<< <i>Redskin referred not to the natural skin color of the Lenape, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint. >>
It's a racial slur. Period. Trying to equate it to describing a model as 'light skinned' proves, once and for all, how ridiculously obtuse and ignorant you truly are!
Fitz, what would you personally lose if the Redskins team was renamed tomorrow? Why are you so adamant in trying to perpetuate the use of a racial term in everyday language? >>
1985fan.... Why are you so intent on trying to deceive others about the very deception you, Grote, and Skin have bought into ?
What's in it for you ? Why do you try to convince others about the lie you've believed ?
<< <i>Redskin referred not to the natural skin color of the Lenape, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint. >>
It's a racial slur. Period. Trying to equate it to describing a model as 'light skinned' proves, once and for all, how ridiculously obtuse and ignorant you truly are! >>
There you go against calling people ignorant who simply have a different view of history than you.
Why do you feel you are educationally superior than someone else when they disagree with your point of view ?
Can't you just have a gentleman's disagreement with someone ?
Why do you feel you have to berate them, and call them names ?
Fitz, what would you personally lose if the Redskins team was renamed tomorrow? Why are you so adamant in trying to perpetuate the use of a racial term in everyday language? >>
1985fan.... Why are you so intent on trying to deceive others about the very deception you, Grote, and Skin have bought into ?
What's in it for you ? Why do you try to convince others about the lie you've believed ? >>
A lie? The term 'Redskin' is a racist, offensive term. What's in it for me? When the team name is renamed (and it WILL happen), then it's a wrong that has been righted. Sorry that you have no social conscience, and that you are fine with racist terms being bandied about without consequence, but some of more progressive folks do have a conscience.
But again, you fail to address the question at hand - not a surprise, as you have NO defense.
There you go against calling people ignorant who simply have a different view of history than you. >>
False. False. False. I am calling YOU ignorant for trying to equate the use of a racial slur with describing a model's skin tone. You really aren't good at this debate thing are you?
<< <i>Why do you feel you are educationally superior than someone else when they disagree with your point of view ? >>
It's not a matter of disagreeing, it's a matter of you making completely FALSE comparisons, then hiding behind the 'don't pick on me!' defense.
<< <i>Can't you just have a gentleman's disagreement with someone ? >>
If you were a gentleman capable of having an intellectually honest discussion, then yes. But you resort to ridiculous articles and examples that have nothing whatsoever to do with what is being discussed. You refuse to address why you are feverishly backing the use of a racist term, so no, you are unable to have a discussion.
<< <i>Why do you feel you have to berate them, and call them names ? >>
If you can't handle being called out for your intellectually dishonest practices, then maybe you should quit using them.
I know that people who are g@y usually try to fight and stick up for groups they feel have been mistreated.
Perhaps if you are g@y, then I can understand why you would want to call 91% of Native Americans bigots just because they disagree with your point of view.
So are you g@y 1985fan ? Because if you are, then perhaps I should just leave you alone, because I have some friends that are g@y and bi and have big anger issues when it comes to people being mistreated.
<< <i>Again, 91% of Native Americans, myself, and many others disagree with you, Skin, Grote, and the other 9% who have bought into this lie. >>
You continue to belabor this point, and (a) the survey is over a decade old, (b) I've already pointed out how flawed the survey was in the first place, and (c) the fact that you quote it without ever having done any checking on it speaks volumes to your lack of intellectually honesty.
<< <i>You are in the 9% 1985fan who have been misled.
You have bought into the lie, and have given honor to deception. >>
So now the 9% of respondents who felt insulted by the term in your decade plus old survey were simply misled? LOL
<< <i>The term Redskin was never accepted by Native American Indians as racist. >>
Says you. History suggests exactly the opposite. Maybe you should read up on it before just furiously pounding out whatever comes into that brain of yours.
<< <i>Let me let you in on another secret. >>
Is it that Tebow has been railroaded and should have a job in the NFL?
<< <i>Dark skinned is not seen as a racist term for African-Americans either. (N*ggah is). >>
Oh, I guess not. It's just more foolish ramblings of a man who obviously doesn't know the difference between calling a Native American a 'Redskin' as opposed to calling someone 'dark skinned'. Jesus tap dancing christ you are beyond hope. Good luck with your hateful, bigoted ignorance! I wonder if your head will explode when the Redskins team name is changed? I bet it does!
So Edmundfitzgerald has gone on record and says it is ok to refer to a group of asian people as "his yellow skin associates."
That pretty much says it all with who we are dealing with. Yikes.
I'm out...I have higher quality people to spend my time with. I think this thread has run its course, and this edmund guy or girl really isn't worth the time.
Fitz, you're embarrassing yourself now. I bet even those who might share your opinion, albeit less fervently, would agree with that synopsis.
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>Fitz, you're embarrassing yourself now. I bet even those who might share your opinion, albeit less fervently, would agree with that synopsis. >>
How much would you like to bet ?
And will you pay up when proven wrong ?
Answer this, and I will PM you all my PM's about how ridiculous skin and 1985fan are, and now you are embarrassing yourself joining with them.
But first, how much would you like to bet that others who share my opinion feel embarrassed ? >>
Sorry, I don't trust you enough to wager anything with you, nor would I want to on a topic such as this one. It's rather ridiculous that you would even think so.
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 am just curious, why do you feel so good about a term that even 9% of people find to be a slur against them? Why would you so adamantly support this when you gain nothing from it, and it is considered a slur by anyone at all (and, by the way, even that survey is quite clearly a poorly executed survey with unreliable data).
I am buying and trading for RC's of Wilt Chamberlain, George Mikan, Bill Russell, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, and Bob Cousy! Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
I looked at this thread for the first time today and it makes me LOL! I only read the first page and this last page because I think I get enough what this thread is like.
I am 1/4 Native American, my father is 1/2, and probably 70% my family on my father's side is 100% Native American and live on a reservation. Trust me, Native Americans DON'T CARE about the Redskins name. Nor do they care about any other team's name that has anything to do with the Native American. If anything they are happy to be so recognized.
In lieu of a better term, most Native Americans are thick skinned and do not offend easily unless you are talking about government, taxes, and broken treaties.
It's only very few who get offended and want to make noise. There is always going to be that minority who go overboard with the PC thing.
It's a team name for goodness sake. It's not anyone going up to a Native American and calling them a "Redskin" in a negative context. Get a grip.
Even many fighting against the use of the name "Redskin" arent even Native American. They are just part of this ridiculous PC culture that is going overboard.
Waiting for 1985fan to show up and tell yankeeno7 that he would be alot better off if:
A. he let 1985fan do his thinking and speaking for him; and
B. he joined him in his crusade to force Dan Snyder and the Washington NFL team to change the team name to something that does not cause 1985fan angst.
<< <i>They are just part of this ridiculous PC culture that is going overboard. >>
Barry ... I agree with what you have to say, ESPECIALLY the above portion of your statement!
STAY HEALTHY!
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
<< <i>They are just part of this ridiculous PC culture that is going overboard. >>
Barry ... I agree with what you have to say, ESPECIALLY the above portion of your statement! >>
Apart from this Redskin debate, what specific aspects of the 'PC culture' do you find objectionable? I'm asking for specifics- not generalities. For example, do you lament that fact that it's no longer acceptable to call all African-Americans 'darkies', or all Asians 'Chinamen'? Do you long for the days when the physically handicapped were called 'cripples'?
Honestly- I'm asking this question in good faith. When you say that the 'PC culture has gone overboard', what are the particular initiatives of this PC culture that have led you to this conclusion?
The only thing embarrassing in all of this is that there are still educated people like yourself
Is this Fitz you're referring to?? Might have to scale down the expectations..
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>They are just part of this ridiculous PC culture that is going overboard. >>
Barry ... I agree with what you have to say, ESPECIALLY the above portion of your statement! >>
Apart from this Redskin debate, what specific aspects of the 'PC culture' do you find objectionable? I'm asking for specifics- not generalities. For example, do you lament that fact that it's no longer acceptable to call all African-Americans 'darkies', or all Asians 'Chinamen'? Do you long for the days when the physically handicapped were called 'cripples'?
Honestly- I'm asking this question in good faith. When you say that the 'PC culture has gone overboard', what are the particular initiatives of this PC culture that have led you to this conclusion? >>
Guy I find it interesting that you ask, I know your speaking with another OP here but if you dont mind Id like to tell you what irks me about this overboard pc culture because it enrages me!
1- People can sue for anything 2-People are so easily offended 3-Criminals almost have more rights than Law Enforcement 4-People decide to be politically correct because they have nothing better to do and love jumping on board with things that have been going on for generations and they never gave it a second thought 5-School systems cant pledge allegiance to the flag even though hundreds upon thousands have died defending it 6-Court systems go way overboard allowing defense attorneys to impliment almost anything in defending domestic terrorists
I could go on but I think you get the jist of my complaints
<in lieu of a better term, most Native Americans are thick skinned and do not offend easily unless you are talking about government, taxes, and broken treaties>
The Washington Thick Skins. Actually pretty appropriate from a fan POV……………….MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Because someone gets offended that means we should disregard it as being 'PC'?
<< <i>3-Criminals almost have more rights than Law Enforcement >>
No, they don't, not in a million years.
<< <i>4-People decide to be politically correct because they have nothing better to do and love jumping on board with things that have been going on for generations and they never gave it a second thought >>
So getting motivated to help with social change is 'nothing better to do'?
<< <i>5-School systems cant pledge allegiance to the flag even though hundreds upon thousands have died defending it >>
The offending term is 'under god' which was only added in the 50s. Get rid of that term (which wasn't even in the original pledge) then there would be no objections.
<< <i>6-Court systems go way overboard allowing defense attorneys to impliment almost anything in defending domestic terrorists >>
Almost anything? So accused criminals shouldn't be afforded basic rights in trying to determine their innocence or guilt?
<< <i>I could go on but I think you get the jist of my complaints >>
None of your complaints have anything to do with issues of 'PC'.
Because someone gets offended that means we should disregard it as being 'PC'?
<< <i>3-Criminals almost have more rights than Law Enforcement >>
No, they don't, not in a million years.
<< <i>4-People decide to be politically correct because they have nothing better to do and love jumping on board with things that have been going on for generations and they never gave it a second thought >>
So getting motivated to help with social change is 'nothing better to do'?
<< <i>5-School systems cant pledge allegiance to the flag even though hundreds upon thousands have died defending it >>
The offending term is 'under god' which was only added in the 50s. Get rid of that term (which wasn't even in the original pledge) then there would be no objections.
