Redskins
- Thread starter The 5 solas
- Start date
What happens when atheists complain that the name "Saints" (New Orleans) is offensive to atheists?
drbrumley
Well-known member
Dont worry, it"s coming.
genuineoriginal
New member
Well, that is an accurate description of the North and South in the American Civil War.
Actually that didn't occur to me until you mentioned it.:chuckle:
Not that I care. But comparing the word "saint" to a slur isn't even apples and oranges.
Wouldn't Protestants have more dog in that fight?
I think war is a bit different. It's an attempt to subjugate, not eradicate. Else, it's a war crime. I wasn't thinking about defeating the Native Americans so much as marching and starving them to death, giving them disease riddled blankets, denying them essential human right as a people.
there are documented cases of indians taking along their black slaves on the trail of tears
a single occurrence
by the british
in recent memory?
else, see your caveat re war
rainee
New member
I think you bring up an interesting point.
The South had a term: REBEL.
There was the "Rebel Yell."
The saying: "The South will rise again"
and there still is the "Rebel Flag."
But the name, the yell, and the flag are not really acceptable unless they are separated from where they actually came from: A time in history of conflict, and great destruction, suffering, horror and loss in this country - mostly for the Rebels.
Southerners cannot be "Rebels" acceptably and Yanks wouldn't be "Rebels" at all.
Is that what the Indians who were for making an objection see is waiting for them?
The name "Red Skin" may at one time have meant something tied to conflict suffering and loss.
But will all that be forgotten as One Nation of many peoples lives here year after year after year and conflicts and suffering become distant memories to be nearly forgotten by all those groups?
How long will every group who has known unfair treatment get to stay outside of the whole group of one nation?
rainee
New member
problem solved next.
Oh my word - what would happen if they realized they do not want their warrior past to be forgotten and replaced??
So it isn't that "Redskin" was considered by some in the past to be a pejorative, it's that it was a worse pejorative than "Yankee." BTW, there are many incidents claimed of British soldiers raping and torturing "Yankees", so be sure to include that in your scale of "how bad a pejorative needs to be before it's really bad."
So how does one judge how bad the pejorative had been (but no longer is) to be before one can't use it in the present?
And one more thing... do you think the Redskins were named such because the name portrays "evil" and "stupid", or because it remembers the warrior spirit of the peoples it represents? And then you have to ask yourself why the Yankees did the same thing?
rainee
New member
Hi Yorzhik,
You weren't writing to me and I don't want to infringe upon Town's reply, not that I could actually stop him, I guess...
Regarding the term "Red Skins"
I would like to ask you if you would ever identify yourself as a: Red Man, White Man, Black Man...
Some would hold their head up and say I am a Red Man.
But I ask does anybody take the term "Red Skins" in sports like foot ball as anything but
a clever nick compared to Red Sox? Lots of teams have color in their names, Red Skins played on it, got a color and a fierce warrior image in one, imho.
You weren't writing to me and I don't want to infringe upon Town's reply, not that I could actually stop him, I guess...
Regarding the term "Red Skins"
I would like to ask you if you would ever identify yourself as a: Red Man, White Man, Black Man...
Some would hold their head up and say I am a Red Man.
But I ask does anybody take the term "Red Skins" in sports like foot ball as anything but
a clever nick compared to Red Sox? Lots of teams have color in their names, Red Skins played on it, got a color and a fierce warrior image in one, imho.
rainee
New member
Please excuse me for butting in, Town but this is a hard topic to stay out of.
Do you have Yankees in your family tree? I'm just asking.
The South had terrible treatment, and anyway - armies break things and kill people - it is criminal when it is not war, sir.
And as for marching and starving to death we had stories like that about Cynthia Ann Parker and others captured after being attacked by Indians in Texas. They were a ferocious bunch. The Indians, I mean.
Of course Cynthia Ann did want to go back to her son and tribe after being captured by soldiers and her brother did escape the whites and did return ... He may have been the only one who had a happy long life out of all those who had been captured.
maybe we shouldn't have any more wars until we can figure out how to do them in a civil way
99lamb
New member
video games.
No, but some of my Southern tree fought for the Union anyway. We have casualties on either side of the conflict.
Sure. You aren't under the impression that I thought otherwise, are you?
I imagine so. Again, I'm speaking more to how we behaved as victors and noting that you really can't compare the "plight" of whites in this nations history to any real minority. Well, you can, but it's daft.
Given the placement and how much of what you write appears to be to or about me these days I suppose whatever you wrote is aimed at me. But after your second posting of a murdered infant photo I put you back on the don't view list. I have a son who doesn't need to see you randomly post that on threads where the subject isn't in play.
Wouldn't matter. From what I saw when I took you off it's mostly the same old distortions, lies and impulse issues with you. So you'll have to apply that lizard portion of your brain to some other task. Or get someone else to ask me because you're offline for me. Where Jack is concerned it's an easy call.
Interestingly we had an Indian in our platoon in the Army. We used to call him red and he used to call us pale. It was something to say because it was a commentary on who we were as opposed to a pejorative about our character.