A Redskins Shirt At The Holocaust Museum

[Carol Newquist]

This is great advice to seemslikeadream for posting that strawman article about american indian sovereignty and equal rights. I hope it's well-received.

What part of satire do you not understand? Seriously? I was taking her admonition and turning it on you using her logic and sentiment. My views about what and what isn't a strawman have been made clear in my last post before this one. I thought it was hilarious that she leveled the strawman claim at me when it was you who created the strawman....according to peartreed's admonition and definition of such. But, like I said, the whole thread is a strawman to the OP. It's irrelevant at this point, but we've learned a lot about this issue. That article from frontpage mag juxtaposed with the excerpt from American Dream's article is a bombshell, not a strawman. It blows this thing wide open, and not only that, now it will have me digging into this whole deceitful reservation leadership business and gaming scam that's going on. I smell a sewer full of rats. You'll always find them when there's big money involved.

[Joao]

Other attempts here to change the term’s connotation to its use for a different subculture is simply a diversion, changing the argument instead of addressing it.

The technique of reframing an unwinnable argument into a separate, broader and unrelated issue, and arguing that separate issue instead, is known as creating a straw man.

Other putative straw persons aside, allow me to clarify that my suggestions for the team to embrace militant communist skinhead culture and Karl Marx placards were not, in fact, serious.

G*d only knows the deathly tedious confluence of football and casual American racism is so absurd that the only proper response is additional absurdities. I'm surprised there's even any argument here--the whole country is racist through and through; "Redskins" is just another example in an endless stream.

Edit: Shit, now I'm gonna get lumped in with the "satirist." Perhaps Joao should consider adopting a troll persona, as that seems to generate the most engaged responses.

[seemslikeadream]

This is great advice to seemslikeadream for posting that strawman article about american indian sovereignty and equal rights. I hope it's well-received.

What part of satire do you not understand? Seriously? I was taking her admonition and turning it on you using her logic and sentiment. My views about what and what isn't a strawman have been made clear in my last post before this one. I thought it was hilarious that she leveled the strawman claim at me when it was you who created the strawman....according to peartreed's admonition and definition of such. But, like I said, the whole thread is a strawman to the OP. It's irrelevant at this point, but we've learned a lot about this issue. That article from frontpage mag juxtaposed with the excerpt from American Dream's article is a bombshell, not a strawman. It blows this thing wide open, and not only that, now it will have me digging into this whole deceitful reservation leadership business and gaming scam that's going on. I smell a sewer full of rats. You'll always find them when there's big money involved.

because of your posting style I can't make heads or tails about anything you post....you don't quote people you are responding to.....it makes it really difficult to follow anything you are trying to say...on top of that......the fact that I don't give a shit about what you write might have a bit of an influence on my understanding...you do understand don't you when you personally attacked me...in you're own special "get to know me the new poster here" way, of being a sadistic pedophile enabler and a member of the DNC....I tend to tune out anything you spout.....but once in awhile....here and there I will come upon something you typed and go "what the fuck?"


I like to learn new stuff here and I find, from the little I have read of you here.... there is nothing of value for me...you seem to turn 360 in a heart beat....so more often than not I will be ignoring you

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Being of full-blooded Aboriginal descent, I'm Ojibway, I wasn't offended by the Washington Redskins. I mentioned this to someone speaking on this and they said to me "Maybe you should be." That was 97-98 (?) and since then I have struggled with it. The high school I attended, our sports team was called the Warriors and had an indian with a headdress on it for a logo, it never bothered me.

I do have a problem with buffoons putting on headdresses and war paint and pounding on a drum at games though. Fools.

[82_28]

This is the last (for the most part I am going to say). Fuck it, let them keep the Redskins name. There were far worse monikers for Native Americans back in the day. It won't happen for one and two who really cares? I am most certainly not coming from a right wing perspective. However, I recognize the reality of the situation and the ratio of those incensed to those who don't care has to be 99:1.

I would never do it because I do not use racially explicit terms in and of the fact that it's not a big deal. The meaning of The Washington Redskins has nothing racist about it at all other than what you imagine to be.

What it truly shows is that we can always get worked up over nothing. This is nothing. Nothing. The past is the past and history will be learned if someone so desires to delve in. That's why I maintain the proactive stance. Treat it as an opportunity to educate about the cultural issues, but more importantly the history. Changing the name, if all those offended (which they're really not) want to see change would be to "parlay" this into a "teachable moment" in which it would actually be useful for everyone. One could go on and on about various examples, such as my old high school.

