Redskins

[ShakyTheMohel]

Native Americans don't find it offensive. Do the research before making naive statements

They don't?

"Petitioners have found a preponderance of evidence that a substantial amount of Native Americans found the term Redskins to be disparaging when used in connection with professional football," the ruling said. "While this may reveal differing opinions with the community, it does not negate the opinions of those who find it disparaging."

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11102096/us-patent-office-cancels-washington-redskins-trademark

If the people that are part of the group potentially being offended find the word offensive....then it has to stop being used. Seems pretty clear cut to me. Saying that you are going to ignore the fact that you are offending people for the sake of tradition pretty much makes you an a hole.

 

[Adios]

I am offended by your use of the word God in this context. Have you no respect for the beliefs and feelings of other people?

I am sorry. Nature have mercy!

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Again, India is on another continent. I am going to start calling you Nigerian. You're Nigerian. Oh wait, I mean, you're an Arab. (Which actually probably has truth to it if you're an Italian; your language was influenced by Arabic.)

People wonder why humanity is hopeless. Correcting a completely wrong ethnic reference is "PC". That is incredibly stupid.

Here's the thing. You can call me whatever you want. Call me derogatory Italian names for all I care. I won't call the PC police.

 

[Adios]

Here's the thing. You can call me whatever you want. Call me derogatory Italian names for all I care. I won't call the PC police.

You are very cool.

Guess what? I've been enduring a LOT of different bigoted terms my whole life, from sand N to dothead. People can't make up their minds. I didn't call the PC police yet. Does that make me cooler?

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

You are very cool.

Guess what? I've been enduring a LOT of different bigoted terms my whole life, from sand N to dothead. People can't make up their minds. I didn't call the PC police yet. Does that make me cooler?

You're a weird guy.

 

[Adesmar123]

If the people that are part of the group potentially being offended find the word offensive....then it has to stop being used. Seems pretty clear cut to me.

As a person of additional weight, I am offended by the term Husky. Everytime I hear the mention of the words Uconn Husky, I think they are making fun of my people. When will the persecution of those with extra mass ever end?

And maybe they can be called the Washington Kimosabes.

 

[Adios]

You're a weird guy.

Indian. I mean, Arab.

 

[Adesmar123]

I am sorry. Nature have mercy!

I am also Wicken... Please do not offend the reason why we are all here on this planet hurtling through the space time continuum.

 

[Adios]

I am also Wicken... Please do not offend the reason why we are all here on this planet hurtling through the space time continuum.

Wiccan*. You're welcome.

 

[Adesmar123]

Wiccan*. You're welcome.

So now you tell those of us in minority groups the derivation of our religious following?

 

[Adesmar123]

Wiccan*. You're welcome.

You must be a Redskin.

 

[ZooCougar]

The framers were against a "State Religion" like the Church of England. I do not believe they were against the use of "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance in our public schools or the Christmas manger scene on the town green.

Yes but which God were they talking about? for some of them it was a supreme deity. And whatever some of the bible thumpers would have you believe, some of them, including the more influential ones were deists, notably Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Paine. And while Thomas Jefferson may not have been a Deist, he was clearly influenced by the philosophy.

 

[Adios]

Anyone with a pea of a brain knows Freemasonry is huge in the American and French Revolutions, at least. There's plenty of gravestones from the early US here with the Grand Architect logo on them.

Does Washington White Men work?

 

[phillionaire]

I think this sums it up pretty well

 

[John]

Are they Asian?

Sure, we're honoring the Chinese, so let's call them the Washington Slant Eyes. Same thing as honoring the Native Americans with the Redskins.

 

[Sky ball]

I am a "Native American" who thinks the Washington Redskins name is fine. My family dates back to the Mayflower. I was born and raised in the good old U.S.A. thus making me a Native American. Exactly like a Native Englishman, Frenchman or German etc. How did the American Aboriginal people hijack the term Native American? They are Native Americans as are most of us.

 

[EdgewoodNHV]

Here's the thing. You can call me whatever you want. Call me derogatory Italian names for all I care. I won't call the PC police.

That's fine. It's hard to offend white males because they tend to have most of the advantages in our society -- why should you be offended if someone points out that you are in a position of power? Native Americans have gotten a pretty raw deal in the U.S. I don't know that it's an insane "PC demand" to basically ask to at least be called what they are.

 

[Sky ball]

That's fine. It's hard to offend white males because they tend to have most of the advantages in our society -- why should you be offended if someone points out that you are in a position of power? Native Americans have gotten a pretty raw deal in the U.S. I don't know that it's an insane "PC demand" to basically ask to at least be called what they are.

Who is calling anyone a Redskin?

 

[Adesmar123]

I think this sums it up pretty well

After listening to that...I now know we are screwed as a country no matter what happens on this issue.

 

[EdgewoodNHV]

Who is calling anyone a Redskin?

I was explaining why some Native Americans find the term "Indian" offensive. You know. Because they're not Indian.

 

[UConnDan97]

I've always liked when sports teams took on the name of a specific tribe. Maybe it's due to my love for history, but I think that it's nice when a certain tribe's name is propelled through time, even if it is something as trivial as a sports team. The fighting Sioux, the Seminoles, the Chippewas.

So having said that, does anyone know what the historical tribe(s) in the DC area were? To me, that would be the best solution. Take that name, and keep the helmet. Even though I grew up hating the Redskins, they still have one of the coolest helmets in the business...

 

[BlueDogs]

So you're saying the Framers weren't for a separation of Chuch and State and were essentially against religious freedom?

It actually is pretty persuasive because in the part of the country I live you almost expect the people to believe that the Framers just couldn't stop talking about the Good lord Baby Jesus. Which is pretty hilarious.

They were actually very religious as a whole. The main point of contention was denominational control and the operative presumption was Christianity was the moral framework for a just and society of laws. There is no "separation of church and state" in the Constitutional concept. It is a prohibition against endorsement and a restriction against the restraint of free practice of one's religion. The notion that the public square should be sanitized of religion is simply not a concept that the framers endorsed. It is precisely the opposite. In fact in many states, the ability to qualify to hold office was statutorily defined to require a Christian faith. This seems crazy today, but not then. The idea was focused on the fact that any endorsement of a Christian denomination would result in oppressive government by the denomination in control. For example, Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists was an assurance that they would not be persecuted in Connecticut which was predominately controlled by Congregationalists. More generally, and I would have to find it, there is a reference to Mohammedism in the early writings that goes to the point being that each person is free to practice his or her religion, but the nation's laws and people are that of Christian nation and the Christianity is an essential aspect of public discourse and intercourse. It is not until the mid-1900s do you begin to see a re-interpretation of Constitutional underpinnings based on a (liberal) theory of positivism (which means you interpret the Constitution in accordance with the times). This concept was also expressly rejected by the framers in numerous writings notwithstanding the revisionist law professors at Harvard and Yale, etc.. What you see is actually a paradoxical erosion of our constitution rights under liberal interpretation due to several phenomena. But, I could write a book on that and bore you to death. Anyway, back to the main point, the modern liberal sentiments about the Constitution on the current subject are just vastly out of step with the reality of what was intended and was practiced for nearly 150 years. Sadly, most of what is taught even in college level classes is pure modern myth that was invented by "progressives" .

 

[John]

I've always liked when sports teams took on the name of a specific tribe. Maybe it's due to my love for history, but I think that it's nice when a certain tribe's name is propelled through time, even if it is something as trivial as a sports team. The fighting Sioux, the Seminoles, the Chippewas.

So having said that, does anyone know what the historical tribe(s) in the DC area were? To me, that would be the best solution. Take that name, and keep the helmet. Even though I grew up hating the Redskins, they still have one of the coolest helmets in the business...

nothing really jumps out at me personally

• Cheroenhaka (Nottoway) Indian Tribe. Letter of Intent to Petition 12/30/2002.[28] Receipt of Petition 12/30/2002. State recognized 2010; in Courtland, Southampton County.[29]
• Chickahominy Tribe.[30][31][32][32][33][34][34][35] Letter of Intent to Petition 03/19/1996.[28] State recognized 1983; in Charles City County.[29] In 2009, Senate Indian Affairs Committee endorsed a bill that would grant federal recognition.[36]
• Chickahominy Indians, Eastern Division (a.k.a. Eastern Chickahominy Indian Tribe).[31][32][33][34][35] Letter of Intent to Petition 9/6/2001.[28] State recognized, 1983; in New Kent County.[29] In 2009, Senate Indian Affairs Committee endorsed a bill that would grant federal recognition.[36]
• Mattaponi Tribe (a.k.a. Mattaponi Indian Reservation).[31][34] Letter of Intent to Petition 04/04/1995.[28] State recognized 1983; in Banks of the Mattaponi River, King William County.[29] The Mattaponi and Pamunkey have reservations based in colonial-era treaties ratified by the Commonwealth in 1658. Pamunkey Tribe's attorney told Congress in 1991 that the tribes state reservation originated in a treaty with the crown in the 17th century and has been occupied by Pamunkey since that time under strict requirements and following the treaty obligation to provide to the Crown a deer every year, and they've done that (replacing Crown with Governor of Commonwealth since Virginia became a Commonwealth)[37]
• Monacan Indian Nation (formerly Monacan Indian Tribe of Virginia).[30][31][32][33][34] Letter of Intent to Petition 07/11/1995.[28] State recognized 1989; in Bear Mountain, Amherst County.[29] In 2009, Senate Indian Affairs Committee endorsed a bill that would grant federal recognition.[36]
• Nansemond Indian Tribal Association,[31][32][33][34][35] Letter of Intent to Petition 9/20/2001.[28] State recognized 1985; in Cities of Suffolk and Chesapeake.[29] In 2009, Senate Indian Affairs Committee endorsed a bill that would grant federal recognition.[36]
• Nottoway of Virginia (Nottoway Indian Tribe), recognized 2010; in Capron, Southampton County.[29]
• Pamunkey Nation,[31][32][33][34] recognized 1983; in Banks of the Pamunkey River, King William County.[29]
• Patawomeck Indians of Virginia recognized 2010; in Stafford County.[29]
• Rappahannock Indian Tribe (I) (formerly United Rappahannock Tribe).[31][32][33][34][35] Letter of Intent to Petition 11/16/1979.[28] State recognized 1983; in Indian Neck, King & Queen County.[29] In 2009, Senate Indian Affairs Committee endorsed a bill that would grant federal recognition.[36]

Shares a name with an unrecognized tribe Rappahannock Indian Tribe (II).

• Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe (formerly Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribal Association).[30][31][32][33][34] Letter of Intent to Petition 11/26/1979.[28] State recognized 1983; in King William County.[29] In 2009, Senate Indian Affairs Committee endorsed a bill that would grant federal recognition.[36]

 

[Adios]

I am a "Native American" who thinks the Washington Redskins name is fine. My family dates back to the Mayflower. I was born and raised in the good old U.S.A. thus making me a Native American. Exactly like a Native Englishman, Frenchman or German etc. How did the American Aboriginal people hijack the term Native American? They are Native Americans as are most of us.

Well, the name "America" itself has European origins. What gives?

 

[Adios]

They were actually very religious as a whole. The main point of contention was denominational control and the operative presumption was Christianity was the moral framework for a just and society of laws. There is no "separation of church and state" in the Constitutional concept. It is a prohibition against endorsement and a restriction against the restraint of free practice of one's religion. The notion that the public square should be sanitized of religion is simply not a concept that the framers endorsed. It is precisely the opposite. In fact in many states, the ability to qualify to hold office was statutorily defined to require a Christian faith. This seems crazy today, but not then. The idea was focused on the fact that any endorsement of a Christian denomination would result in oppressive government by the denomination in control. For example, Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists was an assurance that they would not be persecuted in Connecticut which was predominately controlled by Congregationalists. More generally, and I would have to find it, there is a reference to Mohammedism in the early writings that goes to the point being that each person is free to practice his or her religion, but the nation's laws and people are that of Christian nation and the Christianity is an essential aspect of public discourse and intercourse. It is not until the mid-1900s do you begin to see a re-interpretation of Constitutional underpinnings based on a (liberal) theory of positivism (which means you interpret the Constitution in accordance with the times). This concept was also expressly rejected by the framers in numerous writings notwithstanding the revisionist law professors at Harvard and Yale, etc.. What you see is actually a paradoxical erosion of our constitution rights under liberal interpretation due to several phenomena. But, I could write a book on that and bore you to death. Anyway, back to the main point, the modern liberal sentiments about the Constitution on the current subject are just vastly out of step with the reality of what was intended and was practiced for nearly 150 years. Sadly, most of what is taught even in college level classes is pure modern myth that was invented by "progressives" .

Then why did Catholics creep into this country when they were hated by Protestants?