine-gunner. If you are for gun control, you are an anti-gunner.
The Arsenal Gunners are one of the world's most popular soccer teams. Some Jews take offense to this word. Many have forgotten, and don't. I do not, but some do.
Jewish racism and hatred is all around English football, to the point that many sing songs of hatred towards Jews.
But you say it's not the same. Just imagine if the Los Angeles Dodgers fans started singing songs against blacks and mocking Jackie Robinson. Wouldn't be fun, would it ?
I actually agree with 1985fan and am not a fan of Indian mascots period since I believe it perpetuates stereotypes and ridicules cultural ways of life. I'm a member of the Yurok Tribe in Northern California and work for my Tribe today. I have my college degrees in Native American Studies and a master's degree in Psychology. While I do not think that the term Redskin is as equivalent to the "N word" due to not having as much use, I do think it is offensive. I have never heard it to be used in a complimentary way, it would be used like, "you are just a dirty redskin" or "you are a no good redskin". I do think that people need to keep in mind that there are over 500 federally recognized Tribes in the United States and Native American people are different than all other races due to their political status. Tribes are in essence nations within a nation and each Tribe is uniquely different and perhaps one reason why there has not been a consistent voice from native people on a national level. My Tribe is constantly battling the Hoopa Tribe over issues all the time and we are both Native American. When people say why haven't Indians brought an issue up before my response is that often the Indians are not being heard. On to the point though..... I do appreciate the cartoon of the different mascots with the Blacks, Jews, Chinese, and Indians. To me this is telling on how society as a whole has yet to give Native people the same respect as other races today for reasons not completely known to me. Natives have a recent history that is quite horrid. There are many people I know where their grandparents were removed from their family and taken to boarding schools and Indian children were not to speak their native language, practice their religion, and were often the victims of physical and sexual abuse. They are alive today and have lived a lifetime with trauma. What would your reaction be if someone took your kids out of your home and your were forced to something completely different than how you were raised? How are these children supposed to be good parents when they were never in a loving home, and were completely disconnected to their identity of a member of their tribe, beaten if they acted Indian? What would your community look like if all the children were taken away? I have heard elders talk to me about how they would hide and talk to their friends in their native language or sing songs, etc while at the boarding schools. Prior to this in history, I do see Redskins in reference to scalps. Instead of taking an Indian head for collecting money for the killing of an Indian, one could supply the scalp of a redskin for payment. There are many examples of our founding fathers talking about the "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" or attempts to "civilize" Indian people by forcing "Christianity" on them, the point thus being that Indian people are sub-human and not to be treated as such. I'm not quite 40 and my great grandmother lived a very long life and it astounds me that she nearly my age before she finally was able to consider herself a citizen of this country despite never having left this country. I grew up as a small child loving this woman and it took me a while to truly understand some of what she went through. I think often people think of Indians and their history like it was a long time ago and it really wasn't. There are folks out there today that were in boarding school, and in my area when the Wiyot men were out from their village approximately 200 women and children were massacred. This happened in 1860, which was just 30 years prior to my great grandmother being born. She told a story of some soldiers coming and killing members of our Tribe and how some of our family snuck up on these soldiers and slit their throats while they were sleeping. In general I think that mascots create stereotypes about Native people which Indian people have to unravel and educate those when they get to meet a real Indian. Often people have a stereotype of a Plains Indian as that is a image portrayed by Hollywood. Believe me, there are many ignorant people out there and even some people do not think Indians are alive today or claim they have never met one before. Or the big joke in Indian country is when you meet a person and they instantly claim their grandmother was a Cherokee princess to claim their part of Indianess and they are like you too. I know there are a lot of Native people who do like the mascots in sports but I still do not think it is helpful and it make me wonder if it is because there are a lot of Native people who may be disconnected to their culture (likely assistance of being removed from their homes and sent to boarding schools against their will and thus lost their traditional ways of doing things) and are willing to grasp at something that resembles them. I do not see any benefit to see others make a mockery of ceremonies and your religion by the dancing of an Indian Chief at a sporting event. I do not think that our society would appreciate the equivalent of people mocking a Christian religious ceremony to the masses. Maybe Indian youth see others basically ridicule their religion to the point that they feel uncomfortable accepting it and live their lives without any spirituality. Could this be partially responsible for lack of identity and high suicide rates for native youth? I would not discount it. The only mascot I find equivalent to the Indian mascots are the "Fighting Irish". While the Irish have their own history, I think there is a big difference when one is able to assimilate relatively smoothly to society and not have to endure the amount of discrimination, prejudice, and racism Indian people continue to battle today. It is still there.
