• http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    The Confederate flag doesn’t always symbolize that, though it’s what Democrats would like people to think it represents.

  • DL Sly

    I was thinking the same thing, Ymar. In my opinion, the Nazi flag is the one that doesn’t belong with the other two. But then, that’s just my .298.
    0>;~}

  • jhstuart

    For those who are offended by “Washington Redskins” there is an easy solution: Drop Washington from the name.

  • Libby

    Declaring “Redskins” a racial slur is historic revisionism, and purposely linking the logo to the swastika is a bad attempt at conditioning. Some truth about the term can be found here:  http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002961.html.
    According to Yves Goddard, of the Smithsonian Institute, “the term redskin is a translation from native American languages of a term used by native Americans for themselves. Harjo’s claim that it ‘had its origins in the practice of presenting bloody red skins and scalps as proof of Indian kill for bounty payments’ is unsupported by any evidence. The term entered popular usage via the novels of  James Fenimore Cooper. In the early- to mid-nineteenth century the term was neutral, not pejorative, and indeed was often used in contexts in which whites spoke of Indians in positive terms.
    “In 1933, George Preston Marshall, the owner of the team, which was then located in Boston, renamed it the Boston Redskins in honor of the head coach, William “Lone Star” Dietz, an American Indian. When the team moved to Washington in 1937 it was renamed the Washington Redskins. George Marshall clearly did not consider the name disparaging.”
     
     

  • 11B40

    Greetings:
     
    I’m equally offended by the Kansas City “Chiefs”. Anyone who knows anything about how racist, sexist, homophobic Euro-Americans traumatize and oppress the few surviving Amerindians, knows that calling the latter “Chief” is a demeaning assault eating away at both individual identity and sarcastically reminding the assaultee of his people’s destruction. 
     
    As to the “Browns”, don’t even think about going there.

  • jj

    Another offended group – the long roll of the easily-offended (or: ‘just too precious to live in this world with the rest of us’) does begin to assume absurd proportions.  We’ll all have to become like auto makers, and start spinning names that sort of sound familiar – ish – out of thin air.  In the history of the planet there has never been a herd of chevelles running across the mountain escalade, but it sort of sounds like there could have been, doesn’t it?
     
    I suspect many team monikers insult somebody – do we care?  Imagine being from the south and having to play those goddam Yankees!  Their very existence is a reminder of pain, young lives lost in a fruitless cause, and the end of an entire way of life.  What a calculated insult, that “Yankee’ moniker!  And the Vancouver Canucks – OMG!  Of course that team plays out in the far reaches of western Canada, where you will never hear a word of French and can’t find a dual-language sign with a microscope, and they do not give one goddam what anybody in Quebec thinks about anything – but still!  Canuck?  I grew up knowing that word as nothing but an insult. 
     
    It approaches dopiness, too – as political correctness inevitably does.  The University of North Dakota have been made, by their own liberal administration, to abandon the “Fighting Sioux” name.  The actual Sioux, many of whom live in the immediate area, seem not to have been other than honored by it, despite what the pantywaist in the university president’s office thought.  When the St. John’s Redmen were in the process of forcible abandonment of their name over in New York, the boys on the Shinnecock reservation on Long Island were occasionally asked to weigh in.  Of those few who got beyond “what?” the vast majority found themselves unoffended by the name, and even obscurely proud thereof.  I knew a bunch of those guys in my youth.  They had – and have – other issues.  Our farm, the one next door, the one across the street, and the one beyond that were labor intensive in the fall – as all farms once were.  During haying or corn harvest everybody hired extra hands from the rez.  It always comes as a surprise to everybody that Long Island, NY, has more Indian place-names than just about anywhere else in the country, and still has plenty of Indians.
     
    (And, on an entirely different note, here I am, lo these decades later, hiring extra hands from the rez down the street when occasionally needed.  They’re no more politically correct than the ones back east were, either.  “My great-great grandfather, my great grandfather, my grandfather, and my father were all Indians – so I’m an Indian, okay?  Save that ‘native American’ s*** for people who never met one.”)
     
    I think one of the things you do when you get into these sorts of soul-searching discussions is go to the source.  Do the Indians themselves give a damn?  Or is it just Bobby Costas?  (Bobby’s losing his marbles as he ages, isn’t he?  We’ve now had to sit through what he thinks about female sports reporters, what he thinks about guns, and what he thinks about the Redskins.  Nobody cares, Bobby: that’s not why you’re paid.  Don’t get your face stretched anymore, it isn’t doing your brain any good.  You called them the Redskins for forty years, it didn’t bother you – stop it!)  I’d think asking them would be Step One.  And realizing, of course, that there’ll be a divide there, some of them will aim to be politically correct, most probably won’t care – and a fair number will say “what?”
     
