Obomba: Racism 'deeply rooted in our society'

[ELVIS]

President Obomba will sit down with BET Networks to discuss calls for criminal justice reform after two controversial grand jury decisions cleared white officers in the death of black men.

In a special segment, "BET News Presents: A Conversation with President Barack Obomba, AKA Barry Soetoro" the president will help find meaningful solutions to unrest after the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner sparked nationwide protests.



"This isn't going to be solved overnight," Obama said...

Read the rest of this bullshit here...

[Satan]

[ELVIS]

What's that supposed to mean, FROD ??

I mean, Dave ??

[DONNIEP]

Man, I'm just about sick of hearing about freaking racism. Everybody needs to come down here to the "racist" South and see how black and white people get along just fine for the most part. Maybe if the fucking media and Ubama would lay off and quit fanning the flames, maybe just maybe the country could move forward. Jesus, this ain't the Jim Crow era anymore. We've got a black guy that was elected president for cryin' out loud - twice!!

Kill Whitey!

[DONNIEP]

And this dumb ass cartoon - "I just feel like there might be SOME racism left in society." Really? Oh hell, I had no idea that there are still some white people who hate black people. God knows no black people hate white people, right? What a load of shit. As long as there are people on this fucking planet there are going to be some who hate other people because they're different. Period. End of story. Either learn to live with it or kill off all the damn Honkies!

And don't give me any of this shit about Whitey having all the power. Black president. Black AG. And if it was up to me we'd have a damn black woman president next! Condy/Donniep 2016!!

[Satan]

The next president of color should have red skin.

SATAN 2016 - Don't settle for a lesser evil

[DONNIEP]

The next president of color should have red skin.

That's RACIST!!! We can't have Red Skins in Washington!

[ELVIS]

FROD's got a red ass, does that count ??

[ELVIS]

Hey, FROD...

Do you get BET up there in red-ass world ??

[ELVIS]

You know you're a bad ass when Satan wont fuck with you...

[Hardrock69]

You know you are an ignorant racist trailer trash bozo whenever....

[Angel]

That's RACIST!!! We can't have Red Skins in Washington!

So you shouldn't...

Why did they call Indians "redskin"?...

Because of the blood they were covered in after being scalped. And the US government paid $5 per scalp...

[DONNIEP]

So you shouldn't...

Why did they call Indians "redskin"?...

Because of the blood they were covered in after being scalped. And the US government paid $5 per scalp...

Are you sure? I thought it was because the male Indians had a nice red sexy hue to their skin.

[ELVIS]

Because of the blood they were covered in after being scalped. And the US government paid $5 per scalp...

You're full of shit...

Just like Dave the FROD...

[Angel]

You're right, Elbow. The amount paid was far more than $5...

" Settlers were paid for killing and scalping the Penobscot people. The bounty for a male Penobscot older than 12 was 50 pounds, and his scalp was worth 40 pounds. The bounty for a female Penobscot Indian of any age and for males under 12 was 25 pounds, while their scalps were worth 20 pounds. These scalps were called “redskins."" -*Written by ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, U.S. House Delegate



Above is an excerpt*from The Daily Republican newspaper in Winona, Minnesota from Sept. 24, 1863. It reads:

The State reward for dead Indians has been increased to $200 for every red-skin sent to Purgatory. This sum is more than the dead bodies of all the Indians east of the Red River are worth.

[Angel]

Are you sure? I thought it was because the male Indians had a nice red sexy hue to their skin.

100% sure...and I have yet to meet a person with red skin. Various shades of brown, but no red...

[ELVIS]

That's not the origin of the term, dunce, as much as you'd love it to be the case...

Indians were referring to themselves as redskins at least 100 years earlier than your photoshop, as evidenced in this 1769 passage by Chief Mosquito:

"I shall be pleased to have you come to speak to me yourself if you pitty our women and our children; and, if any redskins do you harm, I will be able to look after you even at the peril of my life."

[DONNIEP]

Chief Mosquito?? What, his tribe didn't like him or something? You can't be no Chief if your name is Mosquito! If I was an Injun, I'd call myself Chief Buffalo Dong or something like that. Or Chief Bangsemall. Anything but Mosquito...

[ELVIS]

Anything but Mosquito...

I can also be seen as spelled Misketo...

I'm wondering if the angry revisionist historian Angel has even heard the name...

[DONNIEP]

Oh, well Misketo sounds pretty cool. All woodsy sounding, strong. I approve.

[ELVIS]

100% sure...

And you're supposed to be a perpetual student...

This is debatable subject...

Saying you're 100% sure discounts any credibility you have straight away...

[ELVIS]

I thought it was because the male Indians had a nice red sexy hue to their skin.

That was generally considered to be true...

That is, until the recently adapted Internet revisionist scalp story...

[ELVIS]

"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.⁴ 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."

Link!

[ELVIS]

Score:

ELVIS - 1

Perpetual Dunce - ZERO

[TFM_Dale]

I did an article on the origins of the name Redskins and why it may or may not be a racist term. I'll leave my opinion out of it and just post one of the articles I used as reference.

In 2005, the Indian language scholar Ives Goddard of the Smithsonian Institution published a remarkable and consequential study of*redskin's early history. His findings shifted the dates for the word's first appearance in print by more than a century and shed an awkward light on the contemporary debate. Goddard found, in summary, that "the actual origin of the word is entirely benign."

Redskin, he learned,*had not emerged first in English or any European language. The English term, in fact, derived from Native American phrases involving the color red in combination with terms for flesh, skin, and man. These phrases were part of a racial vocabulary that Indians often used to designate themselves in opposition to others whom they (like the Europeans) called*black,white, and so on.

But the language into which those terms for Indians were first translated was French. The tribes among whom the proto forms of*redskinfirst appeared lived in the area of the upper Mississippi River called Illinois country. Their extensive contact with French-speaking colonists, before the French pulled out of North America, led to these phrases being translated, in the 1760s, more or less literally as*peau-rouge*and only then into English asredskin. It bears mentioning that many such translators were mixed-blood Indians.

Half a century later,*redskin*began circulating. It was used at the White House when President Madison requested that various Indian tribes steer clear of an alliance with Britain. No Ears, a chief of the Little Osages, spoke in reply and one of his statements was translated as, "I know the manners of the whites and the red skins." Only in 2004, however, when the Papers of James Madison project at the University of Virginia reached the year 1812 did this and another use ofredskin*from the same meeting come to light.

The word became even more well known when the Meskwaki chief Black Thunder delivered a speech at a treaty conference after the War of 1812. Black Thunder, whose words were translated by an interpreter, said that he would speak calmly and without fear, adding, "I turn to all, red skins and white skins, and challenge an accusation against me."

In the coming years,*redskin*became a key element of the English-language rhetoric used by Indians and Americans alike to speak about each other and to each other. Goddard mentions numerous Indian speeches that were translated and printed in English-language newspapers. From such speeches, Goddard observes, James Fenimore Cooper almost certainly learned the word, which he then began using in his novels in the 1820s.

Goddard's paper methodically describes the term's early evolution, made possible by an unlikely abundance of documentation. "It is extremely unusual," he wrote, "to be able to document the emergence of a vernacular expression in such exact and elucidative detail."

Before all this recent scholarship, though, one could be forgiven for thinking*redskin*had emerged from hostilities with the white man. For many years the first citation in the*Oxford English Dictionary*was dated 1699 and purported to come from Samuel Smith. It read, "Ye firste Meetinge House was solid mayde to withstande ye wicked onsaults of ye Red Skins." It had been quoted from family papers in a book published in 1900 by Helen Evertson Smith.

But Goddard's research undermined this earliest of citations. First, he explains, Smith's words were "relentlessly antiqued"—made to appear older than they were. One giveaway was the use of*ye,*which was anachronistic for 1699. By investigating the underlying documentation Goddard further discovered a probable source for the quotation, bearing a different date and the word*Indian, which Helen Evertson Smith had modified to*redskin.

After Goddard, who serves as the*OED's main consultant on Indian language and culture, published his paper, the*Oxford*editors changed the entry. The*OED*now says the quotation was "subsequently found to be misattributed; the actual text was written in 1900 by an author claiming, for purposes of historical fiction, to be quoting an earlier letter."

Another major source for confusion has been Suzan Harjo, the Cheyenne-Creek activist who was an early plaintiff in the long-running case against the NFL. She has said on numerous occasions that*redskin*originated in "the practice of presenting bloody red skins and scalps as proof of Indian kill for bounty payments."

