Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: ConservativeStatement

It’s the difference between a team named the Brooklyn Chasids versus one called the Staten Island Kikes.

Redskins is not the neutral name of a tribe, or a generic group of people, it’s a derogatory term for a “savage” enemy that we tried hard to exterminate for a century.


8 posted on 06/20/2014 7:30:12 AM PDT by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: babble-on

Exactly.


14 posted on 06/20/2014 7:34:04 AM PDT by Fuzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: babble-on

My state of Oklahoma will need to change its name then. The Choctaw words okla and humma means red people. Not a derogatory term for savages. Redskins was also a generic moniker. Over time, the meaning of words are changed by activists. Hell, just a year ago, marriage meant something completely different.


20 posted on 06/20/2014 7:41:36 AM PDT by optiguy (If government is the answer, it was a stupid question.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: babble-on
a “savage” enemy that we tried hard to exterminate for a century.

That they were savage is a fact. Regardless of how un-PC it is to say so today. Or, if you wish to dispute the term, you'll have to come up with a definition of "non-savage" that allows for routinely torturing captured enemies to death, which most tribes practiced.

It is factually incorrect to say "we tried hard to exterminate (them) for a century."

US policy wavered, but generally was aimed at assimilating Indians, not exterminating them. Of course, you can get around that by calling it "cultural genocide." When Indians were moved onto reservations, we fed them, however poorly the policy was implemented in many cases. Not exactly something you do with people you are determined to exterminate.

That physical extermination was never routine US policy can by seen by the fact that they weren't exterminated, when doing so was easily within US capabilities.

To look at an actual policy of extermination, you might want to google the Indian Wars of Argentina. They DID have a policy of extermination, and Argentina doesn't really have an Indian problem today. Because they mostly don't have any Indians.

28 posted on 06/20/2014 7:53:08 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: babble-on
sorry I do not buy your derogatory name theory..

If you look at the name and logo of the Washington Redskins vs the name and logo of the Cleveland Indians..

the Indian's logo is far more offensive

..a “little Sambo” type logo

vs the Redskins logo which is almost a Noble monument type logo similar to the Indian Head nickel

People that go out to find things to be offended by are sad.

I'm handicapped, arm amputee, if I went around finding offense at everything I could, I'd have no life

34 posted on 06/20/2014 8:35:23 AM PDT by tophat9000 (An Eye for an Eye, a Word for a Word...nothing more)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: babble-on; ConservativeStatement
Redskins is not the neutral name of a tribe, or a generic group of people, it’s a derogatory term for a “savage” enemy that we tried hard to exterminate for a century.

Huh? Redskins is a generic moniker -- all mascots are -- it's kind of the point. Certain North American tribes were "savage". And, you shouldn't judge "savage" as if it were necessarily a bad thing given the environment they thrived in. And "exterminate" ... I don't recall the Trail of Tears ending in a Nazi shower.


36 posted on 06/20/2014 8:55:42 AM PDT by so_real ( "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson