K-9 Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 That's a funny definition of oppression. Oppression needs no definition and I think you missed my intent. I'll chalk you up as being in the "just get over it" camp.
metzelaars_lives Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) FTR, I don't have a problem with changing the team name. Just love seeing you write things like this. It's like you have selective amnesia. You got me a little bit there but Jesus, I've written a freaking book in this thread already so you were bound to get me somehow. Either way thanks for reading. I guess what I was trying to say is that my opinion is that I'm supporting the Native Americans who do have an issue with the name. I have maintained throughout this thread that I don't care that much about this issue directly. It bothers me none. And yes it is offensive to me when white people take issue with the Native Americans who are offended. Read through this thread and you will find people who have placed themselves in the "I don't see why they should care" or "I know ol' Joe down at the smoke shop and he doesn't care so therefore none of them should" camp. They are taking a direct stance and saying "the name should not offend them." I am not asserting such an opinion as to whether they should or should not be offended. I am merely saying, many of them are offended so I defer to them on this one. I promise I wouldn't make an issue out of this if I didn't see the commercial they aired during the NBA Finals last year and the statement made by the NCAI, etc. There is clearly a strong contingent of Native Americans who do care about this issue and I support them. That is my opinion. Edited July 16, 2015 by metzelaars_lives
Rob's House Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) Actually I'm gonna circle back to this one here for a second. So you know a few native Americans who have no issue with the name. Perfect. After reading more about this, according to most polls, more than half of Native Americans don't have an issue with the name. Now granted, many of them are probably younger, like football and just don't care. Regardless, let's say for the sake of argument that most Native Americans don't care. I am aware of this. That being said, what if the handful of Native Americans you happen to hang out with were among the millions of them who do care and they cared very deeply about it. Do you think you might feel differently then? I would assume you would be adamantly in favor of changing the name because you have stated that you are going to err on the side of the opinion of the handful of Native Americans you do know. What if you meet Native Americans who are deeply offended by the name in the future? Would their opinion hold any water or are you sticking with the few people you already know? Better yet, why don't you take a ride to the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota sometime and ask around up there what they think. Are you like an ostrich? Do you think because you haven't met a Native American that is offended by the name that they don't really exist? I thought I already addressed this. It's not that I don't think they exist, I'm just not inclined to lend all deference to anyone who decides to feel offended. If I knew people like that I'd probably ridicule them for trying so hard to find something to get upset about. I have about as much respect for their position as I do for midgets who arbitrarily decided to become offended by the term midget; or cripples who arbitrarily decided to be offended by the term cripple. Taking something that's not intended to offend, was never considered offensive, then twisting it to make a contrived argument that it is offensive, and then becoming highly offended by it, is not something I have any respect for. But like I said before, since I know there are a lot of Indians who like the name, why should I dismiss their opinion and side with a group who's begging for grievances? Why should the offended always get top priority? P.S. I'm sure many of these groups capitalize on this issue the same way Al Sharpton capitalizes on racial tension. Edited July 16, 2015 by Rob's House
FireChan Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 Oppression needs no definition and I think you missed my intent. I'll chalk you up as being in the "just get over it" camp. If oppression means stubbing your toe, then yes.
A Dog Named Kelso Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) Indians is a term that gained a bit of traction as maybe being somewhat offensive 20 years ago or so (after all, they're not freaking Indians- Louis CK has a great bit on that) but they have pretty much come to terms with that one and are way cooler with it than "redskins." I guess my point is if the native american population was offended by a term as benign as Indian(which, I would think the population from that sub continent may actually have more an issue with) some may feel that its been over played. Even if they have a legit problem this time. This is the problem with over zealous PC ... after a while the public turns on you. Basically they got their wish with the with not being named "Indians" and now much the public after 25 years is no longer interested in their plight ... right or wrong. That is probably what you are seeing on this board, I am guessing. I'll have to take a look at the CK Louis bit ... thanks for the heads up. Edited July 16, 2015 by A Dog Named Kelso
K-9 Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 If oppression means stubbing your toe, then yes. I was mistaken to assume oppression didn't require definition, apparently. I guess one man's government-sanctioned genocide of an entire race including his ancestors is another man's stubbed toe.
