Red Mosquito

Posted: **Sun June 22, 2014 11:10 pm**

Bammer wrote:I would lkke to thank you in advance for not digging up any more posts from my 20's.

Thank you.

Not even the Gorge Countdown Thread?

Posted: **Mon June 23, 2014 12:54 am**

darth_vedder wrote:Everyone jumping on the bandwagon to change the name really also needs to read the below article. This is also where I was going with my post about the one guy and his casino stuff....I was kinda drunk and worded it awfully, but this is where I was going with that statement.

http://melvinphillipsstory.com/

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

The legitimacy of self-proclaimed “civil rights” activist, Ray Halbritter, has been called into question by documents obtained by full-blooded Oneida Indian, Melvin Phillips. Phillips claims that Halbritter has hijacked the Oneida culture to prop up a casino empire to enrich himself, Las Vegas interests, Washington lobbyists and questionable politicians. In the attached public video, Halbritter in his own words describes his leadership role as, “He who has the gold, makes the rules.”

Mr. Phillips supports the Washington Redskins and does not believe that the name is offensive to Native Americans. Phillips said, “This move by Halbritter is the ultimate hypocrisy. First he tries to take our land and now is trying to take away the Redskins team name which honors our people. The next thing he will do is kick us off the nickel.”

The 76 year old Phillips has resided on land reserved for the Orchard Party/Marble Hill Oneida Indians pursuant to the 1838 Treaty of Buffalo Creek and the 1842 Treaty signed with New York State. Phillips, is a direct descendant of the Oneida Indians who are members of the Six Nations – one of the well-known historic tribes of New York.

According to the attached document obtained from the National Archives, Halbritter’s blood ancestry is NOT as a member of the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy. In order to be an Oneida member you have to be a one quarter blood member of the Six Nations through matrilineal descent, which the document states Halbritter is not. According to Phillips, Halbritter’s campaign against the Washington Redskins is nothing more than a calculated attempt to gain national attention and to distract from the highly questionable operations he overseas in New York.

This maybe true, but as I pointed out earlier, Native Americans have been protesting this name / Native American mascots LONG before the band wagon jumping of the last few years.

theres a Native American DJ in Wisconsin who has been trying to get schools to drop the Indian mascots since the 70s. His school had an Indian mascot, and for home coming, he was talked into dressing the part, and things went great. The following week, his school played at the other teams home coming, so they asked if hed come and reprise his roll, he agreed, and what followed was one of the worst nights of his life. Hes not in it for the money.

Posted: **Mon June 23, 2014 2:48 am**

96583UP wrote:
96583UP wrote:google defines Yankee as a derogatory term for a person from the US

US citizens, please explain why you are / are not offending by the name of the New York Yankees baseball team
for all of the attempts on this issue at argument via analogy, the NY Yankees scenario strikes me as potentially the most apt.

why aren't they changing the Yankees name? does the argument go something like this:

well that's a fairly antiquated term for one. it sort of conjures more of a nostalgia for a time long passed than it does anger for its use in certain contexts as derogatory. I'm confident in my identity and think that generally when it's used today, its not used to make me feel bad about being american. it's just used to reference the sports team.

and is that not similar to the 'Redskin' term?

this is the part where smallpox blankets and racist uses from old timey newspapers would be cited, or the difference between making light of a skin color versus a nationality would be cited, i suppose. but has anyone here, other than by staring at the word on twitter 1000 times or attempting to diagram it's use in a sentence from a deposition, actually ever heard it used in a defamatory context in the modern era?

i do not agree that it is imperatively racist just because someone has used it that way in the past, or in the present, to try to cause pain to another, when the majority of its use does not have to do with hate, rather a sports team.

honestly, I do feel offended when I am referred to as a Yankee when I am overseas or down south. But I am not gonna get my panties in a bunch about it because i know that the defect has more to do with the individual using it rather than the word itself, because in a different context it is not offensive at all.

I wouldn't get offended by getting called a yankee because I was told as a kid the whole sticks n stones thing.. that plus I'm not a huge pussy/crybaby

Posted: **Mon June 23, 2014 2:51 am**

They should probably just change the name to the Washington corrupt greedy politicians because that's a better 2014 representation

Posted: **Mon June 23, 2014 1:35 pm**

Where's Harry Lime?

