The magic of alliteration: New York Nig Nogs, California Curry Munchers, Seattle Stupid Fucking Christians, Kansas City Kikes, Richmond Rednecks, San Francisco Spicks, Pittsburgh Filthy Jews. May as well make every NFL mascot and team disparaging. I want to be able to say "Go Jets! Fuck up the Niggers!" Just like many Giants fans get to say about Washington.
no, that actually validates the point. nothing on this planet actually belongs to any us absent of self appointed (as individuals or a society) laws that allow us to claim ownership of it. the Native Americans were simply temporary inhabitants of the land, just as we all are temporary inhabitants of this land and planet. and laws are only as meaningful as the ability to preserve and enforce them. my house is my house only because the government of the United States has laws that set forth rules of ownership and protect my claim of ownership. If we get Red Dawned tomorrow and the Russians invade and take over our country, only a fool would still think they could stand in front of the red army and say "this is my house, dammit!" to claims of the contrary by our new commie lords.
The sarcasm escapes you. The simplistic, obvious point that for whatever reason you failed to comprehend is that they're either all acceptable or that none of them are. Whichever you'd like to argue, that's up to you. Since you support the Washington team's name, clearly, I know where you stand on re-naming the Giants the Niggers. That's disgusting and shameful for you to advocate. Only Native Americans can speak on behalf of Native Americans. You seem to ignore the fact that the former and current "inhabitants" are defined racially. You're changing the subject. My point is about why (and how) a sports mascot indoctrinates society to believe in falsities. The logic: Redskin isn't offensive. (Why?) Because it's the name of a football team. (Well, it shouldn't be the name of a football team then.) Why is that? It's not like it's offensive or anything. (How can you say that?) Because it's the name of a football team. is so circular and flawed that it may as well have been developed by the reincarnation of the leader of the Third Reich. The fact that people who argue that Redskin isn't offensive yet don't care about the opinion of Native Americans reveals the idiocy of this entire situation: offensive slurs intended to target a specific race aren't inherently offensive to those who aren't that race, because... wait for it... you aren't that race nor do you know how it feels to have said slur directed towards you! And I'm not talking about white people never being called racial slurs (because that's definitely not the case), but a white person certainly doesn't know what it feels like to be discriminatorily called a nigger, nor should you know how it feels. A white person saying that the term "Redskin" isn't offensive is like trying to describe how pizza tastes without having ever ate any.
and that has nothing to do with your statement that I was responding to. How does whether they have a concept about land ownership have anything to do with how their race is defined? clearly you were talking about something other than that with your statement.
but a white person can be offended by the word nigger. and I know plenty of people who are offended by racial slurs that are not of their race. how do you account for that in your rationale that racial slurs aren't inherently offensive to those who aren't the race targeted? you can't, which is why your reasoning is flawed. I suppose you will fall back to your inclusion of the word inherent, as if their offense is a learned behavior and not something they feel naturally. but that would be a huge leap to claim that and you would have to do more to validate it than simply state it.
I was stating the obvious hole in your logic: that the genociders were one race while the genocide victims were another (i.e. racial). You're taking the default as an assumption without attempting to properly contextualize the history.
There's a big difference being personally offended by something and finding something offensive. If you don't understand the difference there then I don't know what to tell you. Who is this "they"? I'm speaking on behalf of myself and not other people.
I know that I promised to quit posting in this thread, but thought I'd share some research: Prior to the Revolutionary War, England did grant the natives sovereignty to the land, but after the Revoltionary War, that changed... however, although the US Gov't claimed sovereignty over the land, the natives still had rights of occupancy according to the laws of the US Gov't. Both settlers and the US Gov't purchased land rights from the natives, until the US Gov't banned settlers from purchasing land (mainly to drive the price down so the Gov't could purchase it themselves). But in spite of US Gov't laws created by the senate to protect the Indians, the settlers and the US Gov't often broke their own laws. That's why there are so many lawsuits brought up by the tribes, resulting in billions of dollars in compensation paid... because the means by which the settlers took the land wasn't legitimate even according to US Law. Those same courthouses that used to rule against the natives are now ruling in their favor. Not only did the laws themselves systematically discriminate against the natives, but those laws were constantly violated, which is why Native Americans are considered a persecuted ethnic minority today. Depictions of them as savages or in other dehumanizing ways, like referring to them by the color of their skin, as the way the term "Redskins" depicts them, is why the name is considered offensive.
I got through half this thread & I had to stop. Maybe the name should be the "Washington Huggies" and let everyone in the NFL get a trophy?
Because not getting your way on a non-personal, discriminatory issue is so detrimental to your life that you feel as though it's ruining your favorite sport. The fact that you just argued changing the name of one mascot out of 32 teams ruins the competitiveness of the NFL speaks volumes to your ignorance. You either don't understand the game of football or you're ignorant (the latter of which also applies to your affinity for the Buffalo Bitches, something you obviously wouldn't mind having as a mascot. Can fan bases become mascots, though?).
I've spent 46 years not being outraged by a team called the "Redskins." I don't have the energy to start now. Unless, of course, we could find an equally offensive name and an equally cartoony logo, but less sympathetic victims. Like the Washington Fat Chicks or the Washington RaidersFans. I could be energized for naming a team the Washington Raidersfans.
They can change their name, the day I stop distributing smallpox laden blankets to Redskins fans at tailgates.
