Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)

Washington Redskins and 10 Teams That Could Be Forced to Change

Avatar

Posted: 06/20/2014 6:17 PM

Washington Redskins and 10 Teams That Could Be Forced to Change 


Washington Redskins and 10 Teams That Could Be Forced to Change Their Names

http://www.rantsports.com/clubhouse/2014/06/18/was hington-redskins-and-10-teams-that-could-be-forced -to-change-their-names/#slide2


i'm suprised the hawaii rainbow warriors didn't make the list !!!   rolleyesohlordnoidea

i can't believe some of the teams that made that list.
are those team names really that bad or are folks just getting to sensitive ?  eek1eek1



LET YOUR PLAY AND COACHING DO THE TALKING ON THE FIELD, NOT YOUR PIE HOLE.

Offense wins games, defense wins championships. That's the old saying
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/20/2014 6:45 PM

Re: Washington Redskins and 10 Teams That Could Be Forced to 


SDSD Aztec fans think that they are immune from this issue on the theory that there is nobody to be offended -- the real Aztecs are extinct.  I suppose the Aztec nation is extinct but surely there are those descended from it still living today.   I'm not sure that they are so connected to it that they take offense by SDSU's usage of the term.

I wonder why it is that the Minnesota Vikings...  Oh never mind.

Yoda out...



.
"The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism." ~ Barry Goldwater
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/20/2014 7:00 PM

Re: Washington Redskins and 10 Teams That Could Be Forced to 


Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/20/2014 8:26 PM

Re: Washington Redskins and 10 Teams That Could Be Forced to 



Yoda wrote: SDSD Aztec fans think that they are immune from this issue on the theory that there is nobody to be offended -- the real Aztecs are extinct.  I suppose the Aztec nation is extinct but surely there are those descended from it still living today.   I'm not sure that they are so connected to it that they take offense by SDSU's usage of the term.

I wonder why it is that the Minnesota Vikings...  Oh never mind.

Yoda out...



.
White Europeans (Vikings) are not allowed to be an aggrieved class.  According to the hard left they are the original plunderers of the North American continent thus they cannot be labeled as anything other than oppressors.

 

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/20/2014 9:33 PM

Re: Washington Redskins and 10 Teams That Could Be Forced to 



LuDog70 wrote:
Yoda wrote: SDSD Aztec fans think that they are immune from this issue on the theory that there is nobody to be offended -- the real Aztecs are extinct.  I suppose the Aztec nation is extinct but surely there are those descended from it still living today.   I'm not sure that they are so connected to it that they take offense by SDSU's usage of the term.

I wonder why it is that the Minnesota Vikings...  Oh never mind.

Yoda out...



.
White Europeans (Vikings) are not allowed to be an aggrieved class.  According to the hard left they are the original plunderers of the North American continent thus they cannot be labeled as anything other than oppressors.
my parents are from mexico and my grandparents are from mexico city !!! i think the aztec mascot/name is kinda cool !!!!!!!!!!!  

whats next ?  the pirates, raiders and buccaneers !!!

they just sailed around killing ,raping , stealing gold and blowing up ships !!  i guess no one is offended by that
LET YOUR PLAY AND COACHING DO THE TALKING ON THE FIELD, NOT YOUR PIE HOLE.

Offense wins games, defense wins championships. That's the old saying
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/20/2014 10:45 PM

Re: Washington Redskins and 10 Teams That Could Be Forced to 


I'm no historian, but I'm pretty sure no one committed genocide against the Vikings, forced them off their homeland, erased their culture from history, and turned them into cartoonish mascots in the name of sports.

I don't speak for all natives, but it is at least a little bit annoying that natives are so badly caricaturized. I mean, I think most folks would agree that a team called The Bakersfield Black People or the Fresno Jews would be in poor taste. The only thing that makes natives fair game is that it's been socially acceptable forever. European-Americans have kind of made it a habit to dehumanize natives, whereas dehumanizing Jews or Black folks is almost universally frowned upon. I think that's a strange phenomenon, and you really have to ask yourself why that dichotomy exists.

That being said, legislating mascots is equally annoying. I don't even think "The Fresno Jews" should be illegal per se. Let the citizenry and the marketplace sort it out. The government was never intended to pass laws about what sports teams can name themselves. It's dumb.


---------------------------------------------
--- LuDog70 wrote:


Yoda wrote: SDSD Aztec fans think that they are immune from this issue on the theory that there is nobody to be offended -- the real Aztecs are extinct.  I suppose the Aztec nation is extinct but surely there are those descended from it still living today.   I'm not sure that they are so connected to it that they take offense by SDSU's usage of the term.

I wonder why it is that the Minnesota Vikings...  Oh never mind.

Yoda out...



.
White Europeans (Vikings) are not allowed to be an aggrieved class.  According to the hard left they are the original plunderers of the North American continent thus they cannot be labeled as anything other than oppressors.

---------------------------------------------

A successful coach needs a patient wife, loyal dog, and great quarterback - and not necessarily in that order.
-- Bud Grant

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/20/2014 11:11 PM

Re: Washington Redskins and 10 Teams That Could Be Forced to 


Vikings were not an ethnic group per se. They were Norse. Some groups of Norse made their living by exploring and foraging, including plundering vulnerable communities they happened upon. Using the name 'Vikings' is more analogous to using the name 'Gangsters' than 'Scandinavians.'

That said, IMO, 'Redskins' is the one name that really must go, being a pejorative term. 'Indians' is somewhat offensive to me for being ludicrously incorrect. I'd have no argument with 'Indigenous Humans.' I do take serious offense to the Boston Celtics, being of Irish descent--not for the sake of using my ethnicity as a sports team banner, but for the fact that they insist on pronouncing it incorrectly. The 'C' is a K sound, you Beantown clods!

Another note in the Irish vein: As a language teacher, I kind of like the St. Mary's Gaels, since the term actually means 'speakers of Gaelic.' I suppose if they wanted to be more PC they could change it to a language with no native speakers, which would be Esperanto. 'Esperantonians' does have a distinguished ring to it.

Lastly, staying in the norcal area, the UCSC Banana Slugs have got to go--not in the least because of the silly sound of it, but I just happen to know several slugs who vehemently object to being called fruits.


The happiest place on earth
"g0g0 Bulldog...beat them bite them"

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/21/2014 8:41 AM

Re: Washington Redskins and 10 Teams That Could Be Forced to 



QBUBulldogs wrote: I'm no historian, but I'm pretty sure no one committed genocide against the Vikings, forced them off their homeland, erased their culture from history, and turned them into cartoonish mascots in the name of sports.