In 2005, Guy Gugliotta wrote about Goddard's paper in the*Washington Post, calling Goddard's research "exhaustive." But the article presented Harjo's claims alongside Goddard's, with the headline writer patronizing Goddard's findings by calling them an "alternative history."

Four years later, the*Post*published a column by Eva Rodriguez, trotting out the bloody-scalp origin story. Goddard responded by writing a letter to the editor. First, he stated clearly that only current feelings about the word were relevant to determining whetherredskin*is offensive today, and then he objected strenuously to Rodriguez's amateur scholarship:

What is not acceptable is for her to give as the only relevant historical fact the fictional claim that the word originally referred to scalps, for which there is no evidence.

But the*Post's letters editor would not allow Goddard to call the bloody-scalp claim "fictional," and so deleted the word from his letter.

Nonetheless, it is easy to see from 19th-century newspapers that the term did frequently appear in the context of violence by and against Indians. Stories about life-or-death encounters with hostile tribes can be found by searching*redskin*in Chronicling America, the National Digital Newspaper Database.

On May 13, 1836, the*Vermont Phoenixpublished "From the Legends of a Log Cabin: The Hunter's Perils," in which the narrator is tracking an Indian named Broadfoot, whom he is hoping to, in fact, scalp. The narrator complains to his companion:

Why Balt, I don't want a squaw's scalp, nor a papoose's, if I can get a warrior's . . . . Here we have been on a range four days and have not had a shot at a red-skin—man, woman or child.

A short story that ran in the*Illinois Free Trader and LaSalle County Commercial Advertiser*on June 4, 1841, describes a posse of white men, including a man named Wetzel, poised to fight Indians in order to win back a little white girl named Rose, whom the Indians have kidnapped:

'Old Cross-Fire,' repeated Wetzel, with rather a sneering emphasis, 'he's at the top and bottom of this business; and the very minute he finds himself hunted down by horsemen, he will scalp poor Rose, and then take good care to [get] himself and his cursed red-skin gang [out of] harm's way.

The same character Wetzel goes on to recall all the times he shot at Indians:

'I've laid for days and nights at a stretch, on the pint of that little island yander, watching the movements of the red-skins to get a chance to riddle their hides with my old woman here,'—and the hunter patted the breech of his gun with manifest affection.

Of course, the names of many peoples who have been at war have been used with an intention to demonize or denigrate. That we can find*Germans*spoken of with malice during World War II, though, does not makeGerman*slang or offensive. But the informal usage of*redskin*seems to have made it especially inviting to the creators of frontier tales.

Such contexts and, more importantly, the violent history of U.S. Indian policy, help explain why the 1898*Webster's*Collegiate dictionary labeled*red-skin*"often contemptuous," as Peter Sokolowski of Merriam-Webster has pointed out. But our lexicographical take on the word remained complicated.

Later volumes of*Webster's, in fact, dropped the derogatory label.*Webster's Second Unabridged*in 1934 and*Webster's Third Unabridged*in 1961 applied no label at all toredskin. Not that either was famous for its sensitivity:*Webster's Second*defined*Apache*as "nomads of warlike disposition and relatively low culture."

[ELVIS]

Nice...

[vandeleur]

lotta words dale .. is it good or bad .can we have an abridged version .

[DONNIEP]

lotta words dale .. is it good or bad .can we have an abridged version .

Geez, Dale's post is almost as long as one of E's...

[ELVIS]

"With all due respect to our President Barack Obama, black folk don't need lectures on Black Entertainment Television. You go to Black Entertainment Television, Mr. President, respectfully, to lecture black folk and then you're wrong, respectfully, when you tell them that these things take time...stop telling black folk they['ve] got to wait, and that these things take time...Number two, Mr. President, respectfully, when you say we can't compare what's happening now to what happened fifty years ago, tell that to the parents of these kids who are being gunned down in america's streets. It is open season on black men, and it is in many ways as bad as it was fifty years ago. And finally, here's my point, why go to BET and give black folk a lecture but go to Stephen Colbert and tell jokes?" he stated.

Tavis Smiley

[ELVIS]

Tavis vs Shammity

[ELVIS]

Why did they call Indians "redskin"?...

Because of the blood they were covered in after being scalped. And the US government paid $5 per scalp...