    And you’ll get manipulated, of course.  The news, no matter how many of them opine, will only run the ones who hate the team name, and are insulted by it, and etc., etc., etc. – BS.  So change the name to ‘Washington Shitweasels,’ which will be both accurate to the place and descriptive of the population, and let it go at that.  Leave Elizabeth Warren to be the monicker for the Indians.  (There’s a thought – call them the ‘Washington Warrens!’)   

  • Charles Martel

    How about the “Washington Indigenes of Red Color” (“Reds of Color” for short)? Not even a redskin like Elizabeth Warren could object to that formulation.

  • DL Sly

    jj, you’re going to love this. Out here in NW Montana, I live a stone’s throw and a spit from one of the largest rez’s lands in the state. They’ve taken pc to the nth degree. No longer are they Native Americans. Now they’re “First Americans”.
    Kinda reminds me of those silly-ass people on blogs who always post “First” in the comments section.
    Personally, I’m all for the name DC Dickheads. They could put a picture of Capital Hill on their helmets for their logo.
    0>;~}

  • jj

    Remind them that they’re ‘First Immigrants,’ DL – they didn’t start out here either, but wandered in across the land bridge from Asia.  Illegally.

  • Spartacus

    Rejoice.
     
    According to the archives of America’s Finest News Source, people managing to get their panties into a twist about something like this is simply indicative that we’ve not had a major terrorist attack lately.

  • Libby

    The only thing worse that a person who is easily offended is a person of authority who preemptively forbids  words (or symbols, or cultural/religious expressions) because it “might” offend someone else: http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=51609

  • Charles Martel

    The Montana “First Americans” may have to get in line. The most current theory about the peopling of the Americas is that it occurred in several waves, with the north Asian “red man” wave being the latest.
     
    The discovery of Kennewick Man in Washington State in 1996, estimated to be 9,300 to 9,600 years old, put a crimp in the “First Americans'” smug little claims to primacy. Turns out Kenny was closely related to the Ainu, the aboriginal Japanese tribe, and even the Polynesians—neither ethnicity being closely related to northern Asians.
     
    I’d start calling them “First, Second, Whatever Americans.”

  • SADIE

    “This is an elite, silk-carpet-carefully-woven-to-look-like-grass movement.”
     
    I’ll take your most eloquent sentence and pervert it ….
     
    Liberal grass root movements are not fit for dog droppings. The grAss is, however, more than adequate to wipe your feet on should you have the misfortune of stepping in their droppings.
     

  • Call me Lennie

    One of the proggressive “trump” cards in this kerfuffle is “What if someone were to name a team the Washington Negroes?”  And, of course, this is supposed to cause everyone to run and hide in their burrows like terrified kangaroo rats, lest we be called racist
     
    And maybe someday, someone will have the temerity to say, “OK, what if someone did that?  What would be so awful about that, seeing as how “negro” was a fairly neutral way to describe African-descended Americans, which is why the word was distorted into nigger when used as an insult.”
     
    And the real answer to that is that huge numbers of our black community would immediately go up in arms in order to “prove” that it’s an insult.   So maybe the answer to that trump card is to point out the fact of the conditioned hyper-sensitivity of American blacks, which apparently is not shared by American Indian culture.*  Ergo, the trump question is irrelevant
     
    *(Possibly, because they find such over-the-top displays unseemly) 
     

  • Michael Adams

    The Spanish for black is ‘negro’.  However, many times more Southerners knew Latin than knew Spanish, and the Latin is ‘nigra’.  There is a tendency among English speakers to turn words ending in ‘R-vowel- into vowel-R.  ‘Centre’ in French became ‘center’, in English, for example. That’s the origin of “nigger.” The fact that Black people were despised by their nearest economic competitors, the poorest whites in the South, Irish immigrants in the North, made it pretty much inevitable that whatever word was adopted would become an epithet.
     
    A vital and growing economy that does not leave the poorest scrambling for scraps tends to erase the antipathy in a couple of generations. A declining economy, of course, revives them.

  • Danny Lemieux

    I think that Hammer is onto something here. Keep the “Washington Redskins” brand name. Change the logo to a picture profile of Hillary Clinton. Plenty scary!

  • Pingback: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove()

  • http://www.amazon.com/Occupy-Innsmouth-ebook/dp/B009WWJ44A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1361504109&amp raymondjelli

    Hmmmm…..the Daily News is wading into this when the real story is that the Democratic candidate for mayor is a professional Marxist, anti-Semite and jihad apologist.  Looks as if there is some serious deflection going on.
    Some people have made the point that sports teams because they are meant for harmless fun should be as absolutely inoffensive in names as they can possibly be.  Maybe this is true but I would love to ask those people a question.  If Redskin is racist then should the Cowboys be changed to something else.  I’m sure a lot of leftists find Cowboys evil.  In fact they use it as a slur against Reagan and Bush.  It would be nice to know where this all stops.
    I would like to change the name of the Redskins to the Washington Grafters. Every time they screw up a play we can yell Obamacare!!