I don't speak for all natives, but it is at least a little bit annoying that natives are so badly caricaturized. I mean, I think most folks would agree that a team called The Bakersfield Black People or the Fresno Jews would be in poor taste. The only thing that makes natives fair game is that it's been socially acceptable forever. European-Americans have kind of made it a habit to dehumanize natives, whereas dehumanizing Jews or Black folks is almost universally frowned upon. I think that's a strange phenomenon, and you really have to ask yourself why that dichotomy exists.

That being said, legislating mascots is equally annoying. I don't even think "The Fresno Jews" should be illegal per se. Let the citizenry and the marketplace sort it out. The government was never intended to pass laws about what sports teams can name themselves. It's dumb.


---------------------------------------------
--- LuDog70 wrote:


Yoda wrote: SDSD Aztec fans think that they are immune from this issue on the theory that there is nobody to be offended -- the real Aztecs are extinct.  I suppose the Aztec nation is extinct but surely there are those descended from it still living today.   I'm not sure that they are so connected to it that they take offense by SDSU's usage of the term.

I wonder why it is that the Minnesota Vikings...  Oh never mind.

Yoda out...



.
White Europeans (Vikings) are not allowed to be an aggrieved class.  According to the hard left they are the original plunderers of the North American continent thus they cannot be labeled as anything other than oppressors.

---------------------------------------------
You are correct, you are no historian.  Neither am I, but I am a low rent student of history and the little I've accumulated tells a different story about the historical treatment of "the Vikings."     

Northern Europeans have been conquered many times throughout ancient history.  When they weren't killing each other they were routinely being conquered and slaughtered by the Romans.  I don't know if Marcus Aurelius and his Legions ever made a sporting mascot out of a figure representing the tribes of greater Germania, but he slaughtered them in masses, enslaved their women and children (those that weren't slaughtered), raped their women, confiscated their property and burned whatever couldn't be transported.  And Marcus Aurelius was among the most noble of the Roman Emperors.    

The politically correct crowd is woefully ignorant to how the various peoples of this planet have been treated over the span of humanity.  Whatever injustices were committed by the Forefathers of this country pale in comparison to the historical treatment of all races, religions and ethnic groups.  Mass slaughterings continue today in parts of the globe.  

Manufacturing an issue over a sports mascot, that to many of American Indian ancestry isn't offensive, puts on full display the intellectual shallowness and ignorance present throughout modern day American culture.

 

Last edited 06/21/2014 8:44 AM by LuDog70

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/21/2014 10:21 AM

Re: Washington Redskins and 10 Teams That Could Be Forced to 



LuDog70 wrote: 


You are correct, you are no historian.  Neither am I, but I am a low rent student of history and the little I've accumulated tells a different story about the historical treatment of "the Vikings."     

Northern Europeans have been conquered many times throughout ancient history.  When they weren't killing each other they were routinely being conquered and slaughtered by the Romans.  I don't know if Marcus Aurelius and his Legions ever made a sporting mascot out of a figure representing the tribes of greater Germania, but he slaughtered them in masses, enslaved their women and children (those that weren't slaughtered), raped their women, confiscated their property and burned whatever couldn't be transported.  And Marcus Aurelius was among the most noble of the Roman Emperors.    

The politically correct crowd is woefully ignorant to how the various peoples of this planet have been treated over the span of humanity.  Whatever injustices were committed by the Forefathers of this country pale in comparison to the historical treatment of all races, religions and ethnic groups.  Mass slaughterings continue today in parts of the globe.  

Manufacturing an issue over a sports mascot, that to many of American Indian ancestry isn't offensive, puts on full display the intellectual shallowness and ignorance present throughout modern day American culture.

Two points...

First, conquering is almost never a clean and bloodless business.  But there is a certain hypocrisy at play in the USA.  We claim to be the greatest nation on earth and part of that claim is an implied if not stated sense of moral supremacy -- we think we are better than everybody else.  But this morally supreme nation practiced slavery, interred the Japanese, hunted the Buffalo and passenger pigeon to extinction, ran the Chinese out of the country and at one time or another looked down our noses at several other nationalities, broke our treaties with the native peoples before slaughtering them -- sometimes even when all they wanted was to co-exist peacefully.  In my view, if we'd honored our treaties, there would have been no need to slaughter anyone.  But when economic opportunity came face to face with our treaties, we ignored the treaties and acted in our own (meaning, the white man's) economic self interests.   We have done good things and we done bad things throughout our history and at the end, historical claims of moral supremacy are a lie that we like to tell ourselves to make ourselves feel better.  We have always done what was politically expedient and in that, we're really no different than any other group of human beings.  

Second, I'm not sure that that has a whole lot to do with team mascots.  I've never had a problem with using some of the Indian names for our sports teams.  "Braves", for example, is a complement that honors the will and fighting spirit of warriors.  (The same might be said of Vikings, by the way.)  Redskins, however, does no such thing; it's a clearly and obviously negative term -- a slang insult to all the native peoples.  Cartoonish depictions such as Chief Wahoo (Cleveland Indians) do not honor anybody and are offensive.  

My point is that, to me, it's not so much about the term as it is the intent behind it.  If it honors a people (any people -- not just native Americans), then I have no problem with it.  But if it ridicules people (any people -- not just native Americans), then I do.  So I have no problem with the Braves or the Cowboys.  But I have just as much an objection to the "Washington Redskins" as I would have to the "Washington Whities", "Washington [N-word]s" or "Washington Christ Killers".  It doesn't seek to honor; it seeks to ridicule.

Yoda out...



.
"The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism." ~ Barry Goldwater

Last edited 06/21/2014 10:58 AM by Yoda

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/21/2014 11:47 AM

Re: Washington Redskins and 10 Teams That Could Be Forced to 



Yoda wrote:
LuDog70 wrote: 


You are correct, you are no historian.  Neither am I, but I am a low rent student of history and the little I've accumulated tells a different story about the historical treatment of "the Vikings."     

Northern Europeans have been conquered many times throughout ancient history.  When they weren't killing each other they were routinely being conquered and slaughtered by the Romans.  I don't know if Marcus Aurelius and his Legions ever made a sporting mascot out of a figure representing the tribes of greater Germania, but he slaughtered them in masses, enslaved their women and children (those that weren't slaughtered), raped their women, confiscated their property and burned whatever couldn't be transported.  And Marcus Aurelius was among the most noble of the Roman Emperors.    

The politically correct crowd is woefully ignorant to how the various peoples of this planet have been treated over the span of humanity.  Whatever injustices were committed by the Forefathers of this country pale in comparison to the historical treatment of all races, religions and ethnic groups.  Mass slaughterings continue today in parts of the globe.  

Manufacturing an issue over a sports mascot, that to many of American Indian ancestry isn't offensive, puts on full display the intellectual shallowness and ignorance present throughout modern day American culture.

Two points...

First, conquering is almost never a clean and bloodless business.  But there is a certain hypocrisy at play in the USA.  We claim to be the greatest nation on earth and part of that claim is an implied if not stated sense of moral supremacy -- we think we are better than everybody else.  But this morally supreme nation practiced slavery, interred the Japanese, hunted the Buffalo and passenger pigeon to extinction, ran the Chinese out of the country and at one time or another looked down our noses at several other nationalities, broke our treaties with the native peoples before slaughtering them -- sometimes even when all they wanted was to co-exist peacefully.  In my view, if we'd honored our treaties, there would have been no need to slaughter anyone.  But when economic opportunity came face to face with our treaties, we ignored the treaties and acted in our own (meaning, the white man's) economic self interests.   We have done good things and we done bad things throughout our history and at the end, historical claims of moral supremacy are a lie that we like to tell ourselves to make ourselves feel better.  We have always done what was politically expedient and in that, we're really no different than any other group of human beings.  

Second, I'm not sure that that has a whole lot to do with team mascots.  I've never had a problem with using some of the Indian names for our sports teams.  "Braves", for example, is a complement that honors the will and fighting spirit of warriors.  (The same might be said of Vikings, by the way.)  Redskins, however, does no such thing; it's a clearly and obviously negative term -- a slang insult to all the native peoples.  Cartoonish depictions such as Chief Wahoo (Cleveland Indians) do not honor anybody and are offensive.  

My point is that, to me, it's not so much about the term as it is the intent behind it.  If it honors a people (any people -- not just native Americans), then I have no problem with it.  But if it ridicules people (any people -- not just native Americans), then I do.  So I have no problem with the Braves or the Cowboys.  But I have just as much an objection to the "Washington Redskins" as I would have to the "Washington Whities", "Washington [N-word]s" or "Washington Christ Killers".  It doesn't seek to honor; it seeks to ridicule.

Yoda out...



.
yoda,

1)  sorry you don't feel this is the greatest country on earth !!   i do. folks die just trying to get here and parents bring their kids here for a chance at a decent life. ( THE AMERICAN DREAM )

2) i cant believe how long the lines are of the folks trying to escape this hypocritical country !!!

3) other nations have done worse and continue to do so.

4) there are flights leaving this crappie country on an hourly basis !!!!!

5) lastly, lets not forget all the men and women from all creeds and colors that have died and who voluntarily continue to protect this great country you despise so much , but continue to live in !!!!!

hope none of that offended you !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LET YOUR PLAY AND COACHING DO THE TALKING ON THE FIELD, NOT YOUR PIE HOLE.

Offense wins games, defense wins championships. That's the old saying

Last edited 06/21/2014 12:05 PM by reydog1

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/21/2014 12:26 PM

Re: Washington Redskins and 10 Teams That Could Be Forced to 



reydog1 wrote:
Yoda wrote:
LuDog70 wrote: 


You are correct, you are no historian.  Neither am I, but I am a low rent student of history and the little I've accumulated tells a different story about the historical treatment of "the Vikings."     

Northern Europeans have been conquered many times throughout ancient history.  When they weren't killing each other they were routinely being conquered and slaughtered by the Romans.  I don't know if Marcus Aurelius and his Legions ever made a sporting mascot out of a figure representing the tribes of greater Germania, but he slaughtered them in masses, enslaved their women and children (those that weren't slaughtered), raped their women, confiscated their property and burned whatever couldn't be transported.  And Marcus Aurelius was among the most noble of the Roman Emperors.    

The politically correct crowd is woefully ignorant to how the various peoples of this planet have been treated over the span of humanity.  Whatever injustices were committed by the Forefathers of this country pale in comparison to the historical treatment of all races, religions and ethnic groups.  Mass slaughterings continue today in parts of the globe.  

Manufacturing an issue over a sports mascot, that to many of American Indian ancestry isn't offensive, puts on full display the intellectual shallowness and ignorance present throughout modern day American culture.

Two points...

First, conquering is almost never a clean and bloodless business.  But there is a certain hypocrisy at play in the USA.  We claim to be the greatest nation on earth and part of that claim is an implied if not stated sense of moral supremacy -- we think we are better than everybody else.  But this morally supreme nation practiced slavery, interred the Japanese, hunted the Buffalo and passenger pigeon to extinction, ran the Chinese out of the country and at one time or another looked down our noses at several other nationalities, broke our treaties with the native peoples before slaughtering them -- sometimes even when all they wanted was to co-exist peacefully.  In my view, if we'd honored our treaties, there would have been no need to slaughter anyone.  But when economic opportunity came face to face with our treaties, we ignored the treaties and acted in our own (meaning, the white man's) economic self interests.   We have done good things and we done bad things throughout our history and at the end, historical claims of moral supremacy are a lie that we like to tell ourselves to make ourselves feel better.  We have always done what was politically expedient and in that, we're really no different than any other group of human beings.  

Second, I'm not sure that that has a whole lot to do with team mascots.  I've never had a problem with using some of the Indian names for our sports teams.  "Braves", for example, is a complement that honors the will and fighting spirit of warriors.  (The same might be said of Vikings, by the way.)  Redskins, however, does no such thing; it's a clearly and obviously negative term -- a slang insult to all the native peoples.  Cartoonish depictions such as Chief Wahoo (Cleveland Indians) do not honor anybody and are offensive.  

My point is that, to me, it's not so much about the term as it is the intent behind it.  If it honors a people (any people -- not just native Americans), then I have no problem with it.  But if it ridicules people (any people -- not just native Americans), then I do.  So I have no problem with the Braves or the Cowboys.  But I have just as much an objection to the "Washington Redskins" as I would have to the "Washington Whities", "Washington [N-word]s" or "Washington Christ Killers".  It doesn't seek to honor; it seeks to ridicule.

Yoda out...



.
yoda,

1)  sorry you don't feel this is the greatest country on earth !!   i do. folks die just trying to get here and parents bring their kids here for a chance at a decent life. ( THE AMERICAN DREAM )

2) i cant believe how long the lines are of the folks trying to escape this hypocritical country !!!

3) other nations have done worse and continue to do so.

4) there are flights leaving this crappie country on an hourly basis !!!!!

5) lastly, lets not forget all the men and women from all creeds and colors that have died and who voluntarily continue to protect this great country you despise so much , but continue to live in !!!!!

hope none of that offended you !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What a stunningly ignorant response.