Posted: **Mon June 23, 2014 3:45 pm**

Green Habit wrote:I looked through the old board and found this old post of mine. It also got your seal of approval, Bammer.

http://archive.theskyiscrape.com/viewto ... 19#p228319

Green Habit wrote:<sarcasm>

Well, let's just try to shoot down every mascot in the NFL:

PETA has already been mad at the Packers (1) for glorifying an industry that participates in the murder of animals. But why stop there? I'm sure that any animal is mis-represented by a group of macho men.

So, there goes the Bills, Dolphins, Ravens, Bengals, Colts, Jaguars, Broncos, Eagles, Lions, Bears, Falcons, Panthers, Rams, Cardinals and Seahawks. (16)

The Redskins (17) and Chiefs (18 ) have already been mentioned.

Clearly the Vikings (19) glorify a group of quite murderous individuals. But there are plenty of other violent groups glorified as well: the Cowboys (20), the Patriots (21), and if you count the Crusades, the Saints (22). Of course, the most bloodthirsty of them all are the Buccaneers (23) and Raiders (24).

The Raiders are also bad to glorify because of their gang affiliation. But let's not forget the Jets (25), made famous as a gang from West Side Story.

We also have those groups that rape the environment: the Steelers (26), the 49ers (27), and in the old days, the Oilers. Hell, even the Chargers (28 ) encourage a waste of electricity.

I'm sure those who were born abnormally large are offended by the Titans (29) and Giants (30) making light of their condition.

Finally, aren't the Texans (31) just plain offensive to begin with, first electing Dubya and all?

So, should we all be Cleveland Browns fans? Or is naming a team after one human being still demeaning to him?

Every NFL team's new mascot:

Posted: **Mon June 23, 2014 3:56 pm**

Kaius wrote:I haven't heard anyone maliciously called a nigger in a long time, it must be cool to use now.

Are you in rural america?

Posted: **Mon June 23, 2014 4:02 pm**

Fuck You Jobu wrote:
Kaius wrote:I haven't heard anyone maliciously called a nigger in a long time, it must be cool to use now.
Are you in rural america?

Evansville, IN
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/18/1822000.html

Posted: **Mon June 23, 2014 4:29 pm**

I'm quite sympathetic to the argument that no word can be inherently offensive, and that intent and context are what matters. I just can't get past the idea that the guy who gave the Redskins their name likely did so with a bad intent.

Posted: **Mon June 23, 2014 4:38 pm**

I really disagree with that. From the get go and for 81 years, the team has never shown or demonstrated any ill will or racism towards Natives. Yes, the original owner was a bad man in many ways, but you don't name a team trying to piss off people.

Also, you can't compare this to the "N" word. People don't use then word redskins to do anything other than talk about the NFL football team. When people say "redskins" they think of Sonny Jurgenson, John Riggins, Joe Thiesman, Art Monk, Joe Gibbs and Sean Taylor.

Also, why are the voices of the natives who support the name being ignored? If they are not offended, how can people claim it's just as bad as the "n" word? I agree about context, and as it is, the context means an NFL team; that's it. The "n" word argument is one of the dumbest and laziest ones I've heard yet. Not to mention "redskins" is a word natives gave to themselves. The evil white man didn't come up with that one, unlike the "n" word.

Posted: **Mon June 23, 2014 4:40 pm**

http://wtvr.com/2013/10/14/virginia-tri ... ntroversy/

Walt “Red Hawk” Brown, chief of Virginia’s Cheroenhaka Nottoway Tribe, says he embraces Native American symbols and words being incorporated into this country’s social fabric and doesn’t find the term “Redskins” offensive.

Posted: **Mon June 23, 2014 6:40 pm**

Kaius wrote:
Fuck You Jobu wrote:
Kaius wrote:I haven't heard anyone maliciously called a nigger in a long time, it must be cool to use now.
Are you in rural america?
Evansville, IN
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/18/1822000.html

The reason I ask is that I do hear that in Chicago, without even venturing into the sketchy neighborhoods.

Unless you were being sarcastic then, nm

Posted: **Mon June 23, 2014 6:41 pm**

Would anyone be opposed to calling them the Whitemen? the merchandising would be tricky, and might attract a rough crowd, but I think it could work.

Posted: **Mon June 23, 2014 6:46 pm**

Fuck You Jobu wrote:
Kaius wrote:
Fuck You Jobu wrote:
Kaius wrote:I haven't heard anyone maliciously called a nigger in a long time, it must be cool to use now.
Are you in rural america?
Evansville, IN
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/18/1822000.html
The reason I ask is that I do hear that in Chicago, without even venturing into the sketchy neighborhoods.

Unless you were being sarcastic then, nm

It was definitely sarcasm, and it probably wasn't as clear as it should have been. The point I tried to make was that just because cultural or historical awareness and perspective has been lost on certain terms or words doesn't mean they aren't still harmful to society's conscience. Personally, I think it creates and promotes insensitivity and then ignorance, and neither of those are positive contributions.

Posted: **Mon June 23, 2014 6:54 pm**

I am certainly not a perfect example of a great citizen, nor do I even consider myself a philanthropist, but this issue seems so rudimentary in relation to human rights that it baffles me. The defense of this football team is a giant dick on the noses of Mt. Rushmore.

Posted: **Mon June 23, 2014 7:09 pm**

Kaius wrote:I am certainly not a perfect example of a great citizen, nor do I even consider myself a philanthropist, but this issue seems so rudimentary in relation to human rights that it baffles me. The defense of this football team is a giant dick on the noses of Mt. Rushmore.

You mean all those slave owners on mt. Rushmore?

Posted: **Mon June 23, 2014 7:19 pm**

shut up

Posted: **Mon June 23, 2014 7:47 pm**

Kaius wrote:I am certainly not a perfect example of a great citizen, nor do I even consider myself a philanthropist, but this issue seems so rudimentary in relation to human rights that it baffles me. The defense of this football team is a giant dick on the noses of Mt. Rushmore.

Really? Human Rights? The name of a football team is fucking up human rights? Now I've heard everything. So are you offended for the native americans who are not offended? What about the ones that would be offended if the name did change? Also, if the name changes then what? What are you doing to help the "human rights" of Native Americans? Most white people belly aching over this stupid fucking issues aren't doing jack fucking shit to help out. Say what you will about Dan Snyder, but at least he donates to their causes, unlike all the offended white people out there who are jumping on a faux cause. Change the name and onto the next faux cause right?

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/05/ ... ange-name/

Robert “Two Eagles” Green, who retired from his presiding role over the 1300-member Patawomeck Tribe in March, was a guest on SiriusXM NFL Radio’s “The Opening Drive” on Wednesday.
He gave a detailed account of the origin of the term Redskin, why so many people are offended by it, and how political correctness has allowed this story to fester far longer than it should.
“I think that first of all, you have to make a decision whether you consider it offensive or not, and frankly, the members of my tribe, the vast majority, don’t find it offensive,” Green said. “I’ve been a Redskins fan for years and to be honest with you, I would be offended if they did change it.”

Posted: **Mon June 23, 2014 7:59 pm**

I'm not going to apologize for having an opinion. There's enough to be said for both sides of this matter, that's apparent.

You're an asshole, though. That I'm pretty sure of.

Posted: **Mon June 23, 2014 8:45 pm**

Green Habit wrote:
Bammer wrote:I would lkke to thank you in advance for not digging up any more posts from my 20's.

Thank you.

Not even the Gorge Countdown Thread?

I've either blocked that from my memory subconsciously, or I was blacked out the whole time. Either way it doesn't stand out to me. You have an amazing memory and appreciable RM search function skills. I will allow this one exception and you may (please) send me a PM with a link to this thread.

Red Mosquito

Redskins name controversy

Re: Redskins name controversy

Re: Redskins name controversy

Re: Redskins name controversy

Re: Redskins name controversy

Re: Redskins name controversy

Re: Redskins name controversy

Re: Redskins name controversy

Re: Redskins name controversy

Re: Redskins name controversy

Re: Redskins name controversy

Re: Redskins name controversy

Re: Redskins name controversy

Re: Redskins name controversy

Re: Redskins name controversy

Re: Redskins name controversy

Re: Redskins name controversy

Re: Redskins name controversy

Re: Redskins name controversy

Re: Redskins name controversy

Re: Redskins name controversy