You are not logged in. Join Free! | Log In Thank you!    

Welcome to your Green Bay Packers Online Community!

Since 2006, PackersHome has been providing a unique experience for fans.
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

8 Pages<12345>»
Share
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline DakotaT  
#31 Posted : Wednesday, October 30, 2013 7:43:08 PM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Posts: 6,964
Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 566
Applause Received: 1,190

The only people that really get to have an opinion on this subject are the American Indians. The rest of us should probably just STFU already. As for the reverse racism that we whites have to suffer through. LOL - that's a good one! I'm sure there's a lot of empathy throughout the world for us.
UserPostedImage
Offline Zero2Cool  
#32 Posted : Wednesday, October 30, 2013 7:58:18 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

United States
Posts: 25,225
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,739
Applause Received: 1,790

Originally Posted by: DakotaT Go to Quoted Post
The only people that really get to have an opinion on this subject are the American Indians. The rest of us should probably just STFU already. As for the reverse racism that we whites have to suffer through. LOL - that's a good one! I'm sure there's a lot of empathy throughout the world for us.


UserPostedImage


Keep overcompensating to ease your conscience.

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
Offline porky88  
#33 Posted : Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:01:13 PM(UTC)
porky88

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,994
Joined: 4/26/2007(UTC)

Applause Given: 156
Applause Received: 284

The Washington Redskins have a terrible history with racism. They were the last team to accept African American players. George Preston Marshall was an unapologetic racist. He didn’t sign a black player until 1962 and he only did so because of pressure from the Kennedy Administration. As owner, Marshall is the man who named the team.

The name of the team has a very interesting origin story. It’s far from without controversy, and frankly, nobody really knows everything. Marshall hired William Lone Star Dietz as his head coach. He named the team Redskins in honor of his new coach, who claimed to be Native American. Dietz coached the team for two years when they were in Boston. He never coached the team in Washington. Most of his success was in the college ranks. I think college football recently inducted him into their Hall of Fame.

He’s a controversial figure because many dispute his heritage. We’re not talking a dispute that started because of the Redskins’ controversy. Marshall believed Dietz was Native American when naming the team, though I don’t know why he would name the team after a first-year coach. However, some say Dietz was pretending to be Native American so he could get out of serving during World War 1. At the time, Indians were not U.S. citizens, so the government couldn’t draft them into service. He listed himself as an Indian. The United States Government contested him on his draft status. It was a hung jury. He ended up serving a 30-day sentence after the government charged him again. His actual lineage remains unknown. His adopted mother testified that after she gave birth to a stillborn, her husband disappeared for a few days and came back with a baby. He told her that he’d gotten an Indian woman pregnant and this was the baby. For what it’s worth, some say Dietz was training with the marines during the off-season. There‘s all kinds of stuff on him. They could probably do a movie.

Look, I don’t think the current intent is to offend anyone. Unfortunately, I think this going to become a political issue. I hope I’m wrong, but that’s probably where it’s going. It is a complicated issue, though. We definitely live in a PC world, but I don’t know if this is one of those cases. There’s a legit conversation that will happen and I'm guessing Dietz's story will become more public. The meaning of the word, the origin of the name, and the people involved in naming the team really puts a cloud over everything.
Offline Zero2Cool  
#34 Posted : Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:08:00 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

United States
Posts: 25,225
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,739
Applause Received: 1,790

Originally Posted by: porky88 Go to Quoted Post
Marshall hired William Lone Star Dietz as his head coach. He named the team Redskins in honor of his new coach, who claimed to be Native American. Dietz coached the team for two years when they were in Boston.

This is where my ignorance comes into play. This bit of information confuses me. If he was naming the team in honor of his Indian coach, why Redskins if that's offensive?

If I'm understanding correctly, Redskins was not offensive in the 20's, but over time has grown to be an offensive term? If that's how it is, that's a bit worrisome to me.