metzelaars_lives Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) I thought I already addressed this. It's not that I don't think they exist, I'm just not inclined to lend all deference to anyone who decides to feel offended. If I knew people like that I'd probably ridicule them for trying so hard to find something to get upset about. I have about as much respect for their position as I do for midgets who arbitrarily decided to become offended by the term midget; or cripples who arbitrarily decided to be offended by the term cripple. Taking something that's not intended to offend, was never considered offensive, then twisting it to make a contrived argument that it is offensive, and then becoming highly offended by it, is not something I have any respect for. But like I said before, since I know there are a lot of Indians who like the name, why should I dismiss their opinion and side with a group who's begging for grievances? Why should the offended always get top priority? P.S. I'm sure many of these groups capitalize on this issue the same way Al Sharpton capitalizes on racial tension. So if you met an old venerable Native American man out in South Dakota- let's even say a medicine man- and he invited you to join him and his family for a sweat in his sweat lodge and while sharing his pipe with you, he explained to you how in his grandfather's day, redskin was a term that caused great pain among his people and he and his contemporaries had always found it offensive despite the younger generation's growing indifference, you would ridicule him? I know you have all these Native American friends- maybe sometime they should take you on a little road trip out west and you can see some of the reservations in Utah, Arizona and New Mexico so you can see how they're all capitalizing on this issue and really living it up. And while you're out there, make sure and ridicule all of the ones that tell you they are offended by the term redskin. Especially the older ones. That'll show em. Edited July 16, 2015 by metzelaars_lives
FireChan Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) I was mistaken to assume oppression didn't require definition, apparently. I guess one man's government-sanctioned genocide of an entire race including his ancestors is another man's stubbed toe. So Native Americans today are being oppressed because at least 4 generations ago their ancestors were killed? I gave you a chance to define oppression. Show me a case of Native American oppression in the last generation. You can't, besides "mean names." Are the Irish still oppressed? Their great grandparents couldn't get jobs. Or maybe current Chinese Americans are oppressed, their ancestors were getting blown up to build railroads. Oh wait, they pay taxes, received no reimbursements from the government, including swaths of land, and don't reap one-way benefits of protection by the US military, etc. Necessary ingredients for oppression. Edited July 16, 2015 by FireChan
metzelaars_lives Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) So Native Americans today are being oppressed because at least 4 generations ago their ancestors were killed? I gave you a chance to define oppression. Show me a case of Native American oppression in the last generation. You can't, besides "mean names." Are the Irish still oppressed? Their great grandparents couldn't get jobs. Or maybe current Chinese Americans are oppressed, their ancestors were getting blown up to build railroads. Oh wait, they pay taxes, received no reimbursements from the government, including swaths of land, and don't reap one-way benefits of protection by the US military, etc. Necessary ingredients for oppression. Wow. I actually agree with you on this one. It was really generous of us to give the Native Americans so much of our land. And they have really cashed in on our military protection with all those attacks on their reservations. Yes FireChan, the US Military has been awfully kind to those Native Americans over the years. Edited July 16, 2015 by metzelaars_lives
FireChan Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 Wow. I actually agree with you on this one. It was really generous of us to give the Native Americans so much of our land. And they have really cashed in on our military protection with all those attacks on their reservations. Yes FireChan, the US Military has been awfully kind to those Native Americans over the years. When was the last Native American killed by our military in an aggressive event? They enjoy the protection of the US military without paying for it. That cannot be disputed. It doesn't matter if they've been attacked. If the Natives are still oppressed due to the sins of our great-great-great grandfathers, so are the Chinese, Japanese, Irish, and every other immigrant in the US.
metzelaars_lives Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 Do you believe that Natives are oppressed by our government, right now, today? If I'm wrong, show me. Oppressed? Probably not. Forgotten about and cast aside? Obviously. Are blacks oppressed in the United States in 2015? Let's say for the sake of argument that they're not. Although they probably are to a certain extent and if they are, believe me, the Native Americans have a rougher go of it than anyone. But we can probably agree that blacks are not as oppressed in the United States in 2015 as they were in 1965. Does that mean that calling a baseball team the Mississippi Negroes would be more appropriate now than in 1965 because they're less oppressed? Or have you abandoned the name issue altogether and we're strictly talking about whether or not they are oppressed today? And ya know what- how preposterous is it to imagine a baseball team called the Mississippi Negroes in 2015, right? That's not even a slur! They are negroes! It's just a dated name that people decided was better not used. Redskin is a slur. Maybe not intended that way by everyone- probably not even the people who named the team. But it's certainly interpreted that way by many. The problem is that the Native Americans were so obliterated and left for dead as a people that they've never really had any support or advocacy or a voice the way, say blacks have. When was the last Native American killed by our military in an aggressive event? They enjoy the protection of the US military without paying for it. That cannot be disputed. It doesn't matter if they've been attacked. If the Natives are still oppressed due to the sins of our great-great-great grandfathers, so are the Chinese, Japanese, Irish, and every other immigrant in the US. So being discriminated against when looking for work or even being placed in internment camps as the Japanese were during WWII is your equivalent of being virtually wiped off the face of the earth as a people in an act of genocide. We didn't show up on Plymouth Rock to a land inhabited by a bunch of Irish and Chinese guys you realize.