I didn't say that is country isn't the greatest country or that it doesn't provide great opportunities, etc..  I just disputed the historical moral superiority that is implied and often stated by political candidates and enough others that it is often assumed to be true by a lot of people who should know better.  We've done a lot of morally reprehensible things in our history.  We've done a lot of morally commendable things as well.  History has shown that, as a people, we are capable of both.  My point isn't that I don't love my country (much less that I despise it) and I am not even remotely less appreciative than you are for the sacrifices made by our military.  But we are out of grammar school here folks and our understanding of our history should have progressed well beyond the sort of rah-rah blind belief of grammar school students.  Even the greatest country in the world has a few blemishes in its past -- and is probably capable of a few more in its future.  Greatest does not equal perfect.

Yoda out...



.
"The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism." ~ Barry Goldwater

Last edited 06/21/2014 1:28 PM by Yoda

Reply | Quote

Posted: 06/21/2014 4:41 PM

Re: Washington Redskins and 10 Teams That Could Be Forced to Cha 


Maybe it's weird but when I think of the Washington Redskins the furthest thing that comes to mind are native americans. I think about how bad the Redskins have been for years and whether they will beat the Cowboys next year. And I would venture to guess 99% of the country likely thinks the same. IMO this is a nonissue except to the PC minority that look for ways to be offended and want to make it an issue.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/21/2014 4:50 PM

Re: Washington Redskins and 10 Teams That Could Be Forced to 



Yoda wrote:
reydog1 wrote:
Yoda wrote:

But I have just as much an objection to the "Washington Redskins" as I would have to the "Washington Whities", "Washington [N-word]s" or "Washington Christ Killers".  It doesn't seek to honor; it seeks to ridicule.

Yoda out...



.
yoda,



3) other nations have done worse and continue to do so.

4) there are flights leaving this crappie country on an hourly basis !!!!!




What a stunningly ignorant response.




Yoda out...



.
lol yoda,  why ? because i pointed out MOST other countries do worse and there's flights that leave the u.s. every hour.
coming from you, i'll take your response as a complement .   you want ignorance go look in the mirror yoda !!!
and while your looking at your ignorant self, picture a whining little cry baby too !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!



what's in a name? kevin hart has some thoughts on the topic.

during his appearance on the nationally syndicated radio show tom joyner morning show on june 19, the think like a man too star ended up in a spirited debate with cnn's don lemon over whether the N-word and the Washington Redskins' team name could be seen as being equally harmful.

"Well, I ain't never called nobody no 'Redskin,'" Hart said when Lemon asked whether the NFL team's name is becoming an offensive slur like the N-word. "I've never been mad like, 'Get out of this restaurant, you Redskin.'"

Hart said that the Redskins' team name is "not the same" as the N-word because the team name is "celebrated" and is not used in an "insulting" way. "It's not on the same bar," Hart said, telling Lemon not to imply that the words might cause similar pain


The topic of the football team's name became a particularly hot-button issue this week with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office canceling the trademark that the team owned on the name.

While the NFL team has faced increasing criticism over the name, including from President Obama, who stated last October he would consider changing the name if he controlled the team -- Dan Snyder, the owner of the franchise, has insisted that he won't consider a change.


    1. KEVIN HART COMES TO SAINT LOUIS
LET YOUR PLAY AND COACHING DO THE TALKING ON THE FIELD, NOT YOUR PIE HOLE.

Offense wins games, defense wins championships. That's the old saying

Last edited 06/21/2014 5:10 PM by reydog1

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/21/2014 9:23 PM

Re: Washington Redskins and 10 Teams That Could Be Forced to 


Weak. Just weak.
The future is here. 
Reply | Quote
  • wedpics
  • Newbie
  • 135 posts this site

Posted: 06/22/2014 7:27 PM

Re: Washington Redskins and 10 Teams That Could Be Forced to 


Personally If forced to change the name I think The new name should be self deprecating, fun and at the same time poking a jab at those that want the name changed in the first place. The Washington Anglo Capitalist Pigs has a nice ring to it! I would love to see that uni and logo!

Last edited 06/22/2014 7:30 PM by wedpics

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/23/2014 12:22 AM

Re: Washington Redskins and 10 Teams That Could Be Forced to 


There is a vast difference between being conquered (and even slaughtered, depending on one's interpretation) and having genocide committed against your entire people group and having your language and culture intentionally erased from history. This country was once populated from coast to coast by millions of organized communities with diverse cultures, governments, and languages. You can now drive from Los Angeles to New York City, stopping along the way to dine and to see sights, without encountering a single native. That's a pretty intense reality. Nothing quite to that extent has occurred in all of recorded history. There may have been more than 100 million natives in the pre-Columbus Western Hemisphere. 100 million dead natives. My guess is that most of them wouldn't be thrilled to have a cartoon caricature of themselves painted onto the side of a football helmet 500 years later.

---------------------------------------------
--- LuDog70 wrote:


QBUBulldogs wrote: I'm no historian, but I'm pretty sure no one committed genocide against the Vikings, forced them off their homeland, erased their culture from history, and turned them into cartoonish mascots in the name of sports.

I don't speak for all natives, but it is at least a little bit annoying that natives are so badly caricaturized. I mean, I think most folks would agree that a team called The Bakersfield Black People or the Fresno Jews would be in poor taste. The only thing that makes natives fair game is that it's been socially acceptable forever. European-Americans have kind of made it a habit to dehumanize natives, whereas dehumanizing Jews or Black folks is almost universally frowned upon. I think that's a strange phenomenon, and you really have to ask yourself why that dichotomy exists.

That being said, legislating mascots is equally annoying. I don't even think "The Fresno Jews" should be illegal per se. Let the citizenry and the marketplace sort it out. The government was never intended to pass laws about what sports teams can name themselves. It's dumb.


---------------------------------------------
--- LuDog70 wrote:


Yoda wrote: SDSD Aztec fans think that they are immune from this issue on the theory that there is nobody to be offended -- the real Aztecs are extinct.  I suppose the Aztec nation is extinct but surely there are those descended from it still living today.   I'm not sure that they are so connected to it that they take offense by SDSU's usage of the term.

I wonder why it is that the Minnesota Vikings...  Oh never mind.

Yoda out...



.
White Europeans (Vikings) are not allowed to be an aggrieved class.  According to the hard left they are the original plunderers of the North American continent thus they cannot be labeled as anything other than oppressors.

---------------------------------------------
You are correct, you are no historian.  Neither am I, but I am a low rent student of history and the little I've accumulated tells a different story about the historical treatment of "the Vikings."     

Northern Europeans have been conquered many times throughout ancient history.  When they weren't killing each other they were routinely being conquered and slaughtered by the Romans.  I don't know if Marcus Aurelius and his Legions ever made a sporting mascot out of a figure representing the tribes of greater Germania, but he slaughtered them in masses, enslaved their women and children (those that weren't slaughtered), raped their women, confiscated their property and burned whatever couldn't be transported.  And Marcus Aurelius was among the most noble of the Roman Emperors.    

The politically correct crowd is woefully ignorant to how the various peoples of this planet have been treated over the span of humanity.  Whatever injustices were committed by the Forefathers of this country pale in comparison to the historical treatment of all races, religions and ethnic groups.  Mass slaughterings continue today in parts of the globe.  

Manufacturing an issue over a sports mascot, that to many of American Indian ancestry isn't offensive, puts on full display the intellectual shallowness and ignorance present throughout modern day American culture.

---------------------------------------------

A successful coach needs a patient wife, loyal dog, and great quarterback - and not necessarily in that order.
-- Bud Grant

Reply | Quote

Posted: 06/23/2014 8:32 AM

Re: Washington Redskins and 10 Teams That Could Be Forced to 


I think we have more than made up for moving the indians off their land.  When you hold on to grudges from the past that had no effect on you.  You can never move forward when you keep fight the past, it can't be changed.  We could end up just like the middle east.  They are still fighting over things that happend 1000's of years ago and don't see to want to stop.  The only real end will come when one side wipes out the other.


Does the Rainbow Warriors offfend the gay crowd?   Isn't rainbow the gay rights symbol.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/23/2014 9:02 AM

Re: Washington Redskins and 10 Teams That Could Be Forced to 


Yoda, QBUBulldogs, Scottydawg = very thoughtful and intelligent.

The rest = not so much so.

Last edited 06/23/2014 9:03 AM by Hyrim

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/23/2014 9:34 AM

Re: Washington Redskins and 10 Teams That Could Be Forced to 


Just a thought but our government uses "racist" slurs for their military campaigns, why is okay for them but not a football team?

Operation Geronimo
Operation Geronimo may refer to:

Operation Neptune Spear, the May 2011 operation that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan
Operation Geronimo name controversy, concerning the use of "Geronimo" in the hunt for Osama bin Laden
Operation Geronimo Strike
Operation Geronimo Strike I, the 2007 counterinsurgency operation in Kalsu’s Fish Farms, Iraq
Operation Geronimo Strike II, the 2007 counterinsurgency operation in Iraq
Operation Geronimo Strike III, the 2007 strike against Al-Qaeda in Iraq, northwest of Iskandariyah, Iraq
Task Force 1 Geronimo, the 2009–2010 operation of 501st Infantry Regiment (United States) in Afghanistan, during Operation Enduring Freedom
Operation Geronimo (Vietnam War), the 101st Airborne Division search operation, see List of allied military operations of the Vietnam War (1966)
The military expedition to capture or kill Chief Geronimo, during the Indian Wars, see Geronimo
"Shut up and hit somebody...!"
"Without someone to defend freedom, all will never get to enjoy freedom!"
ImgAvatar
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/23/2014 5:19 PM

Re: Washington Redskins and 10 Teams That Could Be Forced to 



QBUBulldogs wrote: There is a vast difference between being conquered (and even slaughtered, depending on one's interpretation) and having genocide committed against your entire people group and having your language and culture intentionally erased from history. This country was once populated from coast to coast by millions of organized communities with diverse cultures, governments, and languages. You can now drive from Los Angeles to New York City, stopping along the way to dine and to see sights, without encountering a single native. That's a pretty intense reality. Nothing quite to that extent has occurred in all of recorded history. There may have been more than 100 million natives in the pre-Columbus Western Hemisphere. 100 million dead natives. My guess is that most of them wouldn't be thrilled to have a cartoon caricature of themselves painted onto the side of a football helmet 500 years later.

---------------------------------------------
--- LuDog70 wrote:


QBUBulldogs wrote: I'm no historian, but I'm pretty sure no one committed genocide against the Vikings, forced them off their homeland, erased their culture from history, and turned them into cartoonish mascots in the name of sports.

I don't speak for all natives, but it is at least a little bit annoying that natives are so badly caricaturized. I mean, I think most folks would agree that a team called The Bakersfield Black People or the Fresno Jews would be in poor taste. The only thing that makes natives fair game is that it's been socially acceptable forever. European-Americans have kind of made it a habit to dehumanize natives, whereas dehumanizing Jews or Black folks is almost universally frowned upon. I think that's a strange phenomenon, and you really have to ask yourself why that dichotomy exists.

That being said, legislating mascots is equally annoying. I don't even think "The Fresno Jews" should be illegal per se. Let the citizenry and the marketplace sort it out. The government was never intended to pass laws about what sports teams can name themselves. It's dumb.


---------------------------------------------
--- LuDog70 wrote:


Yoda wrote: SDSD Aztec fans think that they are immune from this issue on the theory that there is nobody to be offended -- the real Aztecs are extinct.  I suppose the Aztec nation is extinct but surely there are those descended from it still living today.   I'm not sure that they are so connected to it that they take offense by SDSU's usage of the term.

I wonder why it is that the Minnesota Vikings...  Oh never mind.

Yoda out...



.
White Europeans (Vikings) are not allowed to be an aggrieved class.  According to the hard left they are the original plunderers of the North American continent thus they cannot be labeled as anything other than oppressors.

---------------------------------------------
You are correct, you are no historian.  Neither am I, but I am a low rent student of history and the little I've accumulated tells a different story about the historical treatment of "the Vikings."     

Northern Europeans have been conquered many times throughout ancient history.  When they weren't killing each other they were routinely being conquered and slaughtered by the Romans.  I don't know if Marcus Aurelius and his Legions ever made a sporting mascot out of a figure representing the tribes of greater Germania, but he slaughtered them in masses, enslaved their women and children (those that weren't slaughtered), raped their women, confiscated their property and burned whatever couldn't be transported.  And Marcus Aurelius was among the most noble of the Roman Emperors.    

The politically correct crowd is woefully ignorant to how the various peoples of this planet have been treated over the span of humanity.  Whatever injustices were committed by the Forefathers of this country pale in comparison to the historical treatment of all races, religions and ethnic groups.  Mass slaughterings continue today in parts of the globe.  

Manufacturing an issue over a sports mascot, that to many of American Indian ancestry isn't offensive, puts on full display the intellectual shallowness and ignorance present throughout modern day American culture.

---------------------------------------------
This one is a treasure trove of head shakers-

"Vast difference" between being conquered (slaughtered) and genocide?  There is nothing to be interpreted about being slaughtered.  If you are slaughtered you are dead.  There are no degrees of being dead.  Dead is dead.  This is a serious a candidate for one of the most ignorant sentences posted in the history of the Barkboard/Bulldog Playbook.  

The world is full of "diverse" cultures, the Americas have no monopoly on the overused "diverse" designation.  

You then go down the path of guessing what 500 year old indigenous populations would have thought about the use of a reference to themselves as a sports mascot in the 21st century.  My "guess" is these populations were more concerned about shelter and survival (read not be killed by neighboring tribes) than what a modern day American Football team would call themselves.  