BUYING Frank Gotch T229 Kopec Looking to BUY n332 1889 SF Hess cards and high grade cards from 19th century especially. "Once you have wrestled everything else in life is easy" Dan Gable
<< <i>I actually agree with 1985fan and am not a fan of Indian mascots period since I believe it perpetuates stereotypes and ridicules cultural ways of life. .[/q
After this first sentence, the rest of your points became invalid in my opinion.
Most people love and respect the American Indian (unlike Jews, who are hated by many).
You say that Indian mascots perpetuate stereotypes and ridicules. If you took a poll, I'm sure you would find that 99% of American people never ridicule an American Indian, and have a great respect for their American heritage.
If there are 100 Christians living in the town of Massillion, Ohio, and there are 9 Atheists living in Massillion Ohio.
If the 100 townspeople put up a Christmas scene, should the 9 Atheists take them to court to get it removed, or should the 9 Atheists respect the majority of the townspeople and just leave them alone, and turn the other way when they go past that scene ?
If there are 100 Christians living in the town of Massillion, Ohio, and there are 9 Atheists living in Massillion Ohio.
If the 100 townspeople put up a Christmas scene, should the 9 Atheists take them to court to get it removed, or should the 9 Atheists respect the majority of the townspeople and just leave them alone, and turn the other way when they go past that scene ? >>
That analogy is a total non-sequitor and has no relevance to the topic at hand. A Christmas scene is not depicting or portraying an atheist~they are not Christians in the first place. Surely you must comprehend the difference?
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
If there are 100 Christians living in the town of Massillion, Ohio, and there are 9 Atheists living in Massillion Ohio.
If the 100 townspeople put up a Christmas scene, should the 9 Atheists take them to court to get it removed, or should the 9 Atheists respect the majority of the townspeople and just leave them alone, and turn the other way when they go past that scene ? >>
That analogy is a total non-sequitor and has no relevance to the topic at hand. A Christmas scene is not depicting or portraying an atheist~they are not Christians in the first place. Surely you must comprehend the difference? >>
You're really asking a lot if you expect him to understand the difference. This is the same guy who wants to reach to call the Arsenal Gunners a slight against Jewish people, suggesting it has German beginnings, without even spending the 10 seconds it took me to look up the history of the Arsenal Gunners logo and history:
"In 1888, just two years after the formation of the Club, Arsenal, then called Royal Arsenal, adopted its first crest.
The original badge comprised three columns, which, although they look like chimneys, are in actual fact cannons. The significance of the cannons to the Borough of Woolwich derives from the long military history surrounding the area. The Royal Arsenal, Royal Artillery Regiment and various military hospitals – which still dot the landscape today – were all prominent in the Borough.
As can be seen the vertical cannons have gone with the new design featuring a single eastward pointing cannon. Whoever designed this robust looking weapon saw his handiwork used by the Club for just three seasons however, and for the start of the 1925/26 season, the Gunners changed to a westward pointing, narrower cannon (4) with the legend ‘The Gunners’ remaining next to it."
fitz has spun his argument, trying to compare it to everything from 'I Dream of Jeannie' to now Arsenal FC. There's no ending to his utter and blatant ignorance.
<< <i>I actually agree with 1985fan and am not a fan of Indian mascots period since I believe it perpetuates stereotypes and ridicules cultural ways of life. .[/q
After this first sentence, the rest of your points became invalid in my opinion.
Most people love and respect the American Indian (unlike Jews, who are hated by many).
You say that Indian mascots perpetuate stereotypes and ridicules. If you took a poll, I'm sure you would find that 99% of American people never ridicule an American Indian, and have a great respect for their American heritage. >>
I think your first sentence is silly to be honest. I may disagree with a person 90% of the time (1985 fan) but just because we agree on one issue, your point is that my points are invalidated because we agree here. Interesting. A stopped clock is right twice a day you know....you should be judging each opinion and not each person from my view.
So to find out if non-natives ridicule or have respect for Native people we will poll them and ask the non-natives. That seems a bit strange way to go about it. What national poll have you ever seen where 99% of Americans agrees on something? Tell me just one and no topic is off limits....99%...yeah right. I like how the majority gets to tell the minority on how they are treated instead of asking the minority themselves.
I don't have a desire to get into any exchange with you, I have my beliefs, and I don't feel that I need to change your opinion. It is what it is.
BUYING Frank Gotch T229 Kopec Looking to BUY n332 1889 SF Hess cards and high grade cards from 19th century especially. "Once you have wrestled everything else in life is easy" Dan Gable
I think you would find that most people would not mind others practicing whatever they believed in, but just to respect each others beliefs and to not ridicule or hate another for their own personal beliefs. I don't think numbers have anything to do with it..... just because there is a majority does not make it right. Allow people to be individuals as long as they are not harming others, why not? I would not mind at all if the neighbor to the right was a Christian and my neighbor to the left was an Atheist. Now if they ridiculed my beliefs is when I would have an issue with them. Pretty simple.
<< <i>Question for wrestlingcardking.
If there are 100 Christians living in the town of Massillion, Ohio, and there are 9 Atheists living in Massillion Ohio.
If the 100 townspeople put up a Christmas scene, should the 9 Atheists take them to court to get it removed, or should the 9 Atheists respect the majority of the townspeople and just leave them alone, and turn the other way when they go past that scene ? >>
BUYING Frank Gotch T229 Kopec Looking to BUY n332 1889 SF Hess cards and high grade cards from 19th century especially. "Once you have wrestled everything else in life is easy" Dan Gable
Comments
I wonder why a liberal, progressive Hollywood would include such OFFENSIVE lyrics ? Perhaps it's not that offensive ???
The end of the Civil War was near When quite accidentally ,A hero who sneezed, abruptly seized Retreat and reversed it to victory!His Medal of Honor pleased and thrilled His proud little family group; While pinning it on, some blood was spilled And so it was planned he'd command... F TROOP! Where Indian fights are colorful sights And nobody takes a lickin',Where paleface and redskin All turn chicken! When drilling and fighting get them down They know their morale can't droop As long as they all relax in town Before they resume with a bang and a boom
Enough of the super sensitive self righteous liberal clowns, this country has enough of them already and they bring nothing to the table except BS
<< <i>What would keyboard warriors do without google and wiki? It's only a short term talking point without any substance. >>
Yes, let's rely on one local news source (as you claim to do) without doing any additional verification or cross-checking of facts. I mean heaven forbid someone give factual representation of research done on the matter, if it flies in the face of your preconceived, prejudiced, and ignorant statements, let's brush it off!
<< <i> What happened to making your voice heard in protests and boycotts? Just seems so much more productive than whining about it on a card forum with a mouth full of Cheetos. >>
The same could be said about you, stown, instead of ranting here about how getting rid of the racially insensitive Redskin term is 'wussifying' the country, why aren't you out protesting for Dan Snyder to keep his team name? Too many cheetos in your face?
Most telling about all of this? Not one person has come forward with any reason of why they support the continuation of a racial slur as a team nickname. Quite interesting...
<< <i>
<< <i>What would keyboard warriors do without google and wiki? It's only a short term talking point without any substance. >>
Yes, let's rely on one local news source (as you claim to do) without doing any additional verification or cross-checking of facts. I mean heaven forbid someone give factual representation of research done on the matter, if it flies in the face of your preconceived, prejudiced, and ignorant statements, let's brush it off!
<< <i> What happened to making your voice heard in protests and boycotts? Just seems so much more productive than whining about it on a card forum with a mouth full of Cheetos. >>
The same could be said about you, stown, instead of ranting here about how getting rid of the racially insensitive Redskin term is 'wussifying' the country, why aren't you out protesting for Dan Snyder to keep his team name? Too many cheetos in your face?
Most telling about all of this? Not one person has come forward with any reason of why they support the continuation of a racial slur as a team nickname. Quite interesting... >>
What's even more interesting is how you slur others on this forum, yet you complain about the Redskins owner allowing a slur towards Native American Indians.
First answer me why you feel it's ok for you to slur others here, (calling them hurtful names), and you've done in many times in your current and previous alts,
and yet you complain about others slurring others.
Answer me why it's ok for you to slur, and not Dan Snyder, and then I'll answer your question.
<< <i>
What's even more interesting is how you slur others on this forum, yet you complain about the Redskins owner allowing a slur towards Native American Indians.
First answer me why you feel it's ok for you to slur others here, (calling them hurtful names), and you've done in many times in your current and previous alts,
and yet you complain about others slurring others.
Answer me why it's ok for you to slur, and not Dan Snyder, and then I'll answer your question. >>
Trying to equate calling someone 'ignorant' or 'a fool' and a racial slur is proof positive you folks are fighting a fight you have no reason to, other than scary 'CHANGE!' that people like you hate. Now, tell me why you're so supportive of a football team continuing to use a racial slur as a nickname?
A slur is an insulting remark.
Why do you feel it's ok for you to slur (as you have towards others numerous times),
yet it's not ok for Dan Snyder to slur.
Should I even mention the word hypocrite, or should I just let the record speak for itself ?
<< <i>
Trying to equate calling someone 'ignorant' or 'a fool' and a racial slur is proof positive you folks are fighting a fight you have no reason to, other than scary 'CHANGE!' that people like you hate. Now, tell me why you're so supportive of a football team continuing to use a racial slur as a nickname? >>
Slurs come in many shapes and forms my friends.
That come in racial forms. They come in political forms. They come in physically challenged forms. They come in marital forms.
You slur people left and right my friend. So I wonder how you feel you can attack Dan Snyder, yet you do it yourself 24/7.
The facts that no one has stepped forward with anything resembling a cohesive argument for why a racial slur should still be used is most telling of all.
Mentally challenged people are very offended by those words.
Women are also offended by those words, as their husbands have called them that for years.
People who are less intelligent are offended by those words.
You have slurred us many times.
<< <i>You've called many people here idiots and morons.
You have slurred us many times. >>
Thank you for finally admitting it. Now, can you tell us why you are such a proponent of a racial slur being used for a pro football team?
<< <i>
The facts that no one has stepped forward with anything resembling a cohesive argument for why a racial slur should still be used is most telling of all. >>
Why did Hollywood use REDSKIN in their TV Sitcom F-Troop in the late 60's and 70's ?
Why did a liberal, progressive Hollywood use the word ??
Because 90% of the population accepts it as a non-racial slur.
Heck, in the late 60's a liberal progressive Hollywood was not allowed to show Jeannie's belly button.
How do you think the word REDSKIN passed the sensors ???
Simple answer is REDSKIN is not a racial slur to 90% of Native American Indians. It's always the 10% minority that wants to make noise over nothing.
<< <i>
<< <i>You've called many people here idiots and morons.
You have slurred us many times. >>
Thank you for finally admitting it. Now, can you tell us why you are such a proponent of a racial slur being used for a pro football team? >>
Why did a liberal progressive Hollywood use the word REDSKIN in one of their TV shows theme song ?
<< <i>
Why did Hollywood use REDSKIN in their TV Sitcom F-Troop in the late 60's and 70's ? >>
Is it being used now, or was it deemed offensive and hence discontinued? Thank you for answering your own question.
<< <i>Why did a liberal, progressive Hollywood use the word ??
Because 90% of the population accepts it as a non-racial slur. >>
So because only 10% of the people are offended by it, that's ok? What's the cut off point in which we allow racial slurs to be used without abandon? 10%? 20%?
