The history of the term is debated and use doesn't reflect absolute meaning unless the original meaning is absolutely lost. It takes a liar to argue contrary to that. If the argument that states it was used in a non-pejorative way at its origin is true than it isn't an inherently racist term. Unfortunately for you that destroys two of your arguments -- that it is inherently racist AND that the use of reference to skin color ALWAYS makes a term racist. We call Caucasians white people all the time absent of any pejorative meaning so that is an easy example to show how incorrect such an assertion is. Clearly the term nigger lost any non-pejorative meaning as it ceased to be used in non-racist contexts and its meaning evolved to be solely one of denegration. The term redskin clearly differs. And if the term can be used both non-pejoratively and pejoratively, as arguments for its history suggest, the question becomes how is it being used in the context of the sports team? It takes a special type of emotional hysteria to argue the Redskins football team is using it in a pejorative manner.
Huh, the title of this thread should now be changed to.. "Kirk Cousins, a raciest?" or something like that. Your confusing me now.
Ive seen both sides of the spectrum. I even have one native friend who chooses the Redskins as his favorite team because of their name. (likes Redskins, Cleveland Indians/Atlanta Braves, Chicago Blackhawks for sports) Others have told me its not that big of a deal while others have told me its a freakin abomination. the above is just my experience and the experience of one man shouldn't be used to make decisions I am just saying I can see both arguments here. I don't think it takes a special type of emotional hysteria though to argue that the Redskins football team is or was using it in a derogatory manner. The Washington Redskins were traditionally THE most racist football team in the league by far. Their founder George Marshall was a huge racist, vocal opponent of black players (washington last team to have a black player), their song is an ode to both the redskins and the confederate south, etc. So considering the brainchild of the name was an ugly racist, the history of the team's actions are rooted in racism, you'd have to think when people think the name is racist they might be onto something.. I don't really care myself either way. Change the name who cares or don't. Fuck the Redskins anyway.
I can't buy this. This suggests the owner was such a racist he named the team Redskins because it was a racist or perjorative term. _
Yes, we are in agreement. I strongly agree with your second paragraph. Last year I heard of a ridiculous situation where a Muslim family or group complained to the city in which they lived about a nearby restaurant cooking bacon and said it was offensive since they didn't eat pork. At first, the city ordered the restaurant to stop cooking pork, but after a huge backlash from the community, they rescinded the order. IMO that's the type of situation you speak of in your 2nd paragraph, and it's ridiculous. We all need stop getting offended so easily. Not everything is about us. We don't have to like or agree with everything that everyone else does. Another example of this is where the Ten Commandments have been ordered to be taken out of Courthouses and Federal buildings and off of Federal property. That's absurd. Our nation's laws are based on the Ten Commandments. We have freedom of religion here, but not freedom FROM religion. Our nation has a Judeo-Christian foundation and heritage. If people who practice other religions or no religion at all want to migrate here, fine, but don't tell us that you find our symbols offensive. If you don't like it stay where you are, don't move here.
What do you base your facts on? I'd like to see your statistics, because they don't agree with any I've ever seen.
Nice try to deflect from the real point. You're not a cretin for having a different opinion, but then you know that. You're a cretin because you're an unrepentant bigot and because what passes for your thinking on things reveals you to be. I do have you on ignore, but occasionally I take a look at what those on ignore have to say. I'm not gonna let some asinine, ignorant BS like you said pass without comment.
So because you suffer from white guilt Im a cretin? I am prejudiced in some ways. We all are. (Except you though cause Im sure you are perfect and a prejudiced thought never even enters your mind) But to call me a bigot over thinking Redskins , or any racial term , isnt something people should be up in arms about, is totally moronic. But something Id expect from you, who has never commented on anything I've posted on here without calling me a name about it. Bottom line is, its a FUCKING WORDDDDDD. This isnt 1950. Not many people are oppressed in this country right now , no matter what your equally white guilty associates say. I can take a disagreement. Obviously not many people are going to agree with my point. But its weird how its ALWAYS you that has something to say about it.
so setting aside the Redskins are racists talk haha and onto Jets talk... RGIII will become available now this offseason. Anyone adverse to signing him and letting him compete with Fitzpatrick? I think that kid has a lot of football left in him. Bringing him in this offseason would be a low risk move with the potential for high returns. I wouldnt be against it
No 1) His playing style is open to injuries. 2) He is mentally weak and potential distraction in the locker room.
Why would people from India see Redskins as a slur? Being part native myself, I see "Indian" as more offensive than Redskin.
According to the Smithsonian Institute's expert on Native Americans ... http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf In the 1760s, the term "Red Skins" was created and used by Native Americans to describe themselves and differentiate between the "White Skins" that were in the area. In other words, they invented the term to describe themselves. It wasn't until the 1820s (sixty years later) that the Europeans started utilizing the term (because that's what the native americans called themselves). Now how can a term be racist when it's the term a group invented and used to self-identify? The short answer? It's not racist. The reason this is an issue, right now, is because someone decided that the Native American population hadn't quite achieved all the victimhood status that it could, so they invented another PC issue to complain about. "Hey, I don't like the term my ancestors invented to refer to themselves, so now I declare it racism 250 years later!" Racism? No More liberal nonsense? Yes, absolutely.