<< <i>6-Court systems go way overboard allowing defense attorneys to impliment almost anything in defending domestic terrorists >>
Almost anything? So accused criminals shouldn't be afforded basic rights in trying to determine their innocence or guilt?
<< <i>I could go on but I think you get the jist of my complaints >>
None of your complaints have anything to do with issues of 'PC'. >>
Yes they do, in fact all of them do.
Your saying that I state that criminals shouldnt be afforded "basic rights" well I never said that. Why should there be objections to "under God" it doesnt meen one specific God so there should be zero problems there People can sue for anything, wether or not it goes anywhere is up to the Courts Criminals have more rights than Law Enforcement in ways that you will never understand unless your a criminal or Law Enforcement, if your not either you dont know what your talking about to say "not in a million years" Why have you become motivated for Social change? Did these things bother you when you were 18? 21? 25? Tell me when you decided it was time to jump on board with PC.
I dont care if your white, latino, african american, indian, pacific islander or whatever your way of thinking is everything that is wrong with todays society, how about that?
<< <i>Your saying that I state that criminals shouldnt be afforded "basic rights" well I never said that. >>
What specific objections do you have in regards to suspected criminals?
<< <i>Why should there be objections to "under God" it doesnt meen one specific God so there should be zero problems there >>
This country was founded not just freedom of religion, but specifically freedom *from* religion. If you don't believe in a god then you shouldn't be forced to swear allegiance to one.
<< <i>People can sue for anything, wether or not it goes anywhere is up to the Courts >>
People looking for an easy payday has nothing to do with being 'politically correct'.
<< <i>Criminals have more rights than Law Enforcement in ways that you will never understand unless your a criminal or Law Enforcement, if your not either you dont know what your talking about to say "not in a million years" >>
Please elaborate. What rights do alleged criminals have that exceed those in law enforcement?
<< <i>Why have you become motivated for Social change? Did these things bother you when you were 18? 21? 25? Tell me when you decided it was time to jump on board with PC. >>
When you get older, you become less selfish. Well, most people do, anyways. Some people get *more* selfish, and worry more about themselves more than in helping out.
<< <i> I dont care if your white, latino, african american, indian, pacific islander or whatever your way of thinking is everything that is wrong with todays society, how about that? >>
My way of thinking is everything that's wrong? Well, sir, I would argue your selfish, xenophobic, arrogant, and frankly ignorant way of thinking is everything that's wrong with society. How about that?
Why is this thread getting so derailed? We were discussing why it is extremely offensive to strip the name of a football team away from its fans. I'm offended, do I get a say?
This country was founded not just freedom of religion, but specifically freedom *from* religion.
No... this country was founded by people who were opposed to STATE SPONSORED religion. As in the government can't dictate what church you go to, if any. That's what that whole 'separation of church and state' thing meant in the Constitution.
If you don't believe in a god then you shouldn't be forced to swear allegiance to one.
The Pledge of Allegiance is to the flag of our country and the republic, not to God or any specific religion. And no one is 'forced' to recite it.
And the reason the thread's going OT is because 1985fan's argument just got effectively slammed by yankeeno7, an actual Native American... So now he's off on a different tangent.
<< <i>My way of thinking is everything that's wrong? Well, sir, I would argue your selfish, xenophobic, arrogant, and frankly ignorant way of thinking is everything that's wrong with society. How about that? >>
And that is what is supposed to be so great about this Country! Freedom of Speech, you are well within your rights to say how you feel about me as I am to you, You think Im wrong and Ignorant and I think your wrong and a blowhard so its all good
Bottom line keep the Redskins the way it is as its been for almost 100 years thats my vote and I do have some American Indian in my blood.
Hey 1985fan, You stated rules in another thread that this is a sports card forum, and nothing else should be discussed other than sports related issues. You even pasted the rules from PSA's sticky on the top of this forum.
Now you're making comments about "One Nation Under God" ???
Hey 1985fan, do me a favor and stop being such a hypocrite. Don't tell others to follow rules that you yourself are not willing to follow.
BTW, the other poster is correct. The separation of Church and State phrase came from a letter from the Danbury Baptist Church in Conneticut to one of our founding fathers. The Danbury Baptist Church pastor was concerned that America would make one religion (like England had). The founding father wrote back and said there would be a separation of church and state, that the state would not interfere with the practices of the many religious people that inhabited America.
Our country was not founded based on what 1985fan said. He is 100% wrong.
Sorry to post this, but 1985fan needs to hear the truth...................................................
The First Amendment never intended to separate Christian principles from government. yet today we so often heart the First Amendment couples with the phrase "separation of church and state." The First Amendment simply states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Obviously, the words "separation," "church," or "state" are not found in the First Amendment; furthermore, that phrase appears in no founding document.
While most recognize the phrase "separation of church and state," few know its source; but it is important to understand the origins of that phrase. What is the history of the First Amendment?
The process of drafting the First Amendment made the intent of the Founders abundantly clear; for before they approved the final wording, the First Amendment went through nearly a dozen different iterations and extensive discussions.
Those discussions—recorded in the Congressional Records from June 7 through September 25 of 1789—make clear their intent for the First Amendment. By it, the Founders were saying: "We do not want in America what we had in Great Britain: we don’t want one denomination running the nation. We will not all be Catholics, or Anglicans, or any other single denomination. We do want God’s principles, but we don’t want one denomination running the nation."