Amazing, simply amazing.

 

Last edited 06/23/2014 5:27 PM by LuDog70

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/23/2014 6:59 PM

Re: Washington Redskins and 10 Teams That Could Be Forced to 



slipperypete9696 wrote: When you hold on to grudges from the past that had no effect on you.  
What do you think the effect of the constant employment of a racial slur has on holding onto "grudges?"

"Hey you drakes, get over slavery, segregation, and oppression! Hey you Hebes, get over the Holocaust! Come on you Walking Carpets* get over what the Turks did to you!"

The whole "get over it" thing really doesn't fit in with the racial slurs.

Ford


*I had to actually look up racial slurs against Armenians as I didn't know any. Turns out there is a racial slur database!
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/23/2014 7:24 PM

Re: Washington Redskins and 10 Teams That Could Be Forced to 


Anybody want to share a Teepee with Khloe Kardashian?
Khloé Kardashian is the latest celeb to offend by wearing a Native American headdress. (Instagram)

Ask Vic

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/23/2014 7:28 PM

Re: Washington Redskins and 10 Teams That Could Be Forced to 





---------------------------------------------
--- CoachFord wrote:


slipperypete9696 wrote: When you hold on to grudges from the past that had no effect on you.  
What do you think the effect of the constant employment of a racial slur has on holding onto "grudges?"

"Hey you drakes, get over slavery, segregation, and oppression! Hey you Hebes, get over the Holocaust! Come on you Walking Carpets* get over what the Turks did to you!"

The whole "get over it" thing really doesn't fit in with the racial slurs.

Ford


*I had to actually look up racial slurs against Armenians as I didn't know any. Turns out there is a racial slur database!

---------------------------------------------

Ethnic migrants from Eurasia are not a separate race. At least get your slanted labels correct.

 

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/23/2014 7:57 PM

Re: Washington Redskins and 10 Teams That Could Be Forced to 



LuDog70 wrote:


---------------------------------------------

Ethnic migrants from Eurasia are not a separate race. At least get your slanted labels correct.
Yes, because the White people considered the Native Americans as the same race as them. Remember, that's the central issue here. In the meantime, many seem to be  working hard to hold onto this obviously demeaning term by going on and not about wordplay.  Why, I don't know. It's pretty much indefensible. 

Ford

Last edited 06/23/2014 8:02 PM by CoachFord

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/23/2014 7:59 PM

Re: Washington Redskins and 10 Teams That Could Be Forced to 



LuDog70 wrote:


---------------------------------------------
--- CoachFord wrote:


slipperypete9696 wrote: When you hold on to grudges from the past that had no effect on you.  
What do you think the effect of the constant employment of a racial slur has on holding onto "grudges?"

"Hey you drakes, get over slavery, segregation, and oppression! Hey you Hebes, get over the Holocaust! Come on you Walking Carpets* get over what the Turks did to you!"

The whole "get over it" thing really doesn't fit in with the racial slurs.

Ford


*I had to actually look up racial slurs against Armenians as I didn't know any. Turns out there is a racial slur database!

---------------------------------------------

Ethnic migrants from Eurasia are not a separate race. At least get your slanted labels correct.


They aren't his labels.  The "racial slur database" is really misnamed.  It's primarily an ethnic slur database, rather than a racial one.  And many of the so called slurs aren't slurs at all.

Yoda out...



.
"The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism." ~ Barry Goldwater
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/23/2014 8:00 PM

Re: Washington Redskins and 10 Teams That Could Be Forced to 



Yoda wrote:
LuDog70 wrote:


---------------------------------------------
--- CoachFord wrote:


slipperypete9696 wrote: When you hold on to grudges from the past that had no effect on you.  
What do you think the effect of the constant employment of a racial slur has on holding onto "grudges?"

"Hey you drakes, get over slavery, segregation, and oppression! Hey you Hebes, get over the Holocaust! Come on you Walking Carpets* get over what the Turks did to you!"

The whole "get over it" thing really doesn't fit in with the racial slurs.

Ford


*I had to actually look up racial slurs against Armenians as I didn't know any. Turns out there is a racial slur database!

---------------------------------------------

Ethnic migrants from Eurasia are not a separate race. At least get your slanted labels correct.


They aren't his labels.  The "racial slur database" is really misnamed.  It's primarily an ethnic slur database, rather than a racial one.  And many of the so called slurs aren't slurs at all.

Yoda out...



.
Some of them are pretty darn esoteric. 

Ford
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/23/2014 9:15 PM

Re: Washington Redskins and 10 Teams That Could Be Forced to 



uh....not in a million years. You may as well have asked if anybody wants an STD...

---------------------------------------------
--- modestobulldog wrote:

Anybody want to share a Teepee with Khloe Kardashian?
Khloé Kardashian is the latest celeb to offend by wearing a Native American headdress. (Instagram)">l.yimg.com/os/publish-images/o...headress.jpg"/>
"Wow, that escalated quickly!"
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/24/2014 11:45 AM

Re: Washington Redskins and 10 Teams That Could Be Forced to 



wedpics wrote: Personally If forced to change the name I think The new name should be self deprecating, fun and at the same time poking a jab at those that want the name changed in the first place. The Washington Anglo Capitalist Pigs has a nice ring to it! I would love to see that uni and logo!
What about the Native Americans that paid for and produced a commercial speaking out against it?
Reply | Quote
  • wedpics
  • Newbie
  • 135 posts this site

Posted: 06/24/2014 2:53 PM

Re: Washington Redskins and 10 Teams That Could Be Forced to 


Not following you? are you somehow saying that would be offensive to them? obviously my tongue was in my cheek but If someone did that I would love it. I can see the commercials now an older bald man with a russian accent pounds his shoe on a table and says "We shall destroy you!" The Buccaneers can be called the Johney Depps (of course he should be the owner) the Raiders could be the "Thieving anglo seafaring mauraders" better known as the "don't walk around the Coliseum if you value your life's"
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/24/2014 4:08 PM

Re: Washington Redskins and 10 Teams That Could Be Forced to 


there's other folks in washington that dont care about other cultures feelings !!
how about the president and the first lady

First Lady Uses Racial Slur And Gets Away With It



Who cares about the Redskins? Probably not first lady Michelle Obama, who turned her sights on insulting the Romani minority community Monday.

While describing her struggles as a working mother, the usually politically correct first lady used the racial slur, gypped.

“The first thing I tried to do, which was a mistake, was that I tried the part-time thing… I realized I was getting gypped on that front,” Obama told ABC’s Robin Roberts at the White House Summit on Working Families. “What happened was I got a part-time salary but worked full time.”

