As was already stated, we are all Americans!
I was born in this country, so were my parents and grandparents. Doesn't that make ME a "native American"?
Also, we all come from Adam and Eve. So we are ALL related to each other. Cut out the divisions, or we will NEVER end racism!

Of course that will never happen, as there are too many that LOVE the separation of us. It gives them something to B**CH about.

Of course those are the REAL racists.

---

As usual, Barfarn is completely off his rocker.

---

No personal attacks.

---

Been here for about 9 years and have seen and taken part in discussion on almost every topic imaginable. Keep letting one poster destroy what you have worked so hard and long to build is shameful. Hope sense takes over and the site gains back some of what has been lost.

---

The first comment is a real personal attack questioning ones self-respect.

The second is a very calm defense in comparison...

---

Maybe so. I considered adding it in to my post. I read PFWT's post first and commented on it. BF was on the prior page. I was on my phone and it was too difficult to add it in and his posts are too long to try and quote. I was waiting to see if PFWT complained.

Barfarn you need to play nice too.

---

I was expecting to read about Redskins and this is the garbage I pollute my eyes with? We can do better people, we MUST do better. If a post/comment is about SOMEONE on the site, maybe it should be soft deleted? I think so. Anyhow, discussion for another topic, another day. Today, in this topic, we talk REDSKINS football name.

I never knew it was considered "bad" until all this came up. I gotta say, I liked my ignorance, it was blissful. :-)

---

Like I said before, anyone can come up with SOME reason to be "offended" by any given thing.
They have a right to voice their opinions. I never said they didn't.
But they don't have a right to force their opinions on anyone.
Voice it, then let it go.
If enough people do that, without all the uproar, it will cause change. But try to force it on anyone, and you will get nothing but someone fighting back.
JMO of course....now I'll let it go!😝 😂

---

Not sure what this means. Maybe this post should go in another area; but I'm posting it here because I think this will help going forward and I believe this supports my argument..."WORDS CAN HURT."

Unlike most of the people in this thread, I've addressed the argument; never the person.

But, some identify themselves as "experts" as support for their arguments. EG. I am in the banking industry and Dodd-Frank is good because I said so. Or in this thread I am a Native American, I am not offended by "Redskin" and "If you have pride in your heritage, self respect and self confidence in who you are, NO word should be able to put you down." And of course this was used to argue that "Redskin" is an acceptable team name, because only an unreasonable person [IE one with no self-respect etc] is offended by it. Once a person injects themselves as part of the argument; they shouldn't be able to object when the argument is fully addressed.

I found this argument not only prejudicial and ridiculous; but highly offensive and responded. Anytime a person takes a characteristic or the feelings of one individual of an ethnic or racial group and promulgates that every one that group thinks like this or should think like this, is engaging in prejudice. And the opinions of Sioux Tribal Council Chairman David Archambault II wasn't quoted, Milo Theanopolis wasn't quoted, the poster quoted his own feelings and opinions as a NA to support his highly prejudicial statements.

Here effectively was the argument as I saw it: I'm NA and as a NA I can tell you that the NA people that find the word "Redskin" offensive "have 🇳🇴 pride in your heritage, self-respect and self-confidence."

This is the argument I addressed, I did not address the person per se! Maybe I should have ignored it? I had no intention to respond to this thread until I read ideas that I found were false and harmful. Maybe I should have flagged it? Ive NEVER flagged anyone, ever anywhere. I believe, just as in the subject Supreme Court Case and kinda what PFWT said, "sticks and stones...names can never hurt me." If someone calls you a name, who cares? It reflects more about them anyways. Same thing goes for someone, who dismantles arguments by words, right? But, Goebbels and Ailes PROVED some thoughts expressed by words can actually propagate hate, racism and division.

The reaction by some to me is puzzling. If what was said was wrong, then argue against it. If its ridiculous, ignore it. My argument was designed to inform and educate what CONSTANT use and seeing of the word "Redskin" can mean to some; that it can evoke disfranchisement, pain and suffering, maybe horrifically because some are more affected by past and present despicable racist acts v. NAs. I see only 3 choices:

1) If incorrect, then argue against.
2) If its correct then maybe an opinion should change, "I never thought of it like that, huh, yea, Snyder should change the name;" or
3) If it correct, so what! It's our NFL tradition and if it torques off some NAs so be it.

But, to those whose emotions have gone ape shit in this thread, consider your emotions are set off by 2 comments by one person in 2 days you didn't like [And no one can articulate a counter-argument]. This immeasurably pales in comparison to what NAs have been through for CENTURIES and what they are experiencing today. How unreasonable can any NA be if their emotions may go ape shit after seeing day after day an NFL team, AN NFL TEAM, named The Redskins!?!

PS: At Standing Rock, there were a ton of people that issued slurs at NAs, I witnessed at least 2 dozen. The response was a smile/laugh/"have a nice day" and walk away an no latent muttering at all about it, never a word. The men and women I know of have as thick a skin as possible. The rumors [I nor those I was with had 1st hand account] of what the security [Later learning it was TigerSwan] and cops said where muttered about quite a bit. The rumored words of Institutional/Government officials did have a degrading and disfranchising affect. Small sample size and some behavior might have been modified by those present; but I believe its significant.

FALSE! I addressed the argument.

Had the argument been: "Person A is a NA and he is not offended by "Redskin" and he feels all NAs that are offended "have 🇳🇴 pride in your heritage, self-respect and self-confidence.""

I would have said by this comment and the foregoing argument Person A has demonstrated he has no pride in his heritage, self-respect and self-confidence.