A Redskins Shirt At The Holocaust Museum

[peartreed]

I must confess to being a male, so that further references to me are gender correct.

I’m also guilty, initially, of being confused as to the gender of Carol Newquist. Not that either really matters, but it’s nice to have a mental image of usernames here whether male, female or some combination thereof. When I discovered Carol was a male I immediately pictured Carroll O’Connor – the actor who played Archie Bunker.

In his private life O’Connor was a gentle, learned, left-leaning actor who, as the performer playing Archie, could switch in a millisecond to being an ignorant red-neck bigot and boor who had no clue about common social graces, let alone any sophistication. His little limited world in All In The Family was about his hat size.

That didn’t stop him pronouncing belligerently upon all that mystified his narrow and prejudiced, uninformed and erroneous personal opinions. Great comedy!

Sometimes imagination makes amazing matches, even the instant transformations.

[Iamwhomiam]

You know, if you walked into a biker bar with the same attitude you entered RI, you wouldn't be walking out.

Oooh, I bet it felt mighty powerful to say that, didn't it? A little violent innuendo sent my way vicariously through the biker gangs. I have a sister-in-law who went to a biker bar with her friends back in her late teens and the bikers thought she had an attitude and gang-raped her, so nice touch there Iamwhomiam. You're a class act and a great spokesperson for the feminist cause. Next, you'll be telling me if I had a certain "attitude" in prison, I'd be gang-raped.

By the way, why did you choose jew for your question? Why not a japanese person, or an eastern indian person, or a norwegian person? Why a jew? How about a canadian?

Next time you decide to quote me, please use my entire comment. What you omitted was the important part:

You remain here for your own perverse reasons. At this point you're being so disruptive, it's become difficult to take you seriously about anything you might have to say.

Try to keep things straight, Carol. I've asked you no question that mentions the word "Jew." But I have asked you several others you continue to ignore that I would appreciate being answered.

If you believe I was somehow being vicariously violent, you're mistaken. I'm a pacifist. I just don't appreciate rude. Being rude is always unhelpful and always unnecessary.

What I said was factual, with no wish to see you come to harm. You would indeed receive a beating by bikers if you strolled in and started complaining about motorcycles, their interior design or any other biker. It's a shame about what happened to your sister-in-law and I'm saddened for her horrible experience.

It's clear though, you've learned nothing from her experience, especially if it was somehow brought about by her pompous attitude, which may or may not be true. Some people have no sense of propriety at all and take no caution from past experience. I wish men never acted as they did or as you are. It always ends badly for all even remotely related to it. These days I work more on reducing violence in society than on anything else.

Should I criticize your entire posting because of my own tragic experience? My son was killed by someone who was prejudiced against him and his friends without any reason except his prejudice. Should I say "nice touch, Carol?" Prejudice is deadly and should be eliminated wherever it exists because it is irrational under most circumstances.

It's interesting you would think me a spokesperson for the feminist cause, my being a man and all. It's a peculiar thing to suggest a man should be spokesperson for the feminist cause when objecting to whites commenting upon blatant racism because they are not of the same race as the offended party.

But indeed, I am a feminist. And I do use my voice to support the feminist cause whenever possible.

Your first line is nearly they same as one of my favorites from the movie Kalifornia, uttered by Brad Pitts' bleeding and laughing character after he was smashed in the face with a shovel.

All fresh meat in prison risks being raped; one's attitude is irrelevant to being raped. Your attitude shown here in prison would get you killed.

I have lectured graduate law students at Russel Sage on restorative justice and would never wish anyone become imprisoned, btw. Where have you lectured lately? And I don't mean ripping on your wife in the bedroom because you aren't getting any.