This intent was well understood, as evidenced by court rulings after the First Amendment. For example, a 1799 court declared:
"By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing."
Again, note the emphasis: "We do want Christian principles—we do want God’s principles—but we don’t want one denomination to run the nation."
In 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, heard a rumor that the Congregationalist denomination was about to be made the national denomination. That rumor distressed the Danbury Baptists, as it should have. Consequently, the fired off a litter to President Thomas Jefferson voicing their concern. On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote the Danbury Baptists, assuring them that "the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state."
If you're going to quote Free Republic articles, you should probably give them credit. But then, given their tag line "The Premier Conservative Site on the Net!" it's pretty easy to see which way these guys are going to lean.
And as far as the derailing, check in with perkdog.
<< <i>If you're going to quote Free Republic articles, you should probably give them credit. But then, given their tag line "The Premier Conservative Site on the Net!" it's pretty easy to see which way these guys are going to lean.
And as far as the derailing, check in with perkdog. >>
I simply responded to Boopotts fair question and gave him my version of the answer to his post and YOU jumped all over me throwing in your PC BS, I responded to you and we dont agree and thats ok but dont blame me for derailing. .
"One of the more common defenses of the Redskins name is that it's only a small proportion of American Indians calling for the change. Short of getting the five or so million natives left on a conference call, I'm not sure how you counter that argument. But this seems worth a shot.
The National Congress of American Indians, which counts every federally recognized tribe among its voting membership, has released this video featuring seven elected tribal leaders, two of them national officials, speaking out against Washington's use of "Redskins" as a team name."
<< <i>"One of the more common defenses of the Redskins name is that it's only a small proportion of American Indians calling for the change. Short of getting the five or so million natives left on a conference call, I'm not sure how you counter that argument. But this seems worth a shot.
The National Congress of American Indians, which counts every federally recognized tribe among its voting membership, has released this video featuring seven elected tribal leaders, two of them national officials, speaking out against Washington's use of "Redskins" as a team name."
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
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>Why is this thread getting so derailed? We were discussing why it is extremely offensive to strip the name of a football team away from its fans. I'm offended, do I get a say? >>
Actually what I was asking is why it's only just now making the news. Where were all these "we can't stand Native American stereotypes used in sports teams/logos" people five years ago? Ten years ago? And so on? We've had the Redskins (and Chief Wahoo of the Indians though you don't see him much anymore); what exactly woke up the "sleeping giant" just now?
Perhaps people did not expose themselves to the issues two decades ago? I was certainly aware of it...... here is something I cut and pasted from an article....
The debate over whether the Washington Redskins should change their name has gained national attention this year, but a legal battle over the team’s trademark has been playing out for more than two decades.
Under federal law, the U.S. government may refuse to register a trademark that disparages a “substantial composite” of a group. And for that very reason, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has refused to register a number of trademarks containing the word “Redskins”. The patent office, for example in 2011, shot down an application for “Redskins” computer software.
But the trademark office had a different view of things in the 1960s when the Redskins first trademarked their name.
The effort to cancel Redskins trademarks began in 1992 — months after the team won their last Superbowl — when a group of Native Americans led by Native American activist Suzan Harjo filed a petition with the trademark office.
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
The issue was present in 1972 when Stanford dropped their "Indians" mascot....so it has been present as an issue but it has been a case-by-case basis.
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>Perhaps people did not expose themselves to the issues two decades ago? I was certainly aware of it...... here is something I cut and pasted from an article....
The debate over whether the Washington Redskins should change their name has gained national attention this year, but a legal battle over the team’s trademark has been playing out for more than two decades.
Under federal law, the U.S. government may refuse to register a trademark that disparages a “substantial composite” of a group. And for that very reason, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has refused to register a number of trademarks containing the word “Redskins”. The patent office, for example in 2011, shot down an application for “Redskins” computer software.
But the trademark office had a different view of things in the 1960s when the Redskins first trademarked their name.
The effort to cancel Redskins trademarks began in 1992 — months after the team won their last Superbowl — when a group of Native Americans led by Native American activist Suzan Harjo filed a petition with the trademark office. >>
And there you have another great post. Only the closed minded morons can't see the great posts and points like this.
I know that people who are g@y usually try to fight and stick up for groups they feel have been mistreated.
Perhaps if you are g@y, then I can understand why you would want to call 91% of Native Americans bigots just because they disagree with your point of view.
So are you g@y 1985fan ? Because if you are, then perhaps I should just leave you alone, because I have some friends that are g@y and bi and have big anger issues when it comes to people being mistreated. >>
Fitz, you have proved to be homophobic in your own words as well as calling me a savage for being Yurok.
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>Redskin referred not to the natural skin color of the Lenape, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint. >>
It's a racial slur. Period. Trying to equate it to describing a model as 'light skinned' proves, once and for all, how ridiculously obtuse and ignorant you truly are!
<< <i>
Fitz, what would you personally lose if the Redskins team was renamed tomorrow? Why are you so adamant in trying to perpetuate the use of a racial term in everyday language? >>
1985fan.... Why are you so intent on trying to deceive others about the very deception you, Grote, and Skin have bought into ?
What's in it for you ? Why do you try to convince others about the lie you've believed ?