Just The Facts: The Real History Of The Word Redskin

By Quinn Jordan

“It was a cold, wintery Sunday afternoon in December of 1983. I was 8 years old and stuck inside with not much to do. I was hanging out in my room alone, which I often did when I couldn’t go outside to play, watching my old black and white tv set that only had our local channels. On channel 3 there was a football game on. I wasn’t the biggest football fan at the time because I was more into my Star Wars toys. As I watched this football game I became intrigued. One of the teams had a boring helmet that just read ‘Giants’ on the side. The other team however, had a really cool looking helmet with an Indian head logo, were playing on a “painted dirt field” something called “The Hogs,” a guy named “The Diesel,” and an awesome fight song. Their nickname sounded really cool too, the “Redskins.” I thought the Redskins were the coolest thing ever! I had no clue what kind of controversy that the Redskins nickname bore. To me it was just the name of a football team and ‘redskin’ meant Indian. Fast forward 30 years and the innocence of “Redskins” has all but faded.

As I sat down to write this essay, news broke about the Redskins having their trademark canceled. Darren Rovell, a writer for ESPN, reported that “The United States Patent and Trademark Office has canceled the team’s trademark on the basis that it is “disparaging to Native Americans.” Native American activist groups have been in a legal battle with the Redskins for more than two decades, trying to get the ‘Skins trademark revoked. In by doing so, the Native American activists are trying to force the Redskins to change their name because they believe it to be a racial epithet. The Washington Redskins are under heavy pressure from, not just Indian activist, but also members of the United States Congress. In May 50 US Senators signed a letter addressed to Redskins owner Dan Snyder urging him to change the name. Erick Brady, a sports writer for USA Today, who cites a quote from the letter, stating, “The NFL can no longer ignore this and perpetuate the use of this name as anything but what it is: a racial slur.”

Pressure is mounting from the media, government officials, and a few Indian activists to force the Washington Redskins to change their name. However, the Redskins should not change their name because the fact ‘redskin’ is a racial slur is debatable and the Redskins have been honoring the Native American since their beginning.

Is ‘redskin’ a racial slur? That is a topic of debate that even highly accomplished scholars can’t even answer. J. Gordon Hylton, a Professor of Law at Marquette University, writes that if you were to look up the word ‘redskin’ in “widely used English language dictionaries”prior to 1983 you would find that ‘redskin’ was simply a noun for an American or North American Indian (“Why”). Hylton claims the 1983 edition of “Webster’s Third International Dictionary and Collegiate Dictionary, 9th Edition” were the first dictionaries to add the phrase “usually taken to be offensive” in addition to the definition of ‘redskin’ (“Why”). So ‘redskin’ was not defined in our dictionaries as a racial slur prior to 1983.

‘Redskin’ as a racial slur gained a lot of momentum in 1992. The “bloody scalp” theory gained national recognition thanks to Indian activist Susan Shown Harjo. Adrian Jawort, a member of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and a writer for Indian Country Today, writes that Susan Shown Harjo, in her trademark case versus Pro Football, which she and her fellow plaintiffs would go on to lose because of a lack of evidence supporting her claim, claimed that ‘redskin’ meant ‘scalp’ and it “derived from referring to bloody Indian scalps during the onset of the French and Indian War.” However, Ives Goddard, a Senior Linguist at the Smithsonian Institute of Natural History, writes that Harjo’s claim is “unfounded” and that the word ‘redskin’ has a very “benign” beginning (1). In the beginning of ‘redskin’ Goddard states that ‘redskin’ was first used by “three chiefs of the Piankashaws, a Miami speaking people, sent to Lt. Col. John Wilkins four talks, written out for them in French, in 1769” (4). He then goes on to explain the early known published “occurrence of redskin” happened in July of 1815 with two speeches made by Indian chiefs (6). Goddard concludes in his seven month researched article, that “It is clear from the earliest citations that ‘redskin’ was regarded as an Indian expression” and that “the early users of expression that were translated as ‘redskin’ no term for ‘Indian’ with the same literal meaning is known” (11 and 12). With having a better understanding of the word ‘redskin’ and where it came from, evidence shows that this word was developed by Native Americans and used by the Indian people.