Dudes it's just a name. I highly doubt that 99% of the Redskins fans use the term "N****R". The term of Redskins has lost, sadly, for those who wish to remember the golden years of racism it's sting. That's that. History has spoken. It just fucking goes that way. At this point in time there is nothing to even give a fuck about about a team named the "Redskins". It was something "neutral" for its day and still persists. Why? Because it is an identity that should proactively handled. Again, I certainly see the issues, but we cannot handle the prejudices of those who came before us and rename a bunch of shit that just wound up becoming neutral.

How about the motherfucking Minnesota Vikings?

The Vikings (Scandinavians who raided and colonized wide areas of Europe from the late 8th century to the early 11th century,[55]) have acquired a reputation for "rape and pillage". Viking settlements in Britain and Ireland are thought to have been primarily male enterprises, with a lesser role for Viking females. British Isles women are mentioned in old texts on the founding of Iceland, indicating that the Viking explorers had acquired wives and concubines from Britain and Ireland.[56] Some historians dispute the Vikings' "rape and pillage" image, arguing that exaggeration and distortion in later medieval texts created an image of treacherous and brutal Northmen.[57]

Female slavery and war rapes were also common during the medieval Arab slave trade, where prisoners of war captured in battle from non-Arab lands often ended up as concubine slaves (who are considered free when their master dies) in the Arab World.[58] Most of these slaves came from places such as Sub-Saharan Africa (mainly Zanj), the Caucasus (mainly Circassians),[59] Central Asia (mainly Tartars), and Central and Eastern Europe (mainly Saqaliba).[60] Historian Robert Davis claims that the Barbary pirates also captured 1.25 million slaves from Western Europe and North America between the 16th and 19th centuries.[61][62]

The Mongols, who established the Mongol Empire across much of Eurasia, caused much destruction during their invasions. Documents written during or after Genghis Khan's reign say that after a conquest, the Mongol soldiers looted, pillaged and raped. Rogerius, a monk who survived the Mongol invasion of Hungary, pointed out not only the genocidal element of the occupation, but also that the Mongols especially "found pleasure" in humiliating local women[63]. Some troops who submitted were incorporated into the Mongol system in order to expand their manpower. These techniques were sometimes used to spread terror and warning to others.[64]

The sack of Aberdeen in 1644 by the Royalist general Montrose during the English Civil War involved large-scale rape.[65]

Guys and gals, you know I am a friend here. Redskins is sadly, neutral. It is a choice to name something well before our times yet most people today respect. Thus it was named. Take it up with the namers. Native Americans are respected here.

[peartreed]

The war paint being applied by outsiders continues to cover the controversy at issue.

I'd also like to try to retrieve the needle as the original point in this haystack of straw.

seemslikeadream has tried to keep this thread on point from the start, despite constant diversions and through personal attacks, as the OP quoting the Ben Ferenz article on the US opposition to the ICC policing aggression against racial groups, to the Swanson article on making sense of hypocritical government positions, policies and priorities being as hallucinatory as wearing a Redskins shirt to the Holocaust Museum.

That final sentence in the second article of the first post, and the thread title, opened the topic of “Redskins” as illustrative of the subject: sanctioned racial discrimination continuing today (as the name of a football team, being used with apparent social/government support.) That continued as the focus of the discussion for most contributors.

To some of us the subject is serious, sensitive and significant to those still suffering discrimination. By other replies the issue seems only mildly offensive if not amusing and worthy of satire, ridicule, humor or dismissal as par-for-the-course racist parlance. Such is the variety of viewpoints that makes discussion dynamic.

To “Carol Newquist”, still taking off-topic criticism of contributors and comments to new levels, it has now also apparently become an opportunity to launch an expose of native corruption, and to challenge their sovereignty, equality and leadership.

Turning the tables on those denigrated and discriminated against is actually the original subject, aggression still tolerated against racial groups today, worldwide.

And, incidentally, a confused focus continues - even as to the gender of voices here.

[Joao]

Editing because fuck it.

[seemslikeadream]

The war paint being applied by outsiders continues to cover the controversy at issue.

I'd also like to try to retrieve the needle as the original point in this haystack of straw.

seemslikeadream has tried to keep this thread on point from the start, despite constant diversions and through personal attacks, as the OP quoting the Ben Ferenz article on the US opposition to the ICC policing aggression against racial groups, to the Swanson article on making sense of hypocritical government positions, policies and priorities being as hallucinatory as wearing a Redskins shirt to the Holocaust Museum.