<< <i>
<< <i>Redskin referred not to the natural skin color of the Lenape, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint. >>
It's a racial slur. Period. Trying to equate it to describing a model as 'light skinned' proves, once and for all, how ridiculously obtuse and ignorant you truly are! >>
There you go against calling people ignorant who simply have a different view of history than you.
Why do you feel you are educationally superior than someone else when they disagree with your point of view ?
Can't you just have a gentleman's disagreement with someone ?
Why do you feel you have to berate them, and call them names ?
<< <i>
<< <i>
Fitz, what would you personally lose if the Redskins team was renamed tomorrow? Why are you so adamant in trying to perpetuate the use of a racial term in everyday language? >>
1985fan.... Why are you so intent on trying to deceive others about the very deception you, Grote, and Skin have bought into ?
What's in it for you ? Why do you try to convince others about the lie you've believed ? >>
A lie? The term 'Redskin' is a racist, offensive term. What's in it for me? When the team name is renamed (and it WILL happen), then it's a wrong that has been righted. Sorry that you have no social conscience, and that you are fine with racist terms being bandied about without consequence, but some of more progressive folks do have a conscience.
But again, you fail to address the question at hand - not a surprise, as you have NO defense.
<< <i>
There you go against calling people ignorant who simply have a different view of history than you.
>>
False. False. False. I am calling YOU ignorant for trying to equate the use of a racial slur with describing a model's skin tone. You really aren't good at this debate thing are you?
<< <i>Why do you feel you are educationally superior than someone else when they disagree with your point of view ? >>
It's not a matter of disagreeing, it's a matter of you making completely FALSE comparisons, then hiding behind the 'don't pick on me!' defense.
<< <i>Can't you just have a gentleman's disagreement with someone ? >>
If you were a gentleman capable of having an intellectually honest discussion, then yes. But you resort to ridiculous articles and examples that have nothing whatsoever to do with what is being discussed. You refuse to address why you are feverishly backing the use of a racist term, so no, you are unable to have a discussion.
<< <i>Why do you feel you have to berate them, and call them names ? >>
If you can't handle being called out for your intellectually dishonest practices, then maybe you should quit using them.
You are in the 9% 1985fan who have been misled.
You have bought into the lie, and have given honor to deception.
The term Redskin was never accepted by Native American Indians as racist.
Let me let you in on another secret.
Dark skinned is not seen as a racist term for African-Americans either. (N*ggah is).
Are you g@y ?
I know that people who are g@y usually try to fight and stick up for groups they feel have been mistreated.
Perhaps if you are g@y, then I can understand why you would want to call 91% of Native Americans bigots just because they disagree with your point of view.
So are you g@y 1985fan ? Because if you are, then perhaps I should just leave you alone, because I have some friends that are g@y and bi and have
big anger issues when it comes to people being mistreated.
<< <i>Again, 91% of Native Americans, myself, and many others disagree with you, Skin, Grote, and the other 9% who have bought into this lie. >>
You continue to belabor this point, and (a) the survey is over a decade old, (b) I've already pointed out how flawed the survey was in the first place, and (c) the fact that you quote it without ever having done any checking on it speaks volumes to your lack of intellectually honesty.
<< <i>You are in the 9% 1985fan who have been misled.
You have bought into the lie, and have given honor to deception. >>
So now the 9% of respondents who felt insulted by the term in your decade plus old survey were simply misled? LOL
<< <i>The term Redskin was never accepted by Native American Indians as racist. >>
Says you. History suggests exactly the opposite. Maybe you should read up on it before just furiously pounding out whatever comes into that brain of yours.
<< <i>Let me let you in on another secret. >>
Is it that Tebow has been railroaded and should have a job in the NFL?
<< <i>Dark skinned is not seen as a racist term for African-Americans either. (N*ggah is). >>
Oh, I guess not. It's just more foolish ramblings of a man who obviously doesn't know the difference between calling a Native American a 'Redskin' as opposed to calling someone 'dark skinned'. Jesus tap dancing christ you are beyond hope. Good luck with your hateful, bigoted ignorance! I wonder if your head will explode when the Redskins team name is changed? I bet it does!
<< <i>. Jesus tap dancing christ ! >>
Actually, there is no historical evidence that says that Jesus ever tap danced.
I know he died on the cross for the sins of the world, but I never heard or read about his tap dancing adventures.
Did you read about that in the Redskin book you've read ?
That pretty much says it all with who we are dealing with. Yikes.
I'm out...I have higher quality people to spend my time with. I think this thread has run its course, and this edmund guy or girl really isn't worth the time.
<< <i>So Edmundfitzgerald has gone on record and says it is ok to refer to a group of asian people as "his yellow skin associates."
. >>
No, that's a lie by Skin2.
So sad that people have to resort to flat out lies here.
Please find in any thread where Edmundfitzgerald said that.
<< <i>
I'm out...I have higher quality people to spend my time with.. >>
Actually, I'm guessing don't have higher quality people to spend your time with.
If you did, you wouldn't keep coming back here under different alts, or under this username.
Yet you keep coming back here, which is a clear indication that there really isn't anyone else out there for you.
Do you live such a lonely life that you feel this is the only place where your voice can be heard ?
My guess is that your previous post will turn out to be a lie, and you will join this conversation real soon.
But I hope you stick to your word, and never return, because saying lies about people really is not nice.
