someone should take a poll and see how indians feel about morons like town painting them as whiny wussie emo's who are easily embarrassed and emotionally distressed
Redskins
- Thread starter The 5 solas
- Start date
They might feel like tossing a tomahawk at his rear end.
You a recognized member of an American Native tribe? Because if you aren't you're not entitled to the name.
I'll be back later to respond to the rest.
i am a Native American
i never claimed to be "a recognized member of an American Native tribe"
nice attempt to move the goal posts, though :thumb:
thanks for the warning :thumb:
i'll go get the hip waders
shagster01
New member
I don't have a problem with you saying it, other than it is factually incorrect being that they are not from India. So that kinda makes you look stupid.
BTW, what do you call people from India?
technical support reps?
Did you know that it is possible for one word to have more than one definition? I point that out in case you have never cracked open a dictionary.
If I look stupid to the stupid, then I'm cool with that.
I call them Indians.
When you use the word "orange" are you referring to citrus fruit or the color?
Oh, wait, the one word works for both. Wow, who would have thunk it.
Someone may well look stupid here but that someone ain't me.
Except there aren't two fruits called an orange, just as there aren't two different peoples called Indians, except by the willfully ignorant.
No, that was your attempt. If you aren't a recognized member of a Native American tribe then chances are you can call yourself a native American, but not a Native American, as I noted earlier.
So likely you're either trying the lame "I was born here so I'm native," which is back to the little "n" or you have a little Native American blood in you (like a great many Americans) but not enough to qualify you for recognition or the label. Else, what's your blood ratio and the corresponding tribe? You may qualify. Some membership qualifying is as slight as 1/16, though you'll need 1/4 to qualify on federal grants for Native Americans.
i know that an ancestor came over from holland in 1632 and settled in New England, his descendents becoming prominent in upstate New York in the early 1700s and beyond
given the interaction between french settlers before the french and indian war, and given the fact that most French Canadian families have some intermarriage with indians and given that genealogical practice leads to about 40,000 ancestors at that level...
it would be kinda foolish to think i didn't have some indian blood in me
but that's beside the point
i was born here, my folks were born here, their folks were born here
i'm a Native American
given the interaction between french settlers before the french and indian war, and given the fact that most French Canadian families have some intermarriage with indians and given that genealogical practice leads to about 40,000 ancestors at that level...
it would be kinda foolish to think i didn't have some indian blood in me
but that's beside the point
i was born here, my folks were born here, their folks were born here
i'm a Native American
I'd say any objective approach leads to the conclusion that most people aren't offended by it, Native American or not, but that a growing number are and a large percentage of Native Americans are and if no offense is meant by using the historically offensive term then it makes no real sense not to change it.
I wrote: You don't have to believe calling a Native American "redskin" is a "horrible injustice" to believe it's wrong headed and to question why anyone who says it would continue to say it once he sees the objection.
No, you don't, supra. Trying to insist I must for no real reason other than it suits your desire to be dismissive is about as fair as if I suddenly decided that you must be a racist for defending a use that would be acceptable in use by racists and which offends a goodly number of Native Americans for no good reason.
Of course it would be as silly for me to think that as it is for you to think I must be X when it needn't be and I've told you it isn't applicable to my position. I'm more in the incredulous camp, watching people try to justify a thing by pointing at anything and everything but the inescapable truth that people are being needlessly offended and those who claim to want the opposite are fighting for the right to continue to offend.
lain:Demonstrably not to ten percent of the people who you claim are meant to be "complimented". This isn't complicated. If you call a woman madam and she takes umbrage, then you stop calling her that, even if and especially if you meant it positively. You don't insist that she see it your way or, if you do, what you're really saying is that you don't care what she thinks and it isn't about her to begin with, that the complimentary bit is so much smoke.
Curious. I've differed with Rex often enough and strongly on at least one subject, but I've never found him less than well considered, rhetorically and logically sound. He's also the sort who will meet a well argued difference with consideration and humor, agreement notwithstanding. I count him among those I enjoy reading around here, sometimes especially for our differences.
Last edited:
Like I said, supra, and:
European settlers aren't among those.
you're a pedantic retard
i was born here
my folks were born here
their folks were born here
etc, etc, etc
thus, i'm a Native American
and you, my inbred southern "friend", are a retard
i suspect your folks were retards
i suspect their folks were retards
etc, etc, etc
i was born here
my folks were born here
their folks were born here
etc, etc, etc
thus, i'm a Native American
and you, my inbred southern "friend", are a retard
i suspect your folks were retards
i suspect their folks were retards
etc, etc, etc
some interesting background on the naming controversy at wiki:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_name_controversy
i may cut and paste excerpts when i'm back on a real machine
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_name_controversy
i may cut and paste excerpts when i'm back on a real machine
A native American was born here. A Native American is of and from the earliest peoples here, popularly mislabeled "Indians".
Lon
Well-known member
The Native American cemetary, on native grounds, in my city is called the "Indian Cemetary" with that label.
I'd think that'd count for something in the way of a counterpoint :think:
Lon
Well-known member
I suppose if colored started calling their cemetaries "N- Cemetaries, we'd think they were just complaining after that. They are not. "Indians" are and do. Being near reservations, I have full-blooded Indian friends. I'm not just talking from my 1/8 and 1/8 (1/4).
To me, that is what doesn't make sense. If a minority of women sue us all for the offense of the term "women," when does such become petty and stupid?
Are my Native friends going to have to stop calling themselves "Indians" because those on the East Coast don't like it?
Hey, don't project your issues onto me man.
Whats ignorant is being "more left than right" and calling oneself a "Christian". That is schizo ignorant.
With respect, that doesn't really address or answer my point. I put it as plainly and clearly as I can think to in my last. I've yet to get an answer on it by literally anyone on the other side of the coin. I hear liberal this or majority that mixed often with the old we really mean it in a good way business, but no one comments directly on a fairly simple and straight forward analysis. I think that's telling, Lon. I don't think there's a good answer to it that sustains the point of keeping the name.
But who knows? One of these days I might get an answer on it and not another discussion about people who aren't offended by the term Redskin or the perceived politics of those who are, etc.