FireChan Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) Oppressed? Probably not. Forgotten about and cast aside? Obviously. Are blacks oppressed in the United States in 2015? Let's say for the sake of argument that they're not. Although they probably are to a certain extent and if they are, believe me, the Native Americans have a rougher go of it than anyone. But we can probably agree that blacks are not as oppressed in the United States in 2015 as they were in 1965. Does that mean that calling a baseball team the Mississippi Negroes would be more appropriate now than in 1965 because they're less oppressed? Or have you abandoned the name issue altogether and we're strictly talking about whether or not they are oppressed today? And ya know what- how preposterous is it to imagine a baseball team called the Mississippi Negroes in 2015, right? That's not even a slur! They are negroes! It's just a dated name that people decided was better not used. Redskin is a slur. Maybe not intended that way by everyone- probably not even the people who named the team. But it's certainly interpreted that way by many. The problem is that the Native Americans were so obliterated and left for dead as a people that they've never really had any support or advocacy or a voice the way, say blacks have. So being discriminated against when looking for work or even being placed in internment camps as the Japanese were during WWII is your equivalent of being virtually wiped off the face of the earth as a people in an act of genocide. We didn't show up on Plymouth Rock to a land inhabited by a bunch of Irish and Chinese guys you realize. Natives aren't oppressed today. My only point. Thanks for disagreeing then agreeing. Edited July 16, 2015 by FireChan
metzelaars_lives Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 When was the last Native American killed by our military in an aggressive event? They enjoy the protection of the US military without paying for it. That cannot be disputed. It doesn't matter if they've been attacked. If the Natives are still oppressed due to the sins of our great-great-great grandfathers, so are the Chinese, Japanese, Irish, and every other immigrant in the US. Probably the very late 1800's. When was the last Chinese American or Irish American killed in an aggressive American military event? Over 10 million Indians were killed in North America alone by the US Military and settlers during manifest destiny. How many Irish Americans and Chinese Americans have been killed by organized US Military activities since, let's say the settlement of Jamestown in 1607?
FireChan Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 Probably the very late 1800's. When was the last Chinese American or Irish American killed in an aggressive American military event? Over 10 million Indians were killed in North America alone by the US Military and settlers during manifest destiny. How many Irish Americans and Chinese Americans have been killed by organized US Military activities since, let's say the settlement of Jamestown in 1607? Sins of our fathers. Are Jews still oppressed in Germany?
metzelaars_lives Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 Sins of our fathers. Are Jews still oppressed in Germany? They all left. Would it be appropriate if there was a German soccer team called the Jews and they had a very proud looking Jewish man as their mascot and the owner's original intent was to pay homage to the Jews? Again, "Jew" isn't even a slur so "Redskin" is actually worse in this case.
FireChan Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 They all left. Would it be appropriate if there was a German soccer team called the Jews and they had a very proud looking Jewish man as their mascot and the owner's original intent was to pay homage to the Jews? Again, "Jew" isn't even a slur so "Redskin" is actually worse in this case. What are you talking about?
metzelaars_lives Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 What are you talking about? What is unclear?
FireChan Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) What is unclear? Why you keep asking me about team names. Unless you consider that a sign of oppression. And why you keep associating a privately owned team with the country it resides in. As if that matters. Edited July 16, 2015 by FireChan
Rob's House Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) So if you met an old venerable Native American man out in South Dakota- let's even say a medicine man- and he invited you to join him and his family for a sweat in his sweat lodge and while sharing his pipe with you, he explained to you how in his grandfather's day, redskin was a term that caused great pain among his people and he and his contemporaries had always found it offensive despite the younger generation's growing indifference, you would ridicule him? I know you have all these Native American friends- maybe sometime they should take you on a little road trip out west and you can see some of the reservations in Utah, Arizona and New Mexico so you can see how they're all capitalizing on this issue and really living it up. And while you're out there, make sure and ridicule all of the ones that tell you they are offended by the term redskin. Especially the older ones. That'll show em. I don't think your presumption that it's the younger generation that likes it is correct. I'd think it's more likely politically correct millenials that are all worked up about it. And I'm not moved by your sanctimonious ploy to invoke some hypothetical Indian whose "pain" is to somehow outweigh the majority of Indians who disagree with him. They all left. Would it be appropriate if there was a German soccer team called the Jews and they had a very proud looking Jewish man as their mascot and the owner's original intent was to pay homage to the Jews? Again, "Jew" isn't even a slur so "Redskin" is actually worse in this case. If that's your angle you'd be going after Braves, Indians, Seminoles, etc. The crux of your argument is that "redskin" is offensive. Edited July 16, 2015 by Rob's House
K-9 Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 So Native Americans today are being oppressed because at least 4 generations ago their ancestors were killed? I gave you a chance to define oppression. Show me a case of Native American oppression in the last generation. You can't, besides "mean names." Are the Irish still oppressed? Their great grandparents couldn't get jobs. Or maybe current Chinese Americans are oppressed, their ancestors were getting blown up to build railroads. Oh wait, they pay taxes, received no reimbursements from the government, including swaths of land, and don't reap one-way benefits of protection by the US military, etc. Necessary ingredients for oppression. I rest my case.
Recommended Posts