Washington Redskins must change their offensive Name...

page: 11
79
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by whyamIhere
 


" According to Costas, the Redskins are a different matter:

Think for a moment about the term “Redskins” and how it truly differs from all the others. Ask yourself what the equivalent would be if directed towards African Americans, Hispanics, Asians or members of any other ethnic group.

When considered that way, “Redskins” can’t possibly honor a heritage or a noble character trait, nor could it possibly be considered a neutral term. It’s an insult, a slur, no matter how benign the present-day intent.

It’s fair to say that for a long time now and certainly in 2013, no offense has been intended, but if you take a step back isn’t it clear to see how offense might legitimately be taken? "


Lets see , it took Bob Costas How Many Years of Sports Reporting to Finally come to that Conclusion ? How many times has he mentioned the NFL's Washington Redskins during his Reporting Career and Not Voiced those sentiments about their Alledged Racist Name ? Talk about a Hypocrate with a Present Agenda Indeed..........





posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   
OTOH, I sort of LIKED "The Fighting Whiteys"




posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Bedlam
OTOH, I sort of LIKED "The Fighting Whiteys"





I'm somehow not offended.

I think it's Cal St. Fullerton baseball team is "The Dirtbags".

I think Redskins is edgy in 2013. But, there is like one Native complaining.

Private Team, Private League.....I guess you could not by a ticket to protest.



posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 10:57 PM
link   
This is shockingly stupid. Beyond stupid, this is the kind of argument seen in kindergarten play yards. The name " offends me" as if one is a victim by this stupid symbol.

I love how Costas and the rest of the moronic class are DEMANDING a name change and conspicuously NOT DEMANDING better treatment of the natives apart from this - like say for the last 50 years Bob. This is beyond the pale of absurdity. As if getting rid of the name does anything at all, anything, to end the current plight of the natives? The whiny whites want this done just like the fake outrage to fur, it just make certain privileged white people feel better about what's in their eye's line of sight.

One cannot find the bottom of this senseless fake outrage. These classic idiots don't even see the worst of it. The "game" is professional entertainment produced by a company that is a non-profit company that receives an anti-trust exemption and that exists for the SOLE purpose of making war and violence acceptable. Players are treated like expendable slaves and the venues are paid for though tax dollars because this non-profit can't afford to pay for the own venues. There is no coincidence that the rise in football has accompanied the rise in US violence toward others -each week we see killing on the field which makes us like the killing in the fields.

The irony for Costas et all to see is this: Each week a team goes to WAR, using their field general, in order to DEFEAT the Redskins! That is never mentioned, that each week the symbols of war are played out over and over again in order to entertain you gladiator style. That isn't addressed, no, just the "oh boy, this is so offensive" bs surrounding the dumb use of the symbol. At least this keeps the natives in the discourse, that and the hysterical lie concerning thanksgiving.

FYI, what team has been the best since 9-11. The Patriots of course! Wonder how that happened; war, gladiators, patriots, USA, national anthem, war metaphors: psyop. Ask yourself this question: Before Tom Brady was THE TOM BRADY, why was he invited to sit next to Laura Bush during the State of the Union? Any other warriors get that privilege?

There are much bigger things to be offended about in this entire process then the stupid name on a lousy team.



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 10:31 PM
link   

whyamIhere
reply to post by loveXlight
 


Don't sweat it...

Lots of people fell for it.


It's pretty funny.



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   

crankyoldman
This is shockingly stupid. Beyond stupid, this is the kind of argument seen in kindergarten play yards. The name " offends me" as if one is a victim by this stupid symbol.
This is beyond the pale of absurdity. As if getting rid of the name does anything at all, anything, to end the current plight of the natives?
Are you familiar with the term 'appropriation of voice'? You have members of the First Nations saying they have a problem with the term 'Redskin', and you are taking it upon yourself to dismiss that expression. You also assert that use of the word is neglible in terms of the larger problems affecting "Native Americans".

You might consider that, at the very least, the discussion begins with respect. And listening.

The vagaries of football, you are invited to sort out yourself.



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   

JohnnyCanuck

crankyoldman
This is shockingly stupid. Beyond stupid, this is the kind of argument seen in kindergarten play yards. The name " offends me" as if one is a victim by this stupid symbol.
This is beyond the pale of absurdity. As if getting rid of the name does anything at all, anything, to end the current plight of the natives?
Are you familiar with the term 'appropriation of voice'? You have members of the First Nations saying they have a problem with the term 'Redskin', and you are taking it upon yourself to dismiss that expression. You also assert that use of the word is neglible in terms of the larger problems affecting "Native Americans".

You might consider that, at the very least, the discussion begins with respect. And listening.

The vagaries of football, you are invited to sort out yourself.


I'm native american, cherokee, and there is NO way I will ever choose to allow some jerk-off entertainment system of violence to offend me. It is inconceivable that I would give away my power to people who figure their system of inciting violence is a god given right. To allow yourself to be "offended," to choose to be "offended" but such trivialities is to GIVE UP YOUR POWER! To suggest that the kids playing the sandbox are well beneath you and leave them be is far better when whining about things of this nature.

Further, this is another in a LONG LONG LONG LONG line of psyops designed to get people angry at each other over nothing. There is one every three weeks, has been for twenty years, in fact, I recall last year Costas again involved in a gun control one with the same attempt at creating more "offended" people.

To evolve to the point of being WELL beyond the notion of choosing to give away your power because someone has arbitrarily created a new thing to be offended at is to be in a much better place. To live in a world where you must choose to be offended at each and every government/msm created divisive event or symbol is to be disempowered.

Some group of bureaucrats wants to ban the use of "brown bag" because some people might choose to be offended by a term that describes a sack lunch!!!! Despite what people think, you CHOOSE, yes, you CHOOSE to be offended, no one makes you feel anything unless you choose to feel it. You are free to give those who attempt to offend you that power, but why on earth you would give them power to begin with is beyond me.

I guy came up to me in the supermarket and said something quite derogatory to me. He could have "offended" me. Instead I saw him as well beneath not only my contempt, but my entire being and I walked away. I have no idea what happened to him, I only know he got no attention, no energy, and surely not my feeling of "offense." Should I have taught him a lesson in some way?



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by crankyoldman
 


Well then...I stand corrected and you certainly seem to have a handle on things.



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by crankyoldman
 


Simply marvelous.


Now you know why "fat" is in my screen name.





top topics
 
79
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join