Re: Smithsonian Museum - yet another thread on team name
 

[quote=SirLK26;994895]Without looking at a lot of the other discussion, I will put my two cents in. The name Redskins is not a racial slur. It's just what people used to call Native Americans. In the mid 1800's people called Negroes "darkies.".[/quote]



........ok, anyone, anyone,"Bueller? Bueller?"

Re: Smithsonian Museum - yet another thread on team name
 

Turn on outside the lines now!

Re: Smithsonian Museum - yet another thread on team name
 

[quote=Giantone;994916]........ok, anyone, anyone,"Bueller? Bueller?"[/quote]


It's a terrible argument, but it doesn't undo the good arguments already made.

If, as the Linguistic professor's essay already showed, "Redskin" was a direct translation of what American Indians called themselves (which would also account for why, when Indians learned English, they referred to Europeans as "White Man") AND the story of "redskin" origin being for bloody scalps is a lie, then there is actually no grounds to take offense to the name other than that you are just a miserable person looking to dump on other people's fun. To which I would suggest finding some other hobby.

Re: Smithsonian Museum - yet another thread on team name
 

[quote=Mayor;995171]It's a terrible argument, but it doesn't undo the good arguments already made.

If, as the Linguistic professor's essay already showed, "Redskin" was a direct translation of what American Indians called themselves (which would also account for why, when Indians learned English, they referred to Europeans as "White Man") AND the story of "redskin" origin being for bloody scalps is a lie, then there is actually no grounds to take offense to the name other than that you are just a miserable person looking to dump on other people's fun. To which I would suggest finding some other hobby.[/quote]
The origin of the word is not necessarily where it is now. The N word was originally a neutral word that originated because of the area around the river in the Africa.

As I said earlier, both sides of the argument have their points with the word "Redskin"

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang[/url])

[quote]"Redskin" is a racial descriptor for the indigenous peoples of the Americas and one of the color metaphors for race used in North America and Europe since European colonization of the Western Hemisphere.

"Red" as a color metaphor for indigenous people in the Americas is also without being compounded with "skins", as in the "Red Power" movement in the US in the 1960s and 70s or the 1970 "Red Paper" on Indian policy published by the Indian Chiefs of Alberta in Canada their leader Harold Cardinal.

The term is controversial as it is considered by some to be extremely offensive (an r-word for Native Americans equivalent to the n-word for African-Americans)[1], but neutral by others.[2] The consensus based upon a comparison of current dictionary definitions is that the term has negative or disparaging connotations.[3]
[/quote]

Re: Smithsonian Museum - yet another thread on team name
 

[quote=Leader In Sports;995173]The origin of the word is not necessarily where it is now. The N word was originally a neutral word that originated because of the area around the river in the Africa.

As I said earlier, both sides of the argument have their points with the word "Redskin"

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang[/url])[/quote]When you have one side backed by history, logic, and usage of the name today... and the other side backed by nothing but their own little group's beliefs today (not even a significant number of NA's)... then only one side has a point.

In a way, it's like the "evolution/creationism" debate. One side has history, logic, and usage of correct scientific methods today.... and the other side has nothing but their own little group's beliefs today (sure more Christians believe in creationism, but not a majority.)

So by the "logic" of the Redskins naming debate, I guess we should do away with evolutionary theory, because it offends a lot more people than the name "Redskins"?

Re: Smithsonian Museum - yet another thread on team name
 

[quote=HailGreen28;995191]When you have one side backed by history, logic, and usage of the name today... and the other side backed by nothing but their own little group's beliefs today (not even a significant number of NA's)... then only one side has a point.

In a way, it's like the "evolution/creationism" debate. One side has history, logic, and usage of correct scientific methods today.... and the other side has nothing but their own little group's beliefs today (sure more Christians believe in creationism, but not a majority.)

So by the "logic" of the Redskins naming debate, I guess we should do away with evolutionary theory, because it offends a lot more people than the name "Redskins"?[/quote]
Honestly, I started reading your statement about one side backed by history, logic etc and thought you were arguing the other point.

Like I said, both sides have really good arguments and strong feelings. On a Redskin fan forum, you will see a strong slant to that side. Just like on other forums, you could see a strong slant the other way.

This discussion really has no where left to go on here.

Re: Smithsonian Museum - yet another thread on team name
 

[quote=Leader In Sports;995192]Honestly, I started reading your statement about one side backed by history, logic etc and thought you were arguing the other point.

