Oh cry me a river. It was NEVER offensive until some PC types -- the same ones who suddenly found calling themselves "Indian" when they were 1/16th Indian in order to get a casino license -- decided they needed another issue. And I don't know 'whose fault' anything is regarding 'an extreme minority' but it sure as hell isn't the Redskins or NFL fans or this country's.
What American history are you talking about -- the BS PC crap taught by leftist college know-nothings and The New York Times. The Indians on the North American continent were brutal warriors who raped, pillaged, and plundered one another's territory, property, and women. Rapes, torture, and murder were quite common. Stop with this romanticist view of American Indians from PBS. It's 100% garbage.
what team is named after greek gods???? i know the other two you said were giants and steelers, but i cant figure out the 3rd.
How about getting serious. People who called African Americans Negroes or Black were not using racist terminology before the term African American became common useage. Redskins origin was not racist. The team name was not racist. The offense is a modern development that has nothing to do with the origins of the name. Here is what Wikipedia actually says: The entire premise that this was a derogatory word for Native Americans is simply not based on fact at all as you claim. There clearly are some Native Americans who are offended by it in much the same way many African Americans are offended by the term Black which as little as 20 years ago was considered perfectly acceptable. Based on today's language the term Indian itself could be considered offensive when refering to Native peoples anywhere.
No, factually accurate. The leftists would be happy if the continent were still inhabited by several thousand nomads roaming the plains. As if that was going to happen with Mexico and Canada eyeing the land.
How so? Blonde can be used in a derogatory manner as well. That doesn't mean it is always derogatory. Please explain the difference to me. Redskin, Blonde hair. Adjectives to describe appearance. They only have negative connotations if people make it negative, and its really just the stupid media that constantly talks about skin color as if it even matters.
You could insult somebody by calling them a blonde, because it infers they aren't very smart. What does redskin infer? That they have reddish skin? I just don't see where the derogatory part comes from. It's not like dropping the nbomb that represents racism and oppression. Plus it has dual meaning because the football has reddish skin as well, so it seems appropriate. Honestly I do have empathy for the way their people were destroyed by the "settlers"(invaders really), but I don't see it as any more offensive than saying, "black man" or "white man". Sure it's a silly name, but it doesn't seem derogatory. I always figured redskin payed homage to the natives. What about the NY Giants? That could be portrayed as an insult to tall people. Cleveland Browns? What are they trying to say about mixed race folk?
Their is nothing wrong with calling a black guy, a black guy because the color of his skin. Using the term "blackskins" would just be stupid, not derogatory.
:lol: A good amount of them were certainly not like that. Maybe you should look into the settlers and Christopher Columbus, because they were also brutal. At least the natives were defending their OWN LAND from invaders. What excuse did the settlers have for their rape, pillage, torture, murder and slavery of the local populations? What happened to the Tynos was disgusting. An entire race created out of rape. What goes around comes around. Back then, the world as a whole was brutal. The natives were decimated by people who chopped them limb from limb because they couldn't believe they had never heard of Christianity or Jesus. In fact it was common practice during the early expeditions to cut off their arms and legs and just leave them there to die, considered worthless because they didn't know who Jesus was. Don't be fooled because you watched Apocalypto. All of those traits apply to the invaders, only in much greater numbers and force.
I know when not to bother arguing. He's wrapped up in "liberal agendas" and "leftist conspiracies," and on top of that he's saying all Native Americans were savages which is incredibly misinformed. I'm not going to go dig up encyclopedia articles to prove to him his knowledge is wrong and he's obviously not going to be swayed by me just saying he's wrong and why. It's pointless.