That final sentence in the second article of the first post, and the thread title, opened the topic of “Redskins” as illustrative of the subject: sanctioned racial discrimination continuing today (as the name of a football team, being used with apparent social/government support.) That continued as the focus of the discussion for most contributors.

To some of us the subject is serious, sensitive and significant to those still suffering discrimination. By other replies the issue seems only mildly offensive if not amusing and worthy of satire, ridicule, humor or dismissal as par-for-the-course racist parlance. Such is the variety of viewpoints that makes discussion dynamic.

To “Carol Newquist”, still taking off-topic criticism of contributors and comments to new levels, it has now also apparently become an opportunity to launch an expose of native corruption, and to challenge their sovereignty, equality and leadership.

Turning the tables on those denigrated and discriminated against is actually the original subject, aggression still tolerated against racial groups today, worldwide.

And, incidentally, a confused focus continues - even as to the gender of voices here.

Thanks

and I post again Lawrence O'Donnell's question to the Jewish owner of the Washington Redskins....For you what is an acceptable nick name for Jews

anyone? anyone?

[Iamwhomiam]

This is the last (for the most part I am going to say). Fuck it, let them keep the Redskins name. There were far worse monikers for Native Americans back in the day. It won't happen for one and two who really cares? I am most certainly not coming from a right wing perspective. However, I recognize the reality of the situation and the ratio of those incensed to those who don't care has to be 99:1.

I would never do it because I do not use racially explicit terms in and of the fact that it's not a big deal. The meaning of The Washington Redskins has nothing racist about it at all other than what you imagine to be.

What it truly shows is that we can always get worked up over nothing. This is nothing. Nothing. The past is the past and history will be learned if someone so desires to delve in. That's why I maintain the proactive stance. Treat it as an opportunity to educate about the cultural issues, but more importantly the history. Changing the name, if all those offended (which they're really not) want to see change would be to "parlay" this into a "teachable moment" in which it would actually be useful for everyone. One could go on and on about various examples, such as my old high school.

Dudes it's just a name. I highly doubt that 99% of the Redskins fans use the term "N****R". The term of Redskins has lost, sadly, for those who wish to remember the golden years of racism it's sting. That's that. History has spoken. It just fucking goes that way. At this point in time there is nothing to even give a fuck about about a team named the "Redskins". It was something "neutral" for its day and still persists. Why? Because it is an identity that should proactively handled. Again, I certainly see the issues, but we cannot handle the prejudices of those who came before us and rename a bunch of shit that just wound up becoming neutral.

How about the motherfucking Minnesota Vikings?
<snip>
Guys and gals, you know I am a friend here. Redskins is sadly, neutral. It is a choice to name something well before our times yet most people today respect. Thus it was named. Take it up with the namers. Native Americans are respected here.

The name John T. Williams ring a bell, 82?

The Minnesota Vikings team name reflects accurately the majority of the white populace that settled Minnesota who were descended from Vikings. The team was formed in 1961, I believe.

The Washington team was founded in 1932 when racism was more blatantly rampant. You've been reviewing old articles so finding a caricature of an American Indian from that time frame shouldn't be difficult. Find any cartoon from ten or twenty years later and you won't find anything much different.

Considering this team is based in DC, where appearances are everything, it is a blatant mockery of our constitution, that proclaims all are equal. And any American can tell you that's simply untrue

Andrew Jackson's wish was to destroy the Seminoles sense of community and tradition so they could be more readily assimilated into white society and become god-fearing Christians.

That you find no offense in someone besmirching your heritage only shows that you are fully assimilated into our culture; you're an American. You've lost your cultural heritage's traditions, like most of us have. Call a recent immigrant from Germany a goose-stepping Kraut and they will most probably be offended.

I'm amazed the Notre Dame still has an angry fighting leprechaun, Clashmore Mike for their mascot.

In keeping with the nickname Fighting Irish and the Irish folklore, the Leprechaun serves as the Notre Dame mascot.

The Notre Dame logo features a side view of the figure with his dukes up, ready to battle anyone that comes his way. The live version is a student, chosen annually at tryouts, dressed in a cutaway green suit and Irish country hat.

The Leprechaun brandishes a shillelagh and aggressively leads cheers and interacts with the crowd, supposedly bringing magical powers and good luck to the Notre Dame team.

The Leprechaun wasn't always the official mascot of Notre Dame - for years the team was represented by a series of Irish terrier dogs. The first, named Brick Top Shuan-Rhu, was donated by one Charles Otis of Cleveland and presented to Irish head coach Knute Rockne the weekend of the Notre Dame-Pennsylvania game Nov. 8, 1930.

