Washington Redtails? LMAO

Carp

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
15,127
Well, the issue is coming up again because Councilman David Grosso...a non-Native American. If I can't tell others that they should be offended, then he should not be able to tell people that they should be offended.

Also, his suggestion that they should be the Redtails is a bit questionable too. This was basically a segregated group of men, who did great things, but that were exploited. Slaves did great things too...is that a consideration for a name?
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,698
Iamtdg doesn't think this is offensive because its not offensive to him. But question the police or a pit bull... You suck!

This doesn't offend me, but I'm white. Like Louis CK says... How do you offend a white man?
By calling him a prejudicial hater without cause.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
Well, the issue is coming up again because Councilman David Grosso...a non-Native American. If I can't tell others that they should be offended, then he should not be able to tell people that they should be offended.
:fistpump
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
120,043
Well, the issue is coming up again because Councilman David Grosso...a non-Native American. If I can't tell others that they should be offended, then he should not be able to tell people that they should be offended.
That's a very good point. Notice that nowhere in that article does it mention any specific groups that are calling for this. Just a congressman saying it should happen.
 

boozeman

28 Years And Counting...
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
122,448


Black Jesus doesn't have an issue with it.

Move along.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,522
[h=1]Native Americans Speaking Out In Support Of Redskins[/h]The Washington Redskins have been under tremendous scrutiny over the last couple of months in regard to what some consider an “offensive” and “racist” name. While the group of complainants only make up 9% of the Native American population (according to the latest poll), many have wondered why the other 91% have been left unspoken.


It’s easy to assume the silence means indifference to the name, but you have to consider the repercussions of speaking out against the popular opinion of the Native American Media. Such punishments can range from the removal from the tribe, as well as professions ruined.

With the possible backlash from the powers that be it’s easy to understand why most Native American’s do not speak out, as they are in fear of their reputation, jobs, or even their life. On reservations it is their law, not the law the general public is used to.


Kevin, whose last name we cannot use wrote us a lengthy email on exactly this after seeing Ray’s appearance on “Outside the Lines” defending the Redskins name. He explains why those who support the Washington Redskins, as well as other teams with Native American connections are kept in silence.


“We quietly support you for the following main reasons, which are briefly included below -




  • The obsession with protesting mascots and names like Redskins is an obsession of white Indians. They protest mascots, children dressing up on Halloween and other silly things because it makes them feel Indian. It lets them scream racism. They know no other way of feeling Indian. They are totally disconnected from the real issues that affect mainstream Indians on reservations. They are fully Americanized. They have lost their language, culture, religion and even their skin color.

  • Unfortunately the white Indians have the loudest voices. If we go against them, they hurt us in our careers and lives because they [white Indians] control our media, academia, government jobs, medical clinics, finances, who gets denied federal recognition, even our tribes – everything. They have the money and the power. We have the Indian-ness.

  • Brown Indians on reservations have more important issues to worry about. Like diabetes, how we get our next meal, crime on reservations, lack of electricity, lack of toilets, lack of running water, no heat when there’s snow outside, getting a relative to a dialysis clinic when there is no transport, finding a job when there’s near 100% unemployment, near 100% consideration of suicide among our youth, alcoholism, drug abuse, elder abuse, spouse abuse, land loss, culture loss, language loss, etc. Mascots are a NON-ISSUE to us.

  • The media should be screaming about the real issues. Instead their main focus is on mascots. The focus on mascots and meaningless debates about redskins detract attention from the REAL issues facing brown Indians.

  • When these white Indians offend sports fans or insult a little child who loves Indians and puts on feathers, they alienate the rest of America against brown Indians. Note that the white Indians blend in beautifully into the white society. No one even realizes they are Indian. But when an angered sports fan who is upset about losing his mascot screams “**** you sand ******” or throws a beer can at us from a passing car screaming “MOTHER******, GO BACK TO YOUR ****ING RESERVATION!!” they scream such obscenities at my father, my cousin, my brother and my family members who look Indian.

  • Indians should do an A-B-C analysis and focus on the A-items. Mascots and names like redskin, or debates about whether the right word is Native American and not Indian, are not even C items. They are Z items. Unfortunately the white Indians obsess over these Z-items because that is the ONLY way they know how to feel Indian. If we twist America’s arm and get America to concede on the trivial items, the country will lose patience with us when we negotiate important A-items.

  • We are offending our fan base. That little child who insists on dressing up in a costume and putting on some feathers loves Indians, but when white Indians insult his mom and dad by calling them racists, he grows up to resent those of us who look Indian. Indians were unflappable. Now even a silly word like “costume” that I used above instead of “regalia” raises hackles? Don’t forget, it’s the white Indians who come down and tell the rest of us to be offended. We had someone who made cartoons about this issue and some of them are attached to this email.
  • The vocalizations of these white Indians seem to unite Indian opposition – they find forums and avenues to kindle hatred against Indians and rehash and reiterate negative stereotypes about Indians. They find a common ground under which those who resent and oppose Indians can unify together and gather in strength.
  • White Indians who oppose mascots point to the Halloween “blackface” and ask, “Don’t you find that offensive???” And the answer is yes, some Halloween costumes are expressly intended to mock and degrade. Sometimes it is Mother Mary dressed up voluptuously in revealing breasts, sometimes stupid people dress up as a rabbi with a hooked nose eating a bagel and counting money. Sometimes people put on a black face that portrays African Americans with exaggerated noses and large pink lips. Yes, these are no doubt offensive. But mascots usually portray teams that their fans are proud of. The Washington Redskins are proud of their mascots and will surely never run down their mascot this way.”