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>Fitz, you're embarrassing yourself now. I bet even those who might share your opinion, albeit less fervently, would agree with that synopsis. >>
How much would you like to bet ?
And will you pay up when proven wrong ?
Answer this, and I will PM you all my PM's about how ridiculous skin and 1985fan are, and now you are embarrassing yourself joining with them.
But first, how much would you like to bet that others who share my opinion feel embarrassed ?
<< <i>
<< <i>Fitz, you're embarrassing yourself now. I bet even those who might share your opinion, albeit less fervently, would agree with that synopsis. >>
How much would you like to bet ?
And will you pay up when proven wrong ?
Answer this, and I will PM you all my PM's about how ridiculous skin and 1985fan are, and now you are embarrassing yourself joining with them.
But first, how much would you like to bet that others who share my opinion feel embarrassed ? >>
Sorry, I don't trust you enough to wager anything with you, nor would I want to on a topic such as this one. It's rather ridiculous that you would even think so.
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.
Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
I am 1/4 Native American, my father is 1/2, and probably 70% my family on my father's side is 100% Native American and live on a reservation. Trust me, Native Americans DON'T CARE about the Redskins name. Nor do they care about any other team's name that has anything to do with the Native American. If anything they are happy to be so recognized.
In lieu of a better term, most Native Americans are thick skinned and do not offend easily unless you are talking about government, taxes, and broken treaties.
It's only very few who get offended and want to make noise. There is always going to be that minority who go overboard with the PC thing.
It's a team name for goodness sake. It's not anyone going up to a Native American and calling them a "Redskin" in a negative context. Get a grip.
Even many fighting against the use of the name "Redskin" arent even Native American. They are just part of this ridiculous PC culture that is going overboard.
A. he let 1985fan do his thinking and speaking for him; and
B. he joined him in his crusade to force Dan Snyder and the Washington NFL team to change the team name to something that does not cause 1985fan angst.
Only Skin2, Grote, and 1985fan can't see the light. They simply do not understand. But that's ok. 10% never get it.
I'll restate it one more time for the slow learners.
91% of Native Americans could care less that the term Redskins, Blackhawks, Seminoles, or anything other Indian terms are used in pro sports.
However, because this is America, we have an obligation to let the 9% have their voice heard. That's cool !
<< <i>
<< <i>. Jesus tap dancing christ ! >>
Actually, there is no historical evidence that says that Jesus ever tap danced.
I know he died on the cross for the sins of the world, but I never heard or read about his tap dancing adventures. >>
There's nowhere that says he did not tap dance though!
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
<< <i>They are just part of this ridiculous PC culture that is going overboard. >>
Barry ... I agree with what you have to say, ESPECIALLY the above portion of your statement!
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
<< <i>
<< <i>They are just part of this ridiculous PC culture that is going overboard. >>
Barry ... I agree with what you have to say, ESPECIALLY the above portion of your statement! >>
Apart from this Redskin debate, what specific aspects of the 'PC culture' do you find objectionable? I'm asking for specifics- not generalities. For example, do you lament that fact that it's no longer acceptable to call all African-Americans 'darkies', or all Asians 'Chinamen'? Do you long for the days when the physically handicapped were called 'cripples'?
Honestly- I'm asking this question in good faith. When you say that the 'PC culture has gone overboard', what are the particular initiatives of this PC culture that have led you to this conclusion?
Is this Fitz you're referring to?? Might have to scale down the expectations..
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>
<< <i>They are just part of this ridiculous PC culture that is going overboard. >>
Barry ... I agree with what you have to say, ESPECIALLY the above portion of your statement! >>
Apart from this Redskin debate, what specific aspects of the 'PC culture' do you find objectionable? I'm asking for specifics- not generalities. For example, do you lament that fact that it's no longer acceptable to call all African-Americans 'darkies', or all Asians 'Chinamen'? Do you long for the days when the physically handicapped were called 'cripples'?
Honestly- I'm asking this question in good faith. When you say that the 'PC culture has gone overboard', what are the particular initiatives of this PC culture that have led you to this conclusion? >>
Guy I find it interesting that you ask, I know your speaking with another OP here but if you dont mind Id like to tell you what irks me about this overboard pc culture because it enrages me!
1- People can sue for anything
2-People are so easily offended
3-Criminals almost have more rights than Law Enforcement
4-People decide to be politically correct because they have nothing better to do and love jumping on board with things that have been going on for generations and they never gave it a second thought
5-School systems cant pledge allegiance to the flag even though hundreds upon thousands have died defending it
6-Court systems go way overboard allowing defense attorneys to impliment almost anything in defending domestic terrorists
I could go on but I think you get the jist of my complaints
The Washington Thick Skins. Actually pretty appropriate from a fan POV……………….MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>1- People can sue for anything >>
No, they can't.
<< <i>2-People are so easily offended >>
Because someone gets offended that means we should disregard it as being 'PC'?
<< <i>3-Criminals almost have more rights than Law Enforcement >>
No, they don't, not in a million years.
<< <i>4-People decide to be politically correct because they have nothing better to do and love jumping on board with things that have been going on for generations and they never gave it a second thought >>
So getting motivated to help with social change is 'nothing better to do'?
<< <i>5-School systems cant pledge allegiance to the flag even though hundreds upon thousands have died defending it >>
The offending term is 'under god' which was only added in the 50s. Get rid of that term (which wasn't even in the original pledge) then there would be no objections.