[seemslikeadream]

Iamwhomiam he keeps confusing us cause we all look alike

[Carol Newquist]

Alright, enough of this immature nonsense. I disgracefully allowed myself to be baited into a flame war and nothing positive can come of that.....except something did. I found the "friend & foe" function, and as much as I detest censorship, there are several posters who are not interested in learning and exploring...sharing and discussing, so I'm compelled to designate them as foes in order to avoid reacting to them and allowing myself to get off topic. There is a small nucleus of great posters to RI....there used to be more and unfortunately many were driven off through exasperation or just became bored with the dulling down of this space....and that is the nucleus I respect and with whom I want to discuss and share ideas. If someone quotes one of the foes (I dislike that term....it doesn't adequately describe my feelings...it's much more complex than that) as a retaliatory personal attack and insult of me, they too will be added to my foe list. Of course, that list could become quite prodigious over time, and that's fine. It will allow me to whittle the board down to its delectable and edible core after removing the rotten outer layers the the onion. And I have to say, it feels liberating to do this....to be able to speak to topics constructively without the specter of personal attack looming over you like a Sword of Damocles. A troll doesn't do what I'm doing.....it doesn't censor.....it relishes flame wars and wants attention regardless of whether it's negative or positive. Is my style bold and provocative? Sure it is, but what's wrong with that? It keeps things interesting, and interesting is what makes life worthwhile. I'm not interested in hurting anyone and I don't want to engage in personal attacks, so I've censored, which goes against my principles, but the way I see it, the people I've censored are not acting in good faith and their strategy at this point amounts to nothing more than spam....no, strike that, it's worse than spam because at least spam is innocuous and not intended, for the most part, to harm and hurt.

That aside, I posted the latest article because the headline supports other evidence I've presented in this thread thus far, and that is as follows, once again:

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=37290&start=120#p524943

No Consensus Among Indians on 'Redskins' Name

First, an interesting observation. Note that the AP writer has been coerced into putting the name redskins into quotes. I think that's telling. I've posted this elsewhere, but I'm posting it again because it's relevant and poignant. It's an interview with Samuel L. Jackson. Samuel L. Jackson tells the white reporter to say nigger and not the n word, and the reporter refuses. Jackson makes a great point.....that the reporter embodies the same mindset that sought to have the word nigger expunged from historical literature....from books like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.



Moving along and drilling into the article, there was this:

The controversy has peaked in the last few days. President Barack Obama said Saturday he would consider getting rid of the name if he owned the team, and the NFL took the unprecedented step Monday of promising to meet with the Oneida Indian Nation, which is waging a national ad campaign against the league.

Interesting. "He would consider." That doesn't sound very emphatic for such a cut & dried sensitive issue like this that's caused such a stir and offended so many sensibilities. If it's this controversial, and it has such a high degree of merit, the use of the word consideration would be insulting and inappropriate. And who knows, maybe after Obama's second term as a face to the seat, when he collects on all those off-the-book investments his "friends" have been making for him all these years with advanced inside knowledge of where to invest based off of behind-the-scenes proposed legislation, he can buy a football team....or any pro sports team...and name it whatever he deems appropriate, considering. Or maybe now, whilst he's still president, he and his administration can nationalize the NFL, or in the least, nationalize the Washington Redskins and rename it the Washington Plutocrats or the Washington Oligarchs...or the Washington Plunderers....or the Washington Tyrants or the Washington AIPACers.

Next from the article, there is the following:

There are Native American schools that call their teams Redskins. The term is used affectionately by some natives, similar to the way the N-word is used by some African-Americans. In the only recent poll to ask native people about the subject, 90 percent of respondents did not consider the term offensive, although many question the cultural credentials of the respondents.

Note the conflating of the word redskins with nigger and note the author is coerced into saying "the N-word." Simpletons don't like the effort required in distinction. Their only form of distinction is black and white....because it's simple, easy peazy, no need to spend any time parsing and sifting. It's the same problem with identity politics. Let someone do the thinking for you and tell you what and who you are and how you should express yourself right down to the appropriate talking points...all predigested for easy consumption. No thinking required.

I don't like polls. I believe they can be structured to elicit an intended response, so I don't trust this one any more than I'd trust a poll submitted by Ray Halbritter. But the author doesn't say that. He casts doubt on it for other reasons. He says, "many question the cultural credentials of the respondents." Okay, first, who are the many to whom he refers, and second, what is meant by cultural credentials? Does it refer to the 3.2 million who tell the census they're indian (and note that the author doesn't quote indian like he does redskins. I'm surpirsed he doesn't refer to redskins as the R word...he might as well) but are not enrolled (interesting terminology there) in the 566 federally recognized tribes? If so, maybe that gives a clue as to who at least some of the many are who question the poll because of cultural credentials. Is the thinking that if you consider yourself an indian on the checkbox on the census form because no other box adequately describes you yet you're not enrolled in one of the many federally recognized tribes, you somehow are not indian, or in the least, your opinion doesn't amount to much because you won't allow yourself to be cajoled and cowed by a Ray Halbritter Boss Hog type and his sycophantic minions? I don't know, the author doesn't elaborate, but it seems plausible....and more specifically, it seems plausible that part of that many to whom the author refers are Ray Halbritter operatives and partners in crime, and shame on anyone who doesn't think what Halbritter has done to, and is doing to, the Oneida Nation isn't criminal, immoral and unethical.