Like I said, both sides have really good arguments and strong feelings. On a Redskin fan forum, you will see a strong slant to that side. Just like on other forums, you could see a strong slant the other way.

This discussion really has no where left to go on here.[/quote]What history or logic backs the idea of the name "Redskins" being offensive? Other than already refuted theories and a small number of people (almost all not NA's) just saying it is?

Re: Smithsonian Museum - yet another thread on team name
 

I guess if we use another example of an offensive team name, there's a team that plays in mostly black, and has a name synonymous with "Stealers". And they live in a city known for racism today.* There's obviously racist undertones in the name "Steelers", camouflaged by the AISI logo. Even saw a game recently where their throwback uniforms resembled some comical prison outfits. The name "Steelers" should be banned immediately. :cheeky-sm

[URL="http://gawker.com/5947068/the-most-racist-city-in-america-pittsburgh"]the-most-racist-city-in-america-pittsburgh[/URL]

[URL="http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/pittsburgh-basketball-game-marred-horrible-racist-banana-suited-131740578.html"]Pittsburgh basketball game marred by horrible racist banana suited monkey chants[/URL]

Re: Smithsonian Museum - yet another thread on team name
 

[quote=HailGreen28;995194]What history or logic backs the idea of the name "Redskins" being offensive? Other than already refuted theories and a small number of people (almost all not NA's) just saying it is?[/quote]

Just read ,please.....

[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang[/URL])

Re: Smithsonian Museum - yet another thread on team name
 

[quote=Mayor;995171]It's a terrible argument, but it doesn't undo the good arguments already made.

If, as the Linguistic professor's essay already showed, "Redskin" was a direct translation of what American Indians called themselves (which would also account for why, when Indians learned English, they referred to Europeans as "White Man") AND the story of "redskin" origin being for bloody scalps is a lie, then there is actually no grounds to take offense to the name other than that you are just a miserable person looking to dump on other people's fun. To which I would suggest finding some other hobby.[/quote]

First I think the Redskins should keep everything as is !!What proof do you have this is a lie?Ok,you don't like his opinion but like it or not there is some fact to this story and to try and accuse others of lying when in fact your argument has gone south is wrong.

" However a wide range of civil rights[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)#cite_note-15"][COLOR=#0066cc][15][/COLOR][/URL], and professional organizations [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)#cite_note-16"][COLOR=#0066cc][16][/COLOR][/URL] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)#cite_note-17"][COLOR=#0066cc][17][/COLOR][/URL] and over 500 American Indian groups [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)#cite_note-18"][COLOR=#0066cc][18][/COLOR][/URL] have called for the end of the use of all Native American references by sports teams."

Re: Smithsonian Museum - yet another thread on team name
 

[quote=Giantone;995219]Just read ,please.....

[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang[/URL])[/quote]Giantone, why don't you please read this thread? What argument of the name "Redskin" being somehow racist today, in the wikipedia article you quote, hasn't been debunked in this thread? :doh:

It's not as if the Redskins organization is the NYPD, after all.* So why bash the Skins for imagined racism, when real racism exists elsewhere? Like NY and Pitt.


*
[URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/23/nypd-racist-facebook-group-punished-17-employees_n_1824774.html"]Racist NYPD Facebook Group[/URL]

[URL="http://www.alternet.org/story/155405/tale_of_two_cities%3A_nypd%27s_racist_arrests_create_class_war_in_new_york"]NYPD's Racist Arrests Create Class War in New York[/URL]

Re: Smithsonian Museum - yet another thread on team name
 

Oh, well, a WIKIPEDIA article. That's authoritative. :doh:

Re: Smithsonian Museum - yet another thread on team name
 

[quote=HailGreen28;995231]Giantone, why don't you please read this thread? What argument of the name "Redskin" being somehow racist today, in the wikipedia article you quote, hasn't been debunked in this thread? :doh:

It's not as if the Redskins organization is the NYPD, after all.* So why bash the Skins for imagined racism, when real racism exists elsewhere? Like NY and Pitt.


*
[URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/23/nypd-racist-facebook-group-punished-17-employees_n_1824774.html"]Racist NYPD Facebook Group[/URL]

[URL="http://www.alternet.org/story/155405/tale_of_two_cities%3A_nypd%27s_racist_arrests_create_class_war_in_new_york"]NYPD's Racist Arrests Create Class War in New York[/URL][/quote]

I'm sure to some Native Americans.....it is real racism.

Re: Smithsonian Museum - yet another thread on team name
 

[quote=Giantone;995243]I'm sure to some Native Americans.....it is real racism.[/quote]

So find them and cite them as a source instead of just being sure.

Re: Smithsonian Museum - yet another thread on team name
 

[quote=Giantone;995243]I'm sure to some Native Americans.....it is real racism.[/quote]Based on your posting history, your being "sure" is proof the name isn't racist. :)

OTOH, I'm sure all Redskins fans are "thrilled" to be labelled as racist. For using an honorific team name. Just like when the same kind of talking heads that decry the name, said that Redskins fans would be racist against RG3. [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/20/skip-bayless-kirk-cousins-rg3-white-redskins-fans_n_1813047.html"]LINK[/URL] Any fanbase would "love" this. (That was sarcasm by the way since you might have missed it.)

And no, being lied about, like about the origin of the team name and the name itself, isn't reason to give in to said liars and ignorance. Just the opposite, IMO. Tell the truth instead.

HTTR

Re: Smithsonian Museum - yet another thread on team name
 

Giants is an offensive term to people that suffer from gigantism. I think we should change their name.

Broncos is also a slur against horses. It implies they are unruly. I think the proper name should be Denver Equus ferus caballus.

Re: Smithsonian Museum - yet another thread on team name
 

[quote=RedskinRat;995255]So find them and cite them as a source instead of just being sure.[/quote]

post 210

Re: Smithsonian Museum - yet another thread on team name
 

[quote=NC_Skins;995259]Giants is an offensive term to people that suffer from gigantism. I think we should change their name.

Broncos is also a slur against horses. It implies they are unruly. I think the proper name should be Denver Equus ferus caballus.[/quote]

Don't get mad at me,I'm not the one you should be fighting with,go after the groups going after you.

Re: Smithsonian Museum - yet another thread on team name
 

[quote=HailGreen28;995231]Giantone, why don't you please read this thread? What argument of the name "Redskin" being somehow racist today, in the wikipedia article you quote, hasn't been debunked in this thread? :doh:

[/quote]

wow,nothing anywhere in these pages has anyone" debunked " a thing.Perception is reality and to some NOT TO ME,the name is offensive to those that think it is,a few of you say you know it's a lie,how?
Like me or not I don't care but I am on your side but to say the otherside does not exist is wrong.

[url=http://www.ibtimes.com/washington-redskins-racist-team-name-some-journalists-are-refusing-say-1089220]Washington Redskins: A Racist Team Name That Some Journalists Are Refusing To Say[/url]

Re: Smithsonian Museum - yet another thread on team name
 

[quote=Giantone;995277]wow,nothing anywhere in these pages has anyone" debunked " a thing.Perception is reality and to some NOT TO ME,the name is offensive to those that think it is,a few of you say you know it's a lie,how?
Like me or not I don't care but I am on your side but to say the otherside does not exist is wrong.

[url=http://www.ibtimes.com/washington-redskins-racist-team-name-some-journalists-are-refusing-say-1089220]Washington Redskins: A Racist Team Name That Some Journalists Are Refusing To Say[/url][/quote]Please read this thread.

Case in point: What you just said about me was a lie. I never said the other side didn't exist. I said the other side didn't have any points, other than current personal belief and already refuted arguments.

Another example of you not reading or maybe just not understanding the thread: Do you understand that the origination of the name is documented to be different than what Redskin opponents have said? Revisionist history about the name "Redskins" has been debunked here, even though you don't realize it as you just said here: [quote=Giantone;995277]wow,nothing anywhere in these pages has anyone" debunked " a thing.[/quote]



Care to actually quote any points made in that latest link you posted, or is this just more of the same garbage already refuted here?

Re: Smithsonian Museum - yet another thread on team name
 

[quote=HailGreen28;995280]Please read this thread.

Case in point: What you just said about me was a lie. I never said the other side didn't exist. I said the other side didn't have any points, other than current personal belief and already refuted arguments.

Another example of you not reading or maybe just not understanding the thread: Do you understand that the origination of the name is documented to be different than what Redskin opponents have said? Revisionist history about the name "Redskins" has been debunked here, even though you don't realize it as you just said here:



Care to actually quote any points made in that latest link you posted, or is this just more of the same garbage already refuted here?[/quote]


refuted, how?

Re: Smithsonian Museum - yet another thread on team name
 

interesting....


[url=http://www.aics.org/mascot/redskins.html]MASCOTS - Redskins origin of the term[/url]

Re: Smithsonian Museum - yet another thread on team name
 

[quote=Giantone;995284]refuted, how?[/quote]By providing documentation of examples earlier than those cited by "Redskins" opponents, and proving those opponents wrong.

Did you really not read Post #86 in this thread, giantone? ([URL="http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf"]Link from that post[/URL])

Please read this thread, giantone.

Re: Smithsonian Museum - yet another thread on team name
 

[quote=HailGreen28;995287]By providing documentation of examples earlier than those cited by "Redskins" opponents, and proving those opponents wrong.

Did you really not read Post #86 in this thread, giantone? ([URL="http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf"]Link from that post[/URL])

Please read this thread, giantone.[/quote]


I have read the thread ,you have not.One man's opinion and that is your proof?

Here is another opinion,

[B]MASCOTS - [COLOR=#ff0000]Redskins[/COLOR] origin of the term[/B]


[INDENT][B]
The Term Redskin
Dear Editor; It was brought to my attention that some were asking if the term "redskin" was really offensive to Indians and that they would like to hear from us on this subject. Well, here you are...I am Blackfoot, Cherokee and Choctaw...and yes, the term is extremely offensive to me. Let me explain why. Back not so long ago, when there was a bounty on the heads of the Indian people...the trappers would bring in Indian scalps along with the other skins that they had managed to trap or shoot. These scalps brought varying prices as did the skins of the animals. The trappers would tell the trading post owner or whoever it was that he was dealing with, that he had 2 bearskins, a couple of beaver skins...and a few scalps. Well, the term "scalp" offended the good Christian women of the community and they asked that another term be found to describe these things. So, the trappers and hunters began using the term "redskin"...they would tell the owner that they had bearskin, deer skins....and "redskins." The term came from the bloody mess that one saw when looking at the scalp...thus the term "red"...skin because it was the "skin" of an "animal" just like the others that they had...so, it became "redskins". So, you see when we see or hear that term...we don't see a football team...we don't see a game being played...we don't see any "honor"...we see the bloody pieces of scalps that were hacked off of our men, women and even our children...we hear the screams as our people were killed...and "skinned" just like animals. So, yes, Mr./Ms. Editor...you can safely say that the term is considered extremely offensive.In Struggle,
Tina Holder
Mesa, Az.

[/B][/INDENT]<B>

[B]Proclamation issued in 1755[/B]


[INDENT]Given at the Council Chamber in Boston this third day of November 1755 in the twenty-ninth year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Second by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France, and Iceland, King Defender of the Faith.[/INDENT][B]By His Honour's command
J. Willard, Secry.
God Save the King [/B]
[INDENT]Whereas the tribe of Penobscot Indians have repeatedly in a perfidious manner acted contrary to their solemn submission unto his Majesty long since made and frequently renewed.
I have therefore, at the desire of the House of Representatives ... thought fit to issue this Proclamation and to declare the Penobscot Tribe of Indians to be enimies, rebels, and traitors to his Majesty. And I do hereby require his Majesty's subjects of the Province to embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing, and destroy all and every one of the aforesaid Indians.
And wereas the General Court of this Province have voted that a bounty.... be granted and allowed to be paid out of the Province Treasury.... The premiums of bounty following viz:
For every scalp of a male Indian brought in as evidence of their being killed as aforesaid, forty pounds.For every scalp of such female Indian or male Indian under the age of twelve years that shall be killed and brought in as evidence of their being killed as aforesaid, twenty pounds.
[/INDENT]</B>

Re: Smithsonian Museum - yet another thread on team name
 

[quote=Giantone;995289]I have read the thread ,you have not.One man's opinion and that is your proof?

Here is another opinion,

[B]MASCOTS - [COLOR=#ff0000]Redskins[/COLOR] origin of the term[/B]


[INDENT][B]
The Term Redskin
Dear Editor; It was brought to my attention that some were asking if the term "redskin" was really offensive to Indians and that they would like to hear from us on this subject. Well, here you are...I am Blackfoot, Cherokee and Choctaw...and yes, the term is extremely offensive to me. Let me explain why. Back not so long ago, when there was a bounty on the heads of the Indian people...the trappers would bring in Indian scalps along with the other skins that they had managed to trap or shoot. These scalps brought varying prices as did the skins of the animals. The trappers would tell the trading post owner or whoever it was that he was dealing with, that he had 2 bearskins, a couple of beaver skins...and a few scalps. Well, the term "scalp" offended the good Christian women of the community and they asked that another term be found to describe these things. So, the trappers and hunters began using the term "redskin"...they would tell the owner that they had bearskin, deer skins....and "redskins." The term came from the bloody mess that one saw when looking at the scalp...thus the term "red"...skin because it was the "skin" of an "animal" just like the others that they had...so, it became "redskins". So, you see when we see or hear that term...we don't see a football team...we don't see a game being played...we don't see any "honor"...we see the bloody pieces of scalps that were hacked off of our men, women and even our children...we hear the screams as our people were killed...and "skinned" just like animals. So, yes, Mr./Ms. Editor...you can safely say that the term is considered extremely offensive.In Struggle,
Tina Holder
Mesa, Az.

[/B][/INDENT]<B>

[B]Proclamation issued in 1755[/B]


[INDENT]Given at the Council Chamber in Boston this third day of November 1755 in the twenty-ninth year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Second by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France, and Iceland, King Defender of the Faith.[/INDENT][B]By His Honour's command
J. Willard, Secry.
God Save the King [/B]
[INDENT]Whereas the tribe of Penobscot Indians have repeatedly in a perfidious manner acted contrary to their solemn submission unto his Majesty long since made and frequently renewed.
I have therefore, at the desire of the House of Representatives ... thought fit to issue this Proclamation and to declare the Penobscot Tribe of Indians to be enimies, rebels, and traitors to his Majesty. And I do hereby require his Majesty's subjects of the Province to embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing, and destroy all and every one of the aforesaid Indians.
And wereas the General Court of this Province have voted that a bounty.... be granted and allowed to be paid out of the Province Treasury.... The premiums of bounty following viz:
For every scalp of a male Indian brought in as evidence of their being killed as aforesaid, forty pounds.For every scalp of such female Indian or male Indian under the age of twelve years that shall be killed and brought in as evidence of their being killed as aforesaid, twenty pounds.
[/INDENT]</B>[/quote][SIZE="4"][B]LMAO! And the historical document you quoted from 1755 (assuming it's true, where's any authority that this wasn't made up?) doesn't even include the name "Redskin". Just in the reader comment attached. And this compares to the anthropology article cited in this thread... how? :lol:[/B][/SIZE]

Obviously you haven't actually read anything all the way through, giantone. And you're still lying about it.

By your standard though, since the word "Indian" is included in your post, does that mean that the word "Indian" can be considered offensive? Therefore "Redskin" is the more acceptable term?

Oh, and even though there's no proof in your post of "redskins" and scalping being synonymous, when talking about name origins, you might want to read the article I cited. One significant date for you: [SIZE="5"][B]1769.[/B][/SIZE] When there actually is strong evidence the term was used. And not as an slur at all.

At least try to read the stuff already posted in this thread, giantone..... At least try to stick to the truth on the name "redskin"..... stuff said this thread...... what I said before in this thread........ maybe?

It's interesting that one opinion in reader mail is good enough for you, but not a curator that at least bookmarks sources.

Re: Smithsonian Museum - yet another thread on team name
 

[quote=HailGreen28;995292][SIZE=4][B]LMAO! And the historical document you quoted from 1755 (assuming it's true, where's any authority that this wasn't made up?) doesn't even include the name "Redskin". Just in the reader comment attached. And this compares to the anthropology article cited in this thread... how? :lol:[/B][/SIZE]

Obviously you haven't actually read anything all the way through, giantone. And you're still lying about it.

By your standard though, since the word "Indian" is included in your post, does that mean that the word "Indian" can be considered offensive? Therefore "Redskin" is the more acceptable term?

Oh, and even though there's no proof in your post of "redskins" and scalping being synonymous, when talking about name origins, you might want to read the article I cited. One significant date for you: [SIZE=5][B]1769.[/B][/SIZE] When there actually is strong evidence the term was used. And not as an slur at all.

At least try to read the stuff already posted in this thread, giantone..... At least try to stick to the truth on the name "redskin"..... stuff said this thread...... what I said before in this thread........ maybe?

It's interesting that one opinion in reader mail is good enough for you, but not a curator that at least bookmarks sources.[/quote]


This has run it's course,you believe nothing yet show no proof that anything that has been linked here is not true,you don't believe so it can't be true.All I wanted to do is show that the otherside does exist and while I don't agree with it,has a point.

Re: Smithsonian Museum - yet another thread on team name
 

The problem that I see with the whole bloody scalp being the origin of the name, and evidence such as that proclamation. The scalp would never be red when it was traded in. When blood dries, its not red. When skin is separated from a body and therefore has nothing keeping it alive, it does not stay bloody red.

There is no way to tell an Indian male from an Indian female based on a scalp if they both had long hair (or short hair for that matter). There is no way to tell a white person with black hair from an Indian by hair either. In fact, every scalp will be black when traded in and hair would be the only identifiable trait left (and even then, only if they are practiced at scalping. Maybe its easier than I think). Its not like they had refrigerators on the backs of their horses to keep them medically fresh.

Europeans themselves were not much into scalping. Most references of scalping by Europeans came in the 9th and 10th century, and even then, was not a continent wide practice. Once we started getting into the colonial times, they preferred decapitation, as it was the face that was looked at as evidence that the dead person was who you were saying it was. They did not rely on a scalp that looks like everyone elses, except possibly the hair, when handing out reward money for someones death. Its possible that they thought Indians were different enough in hair to tell them apart so were willing to accept scalps, but that still doesnt answer the male/female question.

None of this even touches that some lady from Mesa Arizona is claiming to be a bunch of different kind of Indians and claiming it true without providing even the single shred of evidence. Her "proof" is 'this is the interwebz and lying is not allowed'.. If there is proof of this, I would love to see it, but have never seen anything offered as proof other than someone said it, so it must be true.

Also about the proclamation if it is true (Im not claiming it to be either true or false, I honestly have no idea). One thing that is thrown about in the fight against the name Redskins is that Europeans used Redskin when talking about Indians. I saw no mention of anything but Indian in the proclamation. Doesnt mean it wasnt used, but by whats being said, it was used regularly in place of Indian. I see nothing to evidence that here, they appear to be a calling them Indians.

Re: Smithsonian Museum - yet another thread on team name
 

[quote=Giantone;995350]This has run it's course,you believe nothing yet show no proof that anything that has been linked here is not true,you don't believe so it can't be true.All I wanted to do is show that the otherside does exist and while I don't agree with it,has a point.[/quote]Please stop lying about me, giantone.

There was nothing to believe in your argument, unless you think one reader letter trumps historical record and current usage. The historical document you quoted, to "show the other side has a point", doesn't even appear to contain the name Redskins at all. :doh:

The article I referred to you does have references to the name, and refutes the idea the origin of "Redskin" was racist. You've provided nothing to argue against this.

Again, I never said the other side doesn't exist. I pointed out they can only go on what they currently believe regardless of fact (they're like creationists in this way, IMO), and already disproven arguments.

Our discussion has run it's course. Because the arguments you've parroted here basically amount to sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "nu-uh". That the name Redskins is racist because, well just because. While you ignored points made in this thread you claimed to have read. Nevermind the 90,000+ in the stadium and all the Redskin fans around the world singing HTTR.

So yeah, the "other side" doesn't have a point, and neither have you on this issue. Goodnight.

Re: Smithsonian Museum - yet another thread on team name
 

This is like saying Christmas Tree offends people. There's always going to be some that are going to get upset and or feel offended because that's they way they think/feel about everything.

I mean look at how some African-Americans feel "black sheep" is a shot at them because the bad sheep is black. This can go on for any race, type of person, etc.

I'm more surprised the Buffalo Bills don't offend the Natives too. I mean that actually has some backing to it. Everything I've read about the Redskins name being racist holds no weight.

Re: Smithsonian Museum - yet another thread on team name
 

[quote=HailGreen28;995358]Please stop lying about me, giantone.

.[/quote]

You don't like my opinion fine,but I don't lie.Let it go .

[QUOTE=Giantone;995362]You don't like my opinion fine,but I don't lie.Let it go .[/QUOTE]

Yes, you do. You lied in the gun control thread. You're a liar, you need to work harder to substantiate any point you make because of it.