<< <i>6-Court systems go way overboard allowing defense attorneys to impliment almost anything in defending domestic terrorists >>
Almost anything? So accused criminals shouldn't be afforded basic rights in trying to determine their innocence or guilt?
<< <i>I could go on but I think you get the jist of my complaints >>
None of your complaints have anything to do with issues of 'PC'.
<< <i>
<< <i>1- People can sue for anything >>
No, they can't.
<< <i>2-People are so easily offended >>
Because someone gets offended that means we should disregard it as being 'PC'?
<< <i>3-Criminals almost have more rights than Law Enforcement >>
No, they don't, not in a million years.
<< <i>4-People decide to be politically correct because they have nothing better to do and love jumping on board with things that have been going on for generations and they never gave it a second thought >>
So getting motivated to help with social change is 'nothing better to do'?
<< <i>5-School systems cant pledge allegiance to the flag even though hundreds upon thousands have died defending it >>
The offending term is 'under god' which was only added in the 50s. Get rid of that term (which wasn't even in the original pledge) then there would be no objections.
<< <i>6-Court systems go way overboard allowing defense attorneys to impliment almost anything in defending domestic terrorists >>
Almost anything? So accused criminals shouldn't be afforded basic rights in trying to determine their innocence or guilt?
<< <i>I could go on but I think you get the jist of my complaints >>
None of your complaints have anything to do with issues of 'PC'. >>
Yes they do, in fact all of them do.
Your saying that I state that criminals shouldnt be afforded "basic rights" well I never said that.
Why should there be objections to "under God" it doesnt meen one specific God so there should be zero problems there
People can sue for anything, wether or not it goes anywhere is up to the Courts
Criminals have more rights than Law Enforcement in ways that you will never understand unless your a criminal or Law Enforcement, if your not either you dont know what your talking about to say "not in a million years"
Why have you become motivated for Social change? Did these things bother you when you were 18? 21? 25? Tell me when you decided it was time to jump on board with PC.
I dont care if your white, latino, african american, indian, pacific islander or whatever your way of thinking is everything that is wrong with todays society, how about that?
<< <i>Your saying that I state that criminals shouldnt be afforded "basic rights" well I never said that. >>
What specific objections do you have in regards to suspected criminals?
<< <i>Why should there be objections to "under God" it doesnt meen one specific God so there should be zero problems there >>
This country was founded not just freedom of religion, but specifically freedom *from* religion. If you don't believe in a god then you shouldn't be forced to swear allegiance to one.
<< <i>People can sue for anything, wether or not it goes anywhere is up to the Courts >>
People looking for an easy payday has nothing to do with being 'politically correct'.
<< <i>Criminals have more rights than Law Enforcement in ways that you will never understand unless your a criminal or Law Enforcement, if your not either you dont know what your talking about to say "not in a million years" >>
Please elaborate. What rights do alleged criminals have that exceed those in law enforcement?
<< <i>Why have you become motivated for Social change? Did these things bother you when you were 18? 21? 25? Tell me when you decided it was time to jump on board with PC. >>
When you get older, you become less selfish. Well, most people do, anyways. Some people get *more* selfish, and worry more about themselves more than in helping out.
<< <i> I dont care if your white, latino, african american, indian, pacific islander or whatever your way of thinking is everything that is wrong with todays society, how about that? >>
My way of thinking is everything that's wrong? Well, sir, I would argue your selfish, xenophobic, arrogant, and frankly ignorant way of thinking is everything that's wrong with society. How about that?
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
No... this country was founded by people who were opposed to STATE SPONSORED religion. As in the government can't dictate what church you go to, if any.
That's what that whole 'separation of church and state' thing meant in the Constitution.
If you don't believe in a god then you shouldn't be forced to swear allegiance to one.
The Pledge of Allegiance is to the flag of our country and the republic, not to God or any specific religion. And no one is 'forced' to recite it.
And the reason the thread's going OT is because 1985fan's argument just got effectively slammed by yankeeno7, an actual Native American... So now he's off on a different tangent.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>My way of thinking is everything that's wrong? Well, sir, I would argue your selfish, xenophobic, arrogant, and frankly ignorant way of thinking is everything that's wrong with society. How about that? >>
And that is what is supposed to be so great about this Country! Freedom of Speech, you are well within your rights to say how you feel about me as I am to you, You think Im wrong and Ignorant and I think your wrong and a blowhard so its all good
Bottom line keep the Redskins the way it is as its been for almost 100 years thats my vote and I do have some American Indian in my blood.
Hey 1985fan,
You stated rules in another thread that this is a sports card forum, and nothing else should be discussed other than sports related issues.
You even pasted the rules from PSA's sticky on the top of this forum.
Now you're making comments about "One Nation Under God" ???
Hey 1985fan, do me a favor and stop being such a hypocrite. Don't tell others to follow rules that you yourself
are not willing to follow.
BTW, the other poster is correct. The separation of Church and State phrase came from a letter from the Danbury Baptist Church in Conneticut to one of our founding fathers. The Danbury Baptist Church pastor was concerned that America would make one religion (like England had).
The founding father wrote back and said there would be a separation of church and state, that the state would not interfere with the practices of the many religious people that inhabited America.
Our country was not founded based on what 1985fan said. He is 100% wrong.