<< <i>Heck, in the late 60's a liberal progressive Hollywood was not allowed to show Jeannie's belly button. >>
You really aren't good at this, are you? What are you even talking about?
<< <i>How do you think the word REDSKIN passed the sensors ???
Simple answer is REDSKIN is not a racial slur to 90% of Native American Indians. It's always the 10% minority that wants to make noise over nothing. >>
So when Disney did 'Song of the South' in the 40s, and then it was subsequently scrubbed from existence, that was 'noise over nothing'? Tell me again what's the cutoff for the percentage of people that need to be offended by a racial slur for you to consider getting rid of it?
Now take your argument somewhere else, because you are dead wrong on this subject.
Notwithstanding the protests of activists, a 2002 poll commissioned by Sports Illustrated found that 75% of those American Indians surveyed had no objection to the Redskins name. The results of the poll have been criticized by American Indian activists due to Sports Illustrated's refusal to provide polling information (e.g. how participants were recruited and contacted, if they were concentrated in one region, if one ethnic group is over represented and the exact wording and order of questions). But in 2004, a poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania essentially confirmed the prior poll's findings, concluding that 91% of the American Indians surveyed in the 48 states on the mainland USA found the name acceptable and setting out in detail the exact wording of the questions
With that 'logic', blacks would still be slaves. Women still wouldn't have the right to vote. The list goes on and on. I'll say this again, for those in the cheap seats:
it doesn't matter how many people are offended, a racial slur is a racial slur. And using said slur to promote a football team and make millions off said image and language is patently wrong. The fact that the supporters of this can't come up with a single point (other than to try to minimize the number of folks offended) is just further proof.
<< <i>So according to you, because it was 'only' 9% of Native Americans took offense to the racially insensitive and slur of a team nickname, we shouldn't do anything?
With that 'logic', blacks would still be slaves. Women still wouldn't have the right to vote. The list goes on and on. I'll say this again, for those in the cheap seats:
it doesn't matter how many people are offended, a racial slur is a racial slur. And using said slur to promote a football team and make millions off said image and language is patently wrong. The fact that the supporters of this can't come up with a single point (other than to try to minimize the number of folks offended) is just further proof. >>
Blacks would not be slaves because over 50% of the nation wanted them free (not 9%)
Women would be voting because over 50% of the population wanted them to vote (not 9%)
We support these Indians.
If you have a problem with the term, please contact these 91% of American Indians, and ask them why they support the term Redskin.
<< <i>Because 91% of Native American Indians polled in 48 states feel the term Redskin is an appropriate name.
We support these Indians.
If you have a problem with the term, please contact these 91% of American Indians, and ask them why they support the term Redskin. >>
So because 'only' 9% are offended by the racial slur we should ignore them? Got it. You're a bigot, as long as the number support your bigoted view you're cool with it. Thanks for the clarification, bigot.
<< <i>
<< <i>Because 91% of Native American Indians polled in 48 states feel the term Redskin is an appropriate name.
We support these Indians.
If you have a problem with the term, please contact these 91% of American Indians, and ask them why they support the term Redskin. >>
So because 'only' 9% are offended by the racial slur we should ignore them? Got it. You're a bigot, as long as the number support your bigoted view you're cool with it. Thanks for the clarification, bigot. >>
Thanks for calling 91% of Native Americans bigots. Just because these 91% do not agree with your view of the term Redskin, you feel
you have the right to slur them.
Nice for you to disrespect a people who have already been through enough in their life, and just want to live peacefully.
I'm so glad they'll never read this message board to hear your vile.
<< <i>
I'm so glad they'll never read this message board to hear your vile. >>
Why wouldn't they ever read this message board? Stereotype much? Oh wait, yes, a white guy who is also a proponent of a racial slur for a team name. It all makes sense now.
<< <i>I deem the following NFL team names offensive. While I may or may not personally know of a person that feels violated, I'm taking it upon myself because I know better than everyone else.
