Yeah, this pretty much means the crowd is cheering "Let's go Bloody Scalps!"
I mean, come on. This isn't all that complicated. Like Town Heretic said at this point people are digging in their heels without really considering the actual issue.
Redskins
- Thread starter The 5 solas
- Start date
Yeah, this pretty much means the crowd is cheering "Let's go Bloody Scalps!"
I mean, come on. This isn't all that complicated. Like Town Heretic said at this point people are digging in their heels without really considering the actual issue.
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
There is no "they", different tribes had different customs, traditions, practices, etc..
Scalping was not universal.
Lon
Well-known member
It is something they were doing without being paid to do so. If you attach it to a white man paying for it, the term suddenly becomes derogatory? Somehow, Redskin became offensive in the 1960's. That this was the rise of the counterculture probably speaks for itself. Here we are in 2014, 80 years after the Washington D.C. Redskins came into existence.
My prediction: "The Fighting Irish" will be next off the list because it somehow has to do with their civil unrest than with their ability to box. Why? Because I just planted it in the minds and 40 years from now, an Irish bloke is going to get a notion....
So in your mind it had to have been done by all tribes for Lon to have a legitimate point? How ridiculous and grasping.
Lon
Well-known member
No, because war ethics, defense ethics were what they were. I suppose in a sense, such is a tecnicallity that I would acquiesce if pressed. But no, I don't want you bashing my ancestors for collecting scalps. I just want you to realize that "Redskin" as such, isn't derogatory because such wasn't bad, it was important at the time. Was it savage? Yes, but not for you to judge. Yes, after Christianity reached them, no, not before.
Yes, because it is an imposition upon my ancestor's values. You should ask 'why whitescalps' before you take offense. If I say because my grandfather had many, what is that to you? (nothing -absolutely nothing)
If I call you pale-face or fair skinned, you'd again need to ask before you took offense.
No, only in the comparative sense. I did not 'excuse' the prior offense, needlessly taken. I only compared it to a legitimate one, thus "more" as in "You should NOT be concerned over these, but rather [more] the latter."
This isn't about me. This isn't about my friends to the left of me. It's about people taking offense at how their people are used and whether it should continue justifiably.
From where I'm standing you're letting a general philosophy and a disdain for an opposing one bar you from considering that actual issue and letting it focus you, instead, on who you believe its messenger to be. To me that's a variation on your own complaint.
Else, you'd have to be against the Civil Rights movement then, because that follows the same line of argument. Liberals at the front and a minority complaining.
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
I don't understand the whole 'bloody scalp' thing and why it should even be brought up.
Alright, so yeah they went and took the scalps off of Native Americans.
This is sort of the thing to do when you're waltzing into unknown territory and getting ambushed by indigenous people bent on your undoing- you do something drastic.
It's easy to come hundreds of years later and sensationalize that- let's talk about how evil it is or whatever.
But try hopping on a boat, braving the sea for months on end and being subject to illness, disaster, or mutiny, and then get off the boat with guys hiding in the bushes throwing spears at you.
Sometimes drastic measures are taken, and they chose to scare the crap out of them by taking their scalps.
Alright, so yeah they went and took the scalps off of Native Americans.
This is sort of the thing to do when you're waltzing into unknown territory and getting ambushed by indigenous people bent on your undoing- you do something drastic.
It's easy to come hundreds of years later and sensationalize that- let's talk about how evil it is or whatever.
But try hopping on a boat, braving the sea for months on end and being subject to illness, disaster, or mutiny, and then get off the boat with guys hiding in the bushes throwing spears at you.
Sometimes drastic measures are taken, and they chose to scare the crap out of them by taking their scalps.
...because the word "redskin" was used to describe the corpse of an Indian you killed for money.
This is not. That. Complicated.
And used to describe the color of their skin. That is not complicated either. Lets remove everything that someone used in a bad way ever from everywhere, would anything be left of anything?
Uh, yeah. Plenty. Silly question.
Crudeness for its own sake because its our "right" is no kind of argument. It's just an oaf's excuse for being an oaf.
Lon
Well-known member
:nono: It certainly did not (still isn't).No, it's in poor taste regardless. You're equating an ethnic group with the severed scalps of the same.
And somehow monarchy became bad in 1776.lain:
Meh, regardless, if my relatives were headhunters, calling them 'headhunters" isn't derogatory! :doh:
Shoot, if you are going to just let me frivolously sue.... :think:
Don't care.
To say someone has red skin, white skin or black skin is not offensive and it certainly isnt crude. You people are desperate.
Lon
Well-known member
:doh: Says the man who has been repeatedly banned for crude offense! :doh:
...yet you've said you wouldn't address an American Indian as "redskin." So when it comes to dealing with individual Indians you appear to be uncomfortable, but using the word to describe an entire people seems okay in your book. Seems like a double standard.
And ive said i wouldnt adress a black man as "blackman" and i wouldnt adress a white man as "whiteman" and i wouldnt adress an eskimo as "yellowman"
No, it appears you are racist since all you can see in another man is the color of their skin.
How many reservations have you been on granite, ive been on 6 of them.
If these words aren't, in your opinion, crude or offensive, why would avoid using them?
You have it completely backwards. I find the word "redskin" offensive because it reduces an entire people to nothing but the color of their skin. It's dismissive and contemptuous.
Why dont you call me white woman? Why dont you call other people you know by the color of their skin? What an idiotic line of questioning, you are truely desperate.
Forcing them to live on reservations and stating they cant take care of themselves is wayyyy worse than complimenting them as warriors, and fighters and winners granite.
Just because you have victim mentality doesnt mean everyone else should.
How does denying a patent on that basis even fly anyway? How *exactly* does one veto a patent in any other regard then that the name was already copyrighted.
Sounds very unAmerican to me. I think we should be more focused on the cheap shot right there then anything else.
Sounds very unAmerican to me. I think we should be more focused on the cheap shot right there then anything else.