The ‘redskin’ is a racial slur because it means “bloody scalp” definition given by Harjo, is sensationalism and revisionist history. Creating a meaning of grotesque negativity where one didn’t exist, was a way for an activist to fit her political agenda and try to win sympathy from the American public that just didn’t know any better. How many Americans are bothered by the Redskins name because they were told, by a Native American, that ‘redskin’ means “bloody scalp” and that is what the Washington football team is named after? In a personal interview with Goddard, he stated that ‘redskin’ “was an authentic word for Indian” and that “this is a political debate and in the rules of [a] political debate you don’t need evidence. It [‘redskin’ meaning bloody scalp] is based on an allegation of fact which has never been supported by the usual ways [historians] support the allegation of fact.” The ‘bloody scalp’ theory is the main theory behind ‘redskin’ being offensive, however no evidence has been found to back such claims. A large portion of people have had their opinions formed based on information that is misleading.

Although ‘redskin’ has a pretty innocent beginning, it is not clear when the word developed a negative connotation. Hylton writes in his article, “Why Is the Word Redskin so Offensive?” that there are examples like “Earl Emmons’ 1915 Redskin Rimes” and Hollywood Westerns that used ‘redskin’ negatively. He also states that many examples can be found of ‘Indian’ being used “while making derogatory comments” namely “Gen. Phillip Sheridan’s much repeated observation that The only good Indian is a dead Indian” (“Why”). By 1969 ‘redskin’ was defined with a “qualification” as being “informal,” which, according to Hylton, “may be a recognition that ‘redskin’ was passing out of everyday usage” (“Why”). As noted earlier it wasn’t until 1983 that dictionaries qualified ‘redskin’ with any kind of acknowledgement of it being offensive (“Why”). There just aren’t many facts to support
the claim that ‘redskin’ is a racial slur. Furthermore, the fact that there is not much evidence to pinpoint exactly when the word became a negative connotation, is proof enough that the “redskin is a slur” argument is debatable.

Another reason the Redskins should not change their name is because the name Redskins is meant to honor the Native American. In 1932 the National Football League awarded George Preston Marshall and the city of Boston an expansion franchise. In the early days of the NFL, according to Hylton, it was common for new expansion teams to adopt the identities of their hometown baseball team and since Marshall’s new football team was to play their home games at Braves Field, home of the National League’s Boston Braves, it made sense for Marshall to name his football team the Braves (“Before” 888). However, the very next season Marshall was faced with a dilemma. Hylton writes that in “1933 Marshall and the owners of Braves Field failed to reach an agreement to renew the team’s lease for the upcoming [NFL] season” (“Before” 889). Which meant that Marshall had to find a new home venue for his football team to play. The other home stadium option for Marshall was Fenway Park, home of the American League’s Boston Red Sox (Hylton 889). So with his team moving from Braves Field to Fenway Park, Marshall felt he needed to come up with a new identity for his football team. Marshall had an affinity for the Native American culture, “due to his family’s connection with the town of Romney, West Virginia” and the fact that Romney is a site “of one of the best known Indian burial mounds in the eastern United States” (Hylton “Before” 888). In keeping true to form Marshall decided to go with Redskins, in part to keep the Native American theme and also because Redskins sounds similar to Red Sox.

There is also the belief that Marshall named his team the Redskins to honor his new head coach, William “Lonestar” Dietz, who was a “well-known college coach widely believed to be Native American” (Hylton “Before” 888). While there may be some debate as to the validity of “Lonestar” Dietz’s Native American ancestry, there is no debate to the fact that Marshall wanted to have an authentic “Indian” football team (Hylton “Why”). In 1933 six different Native American players wore the Redskin Indian Head jersey (Hylton “Before” 889). The Washington Redskins are named after Native Americans and are meant to honor the great American Indian.

Furthermore, another important way that the Redskins honor the Native American, is by their famous Indian head logo. A logo that according to Kerry Byrne, a Native Historian, was designed after Tammanend. “Also known as Tammany, [he] was a 17th century Lenni Lenape (Delaware Indian) sachem and confidante of William Penn” (Byrne). Byrne states that “Tamanend’s influence on the colonies and the young America nation was so profound that he was dubbed the Patron Saint of America and holidays were celebrated in his honor.” Going back to the earlier discussion on Marshall choosing Braves as his original name to coincide with the NL’s Braves, it should be noted that baseball’s Braves owner, James Gaffney, was a “political operative and influential member of New York’s Tammany Hall” (Byrne). It is important to note that because Gaffney adopted Tammany’s likeness for his baseball uniforms (Byrne). While playing at Braves Field the new NFL team adopted the same “Indian head logo of Saint Tammany” (Byrne). Understanding the origin of the Redskins nickname and logo it can be proven that George Preston Marshall did not choose Redskins to intentionally disparage or discriminate the Native American people. Marshall was trying to honor the American Indian with a name that was strong, a name that was symbolic, and by hiring a Native American coach and six Indian players.