I think my worry is the domino effect. Does it stop at Redskins or does it continue to Chiefs, Braves, Indians, etc ...

A less critical concern is I don't want the NFL to have a team name like "New Orleans Pelicans".

Washington football team could make lots of money by changing from Redskins to <non offensive name>. I'd hope they'd keep the same color scheme.

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
Offline DakotaT  
#35 Posted : Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:08:58 PM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Posts: 6,964
Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 566
Applause Received: 1,190

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool Go to Quoted Post
UserPostedImage


Keep overcompensating to ease your conscience.


You're so cute when you feel a need get even. Now go back and apologize to Nerd for being condescending. Get it, got it, good night!
UserPostedImage
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#36 Posted : Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:29:30 PM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,644
Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 11
Applause Received: 345

It is not even about the name being Redskins. It is any name Indians, Warriors, Apaches, Red Raiders, Redmen, hell they even have gone after the community of Tomahawk for being the Hatchets.

They don't seem to care that communities all over have native names, but when those communities follow that indian name with a mascot they have a cow. They need to get a life.
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
Offline Cheesey  
#37 Posted : Wednesday, October 30, 2013 10:24:23 PM(UTC)
Cheesey

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Posts: 8,552
Joined: 7/28/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 159
Applause Received: 326

Originally Posted by: DakotaT Go to Quoted Post
The rest of us should probably just STFU already. As for the reverse racism that we whites have to suffer through. LOL - that's a good one! I'm sure there's a lot of empathy throughout the world for us.


So....discrimination against whites is acceptable?
Well.....it isn't to me.
Either racial discrimination of any kind is
is right or it's wrong.
To "pooh pooh" it away is just as wrong
for as you say it is for us too pooh pooh
away the name "redskins".
In fact, a name of a sports team actually
hurts no one, except their feelings.
It doesn't keep anyone from working a job they
want, keeping them from being able
to make a living.
UserPostedImage
thanks Post received 2 applause.
texaspackerbacker on 10/31/2013(UTC), Zero2Cool on 10/31/2013(UTC)
Offline texaspackerbacker  
#38 Posted : Thursday, October 31, 2013 3:00:37 AM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Posts: 2,371
Joined: 3/4/2013(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 348
Applause Received: 209

Originally Posted by: DakotaT Go to Quoted Post
The only people that really get to have an opinion on this subject are the American Indians. The rest of us should probably just STFU already. As for the reverse racism that we whites have to suffer through. LOL - that's a good one! I'm sure there's a lot of empathy throughout the world for us.


Do you really give a shit what the trash of the rest of the world think of US? I sure as hell don't.

The only ones who really get to have an opinion on this SHOULD be the people who have their money invested in ownership of the Redskins and other similarly named teams. However, I wouldn't be opposed to a referendum - non-binding just in case it came out the wrong way, of course hahahaha, of Indians on team names like that. I vote my 1/16 FOR those nicknames. How about you, Dakota? Do you have a vote in this matter? I would bet money that such a referendum would come out in favor of keeping the names.

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Offline Zero2Cool  
#39 Posted : Thursday, October 31, 2013 10:21:02 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

United States
Posts: 25,225
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,739
Applause Received: 1,790

Oneida spokesman Joel Barkin wrote:
We are very disappointed. This is the beginning of a process. It's clear that they don't see how this is not a unifying term. They don't have a complete appreciation for the breadth of opposition of Native Americans to this mascot and name.


Ray Halbritter of the Oneida Nation formally requested an amendment to naming teams with "dictionary-defined racial slurs".

Question, if it's the definition of the word that's the problem, why do we need the word? Why not change the definition? Why aren't they going after Websters? That's the true source of the problem here. Truthfully, WHY do we need "dictionary-defined racial slurs"? This reminds me of someone taking pills to mask pain which is the equivalent to putting a chewed up piece of gum over a hole in a leaky boat.