A number of terriers later took the role of the school mascot, which usually took the name Clashmore Mike. The Clashmore Mike mascot last made an appearance on the cover of the 1963 Notre Dame Football Dope Book with coach Hugh Devore and captain Bob Lehmann.

The Leprechaun was named the official mascot in 1965.

I never witnessed prejudice towards American Indians until I traveled west, but it is everywhere if one has eyes to see.

Very well said, Peartreed. Thank you.

[Carol Newquist]

No, we can't just "fuck it" at this point, because what has transpired in this thread is a prime example of the power of Group Think and the end result of Identity Politics. The consensus in this thread by the majority (thank goodness for some dissenters, although I will say they feel compelled to dissent lightly lest they be labeled as aiding and abetting an imagined "enemy") of the posters is still that there is a controversy here surrounding the name of Washington DC's NFL team, The Redskins. I contend there is a controversy, but not the controversy they describe. This is a scandal at this point, so my admonition to those who feel compelled to engage in Group Think for purposes of Identity Political Ideology, or because you're afraid of what the Group may do to you if you dare to dissent and think for yourself, is to break free of that repressive intellectual yoke and remove the plank from your eyes. This is a scam. I will highlight step by step, once again, why you're being coerced into defending tyranny.....because that's where this inquiry has led us.

1.) It has been asserted that the name Redskins (and no, I'm not quoting that term for those who are attempting to conflate it with the term nigger....they're not the same, and to conflate it with nigger is to diminish the sordid history of that pejorative) is derogatory, and debatable and dubious "evidence" has been presented to support this assertion. Counter evidence has been provided that the name is not considered derogatory by some american indians...in their own words....and some of those american indians who expressed this were actually legitimate indian chiefs....not crooks who forced themselves as leader of an american indian nation like Ray Halbritter in opposition to the laws and customs of that nation. Further, historical evidence provided by an american indian historian has been provided that asserts the name, historically, was not derogatory and it didn't mean what those who are trying to make this a controversy want you to believe it means.

2.) It has been asserted in this thread by the one dissenter trying to get to the truth of the matter that Ray Halbritter as the self-elected, representative "leader" of The Oneida Nation is not only illegitimate and therefore not worthy of being The Oneida Nation's spokesperson, let alone its representative or "leader", does not speak for all american indian nations...not by a long shot. It has also been asserted that white people, or people of any origin other than indigenous north american nations, have no business speaking on behalf of all indian people everywhere. There is not a consensus over this in the larger american indian community....in fact, as we've seen as a result of this discussion, it's not really a community....it's not a monolith.....it doesn't speak as one, and there are american indians who resent white people speaking on their behalf about this issue.

3.) It has been argued through use of metaphor (that was called "dreck" and "pornographic") in this thread that faux, identity political controversies like this are half measures (from Breaking Bad).....no, strike that, they're not even measures because they're borne illicitly and they play on unwitting dupes to carry water for sinister and corrupt ends. This isn't even a measure. It helps no one but the establishment crook pretending to be an american indian (another trojan horse), Ray Halbritter, the Adolph Hitler dictator of The Oneida Nation.

Yet despite the presentation of all this solid and compelling evidence to the contrary, because of Group Think (to include friendships) and the adherence to Identity Politics, many posters still cling to a rotten fish....and carry water for a corrupt tyrant, Ray Halbritter.

You know what I support? The removal of Ray Halbritter as the BIA supported and imposed Ghetto Boss of The Oneida Nation. How about all of you? What's a more noble endeavor? To carry water in a faux, trojan horse controversy for the Boss Hog of The Oneida Nation, or to liberate the people of The Oneida Nation and avail them with the rights (for now) we enjoy as U.S. Citizens?

FYI, once again because apparently it must be stated, whatever happens with the name is no skin (pun intended) off my back. I have no stake in that GAME. I haven't watched or followed football for over ten years now, although I did throw the football with my eleven year old son yesterday for half an hour in the back yard. He doesn't watch and follow it either because it's never on in our home....but all his friends do. For them, it's a religion, and if you haven't noticed, that's me in the corner, losing my religion. There's plenty of room in this corner for those willing to lose their's, but I'll warn you, it's a lonely and difficult path to follow. Thinking independently of the Group with which you identify is not for the faint of heart. You will be pummeled and punished if you stray....just as Halbritter and his 50+ Oneida Nation Police Force (which is not comprised of Oneida Nation citizens) pummel and punish any of the Oneida plebs who dare to dissent or speak out against the tyranny they are experiencing.