Alright, I'll break it off for now right here and pick up the dissection of the article in another post. Posts that are too long can be cumbersome and unwieldy and don't make for easy reading, so I'll bifurcate it...or trifurcate it.

Thanks for reading.

[seemslikeadream]

What you fail to realize CN ....we are ALL bozos on this bus.....all you have to do is put the balls on the other side

[Searcher08]

Alright, enough of this immature nonsense.
I disgracefully allowed myself to be baited into a flame war

= You did nothing of the sort.You acted like an asshole to many people here, they objected, you still are and now you are makinga fairy story about it.

and nothing positive can come of that.....except something did. I found the "friend & foe" function, and as much as I detest censorship,

"Some of my best friends are Redskins"

there are several posters who are not interested in learning and exploring

= because they object to me acting like an asshole and / or disagree with me, I will slag them off

...sharing and discussing, so I'm compelled to designate them as foes in order to avoid reacting to them and allowing myself to get off topic.

* = I dish it, but dont like it when it comes back at me

There is a small nucleus of great posters to RI....there used to be more and unfortunately many were driven off through exasperation or just became bored with the dulling down of this space....

** Evidence of you being a previously registered RI member who has come back to cause disruption.

and that is the nucleus I respect and with whom I want to discuss and share ideas.
If someone quotes one of the foes (I dislike that term....it doesn't adequately describe my feelings...it's much more complex than that) as a retaliatory personal attack and insult of me, they too will be added to my foe list.

= You will be talking to yourself very soon in that case. Not that that will stop you.

Of course, that list could become quite prodigious over time, and that's fine. It will allow me to whittle the board down to its delectable and edible core after removing the rotten outer layers the the onion.

** Classical trolling.. I wonder who you are... Hmm... Anyone recognise the posting style? Kind of narcissistic...

And I have to say, it feels liberating to do this....to be able to speak to topics constructively without the specter of personal attack looming over you like a Sword of Damocles.

= Like anyone gives a shit. You cannot distinguish being called out on being an asshole from personal attack. You must be an 'interesting' person to manage.

A troll doesn't do what I'm doing.....it doesn't censor.....it relishes flame wars and wants attention regardless of whether it's negative or positive.

** <eyes rolling> ORLY?? And just what is THIS attention whoring you are currently engaged in?

Is my style bold and provocative?

** No, it isnt. Not at all.
I find your engagement style predictable, disengaging, sloppy and disingenuous.
Your posts are often free associational nonsense with neither structure nor coherence.
It is like having a dinner guest who eats a lovely meal with their fingers and wipes their hands on other guests. It's like John Belushi in Animal House but without the fun.

Sure it is, but what's wrong with that? It keeps things interesting, and interesting is what makes life worthwhile.
I'm not interested in hurting anyone and I don't want to engage in personal attacks, so I've censored, which goes against my principles,

** Fuck , your reality detection mechanism is really skewed. You have constantly engaged in being offensive and in personal attacks from the moment of your arrival.

but the way I see it, the people I've censored are not acting in good faith and their strategy at this point amounts to nothing more than spam....no, strike that, it's worse than spam because at least spam is innocuous and not intended, for the most part, to harm and hurt.

In the distance was heard...the mooing of the Butthurt LOLcow as it lovingly stared at it's reflection.

[JackRiddler]

I guessed from the start it was a guy playing a goil, or suggesting it with the name imagining there's an added layer of protection before it gets its ass kicked. Which was the one who started that long "RI is over" thread a couple of years ago?

[Wombaticus Rex]

While I'm generally averse to locking threads -- since it's never about the thread, always about the usernames -- this is going nowhere even by the standards of pointless arguments.

Insert token admonition to please keep this from spilling out into every other thread on the first page.

Insert emoticon representing the sad, heavy realization my admonition is a comical waste of effort.