Get to the root of the problem and resolve it. And the root of the problem is the definition of the word, Redskin/s.


Native Americans enjoy quite a few tax breaks and get some good discounts for education. Do African Americans get anything for the slavery their ancestors endured? What benefits do Jewish people receive?

Bottom line, there are much more valid racial concerns than a name of a sports team. You start forcing teams to change their name because (started 40 years ago in the late 60's, 70's) a group gets a bug up its ass, it's a slippery slope.



A comment on ESPN....

"It appears ESPN does not like some truth to the subject as they keep removing this post..

Consider the following facts concerning the “Washington Redskins” name:

1) The highly respected Annenberg Public Policy Center polled nearly 1,000 self-identified Native Americans from across the continental U.S. and found that 90% of Native Americans did not find the team name “Washington Redskins” to be “offensive.”

2) In an April 2013 Associated Press survey, 79% of the respondents stated the Washington Redskins should not change their name, while only 1 1% believed the team’s name should change.

Paul Woody, a columnist for the Richmond Times Dispatch, interviewed three leaders of Virginia Native American tribes this May. They were all quoted by Mr. Woody as stating that the team name doesn’t offend them -- and their comments strongly supported the name “Washington Redskins.” Also in May, SiriusXM NFL Radio hosted Robert Green, the longtime and recently retired Chief of the Fredericksburg-area Patawomeck Tribe, who said, among other things:

“Frankly, the members of my tribe -- the vast majority -- don’t find it offensive. I’ve been a Redskins fan for years. And to be honest with you, I would be offended if they did change [the name, Redskins ... This is] an attempt by somebody ... to completely remove the Indian identity from anything and pretty soon ... you have a wipeout in society of any reference to Indian people ... You can’t rewrite history -- yes there were some awful bad things done to our people over time, but naming the Washington football team the Redskins, we don’t consider to be one of those bad things.”"

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
thanks Post received 1 applause.
texaspackerbacker on 10/31/2013(UTC)
Offline DakotaT  
#40 Posted : Thursday, October 31, 2013 6:44:12 PM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Posts: 6,964
Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 566
Applause Received: 1,190

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker Go to Quoted Post
Do you really give a sh!t what the trash of the rest of the world think of US? I sure as hell don't.

The only ones who really get to have an opinion on this SHOULD be the people who have their money invested in ownership of the Redskins and other similarly named teams. However, I wouldn't be opposed to a referendum - non-binding just in case it came out the wrong way, of course hahahaha, of Indians on team names like that. I vote my 1/16 FOR those nicknames. How about you, Dakota? Do you have a vote in this matter? I would bet money that such a referendum would come out in favor of keeping the names.



No I don't really give a shit, but I do think the American Indians were treated even worse than blacks on this continent. That I'm not down with, but you retards seem to think it is all water under the bridge - and of course, you people are always right. Rolling Eyes
UserPostedImage
Offline Cheesey  
#41 Posted : Thursday, October 31, 2013 7:29:19 PM(UTC)
Cheesey

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Posts: 8,552
Joined: 7/28/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 159
Applause Received: 326

Yes, the Indians were mistreated. I don't
think anyone is saying it didn't happen.
But what has what happened back then
really have to do with now?
If the Indians really are THAT upset
at the redskins name, why don't they
take a few million off the top of their
casinos and pay the owner to change
it?
Today native Americans get free housing
and money from the income from their
many casinos just because of their
ancestry.
Tell me, what other countries in the
world try to make up for overthrowing
the people that lived there? None that I
know of, except HERE.
Plus, it seems like Indians from back then
are all shown to be peaceful people, when
many of the tribes were bloodthirsty
and killed off other tribes to take over
their property.
What I'm saying is, people are people
and there are good and bad, even in the
native Americans.
So painting all "white men" as evil is just
as wrong as saying all Indians were
savages.
We can't change the past, and we have
done alot as a nation to try to make all
people equal. But if you only want to keep
doing what you can to try to keep old
wounds from healing, we will never get
past it.
My ancestors had nothing to do with what
happened to the Indians and never owned
slaves. Should I feel guilty for something
I had nothing to do with?
If one of your past relatives killed someone
,
should YOU have to go to prison for it?
UserPostedImage
thanks Post received 2 applause.
texaspackerbacker on 10/31/2013(UTC), wpr on 10/31/2013(UTC)
Offline DakotaT  
#42 Posted : Thursday, October 31, 2013 7:39:45 PM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Posts: 6,964
Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 566
Applause Received: 1,190

Cheesey, giving the less than 1% of our population free housing, food, medical, and college seems real cheap to me for all the lands we consumed from them. We "owe" them these things forever. They are not entitlements, it's called the blood money of guilt. Next up, reparations for the descendants of slaves. I want to see uneducated rednecks lose their minds.

And as for your Casino tangent of stupidity - if other Americans want to pay an extra income tax to Native Americans through gaming, well I guess we're just surrounded by dumbasses aren't we?
UserPostedImage
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#43 Posted : Thursday, October 31, 2013 7:50:54 PM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,644
Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 11
Applause Received: 345

Originally Posted by: DakotaT Go to Quoted Post
Cheesey, giving the less than 1% of our population free housing, food, medical, and college seems real cheap to me for all the lands we consumed from them. We "owe" them these things forever. They are not entitlements, it's called the blood money of guilt. Next up, reparations for the descendants of slaves. I want to see uneducated rednecks lose their minds.

And as for your Casino tangent of stupidity - if other Americans want to pay an extra income tax to Native Americans through gaming, well I guess we're just surrounded by dumbasses aren't we?


Lands were never consumed from them. Indians never believed they owed the land themselves. They moved from land to land as their food sources moved and as the weather demanded. Reservations and the treaty rights are not repayment for anything done to them, it was bribes to keep them from getting in the way.
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
Offline DakotaT  
#44 Posted : Thursday, October 31, 2013 8:01:22 PM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Posts: 6,964
Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 566
Applause Received: 1,190

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins Go to Quoted Post
Lands were never consumed from them. Indians never believed they owed the land themselves. They moved from land to land as their food sources moved and as the weather demanded. Reservations and the treaty rights are not repayment for anything done to them, it was bribes to keep them from getting in the way.


Now explain to me giving them the sacred Black Hills, only to steal them back when gold was found. They occupied the Western Hemisphere and the white man came and took it from them, concentrating them on the worst lands possible. Your argument is a tangent and a real poor one at that.
UserPostedImage
Online wpr  
#45 Posted : Thursday, October 31, 2013 8:17:04 PM(UTC)
wpr

Rank: Hall of Famer

United States
Posts: 11,866
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,403
Applause Received: 1,191

Originally Posted by: Cheesey Go to Quoted Post
So....discrimination against whites is acceptable?
Well.....it isn't to me.
Either racial discrimination of any kind is
is right or it's wrong.
To "pooh pooh" it away is just as wrong
for as you say it is for us too pooh pooh
away the name "redskins".
In fact, a name of a sports team actually
hurts no one, except their feelings.
It doesn't keep anyone from working a job they
want, keeping them from being able
to make a living.


careful cheesey Troy thinks it is ok to lie, steal and cheat if you are "poor" but not if you are above the poverty line. Then you are evil. Then you have to apologize to everyone of any kind of color that is lighter than yours for something you. your family and ancestors had nothing to do with because of what happened to people they never met who lived 100 or 200 or 300 years ago.
"You don't hurt 'em if you don't hit 'em." Chesty Puller



UserPostedImage

thanks Post received 1 applause.
Cheesey on 11/1/2013(UTC)
Users browsing this topic
Guest
8 Pages<12345>»
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF 2.1.0 | YAF © 2003-2014, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.304 seconds.