Now, go ahead and label me as you please; asshole, clever bot, a former poster....whatever you need to call me or characterize me as to compensate for the tremendous wave of cognitive dissonance that's washing over you right now.

[Carol Newquist]

Guys and gals, you know I am a friend here.

The fact this has to be said goes directly to my point about Group Think and friendships. If belonging to a group or having friends requires someone to compromise on their objectivity and integrity, well, you figure it out. There's too much of that going on....everywhere. Another poster above feels compelled to label me as a troll in order to distance themselves from my dissent because they don't want to be in disfavor with the Group. That is pathetic and spineless....to use me as a foil to avoid being called out by the Group and ostracized, ridiculed and abused. This is the kind of garbage my children are dealing with in Middle and High School right now, and it's interesting, to say the least, to see it happening here...but not surprising. These behaviors, learned in those years of schooling, carry forward into adult life....but are transparently disguised by the acrylic adult masks so expertly fashioned in the spirit of Jesse crafting his masterpiece of a box in the last episode of Breaking Bad.

[Searcher08]

Guys and gals, you know I am a friend here.

The fact this has to be said goes directly to my point about Group Think and friendships.

Personally, I think it goes to the Heart of how 82_28 expresses himself. Where he is coming from. And which invites the response form myself of "Yes, I DO know and value that..".
You land with me as being very dismissive of any value of 'social lubrication' aka being pleasent when people have differing opinions than yourself. Do you train your kids in this behaviour?

If belonging to a group or having friends requires someone to compromise on their objectivity and integrity, well, you figure it out. There's too much of that going on....everywhere.

Figure out what in particular? That group behaviour can be different from individual behaviour?

Another poster above feels compelled to label me as a troll in order to distance themselves from my dissent because they don't want to be in disfavor with the Group.

This is Mind Reading.
The poster may be labelling you as a troll for a variety of reasons, none of which may involve your 'dissent'. You are coming across to me as assuming because you have an explanation that satisfies you, that you expect other people to agree that is objective reality.
"I think it, therefore it must be that way" Good Luck with that.
You yourself did make the comment that people often described you as an asshole.

That is pathetic and spineless....to use me as a foil to avoid being called out by the Group and ostracized, ridiculed and abused.

This really is nothing more than over-associational paranoid nonsense.
What is this capitalised 'Group' of which you speak?.

To me it shows your lack of knowledge of, and respect for RI culture. It also serves the purpose of letting you take yourself 'off the hook' for behaving like, well, an asshole. If you are going to be flying a flag for ethical humane treatment of people, seriously, start with yourself, because, frankly, who wants to hang-out with an asshole, when there are lots of non-assholes around?

This is the kind of garbage my children are dealing with in Middle and High School right now, and it's interesting, to say the least, to see it happening here...but not surprising. These behaviors, learned in those years of schooling, carry forward into adult life....but are transparently disguised by the acrylic adult masks so expertly fashioned in the spirit of Jesse crafting his masterpiece of a box in the last episode of Breaking Bad.

You do not illustrate what you are talking about, leaving it at the level of a knowing critical parent remonstrating with naughty children and giving interesting asides off-camera ('... but not surprising.) - an act which places you in a self-appointed parental role.

Far from being children with masks, this is an adult board, filled with divergent, smart people full of differing worldviews and experiences - and I assert it's members deserve better than you acting like an asshole (I prefer the term 'wanker' actually), especially when you yourself have not managed to work out how to use the Quote function, resulting in posts where it is unclear what is being said to whom.

[JackRiddler]

The most brainwashed perspective on this thread is Carol's, a mix of well-worn Neanderthal-American tropes, presenting itself as a champion of independent critical brain-power trapped among the zombified group-thinkers, laughably exposing the power of its own projection.

[seemslikeadream]

Thank the Lord for two of my favorite RI wordsmithers have come by.....

to save me from the hell of high school and group think

[Carol Newquist]

The last three posts are case in point. It's the same behavior I see in Fundamentalist Christians. Oh well. So it goes. I don't think any amount of evidence will shake some of you from your prejudices and biases about this issue, or many other issues. I don't think there's anything more to discuss in this thread, if it really ever was a discussion. I've done the job of an independent investigative reporter related to this topic. I didn't take sides in the debate, but I presented information that has shed a broad light on this "controversy." I didn't know any of it before I started, so it was a learning process for me. Too bad it wasn't for some of you who are more interested in winning arguments (as if this is an argument...or it could be won) and scoring points. I bet it feels good, right? A little bit of power wherever you can get it goes a long way to making one feel empowered, at least ephemerally.