Patriots: Offensive to non-Americans
Jets: Offensive to anti-war advocates
Ravens: Offensive to the ancestors of Edgar Allen Poe, since he was born in Boston
Browns: Offensive to persons of Hispanic and Middle Eastern decent
Chiefs: Offensive to Native Americans
Raiders: Offensive to the victims of past crimes committed by Pirates
Cowboys: Offensive to Native Americans
Giants: Offensive to persons that are vertically challenged
Vikings: Offensive to persons of Nordic decent, while also offensive to the victims of past crimes committed by said Vikings
Saints: Offensive to persons that do not believe in religion
Buccaneers: Offensive to the victims of past crimes committed by Pirates
49ers: Offensive to Native Americans >>
I can't tell if you're kidding or not. In case you're seriously worked up about the prospect that the word "Redskin" is going to go away and this list is your way of expressing yourself, let me help you so you can do a better job of making a point next time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
<< <i>
<< <i>
I'm so glad they'll never read this message board to hear your vile. >>
Why wouldn't they ever read this message board? Stereotype much? Oh wait, yes, a white guy who is also a proponent of a racial slur for a team name. It all makes sense now. >>
I'm Jewish. I know all about racial slurs, and I know that most Jews, like Native American Indians do not get worked up about such things.
You never hear a Jew complain about being called racial slurs. We're used to it, that's all. If someone says it, we ignore them and move on. We also
feel a little sorry for them, but we don't fight over it.
I'll wait.
No, seriously, I'll wait.
Oh, what's that? There aren't any? Now, do you understand the difference?
I'm sure they appreciate more heckling and abuse from a white man.
<< <i>What Jewish slurs are also team names?
I'll wait.
No, seriously, I'll wait.
Oh, what's that? There aren't any? Now, do you understand the difference? >>
You know nothing about European soccer, do you ?
You know nothing about Middle Eastern soccer, do you ?
<< <i>
<< <i>What Jewish slurs are also team names?
I'll wait.
No, seriously, I'll wait.
Oh, what's that? There aren't any? Now, do you understand the difference? >>
You know nothing about European soccer, do you ?
You know nothing about Middle Eastern soccer, do you ? >>
Why don't you list the European and Middle Eastern soccer team names that are Jewish slurs then? Or maybe realize that we're talking about AMERICAN sports (i.e. the NFL in particular) this argument holds no water. I am sure you are referring to Tottenham, whose FANS have adopted a Jewish slur as a rallying cry, but team names? Good gravy you are reaching now.
<< <i>
<< <i><<<The country is becoming more and more PC (for better or worse)>>>
It is infinitely worse. No matter how small the minority, we cater to every person that is "offended" in this country. It's nauseating. >>
Spoken like a true white, Christian, man. Look at it from the minorities perspective rather than your own. While some people of any different minority groups would prefer the PC stuff not be talked about there are plenty of others who really do care; no matter how small or insignificant it may be to you. >>
Yeah, there's a pretty good chance this is what's happening here. The fact that this somehow turned into a right vs. left political issue is kind of revealing as well. This forum often reeks of talk radio influence.
I gotta tell you that as someone without a dog in the fight (I genuinely could care less if they change the name or not, I just think it's bound to happen), the people who get outraged over what outrages others end up looking so unbelievably dumb with every new word in every post. Its like watching a child copy everything another child says when they are overtired.
<grumble grumble> PC idiots! These sissies get offended about everything!! <grumble, spittle, grumble> Be tough and traditional like me! <shaking fists> Nothing ever offends me.....except everyone else with a different opinion. Only my agitation matters!! <prehistoric grumble grumble>
<< <i>You never hear a Jew complain about being called racial slurs. >>
Has anyone ever explained to you the dangers of dealing in absolutes? Generalizing to make a point is akin to lying.
I can't imagine why this topic has hit such a nerve with you, but there is a position you can take that makes sense. It's fascinating to watch and see if you will ever find it!!!
<< <i>I am still (as of today) offended that my black teammate and roommate would call me "honkey fa--ot" on and off the court. Isn't that a racial slur and a sexual orientation slur? Where is the outrage? >>
If that was the team name of the Washington football club, don't you think there would be outrage?
<< <i>I am still (as of today) offended that my black teammate and roommate would call me "honkey fa--ot" on and off the court. Isn't that a racial slur and a sexual orientation slur? Where is the outrage? >>
And then where is the outrage about the outrage?!!!?
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>If Dan Snyder was 100 per cent American Indian would it be ok if he did not change the name of his team? >>
He's not so the point is irrelevant. There was a great post on the onion highlighting the hypocrisy of this Jewish man relishing in using a racial slur for his team's name, and adamantly refusing to change it. Don't worry, Danny boy, that decision is about to be made for you.
<< <i><<<As far as the numbers which way or another, it DOESN'T MATTER. >>>
Really? So if only one Native American was offended, Snyder should be forced to change the name? If an equal number of Native Americans take pride in the name Redskins, and would be upset if the name was changed, that doesn't count for anything?
<<<the term itself is racially charged>>>
How can a word be racially charged when the vast majority of people don't even know what it means? I'd bet 98% of Americans (maybe more) had no idea it was a racial slur until the Matthew Berry's and Peter King's of the world told us its a bad word (and in the irony of ironies, Berry is Redskins fan). The "N-word" is racially charged. Certain Mexican slurs are racially charged. In those communities, when an outsider uses those terms, it is almost universally accepted that those are "fighting words". White people fully understand the implications of using those words. When Rick Reilly says he's interviewed hundreds of Native Americans and the majority of them take zero offense to the term, that makes me think the term isn't very "racially charged".
<<<How exactly well received would a team called the 'Blackies', for example, with a black man being depicted? >>>
As an FYI, New Zealand's rugby team nickname is the "All Blacks". >>
Come on, man. The NZ rugby team is called the 'All Blacks' because of the color of their jerseys. It's not a name that has anything to do with race. You're a smart guy- don't act stupid.
<< <i>I'm still waiting for someone to answer Dallas' original question, which (to paraphrase) is: "Why are some people who are not Redskin fans so passionate about defending the Redskin name?" What is it about keeping this name that matters so much to you? >>
Because of the PC element here. Many people disdain the PC movement.
It also centers around the majority rules element. And the overwhelming majority supports the Redskin name. Like 91% of Native Americans.
Still waiting for 1985fan to explain how he can slur people, but others can't. It seems that he is a holier than thou individual, where he can do bad things
that others can't.
<< <i>Hey Fitz you come up with those Jewish slur team names yet? We're all patiently waiting. >>
The name Gunner has German origins. It also means being very ambitious. When the Jews were being rounded up by Hitler, some people were being warned not to
be taken by the Gunners. The term also refers to machine-gunner. If you are for gun control, you are an anti-gunner.
The Arsenal Gunners are one of the world's most popular soccer teams. Some Jews take offense to this word. Many have forgotten, and don't. I do not, but some do.
Jewish racism and hatred is all around English football, to the point that many sing songs of hatred towards Jews.
But you say it's not the same. Just imagine if the Los Angeles Dodgers fans started singing songs against blacks and mocking Jackie Robinson. Wouldn't be fun, would it ?
Looking to BUY n332 1889 SF Hess cards and high grade cards from 19th century especially. "Once you have wrestled everything else in life is easy" Dan Gable
<< <i>I actually agree with 1985fan and am not a fan of Indian mascots period since I believe it perpetuates stereotypes and ridicules cultural ways of life. .[/q
After this first sentence, the rest of your points became invalid in my opinion.
Most people love and respect the American Indian (unlike Jews, who are hated by many).
You say that Indian mascots perpetuate stereotypes and ridicules.
If you took a poll, I'm sure you would find that 99% of American people never ridicule an American Indian, and have a great respect for their American heritage.
If there are 100 Christians living in the town of Massillion, Ohio, and there are 9 Atheists living in Massillion Ohio.
If the 100 townspeople put up a Christmas scene, should the 9 Atheists take them to court to get it removed, or should the 9 Atheists respect the majority
of the townspeople and just leave them alone, and turn the other way when they go past that scene ?
<< <i>Question for wrestlingcardking.