The term “gypped” is a racial slur deriving from the word “gypsy,” a slur for the Roma. The slur refers to the act of defrauding or robbing through practices such as swindling or cheating. The correct usage of the term is most certainly not synonymous to “slighted or “cut short.”

Defenders of Romani point out that the abbreviation, “gyp,” is nothing more than a callous slur used by the culturally insensitive. Similar slurs to “gypped” include “Jewed down” or calling someone an “Indian giver.”

All offensive. Definitely not something that the first lady of the United States of America should be saying in interviews.

But it’s not entirely Michelle’s fault. It seems as though she borrowed the offensive colloquialism from her husband, President Barack Obama. In 2009, at a town hall meeting in Allentown, Penn., Obama said that he was seeking to regulate health insurance companies to make sure that people don’t get “gypped.”

Ouch. When will the first couple clean up their language? It’s amazing not amazing at all that no one in their own party has called them out on it yet.

LET YOUR PLAY AND COACHING DO THE TALKING ON THE FIELD, NOT YOUR PIE HOLE.

Offense wins games, defense wins championships. That's the old saying

Last edited 06/24/2014 5:07 PM by reydog1

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/25/2014 4:29 PM

Re: Washington Redskins and 10 Teams That Could Be Forced to 


Native American group threatens Cleveland Indians with $9 billion lawsuit

A Cleveland-based Native American activist group says it's planning to sue the Cleveland Indians in federal court next month for $9 billion — yes, billion with a b — citing 100 years of racism connected to the team's name and its Chief Wahoo logo.

The two sides of the Chief Wahoo debate. (AP)




Notre Dames Fighting Irish Mascot

A couple of weeks ago I posted about American Indian sports mascots. An interesting comparison to spark discussion, and an example students often bring up, is the University of Notre Dame’s mascot. The name of the Notre Dame athletic teams is the Fighting Irish, and the official mascot is the leprechaun

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/10/05/no tre-dames-fighting-irish-mascot/


there's actually a good write up here !!!!!!!!!

LET YOUR PLAY AND COACHING DO THE TALKING ON THE FIELD, NOT YOUR PIE HOLE.

Offense wins games, defense wins championships. That's the old saying

Last edited 06/25/2014 4:31 PM by reydog1

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/26/2014 1:12 AM

Re: Washington Redskins and 10 Teams That Could Be Forced to 





---------------------------------------------
--- LuDog70 wrote:


QBUBulldogs wrote: There is a vast difference between being conquered (and even slaughtered, depending on one's interpretation) and having genocide committed against your entire people group and having your language and culture intentionally erased from history. This country was once populated from coast to coast by millions of organized communities with diverse cultures, governments, and languages. You can now drive from Los Angeles to New York City, stopping along the way to dine and to see sights, without encountering a single native. That's a pretty intense reality. Nothing quite to that extent has occurred in all of recorded history. There may have been more than 100 million natives in the pre-Columbus Western Hemisphere. 100 million dead natives. My guess is that most of them wouldn't be thrilled to have a cartoon caricature of themselves painted onto the side of a football helmet 500 years later.

---------------------------------------------
--- LuDog70 wrote:


QBUBulldogs wrote: I'm no historian, but I'm pretty sure no one committed genocide against the Vikings, forced them off their homeland, erased their culture from history, and turned them into cartoonish mascots in the name of sports.

I don't speak for all natives, but it is at least a little bit annoying that natives are so badly caricaturized. I mean, I think most folks would agree that a team called The Bakersfield Black People or the Fresno Jews would be in poor taste. The only thing that makes natives fair game is that it's been socially acceptable forever. European-Americans have kind of made it a habit to dehumanize natives, whereas dehumanizing Jews or Black folks is almost universally frowned upon. I think that's a strange phenomenon, and you really have to ask yourself why that dichotomy exists.

That being said, legislating mascots is equally annoying. I don't even think "The Fresno Jews" should be illegal per se. Let the citizenry and the marketplace sort it out. The government was never intended to pass laws about what sports teams can name themselves. It's dumb.


---------------------------------------------
--- LuDog70 wrote:


Yoda wrote: SDSD Aztec fans think that they are immune from this issue on the theory that there is nobody to be offended -- the real Aztecs are extinct.  I suppose the Aztec nation is extinct but surely there are those descended from it still living today.   I'm not sure that they are so connected to it that they take offense by SDSU's usage of the term.

I wonder why it is that the Minnesota Vikings...  Oh never mind.

Yoda out...



.
White Europeans (Vikings) are not allowed to be an aggrieved class.  According to the hard left they are the original plunderers of the North American continent thus they cannot be labeled as anything other than oppressors.

---------------------------------------------
You are correct, you are no historian.  Neither am I, but I am a low rent student of history and the little I've accumulated tells a different story about the historical treatment of "the Vikings."     

Northern Europeans have been conquered many times throughout ancient history.  When they weren't killing each other they were routinely being conquered and slaughtered by the Romans.  I don't know if Marcus Aurelius and his Legions ever made a sporting mascot out of a figure representing the tribes of greater Germania, but he slaughtered them in masses, enslaved their women and children (those that weren't slaughtered), raped their women, confiscated their property and burned whatever couldn't be transported.  And Marcus Aurelius was among the most noble of the Roman Emperors.    

The politically correct crowd is woefully ignorant to how the various peoples of this planet have been treated over the span of humanity.  Whatever injustices were committed by the Forefathers of this country pale in comparison to the historical treatment of all races, religions and ethnic groups.  Mass slaughterings continue today in parts of the globe.  

Manufacturing an issue over a sports mascot, that to many of American Indian ancestry isn't offensive, puts on full display the intellectual shallowness and ignorance present throughout modern day American culture.

---------------------------------------------
This one is a treasure trove of head shakers-

"Vast difference" between being conquered (slaughtered) and genocide?  There is nothing to be interpreted about being slaughtered.  If you are slaughtered you are dead.  There are no degrees of being dead.  Dead is dead.  This is a serious a candidate for one of the most ignorant sentences posted in the history of the Barkboard/Bulldog Playbook.  

The world is full of "diverse" cultures, the Americas have no monopoly on the overused "diverse" designation.  

You then go down the path of guessing what 500 year old indigenous populations would have thought about the use of a reference to themselves as a sports mascot in the 21st century.  My "guess" is these populations were more concerned about shelter and survival (read not be killed by neighboring tribes) than what a modern day American Football team would call themselves.  

Amazing, simply amazing.

---------------------------------------------

You clearly have never learned that stating something as fact doesn't make it fact. In much the same way, calling someone ignorant doesn't make them ignorant. You seriously want to get into a semantics debate on a football message board? You honestly don't understand that "conquest" and "slaughter" rarely equate to actual "genocide?" Slaughter denotes violent killing, and conquest denotes control. Neither have anything to do with the premeditated, focused, and systematic eradication of an entire ethnic group, language, and/or culture. You can't be so misguidedly impressed with yourself that facts are secondary in importance to the sound of your fingers hitting the keyboard... can you?

