You see no difference between Redskin (an epithet assigned by one ethnic group to another against the latter's will) and Blackfoot (self-described)...? Do you also see no difference between the names of African ethnic groups (Mongo, for example) and nigg*r? Are you really this ignorant or just incredibly stupid? It's your own opinion if you say that words don't offend you, but to muddle their definitions is destructive, misleading, misinformative, and immoral.
You're an idiot, the Golden State Warriors (if that's the team you were referring to) were originally a reference to Native Americans and they de-emphasized the reference over time and made the team's mascot more generalized. Also, the Fighting Irish isn't the same thing as the Redskins. The Fighting (Insert insult for Irish people) would be though.
Well guess what buddy, theres three scientifically based theories on the origin of the term redskin. One is that it is a self described word used by the natives to distinguish themselves from white people. Another theory is that it comes from a tribe in new foundland that painted themselves red. The fact that its considered a racial slur by people nowadays is a result of modern day political correctness bullshit. My point on the blackfoot stands because the people of the blackfoot confederacy call themselves Niitsitapi which means original people. The blackfoot were only part of that but white people mistakenly named them all Blackfoot. For most blackfoot people it is NOT a self described name. Next time you think about calling me ignorant or stupid do your research first. What's ignorant and stupid is that calling a person white or black is ok but red isn't. They're fucking colors. Ya know what. I don't like the word , "you" . It was assigned to describe me by someone else. It can be said in a mean tone. Its probably racist. Refer to me from now on as "the person I am talking to".
Bingo !!! There used to be a YouTube of the beginning of the move "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee" where General Miles gives a history lesson to Sitting Bull. Damn, wish it was still up. Beer on me to anybody who gets the clip of the pow-wow and that segment and puts it on YouTube in something close to HiDef. LOL
Sure they did, and they conquered each others's territories and properties, too. And there WAS NO INVASION since there was no governmental entity. All you had was a bunch of nomads roaming the North American plains. It's like saying that Penguins are in control of Antarctica. Manifest Destiny. Are you saying they would be better off without this great country ? Do you think that Mexico (Spanish) or Canada (English/French) wouldn't have seized 4 million square miles of territory ??? Or do you really think a few thousand nomads killing bison were going to take over 1/2 a continent in perpetuity ???
Never mind, here it is. 2 minutes of fact to counter hours of liberal PC nonsense: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvC5KWD80qQ
You're clearly either ignoring the history of culture between white people and Native Americans or simply unaware of it. Most settlers back then thought of Native Americans as savages, they were discriminated against and not treated equally, particularly tribes that didn't want to integrate into European society (which is most). That is historical fact that I would hope you don't deny. So I can assure you that back then when somebody white called them a Redskin (or any other racially specific name) it was almost never a term of endearment or used in any positive light. Even if the term itself isn't offensive, its historically negative connotation makes it a derogatory term. Listen, I'm white, this isn't simply my opinion because I don't get to just decide what is or isn't offensive to another race of people. This is what I've heard before from actual Native Americans who find it offensive. I live about 20 minutes from D.C. so it is a topic that comes up fairly frequently. Nobody cares if you find "you" offensive because it has no connection whatsoever to any kind of legitimate persecution against you. And this "they had it coming" sort of attitude being thrown around is absurd. The perception that all Native Americans were hostile tribes is simply inaccurate. Even the ones that were friendly, cooperative, and fought alongside settlers in war, were eventually met with the same treatment and expulsion from their homeland (which many considered sacred). Does the Trail of Tears mean anything to anyone? These were not all vicious tribes of warriors being removed from their homeland, many of them were peaceful and our allies. And many, many, died on long the way to the newly designated area for them to relocate to, which began to shrink and shrink as settlers decided they needed more land.
Can it be both a visual description and a slur? Apparently not, because according to you the two are mutually exclusive. Is Blackie not offensive because it's a visual description? Just because most of those who are/would've been offended were killed off by the U.S. Government doesn't justify using social norms to explain inoffensiveness. Educate yourself.
This is the problem with this argument/discussion: people are using personal experience to determine whether something is offensive or not (i.e. are they offended by it) as opposed to expressing any empathy or asking someone who is Native American. Of course people who have never been called a Redskin as a profane name aren't inclined to see it as offensive... To think otherwise is dumb.
Well guess what buddy, unless you provide a source for "scientifically-based theories" (what a B.S. term) you're full of it. Is Negro offensive? Spanish for "black". You're missing the point, personal experience/anyone's individual point of view has nothing to do with the discussion. Furthermore, that example has nothing to do with historical precedent or xenophobic inference. Nice try though.
Not if you're speaking fucking Spanish. You've convinced me. Change the name to the Unicorns. That sounds gay enough to satisfy everyone.
I have a solution that should satisfy no one. Keep the logo, but change the name to the Washington Thinskins.
I wasn't trying to justify the practice. My point was that it doesn't apply to ALL native tribes as the guy inferred, there were plenty of peaceful ones, and also that the behavior was common over the entire globe at the time. It was a primitive world and people practiced human sacrifice and other barbaric traditions. The settlers just out did them all, especially with the Appalachian trail crap.