<< <i>
Bottom line keep the Redskins the way it is as its been for almost 100 years thats my vote and I do have some American Indian in my blood. >>
The First Amendment never intended to separate Christian principles from government. yet today we so often heart the First Amendment couples with the phrase "separation of church and state." The First Amendment simply states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Obviously, the words "separation," "church," or "state" are not found in the First Amendment; furthermore, that phrase appears in no founding document.
While most recognize the phrase "separation of church and state," few know its source; but it is important to understand the origins of that phrase. What is the history of the First Amendment?
The process of drafting the First Amendment made the intent of the Founders abundantly clear; for before they approved the final wording, the First Amendment went through nearly a dozen different iterations and extensive discussions.
Those discussions—recorded in the Congressional Records from June 7 through September 25 of 1789—make clear their intent for the First Amendment. By it, the Founders were saying: "We do not want in America what we had in Great Britain: we don’t want one denomination running the nation. We will not all be Catholics, or Anglicans, or any other single denomination. We do want God’s principles, but we don’t want one denomination running the nation."
This intent was well understood, as evidenced by court rulings after the First Amendment. For example, a 1799 court declared:
"By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing."
Again, note the emphasis: "We do want Christian principles—we do want God’s principles—but we don’t want one denomination to run the nation."
In 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, heard a rumor that the Congregationalist denomination was about to be made the national denomination. That rumor distressed the Danbury Baptists, as it should have. Consequently, the fired off a litter to President Thomas Jefferson voicing their concern. On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote the Danbury Baptists, assuring them that "the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state."
And as far as the derailing, check in with perkdog.
<< <i>If you're going to quote Free Republic articles, you should probably give them credit. But then, given their tag line "The Premier Conservative Site on the Net!" it's pretty easy to see which way these guys are going to lean.
And as far as the derailing, check in with perkdog. >>
I simply responded to Boopotts fair question and gave him my version of the answer to his post and YOU jumped all over me throwing in your PC BS, I responded to you and we dont agree and thats ok but dont blame me for derailing. .
The National Congress of American Indians, which counts every federally recognized tribe among its voting membership, has released this video featuring seven elected tribal leaders, two of them national officials, speaking out against Washington's use of "Redskins" as a team name."
Proof that 10+ year old study is worthless now
<< <i>"One of the more common defenses of the Redskins name is that it's only a small proportion of American Indians calling for the change. Short of getting the five or so million natives left on a conference call, I'm not sure how you counter that argument. But this seems worth a shot.
The National Congress of American Indians, which counts every federally recognized tribe among its voting membership, has released this video featuring seven elected tribal leaders, two of them national officials, speaking out against Washington's use of "Redskins" as a team name."
Proof that 10+ year old study is worthless now >>
The old study was worthless to begin with(as you know).
The typical stance of "they aren't offended anyway," has been debunked.
Oh, wait...
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>Why is this thread getting so derailed? We were discussing why it is extremely offensive to strip the name of a football team away from its fans. I'm offended, do I get a say? >>
Actually what I was asking is why it's only just now making the news. Where were all these "we can't stand Native American stereotypes used in sports teams/logos" people five years ago? Ten years ago? And so on? We've had the Redskins (and Chief Wahoo of the Indians though you don't see him much anymore); what exactly woke up the "sleeping giant" just now?
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
The debate over whether the Washington Redskins should change their name has gained national attention this year, but a legal battle over the team’s trademark has been playing out for more than two decades.
Under federal law, the U.S. government may refuse to register a trademark that disparages a “substantial composite” of a group. And for that very reason, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has refused to register a number of trademarks containing the word “Redskins”. The patent office, for example in 2011, shot down an application for “Redskins” computer software.
But the trademark office had a different view of things in the 1960s when the Redskins first trademarked their name.
The effort to cancel Redskins trademarks began in 1992 — months after the team won their last Superbowl — when a group of Native Americans led by Native American activist Suzan Harjo filed a petition with the trademark office.
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
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>Perhaps people did not expose themselves to the issues two decades ago? I was certainly aware of it...... here is something I cut and pasted from an article....
The debate over whether the Washington Redskins should change their name has gained national attention this year, but a legal battle over the team’s trademark has been playing out for more than two decades.
Under federal law, the U.S. government may refuse to register a trademark that disparages a “substantial composite” of a group. And for that very reason, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has refused to register a number of trademarks containing the word “Redskins”. The patent office, for example in 2011, shot down an application for “Redskins” computer software.
But the trademark office had a different view of things in the 1960s when the Redskins first trademarked their name.
The effort to cancel Redskins trademarks began in 1992 — months after the team won their last Superbowl — when a group of Native Americans led by Native American activist Suzan Harjo filed a petition with the trademark office. >>
And there you have another great post. Only the closed minded morons can't see the great posts and points like this.
<< <i>Question 1985fan for you.
Are you g@y ?
I know that people who are g@y usually try to fight and stick up for groups they feel have been mistreated.
Perhaps if you are g@y, then I can understand why you would want to call 91% of Native Americans bigots just because they disagree with your point of view.
So are you g@y 1985fan ? Because if you are, then perhaps I should just leave you alone, because I have some friends that are g@y and bi and have
big anger issues when it comes to people being mistreated. >>
Fitz, you have proved to be homophobic in your own words as well as calling me a savage for being Yurok.
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
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss