A Redskins Shirt At The Holocaust Museum

[cptmarginal]

Boring! Flame pit material.

No, that's your opinion, but it's not supported with evidence. I have submitted evidence that it is not derogatory, historically, and that attempts are being made to make it derogatory. You can claim that it is pejorative to some indigenous people, but I would like to look further at those who are saying it. I don't want opinion polls submitted by the nation leaders, because as has been shown, crooked and tyrannical leadership exists in various indigenous nations, and that crooked and tyrannical leadership could harass and cajole their members into responding a certain way or else face severe punishment.

Thanks for the laughs.

[Searcher08]

To me it shows your lack of knowledge of, and respect for RI culture.

What culture? I will admit that the vibe at RI has changed over the years, but there is no distinctive culture.

I think that is nonsense. Go to the Lounge.

As you say, many post here but they are not all of like mind, but there are various Groups who tend to speak as one and bully and pummel others who dissent.

Why do you Capitalise G roups?

In that sense, yes, it is very much like a Middle School or a High School.

By including the word 'yes' in the middle of that sentance, you imply you are agreeing with something I said, which would be 'very much like a Middle School or a High School.'

Apart from the simple fact that I did not say that.
Or anything like it.
You pulled that right out of your ass.
And I do not think that.

And THAT is an example of you making shit up. Invention.

Hell, someone even called me a "newcomer." That sounds awfully like a "Freshman."

Bollox to your Sepp-centric BS.
'Newcomer' sounds like... newcomer. You are laying on a metaphor (or in your case perhaps a 'METHAPHOR') all about a first day at school.

Of course, most, if not all, blogs do this.....

They do???? How did you establish that?

create a hierarchy where none need exist and arrange cliques and pecking orders and all that nonsense. RI is no different. If that's what the majority here wants, then perhaps you can wall it off for good (no new members), or subject those who attempt to activate to a means test, and if they pass the test, they will be on one year probation where they will be subjected to ritualized hazing and all manner of abuse, and then after that year, like in gangland after the gang has kicked the shit out of a new initiate, you embrace the pledge as one of your own so long as said pledge doesn't challenge the Group and rock the boat.

Are you are speaking from personal experience?
If so, I feel you are conflating a bad school experience with coming to RI.
And doing a pre-emptive strike.

RI isnt actually some American Highschool.

That being said, I don't know to what culture you're referring. In fact, I don't think a culture exists that could describe the entirety of this space, but if something akin to it did, it wouldn't be a static proposition.

As I said, have a look in the Lounge

Ironically, let's apply your logic to this Redskins controversy. Your logic states that I should acknowledge a culture before expressing myself and by virtue of that censor my expression to meet the implicit demands of this culture....in respect and deference to it, apparently.

The statement "Ironically, lets apply your logic to X" does not make sense.
There is no basis for mapping the content of my communication with you about your attitude and behaviour in RI over to my thoughts about the OP of this thread, any more than the content of your football throwing with your son. Not relevant.
I find it amazing that you work in a corporate environment - when talking to techies step into their world, strategists step into theirs, customer service step into theirs - or do you consider these as censoring your expression??

LOL Here is an exercise you might consider - in Active Listening, a person checks their understanding of the message they received with what the person said.

S08: You, Carol, are acting like a wanker.
CN: S08, I am hearing you say that I, Carol am a God amongst men - is that accurate?
S08: No, I am saying you are acting like a wanker.
CN: I'm hearing you say you are a racist
S08: No, Carol, I am saying you are acting like a wanker.
etc etc

My logic says "I recommend refraining from being a wanker at RI whenever possible".
You are not coming into a vacuum. The distinct between respect and agreement seems to elude you. Put more directly, if I visited your home and took a dump where and when I felt like, like on your living room carpet, would it be 'trying to censor my free expression' if you suggested I use the toilet like other folks?

Okay, I'm not subscribing to this logic, but if I'm reading this correctly, this protest over the name Redskins is doing the exact opposite of what you're preaching to me.

I am not 'preaching' anything to you. I am suggesting to look at your communication process since your arrival, as it suggests you are either a Meth snorter, a troll or stuck in a perceptual position that at a minimum lacks empathy for the negative effects you create.

It's not considering and respecting the larger culture.....a culture that those who are proponents of this protest have asserted is a violent and racist culture. Once again, I don't subscribe to your logic....thankfully.

You cannot even state my logic, so I am at a loss to how you are subscribing to it.

You have demonstrated zero comprehension of what I am talking about, which at no point intersected the OP or the content of this thread. It was personal - about YOU - and about your communication process, which can be summarised as

1 Act like a wanker
2 Be a butthurt lolcow when called on it
3 Make all sorts of shit up about what people say, which has no relation to what they said and personally insult them.
4 Rinse Wash Repeat

But you do, obviously, and by virtue of that, you have made an argument for the actual apathetical or racist opposition to this protest. Good job.

You have made a very strong case that you do not know how to make a case.

[Carol Newquist]

This article contains and underscores many of the issues surrounding this "controversy." One thing I know for sure, if the establishment is behind it, and it appears it is getting behind it, then you know the reasons and intentions aren't honorable or noble, and the underlying issue hasn't much merit. In this case, it looks like non-aboriginal privilege is carrying the torch and forcing a non-issue on american aboriginals. The comments are interesting. I saw one where a non-aboriginal dope said the aboriginal respondents, 90% not considering the name derogatory and this an issue according to the poll, were idiots and not smart enough to know it was a controversy therefore it was incumbent on the smarter and more aware non-aboriginals to be offended for them. This is nuts.

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/indians-redskins-slur-20505945

No Consensus Among Indians on 'Redskins' Name

October 8, 2013 (AP)
By JESSE WASHINGTON AP National Writer

The name of a certain pro football team in Washington, D.C., has inspired protests, hearings, editorials, lawsuits, letters from Congress, even a presidential nudge. Yet behind the headlines, it's unclear how many Native Americans think "Redskins" is a racial slur.

Perhaps this uncertainty shouldn't matter — because the word has an undeniably racist history, or because the team says it uses the word with respect, or because in a truly decent society, some would argue, what hurts a few should be avoided by all.

But the thoughts and beliefs of native people are the basis of the debate over changing the team name. And looking across the breadth of Indian Country — with 2 million Indians enrolled in 566 federally recognized tribes, plus another 3.2 million who tell the Census they are Indian — it's difficult to tell how many are opposed to the name.

The controversy has peaked in the last few days. President Barack Obama said Saturday he would consider getting rid of the name if he owned the team, and the NFL took the unprecedented step Monday of promising to meet with the Oneida Indian Nation, which is waging a national ad campaign against the league.

What gets far less attention, though, is this:

There are Native American schools that call their teams Redskins. The term is used affectionately by some natives, similar to the way the N-word is used by some African-Americans. In the only recent poll to ask native people about the subject, 90 percent of respondents did not consider the term offensive, although many question the cultural credentials of the respondents.

All of which underscores the oft-overlooked diversity within Indian Country.

"Marginalized communities are too often treated monolithically," said Carter Meland, a professor of American Indian Studies at the University of Minnesota.

"Stories on the mascot issue always end up exploring whether it is right or it is wrong, respectful or disrespectful," said Meland, an Ojibwe Indian.

He believes Indian mascots are disrespectful, but said: "It would be interesting to get a sense of the diversity of opinion within a native community."

Those communities vary widely.

Tommy Yazzie, superintendent of the Red Mesa school district on the Navajo Nation reservation, grew up when Navajo children were forced into boarding schools to disconnect them from their culture. Some were punished for speaking their native language. Today, he sees environmental issues as the biggest threat to his people.

The high school football team in his district is the Red Mesa Redskins.

"We just don't think that (name) is an issue," Yazzie said. "There are more important things like busing our kids to school, the water settlement, the land quality, the air that surrounds us. Those are issues we can take sides on."

"Society, they think it's more derogatory because of the recent discussions," Yazzie said. "In its pure form, a lot of Native American men, you go into the sweat lodge with what you've got — your skin. I don't see it as derogatory."

Neither does Eunice Davidson, a Dakota Sioux who lives on the Spirit Lake reservation in North Dakota. "It more or less shows that they approve of our history," she said.

North Dakota was the scene of a similar controversy over the state university's Fighting Sioux nickname. It was decisively scrapped in a 2012 statewide vote — after the Spirit Lake reservation voted in 2010 to keep it.

Davidson said that if she could speak to Dan Snyder, the Washington team owner who has vowed never to change the name, "I would say I stand with him . we don't want our history to be forgotten."

In 2004, the National Annenberg Election Survey asked 768 people who identified themselves as Indian whether they found the name "Washington Redskins" offensive. Almost 90 percent said it did not bother them.

But the Indian activist Suzan Shown Harjo, who has filed a lawsuit seeking to strip the "Redskins" trademark from the football team, said the poll neglected to ask some crucial questions.

"Are you a tribal person? What is your nation? What is your tribe? Would you say you are culturally or socially or politically native?" Harjo asked. Those without such connections cannot represent native opinions, she said.

Indian support for the name "is really a classic case of internalized oppression," Harjo said. "People taking on what has been said about them, how they have been described, to such an extent that they don't even notice."

Harjo declines to estimate what percentage of native people oppose the name. But she notes that the many organizations supporting her lawsuit include the Cherokee, Comanche, Oneida and Seminole tribes, as well as the National Congress of American Indians, the largest intertribal organization, which represents more than 250 groups with a combined enrollment of 1.2 million.

"The 'Redskins' trademark is disparaging to Native Americans and perpetuates a centuries-old stereotype of Native Americans as 'blood-thirsty savages,' 'noble warriors' and an ethnic group 'frozen in history,'" the National Congress said in a brief filed in the lawsuit.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary says the term is "very offensive and should be avoided." But like another infamous racial epithet, the N-word, it has been redefined by some native people as a term of familiarity or endearment, often in abbreviated form, according to Meland, the Indian professor.

"Of course, it is one thing for one 'skin to call another 'skin a 'skin, but it has entirely different meaning when a non-Indian uses it," Meland said in an email interview.

It was a white man who applied it to this particular football team: Owner George Preston Marshall chose the name in 1932 partly to honor the head coach, William "Lone Star" Dietz, who was known as an Indian.

"The Washington Redskins name has thus from its origin represented a positive meaning distinct from any disparagement that could be viewed in some other context," NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell wrote in June to 10 members of Congress who challenged the name.

Marshall, however, had a reputation as a racist. He was the last NFL owner who refused to sign black players — the federal government forced him to integrate in 1962 by threatening to cancel the lease on his stadium. When he died in 1969, his will created a Redskins Foundation but stipulated that it never support "the principle of racial integration in any form."

And Dietz, the namesake Redskin, may not have even been a real Indian. Dietz served jail time for charges that he falsely registered for the draft as an Indian in order to avoid service. According to an investigation by the Indian Country Today newspaper, he stole the identity of a missing Oglala Sioux man.

Now, 81 years into this jumbled identity tale, the saga seems to finally be coming to a head. The NFL's tone has shifted over the last few months, from defiance to conciliation.

"If we are offending one person," Goodell, the NFL commissioner, said last month, "we need to be listening."

[seemslikeadream]

breaking news.....some blacks don't mind being called niggers

[Iamwhomiam]

Being self-appointed spokesperson for our group-thinking singularity, you just can't stand it that so many simply disagree with you, huh, Carol. At this point in time you're beating a dead Indian.

[seemslikeadream]

I want demand that Carol answer this question

What is an acceptable nick name for Jews?

You know.....one that would serve as a great name for a sports team

[barracuda]

What is an acceptable nick name for Jews?

You know.....one that would serve as a great name for a sports team

[Carol Newquist]

especially when you yourself have not managed to work out how to use the Quote function, resulting in posts where it is unclear what is being said to whom.

This shows a complete lack of integrity, speaking of integrity. It refers to the quote of the title of the article seemslikeadream posted to this thread that I then responded to. I didn't include seemslikeadreams name in the quote for a couple of reasons, none of which include me not knowing how to use the quote function. The first reason is because I focus on the words, not the personality. It doesn't matter who said it, it's the words that matter. Secondly, the quoting function is obnoxious and an eyesore. I consider it disrespectful to quote a long piece of material like some do. It's been posted once. There's no need to repost it. Along those same lines, I'm a guy who thinks about the women in my house and puts the toilet seat down for them when I'm through. It's the same principle.

But what's interesting and telling about your snide remark is that it reveals a lack of integrity. What it says is that had I included seemslikeadream's name in the quote, peartreed would not have called it a strawman, and what that says is that the strawman comment wasn't issued out of sense of integrity and equanimity, but rather as an insult. It furthers supports my point about Groups and how the Group Dynamic can negatively affect judgment and behavior. Your implication is that peartreed wouldn't have insulted seemslikeadream with the strawman accusation had SLAD's name been in the quote because seemlikeadream is a friend, a confidante, a member of the Group.

Got it. No, that's not bigotry.

[Iamwhomiam]

Carol wrote,

"I focus on the words, not the personality. It doesn't matter who said it, it's the words that matter."

Seems you've missed many of mine, especially those with this little thingy on their end "?"

Nice to see your manners are improving. Any other issues with our format you find objectionable?

If you truly want to conduct an intelligent conversation, please do so intelligently.

It would be nice of you to respond to questions or suggestions put directly to you, like this suggestion, "You are a newcomer to RI and if you're not you should come clean and reveal you prior screenname"

[Carol Newquist]

barracuda, I read that without my diaper on and now I've gone and wet myself. That was good. SLAD, see barracuda's post for my answer. It saved me a lot of work.

[seemslikeadream]

barracuda, I read that without my diaper on and now I've gone and wet myself. That was good. SLAD, see barracuda's post for my answer. It saved me a lot of work.

I ASKED YOU put up or shut the fuck up

btw the fish and I go way back...we get it

too bad you don't

answer the fucking question... coward

[Carol Newquist]

Wow, and to think, I was called profane. If I'm profane, there must be another category for SLAD's and Searcher08's latest posts. They're turning the thread into a biker bar.

[seemslikeadream]

Wow, and to think, I was called profane. If I'm profane, there must be another category for SLAD's and Searcher08's latest posts. They're turning the thread into a biker bar.

This is the big boys club here Carol get used to it

answer the fucking question...coward

[Carol Newquist]

too bad you don't

No, I do get it. But the joke doesn't just mean that. It's inside and it's outside. The inside part is that it refers to the former poster you once thought I was but don't any longer.

[seemslikeadream]

yeah I changed my mind you could run circles around her...she was never as hateful as you