If there are 100 Christians living in the town of Massillion, Ohio, and there are 9 Atheists living in Massillion Ohio.
If the 100 townspeople put up a Christmas scene, should the 9 Atheists take them to court to get it removed, or should the 9 Atheists respect the majority
of the townspeople and just leave them alone, and turn the other way when they go past that scene ? >>
That analogy is a total non-sequitor and has no relevance to the topic at hand. A Christmas scene is not depicting or portraying an atheist~they are not Christians in the first place. Surely you must comprehend the difference?
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>Question for wrestlingcardking.
If there are 100 Christians living in the town of Massillion, Ohio, and there are 9 Atheists living in Massillion Ohio.
If the 100 townspeople put up a Christmas scene, should the 9 Atheists take them to court to get it removed, or should the 9 Atheists respect the majority
of the townspeople and just leave them alone, and turn the other way when they go past that scene ? >>
That analogy is a total non-sequitor and has no relevance to the topic at hand. A Christmas scene is not depicting or portraying an atheist~they are not Christians in the first place. Surely you must comprehend the difference? >>
You're really asking a lot if you expect him to understand the difference. This is the same guy who wants to reach to call the Arsenal Gunners a slight against Jewish people, suggesting it has German beginnings, without even spending the 10 seconds it took me to look up the history of the Arsenal Gunners logo and history:
"In 1888, just two years after the formation of the Club, Arsenal, then called Royal Arsenal, adopted its first crest.
The original badge comprised three columns, which, although they look like chimneys, are in actual fact cannons. The significance of the cannons to the Borough of Woolwich derives from the long military history surrounding the area. The Royal Arsenal, Royal Artillery Regiment and various military hospitals – which still dot the landscape today – were all prominent in the Borough.
As can be seen the vertical cannons have gone with the new design featuring a single eastward pointing cannon. Whoever designed this robust looking weapon saw his handiwork used by the Club for just three seasons however, and for the start of the 1925/26 season, the Gunners changed to a westward pointing, narrower cannon (4) with the legend ‘The Gunners’ remaining next to it."
Link for history of Arsenal
fitz has spun his argument, trying to compare it to everything from 'I Dream of Jeannie' to now Arsenal FC. There's no ending to his utter and blatant ignorance.
<< <i>
<< <i>I actually agree with 1985fan and am not a fan of Indian mascots period since I believe it perpetuates stereotypes and ridicules cultural ways of life. .[/q
After this first sentence, the rest of your points became invalid in my opinion.
Most people love and respect the American Indian (unlike Jews, who are hated by many).
You say that Indian mascots perpetuate stereotypes and ridicules.
If you took a poll, I'm sure you would find that 99% of American people never ridicule an American Indian, and have a great respect for their American heritage. >>
I think your first sentence is silly to be honest. I may disagree with a person 90% of the time (1985 fan) but just because we agree on one issue, your point is that my points are invalidated because we agree here. Interesting. A stopped clock is right twice a day you know....you should be judging each opinion and not each person from my view.
So to find out if non-natives ridicule or have respect for Native people we will poll them and ask the non-natives. That seems a bit strange way to go about it. What national poll have you ever seen where 99% of Americans agrees on something? Tell me just one and no topic is off limits....99%...yeah right. I like how the majority gets to tell the minority on how they are treated instead of asking the minority themselves.
I don't have a desire to get into any exchange with you, I have my beliefs, and I don't feel that I need to change your opinion. It is what it is.
Looking to BUY n332 1889 SF Hess cards and high grade cards from 19th century especially. "Once you have wrestled everything else in life is easy" Dan Gable
<< <i>Question for wrestlingcardking.
If there are 100 Christians living in the town of Massillion, Ohio, and there are 9 Atheists living in Massillion Ohio.
If the 100 townspeople put up a Christmas scene, should the 9 Atheists take them to court to get it removed, or should the 9 Atheists respect the majority
of the townspeople and just leave them alone, and turn the other way when they go past that scene ? >>
Looking to BUY n332 1889 SF Hess cards and high grade cards from 19th century especially. "Once you have wrestled everything else in life is easy" Dan Gable