Washington Redskins change their name

Catatonic

Nine Lives
Again, demonstrating insensitivity to the use of slang words designed to be derrogatory..

Offending a person, group or entire race of people isnt FUNNY, or honorable given the history.

Tell me, you are not horrified by this part of american history?

TOS.

I am horrified and offended every time you use words such as these.

But then, you are the most obvious racist poster on Brown Cafe.
 

10 point

Well-Known Member
You seem to underestimate the ignorance of the younger population. You could ask many 20 somethings or under what redskin means, some may say it's a reference to the native americans, some may say it's in reference to the football team, but I'm sure most will give you a glazed look while trying to think of any social networking campaign they might have heard of that involved "redskin."

I'm certain most will not have any negative connotation to the term "redskin" unless they've been instructed to by some group or media outlet they attach themselves to. If it's not something that benefits them personally they don't care about it because they have things that matter to them more to worry about.
I think POTATOES.
 

realbrown1

Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
What I find amazing about this issue, is how many different ridiculous alternatives are suggested versus actually having an intelligent discussion on this matter.

Those that find it ridiculous that the team change the name deliberately try to IGNORE the history of this country. What those that want the name to be kept think, is that somehow, the term REDSKIN was created for football, and it doesnt have a negative connotation to it's use.

But like has been discussed before, the TERMS origins are very racial and criminal in nature.

There is NO appropriate use of the term REDSKIN in the american language when associated with an indian head.

The term REDSKIN was a term that was created as slang for indians all across this country. The term REDSKIN is no better than CHINK, WAP, JAP, :censored2:, POLLOCK, KRAUT, GOOK, SLOPE, BEANER and Nggrr. It carries the same negative connotation towards the indians as does all the others mentioned when dealing with race.

REDSKIN in this country, when associated with an INDIAN head, represents a DARK and UGLY part of the American Genocide of the indians.

Bounties were paid for INDIAND HEADS and scalps in many states. The "Paymaster" of the state used an INDIAN HEAD with feathers in the hair as its logo for the militia men who went out and HUNTED indians ( men women and children )

Pay scales for men, women and children were created and it wasnt a surprise to see men with wagons or mules riding into town to the paymaster with sacks of indian heads seeking reimbursement.

During the gold rush in california, almost a million indians were killed and bounties paid for heads and scalps.

This is and was a disgusting part of american society, and to worship a logo, with the IDENTICAL slang term used by the PAYMASTERS, along with a side view of an INDIAN HEAD with two feathers in it, demonstrates how INCONSIDERATE people can be towards the american indian.

To compare actual tribe names or honor terms like the Blackhawks, Seminoles, Braves, Chiefs, Warriors and such is completely LUDICROUS given the history of the term REDSKIN.

http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/143

Excerpt:


Genocide of Native People
No group suffered as much from the Gold Rush as California's Native peoples. Estimates of the number of Native people in the area that is now California, before the arrival of Europeans, range from 310,000 to 705,000. Even before the Gold Rush the population of Native people in California had fallen to 150,000 due to the Mission system and diseases introduced by Spanish and Mexican settlers. The remaining Indian population was decimated during the Gold Rush. By 1870 the number of Native people had plummeted to 31,000 according to the California census.

Some 4,000 Indian miners were reported prospecting for gold the summer following the discovery at Sutter's mill, usually working for white people. But new laws were quickly passed to prohibit the use of Indians in the mines. Then, the California government adopted a systematic policy of genocide.

In his January 1851 message to the California legislature, California Governor Peter H. Burnett promised "a war of extermination will continue to be waged between the two races until the Indian race becomes extinct." Newspapers cheered on the campaign. In 1853 the Yreka Herald called on the government to provide aid to "enable the citizens of the north to carry on a war of extermination until the last redskin of these tribes has been killed. Extermination is no longer a question of time--the time has arrived, the work has commenced and let the first man who says treaty or peace be regarded as a traitor." Other newspapers voiced similar sentiments.

Towns offered bounty hunters cash for every Indian head or scalp they obtained. Rewards ranged from $5 for every severed head in Shasta City in 1855 to 25 cents for a scalp in Honey Lake in 1863. One resident of Shasta City wrote about how he remembers seeing men bringing mules to town, each laden with eight to twelve Indian heads. Other regions passed laws that called for collective punishment for the whole village for crimes committed by Indians, up to the destruction of the entire village and all of its inhabitants. These policies led to the destruction of as many as 150 Native communities.

In both 1851 and 1852 California paid out $1 million--revenue from the gold fields--to militias that hunted down and slaughtered Indians. In 1857, the state issued $400,000 in bonds to pay for anti-Indian militias.

The Alta Californian newspaper reported on a massacre of Native People carried out by Captain Jarboe in 1860: "The attacking party rushed upon them, blowing out their brains and splitting their heads open with tomahawks. Little children in baskets, and even babes, had their heads smashed to pieces or cut open. Mothers and infants shared the same phenomenon.... Many of the fugitives were chased or shot as they ran.... The children, scarcely able to run, toddled toward the squaws for protection, crying with fright, but were overtaken, slaughtered like wild animals and thrown into piles."

On April 12, 1860 the state legislature approved $9,347.39 for "payment of the indebtedness incurred by the expedition against the Indians in the County of Mendocino organized under the command of Captain W. S. Jarboe in 1859." California's governor wrote a letter to Jarboe congratulating him for doing "all that was anticipated" and giving his "sincere thanks for the manner in which it [the campaign] was conducted."

In 1850 California passed the so-called "Act for the Government and Protection of the Indians." This act allowed any white settler to force any Indian found to be without means of support to work for him. Since Indians could not testify against white people in court, almost any Indian could be seized as a virtual slave under this law. Many settlers didn't even bother with the law and purchased Indian children outright. Fortunes were made off the sale of Indian women and children.

An editorial in the Marysville Appeal illustrates this practice: "But it is from these mountain tribes that white settlers draw their supplies of kidnapped children, educated as servants, and women for purposes of labor and lust...there are parties in the northern portion of the state whose sole occupation has been to steal young children and squaws ...and dispose of them at handsome prices to the settlers who...willingly pay $50 or $60 for a young Digger to cook or wait upon them, or $100 for a likely young girl."

In order to clear the way for white settlement, the U.S. Senate in 1853 authorized three commissioners to negotiate treaties with the Indian tribes in California. Eighteen treaties were negotiated. The Indian tribes agreed to give away millions of acres of land in exchange for the U.S. government's promise of protection and lands with adequate water and game to sustain them and their way of life. These lands would have contained about 7.5 million acres, or 7.5 percent of the land area of California. The Indians began moving to their new lands only to find out that the U.S. Senate had refused to ratify their treaties.

Instead of the treaties, the U.S. decided on "a system of military posts" on government-owned reservations. Each of these reservations would put into place a "system of discipline and instruction." The cost of the troops would be "borne by the surplus produce of Indian labor." No treaties were to be negotiated with the Indians; instead they would be "invited to assemble within these reserves."

Native people were rounded up at gunpoint and forced to march to the "reservations." In her poem, History Lesson, the Native American poet Janice Gould described the forced resettlement of Native People in Northern California: "The removal has taken two weeks and of the 461 Indians that began this miserable trek, only 277 have come to Round Valley. Many died as follows: Men were shot who tried to escape. The sick or the old or women were speared if they could not keep up, bayonets being used to conserve ammunition. Babies were also killed, taken by the feet and swung against trees or rocks to crack their skulls."

Indians on reservations were hired out to settlers to do the work of pack animals. A settler reported that in 1857: "About 300 died on the reservation from the effects of packing them through the mountains in the snow and mud...They were worked naked with the exception of deer skins around their shoulders...They usually packed 50 pounds if they were able..."

Although vastly outgunned and outnumbered, California Indians resisted the genocidal war being waged against them. One of the most famous acts of resistance was the Modoc War in the early 1870s. The Modoc left the reservation that they had been forced to live in and returned to ancestral lands in the lava bed region of Siskiyou County. Under the leadership of a Kentipoos, also known as Captain Jack, 150 Modoc warriors fought valiantly against over 1,000 U.S. troops. They were able to hold off the troops for months. After army howitzers and lack of water weakened the Indian forces, Captain Jack was captured and hung. The war left 83 U.S. soldiers dead and cost the U.S. over $1 million.

*****


dallas_goldtooths_facebook_post.jpg
an actual printed story in the Eureka newspaper at the time of the gold rush..


""THE STATE REWARD FOR DEAD INDIANS HAS BEEN INCREASED TO $200.00 FOR EVERY REDSKIN SENT TO PURGATORY""....

Many states used the term REDSKINS to describe those human beings it wanted killed and their heads severed....


So i ask you all, "IF THIS IS THE ACTUAL HISTORY OF THE WORD/TERM - REDSKIN, dont we owe it to the INDIANS to remove from existence?"


Or are you still willing to look the other way and act like the WHITE PEOPLE of the time and disregard the indians and their culture and continue to use it allbeit a Severed head on a helmet with two feathers in it and the term REDSKINS associated with it?

If those people who think the term is a benign or innocent use of a slang word, I say, you are insensitive and lack a moral conscience for thinking in this fashion.

TOS.
Don't waste your time on such long posts.

People see TOS, and usually skip down to the next post.

Just trying to help you out.
 

10 point

Well-Known Member
how can "YOU" think potatoes when you see the image of an indian head on the helmet? tell me you understand how oblivious you sound?

TOS.
Red skinned potatoes remind me of football?

"YOU" remind me of nothing constructive. "Filibuster" does fit your description tho FYI.
 

bottomups

Bad Moon Risen'
Since we are discussing a football teams name/mascot may I suggest Washington's new mascot as a sunburned pigskin.
upload_2015-7-16_6-44-42.jpeg

Washington Redpigskins.
 

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
No one has posted more racist comments than you my friend. Being a hypocrite is not attractive.

Ya ya... when at a loss of an argument, try to go for a personal attack..

Was this your finest response to the information I provided on the beheading of REDSKINS by white americans????/

Was your thought process provoked enough to make you "think" about it and give it a rational moment in your mind, that we shouldnt have "reminders" of ugly years past in our nations history??

Just because a football team started using the term when the nation didnt give a choot about the american indian, doesnt mean that it isnt a racial slur today.

You may want to ignore it, but other americans wont.

Try giving a thought process a try, rather than jumping onto the bandwagon like the rest of these dummies.


TOS.
 

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
Coming from you, that's HILARIOUS. Not to mention that the end of your post you called other people here who disagree with you, "dummies".

Classic. Just Classic

Id rather be classic than CLASSLESS...

Maybe if the "white" people of america, accepted and understood the attrocities towards the american indians, they would have some sympathy towards the indian generations that feel the word is insulting.

Rather than taking into consideration, that many states PAID money for lopping off the heads of the american indians who posed no threats (women and children) and later, just scalps, white americans just want to ignore it and pretend that REDSKINS is a "term of endearment"...

They dont teach children today about the WHITE GENOCIDE of the american indian, or the attrocities towards black americans, like taking their infants, placing them on sailing ships and dumping them "ALIVE" into the ocean.

This is why white americans are so ignorant to american history.

Instead of teaching all children about the genocide of the indeginous people of america by white americans, they ignore it, but constantly teach about the GENOCIDE of jews by Hitler and the SS.

The Jews were "white", and that reasonates better with white people, than does people of color.

Every year, we have to be reminded of the holocaust and the deaths of the jews, but NOT one word that millions of american indian tribes were massacred by white militia men for money.

Which is worse??

The gassing of jews in ovens or the beheading of american indian men, women and children in the tens of thousands???

You people think using the word REDSKIN isnt offensive, but if anyone called JEWS "easybakes".... I am sure you people would lose your freaking minds.


TOS.
 

Babagounj

Strength through joy
Author and historian Mark van de Logt wrote: "Although military historians tend to reserve the concept of “total war” for conflicts between modern industrial nations, the term nevertheless most closely approaches the state of affairs between the Pawnees and the Sioux and Cheyennes. Noncombatants were legitimate targets. Indeed, the taking of a scalp of a woman or child was considered honorable because it signified that the scalp taker had dared to enter the very heart of the enemy's territory."

Most tribes of Native Americans practiced scalping, in some instances up until the end of the 19th century. Of the approximately 500 bodies at the Crow Creek massacre site, 90 percent of the skulls show evidence of scalping. The event took place circa 1325 AD.
 

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
Author and historian Mark van de Logt wrote: "Although military historians tend to reserve the concept of “total war” for conflicts between modern industrial nations, the term nevertheless most closely approaches the state of affairs between the Pawnees and the Sioux and Cheyennes. Noncombatants were legitimate targets. Indeed, the taking of a scalp of a woman or child was considered honorable because it signified that the scalp taker had dared to enter the very heart of the enemy's territory."

Most tribes of Native Americans practiced scalping, in some instances up until the end of the 19th century. Of the approximately 500 bodies at the Crow Creek massacre site, 90 percent of the skulls show evidence of scalping. The event took place circa 1325 AD.

So, that made it ok for white people to behead or scalp indians??? Then assign them a slang nickname "REDSKIN"????

TOS.
 

superballs63

Well-Known Troll
Troll
Id rather be classic than CLASSLESS...

Maybe if the "white" people of america, accepted and understood the attrocities towards the american indians, they would have some sympathy towards the indian generations that feel the word is insulting.

Rather than taking into consideration, that many states PAID money for lopping off the heads of the american indians who posed no threats (women and children) and later, just scalps, white americans just want to ignore it and pretend that REDSKINS is a "term of endearment"...

They dont teach children today about the WHITE GENOCIDE of the american indian, or the attrocities towards black americans, like taking their infants, placing them on sailing ships and dumping them "ALIVE" into the ocean.

This is why white americans are so ignorant to american history.

Instead of teaching all children about the genocide of the indeginous people of america by white americans, they ignore it, but constantly teach about the GENOCIDE of jews by Hitler and the SS.

The Jews were "white", and that reasonates better with white people, than does people of color.

Every year, we have to be reminded of the holocaust and the deaths of the jews, but NOT one word that millions of american indian tribes were massacred by white militia men for money.

Which is worse??

The gassing of jews in ovens or the beheading of american indian men, women and children in the tens of thousands???

You people think using the word REDSKIN isnt offensive, but if anyone called JEWS "easybakes".... I am sure you people would lose your freaking minds.


TOS.

You can be Classic AND classless simultaneously, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Also, why do you quote things that have NO REASON to be put in quotation marks? Jews were white, not "white", and "alive" could have also just been typed alive.

You run around labeling me the big bad kkk man of the east, yet you think I'd be offended if you called Jews a slur? I don't care who calls who what, THEY on the other hand might want to pummel you, but I really couldn't care less.

I guess we need to start buying Redskins gear, before we're unable to. It'll be valuable someday, except for the RG3 jersey's :p
 

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
circa 1325 AD

Did you miss this part .
Indians were killing each other for sport long before the arrival of white men .


Again, just because the indians did it to each other 500 years earlier ( alledgedly) that made it ok for "white people" to behead or scalp them in order to take their lands, farms, rivers or prevent them from reproducing??

I dont get your point at all.

When is the beheading of human beings an OK thing to do in any circumstance??

TOS.
 

Babagounj

Strength through joy
Actually genocide has been happening since the very first tribes roamed the earth .
It is as old as man itself .
So in reality you are only selecting one group over many others to hone your point .
When doing this , it ruins your entire line of thought .
To equate genocide to a named sports mascot makes you seem like a fool .
 
Top