America is certainly not the exclusive source of diversity in the world. But what the hell does that even have to do with anything? If you had read all the way to the end, you would have surely recognized that my mention of pre-Colombus diversity in North America was made for the sole purpose of illustrating the unfathomable volume of focused murder perpetrated against an expansive civilization of which no significant trace remains in the U.S. As bad as "slaughter" sounds, it truly does no justice to what actually occurred here. And in light of that, I feel plenty comfortable hypothesizing that natives 500 years ago would be unhappy with the way they are currently represented in the U.S. Furthermore, I am myself of native descent and know plenty more folks of native origin who feel the way I do on the subject. It's completely bizarre that the enormity of the great American genocide has been completely swallowed up in a history decidedly written by the victors.

By the way, they were as concerned about food and shelter 500 years ago as you are today. But they weren't primitive. They had other stuff going on in their lives just like you do. So, they had plenty of time and a perfect intellectual capacity, if offered a hypothetical in terms with which they could relate, to opine about how they might feel about being remembered in cartoonish caricatures used for the entertainment of the people whose ancestors raped their sisters, burned their homes and crops, stole their language and culture, "conquered," "slaughtered," and then decimated almost 100 million of their contemporaries.

And yet, I've said I'm not advocating legislating mascot names. That's dumb. I'm just saying that it isn't surprising that some natives are hurt by this Native American mascot phenomenon. And the people who attack them for being crybabies are symptoms of the larger problem, which is that our history books and culture have erased the largest genocide in recorded history from the social consciousness.

A successful coach needs a patient wife, loyal dog, and great quarterback - and not necessarily in that order.
-- Bud Grant

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/26/2014 6:29 AM

Re: Washington Redskins and 10 Teams That Could Be Forced to 


QBUBulldogs wrote:


---------------------------------------------

--- LuDog70 wrote:This one is a treasure trove of head shakers-

"Vast difference" between being conquered (slaughtered) and genocide?  There is nothing to be interpreted about being slaughtered.  If you are slaughtered you are dead.  There are no degrees of being dead.  Dead is dead.  This is a serious a candidate for one of the most ignorant sentences posted in the history of the Barkboard/Bulldog Playbook.  

The world is full of "diverse" cultures, the Americas have no monopoly on the overused "diverse" designation.  

You then go down the path of guessing what 500 year old indigenous populations would have thought about the use of a reference to themselves as a sports mascot in the 21st century.  My "guess" is these populations were more concerned about shelter and survival (read not be killed by neighboring tribes) than what a modern day American Football team would call themselves.  

Amazing, simply amazing.

---------------------------------------------

You clearly have never learned that stating something as fact doesn't make it fact. 



Andy Rooney once said, "People will generally accept facts as truth only if those fact agree with what they already believe".   I would add the corollary that the more extreme the beliefs, the greater the number of truths that must be rejected in the search for increasingly questionable "facts" that support those beliefs.  LuDog knows full well that stating something as fact doesn't make it a fact.  However, he's forced to reject a lot of truths in a desperate search to find "facts" that support his rather extreme beliefs.

Yoda out...



.
"The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism." ~ Barry Goldwater

Last edited 06/26/2014 6:58 AM by Yoda

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/26/2014 2:14 PM

Re: Washington Redskins and 10 Teams That Could Be Forced to 


Very well-said, Yoda. Agreed on all counts.


---------------------------------------------
--- Yoda wrote:

QBUBulldogs wrote:


---------------------------------------------

--- LuDog70 wrote:This one is a treasure trove of head shakers-

"Vast difference" between being conquered (slaughtered) and genocide?  There is nothing to be interpreted about being slaughtered.  If you are slaughtered you are dead.  There are no degrees of being dead.  Dead is dead.  This is a serious a candidate for one of the most ignorant sentences posted in the history of the Barkboard/Bulldog Playbook.  

The world is full of "diverse" cultures, the Americas have no monopoly on the overused "diverse" designation.  

You then go down the path of guessing what 500 year old indigenous populations would have thought about the use of a reference to themselves as a sports mascot in the 21st century.  My "guess" is these populations were more concerned about shelter and survival (read not be killed by neighboring tribes) than what a modern day American Football team would call themselves.  

Amazing, simply amazing.

---------------------------------------------

You clearly have never learned that stating something as fact doesn't make it fact. 



Andy Rooney once said, "People will generally accept facts as truth only if those fact agree with what they already believe".   I would add the corollary that the more extreme the beliefs, the greater the number of truths that must be rejected in the search for increasingly questionable "facts" that support those beliefs.  LuDog knows full well that stating something as fact doesn't make it a fact.  However, he's forced to reject a lot of truths in a desperate search to find "facts" that support his rather extreme beliefs.

Yoda out...



.

---------------------------------------------

A successful coach needs a patient wife, loyal dog, and great quarterback - and not necessarily in that order.
-- Bud Grant

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/28/2014 7:53 AM

Re: Washington Redskins and 10 Teams That Could Be Forced to 


Yes, well said.
QBUBulldogs wrote: Very well-said, Yoda. Agreed on all counts.


---------------------------------------------
--- Yoda wrote:

QBUBulldogs wrote:


---------------------------------------------

--- LuDog70 wrote:This one is a treasure trove of head shakers-

"Vast difference" between being conquered (slaughtered) and genocide?  There is nothing to be interpreted about being slaughtered.  If you are slaughtered you are dead.  There are no degrees of being dead.  Dead is dead.  This is a serious a candidate for one of the most ignorant sentences posted in the history of the Barkboard/Bulldog Playbook.  

The world is full of "diverse" cultures, the Americas have no monopoly on the overused "diverse" designation.  

You then go down the path of guessing what 500 year old indigenous populations would have thought about the use of a reference to themselves as a sports mascot in the 21st century.  My "guess" is these populations were more concerned about shelter and survival (read not be killed by neighboring tribes) than what a modern day American Football team would call themselves.  

Amazing, simply amazing.

---------------------------------------------

You clearly have never learned that stating something as fact doesn't make it fact. 



Andy Rooney once said, "People will generally accept facts as truth only if those fact agree with what they already believe".   I would add the corollary that the more extreme the beliefs, the greater the number of truths that must be rejected in the search for increasingly questionable "facts" that support those beliefs.  LuDog knows full well that stating something as fact doesn't make it a fact.  However, he's forced to reject a lot of truths in a desperate search to find "facts" that support his rather extreme beliefs.

Yoda out...



.

---------------------------------------------
Reply | Quote