  • 11B40

    Greetings:
     
    If I may inflict one more of my bites at the “Redskins” apple, and while I was never much of a poetry appreciator, I have been able to remember a handful of concepts from the joy of my youth. The one pertinent to this discussion seems to me to be “connotation versus denotation”. As I can still recall, “denotation” referred to the actual dictionary meaning of the word while “connotation” referred to the meaning of the word as used by some degenerate poet or other. 
     
    Now, as I try to apply this knowledge, I can admit that “Redskins” is, denotation-wise, probably a sub-optimal usage but certainly not uncommon as to the way human beings tend to conceive of those who would oppose them.  As that particular conflict has been largely resolved, or as resolved as things are allowed to be in the new, progressive America -2.0, the sharp, life-shattering oppression of the word seems to have been dulled to the butterknife level.
     
    So, the argument seems to me to be about the “connotation”.  Those who would retain the name seem to understand that sports teams are not named to slur previous opponents but to ascribe their positive characteristics. This, in spite of all the poets on the political left, seems somewhat unfathomable to today’s progressives in search of a new crisis not to waste.
    Lastly, my all time favorite bit of verse:
    “I sprang to the stirrup, and Joris and he.
     I galloped, he galloped, we galloped all three.”
     
    Us ex-cavalrymen just love a good anapest.
     

  • jj

    Actually, as I think about nit, the ‘Washington Pissants’ would be okay, too.

  • DL Sly

    Mr. Martel, are you referring to the state of Washington, or the place of “kinda-higher” learning indoctrination known as Washington State University?
    As to the “First Americans”, I am well aware that the land bridge brought the various tribes of peoples to this part of the world.  My point was more to the “PC Gone Wild” aspect of the whole thing.  In my opinion, they’re Americans.  Native American works for me, too, since they were here before the European influx that brought the vast majority of *our* ancestors.  I’m not sure I can agree with the “illegally” part, though, jj.  I base that upon the fact that, at the time they walked across the land bridge, this large chunk of land now known as the United States of America didn’t remotely resemble a *nation* with immigration laws.  In fact, when the pilgrims landed here, one could reasonably argue that there were several different tribal states each controlling their own large chunk of territory.  Some tribes had treaties of respect and peace between themselves.  Others, however, were warring tribes of such savagry that they would make the *attrocities* that the liberals have screamed were committed by American soldiers in war seem pedantic by comparison.
     
    An interesting piece of trivia:  about 10 years ago a rez high school team in N. Dakota changed their name from the Fighting Sioux to the Tightie Whities.  They were hoping to insult (and thereby make a point) with the name.  Funny thing happened on the way to the forum, though….the ‘White Man’ in and around the rez loved the humor of the name.  They thought it was funny as hell.
    Sucks when your deliberate attempt to insult falls to the wayside because your intended target refuses to get your *joke* and makes one of their own instead.
    heh
    0>;~}

  • Charles Martel

    Early on I learned that when it comes to history, Occam’s Razor favors stupidity over conspiracy. Thus, for example, the Germans did not conspire to create the horrors of the Bolshevik coup by sending Lenin back to Russia; they stupidly assumed he would destabilize the czarist regime without himself turning into a monstrous future threat.
     
    I’m of the opinion that the left has entered terminal stupidity. I don’t say that to be insulting. It’s just that the abysmal level of discourse and reasoning on the left, and the inability of its leading lights to even feign coherence anymore, tells me that the stupid party has won. It has no idea of where to go now or what to do. Yet it will continue pouring acid on this country’s foundational institutions, just as cancer cells continue spewing poison and ruin into their host. The left’s end game is an exercise in nihilism without a whit of intelligence to it. 
     
    I see the whole dust-up over the Redskins’ name as just more mindless stupidity at work. The left has reduced itself to empty, formulaic crusades and assertions, and more and more people are becoming sick and tired of it. As the Obamacare debacle unfolds, and war drums sound ever louder in Asia as Israel nears its decision to attack Iran, crap like pseudo-debates over a football team’s name are going to lose what’s left of their already faded ability to rouse and stir. 
     

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    The LA likes to connect the Confederacy, the South, and slavery together, because it makes people forget that the Democrat party caused the Confederacy to fall, the South to be ruined in Reconstruction and terrorist in fighting, and also profited from slavery not only economically but politically.
     
    So keep conflating the Confederate flag with the Xpected results, since that’s what helps the Left.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    For clarification purposes, I think anyone at any time that gets hit by this Leftist propaganda op and doesn’t mention the truth, is participating in it to ultimate self (and national) destruction.
     
    Allow the Left to lie a single time to society, and before you know it, your nation will have elected a King as President. Or perhaps I speak anachronistically.
     
    The LA has feminism, unions, police unions, gay activists, black power, and various other members in it. But I treat them equally and fairly. I don’t just pick out one and say “oh, that one’s bad and evil” but “this one, this one I like, because I have friends with them”.
     
    Nope. They’re all together. And they’re all going to hang together, one way or another. Because the US is going to hang together, one way or another, under the Left’s Utopia.

  • Ron19

    What is “the LA”?