In a follow-up, he [Kevin] went on to tell me:


“The American sports lovers are our brothers and sisters. We love them and respect them and also understand they mean us no disrespect for the most part. Please don’t let these clueless, identity-less white Indians drive a wedge between the mainstream Indians and sports loving fans.”


This opens a whole new side to the argument on why those who are Natives and support the Redskins do not speak publicly about it. After all 91% of Native Americans DO support mascots with Native American connections according to the last National Annenberg Election Survey. The Seminoles who support Florida State University, and the Utah Indians who support The University of Utah are prime examples of this.
 
Last edited:

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,522
  • White Indians who oppose mascots point to the Halloween “blackface” and ask, “Don’t you find that offensive???” And the answer is yes, some Halloween costumes are expressly intended to mock and degrade. Sometimes it is Mother Mary dressed up voluptuously in revealing breasts, sometimes stupid people dress up as a rabbi with a hooked nose eating a bagel and counting money. Sometimes people put on a black face that portrays African Americans with exaggerated noses and large pink lips. Yes, these are no doubt offensive. But mascots usually portray teams that their fans are proud of. The Washington Redskins are proud of their mascots and will surely never run down their mascot this way.”

The end.
 

EZ22

The One Who Knocks
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,255
Can't say I agree at all. People are way too sensitive about race these days.
So, and let me get this straight... you think that you should be able to tell people what offends them and what doesn't?
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
120,043
9% of Indians are offended by this and all of a sudden it's something our government needs to handle?

Our society is too god damn sensitive about shit. 9 frickin' percent and it's now a national issue.

Jesus H.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,522
FWIW:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_mascot_controversy

In 1992, Susan Shown Harjo, President of the Morning Star Institute, joined forces with other prominent Native Americans as well as Dorsey & Whitney law firm of Minneapolis and petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark office. They based their lawsuit on the idea that Federal Trademark law states that certain trademarks are not legal if they are "disparaging, scandalous contemptuous, or disreputable." The legal battle went on for seven years and in 1999 the judges canceled the federal trademarks of the Redskin name "on the grounds that the subject marks may disparage Native Americans and may bring them into contempt or disrepute."

Upon the news that the Redskins had been sold, the owners appealed the decision to a district court in the District of Columbia in Pro-Football, Inc. vs. Harjo. The court reversed the decision on the grounds of insufficient evidence of disparagement.
:lol

Pwned.
 

EZ22

The One Who Knocks
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,255
9% of Indians are offended by this and all of a sudden it's something our government needs to handle?

Our society is too god damn sensitive about shit. 9 frickin' percent and it's now a national issue.

Jesus H.
Did I say the government needs to get involved? No. In fact I specifically said it doesn't.

Yes. Our society is way too sensitive.

Do I think a bunch of douchey white guys should get to decide what is offensive and what isn't?

LMAOZZZZZZZZ
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,522
So, and let me get this straight... you think that you should be able to tell people what offends them and what doesn't?
Not all the time. But it's clear that this name isn't disparaging and a vocal minority should not be allowed to control the national dialogue on the subject.
 

EZ22

The One Who Knocks
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,255
For the record, as a white man, I would like to say that Schmitty does NOT speak for me.

He clearly has a superiority complex.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
120,043
Did I say the government needs to get involved? No. In fact I specifically said it doesn't.

Yes. Our society is way too sensitive.

Do I think a bunch of douchey white guys should get to decide what is offensive and what isn't?

LMAOZZZZZZZZ
I asked this last night and you ignored it. Who does get to decide? Do 9% of Indians get to determine a word is offensive for the other 91%?

If 9% of Irish people say that the term Mick is offensive, is it then considered off limits?
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,522
For the record, as a white man, I would like to say that Schmitty does NOT speak for me.

He clearly has a superiority complex.
I'm definitely superior to the idiots who bitch about racial issues like this, absolutely. :art
 

EZ22

The One Who Knocks
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,255
I asked this last night and you ignored it. Who does get to decide? Do 9% of Indians get to determine a word is offensive for the other 91%?

If 9% of Irish people say that the term Mick is offensive, is it then considered off limits?
If it was considered offensive by even a small percent, why would you use the term when there are clearly many other ways to express what you're trying to say?

Just because you can?

Yeah, if that's the case, then learn how to question the government and police because you sound like a jackass when you defend something like this but get seriously butt hurt about other stuff.
 
Top Bottom