Many people object to, and are offended by the Redskins name, including Native Americans themselves, and these people want to see a name change. However, it is unclear just how offended the Native American people are as a whole. Kathleen Hall Jamieson wrote an article covering the Annenberg poll done in 2004. In the poll 768 self-identified Native Americans were asked whether Redskins was offensive or not (Jamieson). An overwhelming 90% said that they were not offended by the Redskins name (Jamieson). Although that is a small sample of the Indian population, ninety percent is an astounding number. The media is leading a charge to convince the public that ‘redskin’ is offensive to all Native Americans and that the term has always been offensive. In a personal interview with ReGina J. Zuni, a member of the Isleta Pueblo Tribe in New Mexico and a fourth generation Redskins fan, she said “If a Native American is offended [by ‘redskin’], then it is their personal choice to be offended. Not all Native Americans are offended.” It is also noteworthy to point out the name of Red Mesa High School. Red Mesa High School is located in Red Mesa Arizona. And why is that noteworthy? Because Red Mesa High School is located on the Navajo Reservation, and their nickname is…the Redskins! So if ‘redskin’ is so offensive to the Native American people then how can one of their own high schools use Redskins as their nickname? Furthermore, located in a town called Anadarko, “Indian Capital of the Nation,” Oklahoma, is the Redskin Theatre (see fig. 1). Redskin is still used by Native Americans today as a use of honor and remembrance.

Another argument against the Redskins name is Indian activists and members of our government claim that ‘redskin’ is a slur just as offensive as “n—–” and that is why the Redskins should change their name. To back such a claim, ‘redskin’ would have to have a similar historical context as “n—–” Calvin Fogle writes that “The racial slur “n—–”, which is considered by many to be one of the worst racial epithets in the United States, if not the worst from a historical and socio-political standpoint” (83 and 84). The term “n—–” has always been identified with slaves and the mistreatment of blacks in our country, and to this day is still recognized as the most heinous word in the English language. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary states in their on-line description of “n—–,” “a member of a socially disadvantaged class of people” and “it now ranks as perhaps the most offensive and inflammatory racial slur in English.” The same cannot be said for ‘redskin.’ While the “offensiveness” of a racial slur is purely subjective and each slur carries their own weight, the argument that ‘redskin’ is just as offensive as “n—–” is one that doesn’t work. ‘Redskin’ doesn’t have the same historical context that “n—–” does and there are not any facts to back such a claim. The fact that there is even a debate as to whether ‘redskin’ is even a slur in the first place is proof enough that the two slurs are not equal.

While I am certainly sympathetic and have tremendous empathy for those that have been discriminated and disparaged against, the Washington Redskins should not be bullied into changing their name by a few activist and our government. The fact of the matter is the Redskins are not discriminating or disparaging. The American public should not be brainwashed to fit a political agenda over something that is simply debatable at best. Yes there are Native Americans that are offended by the Redskins name. However, there are plenty that are not. Do the voices of those not offended, not matter? There are Native Americans that believe Redskins is honor, tradition, and pride, see Red Mesa High School. If we remove all Native American logos and sports nicknames, then we will also be removing the American Indian from our every day conscious. A great quote from an article on HTTR4LIFE states that, Melvin Phillips, a full-blooded Oneida Indian, said “Hey we used to be on the nickel, but then someone thought it was racist and now no one remembers us anymore.” Perhaps that is the government’s goal by pursuing this fight instead of focusing on the many pressing issues that plague Native American Reservations. Sports are a release for the American sports fan, Native Americans included. Sports fans love and honor their teams and players. Sports, if done respectfully, can honor the great Native American long thought to be forgotten. Despite the insane amount of controversy surrounding my beloved Washington Redskins, I still watch every game with the innocence of that 8 year old boy.”

[ELVIS]

Still 100% sure, you dumb broad ??

[Satan]

100% sure...and I have yet to meet a person with red skin. Various shades of brown, but no red...

Hey, what am I, chopped dragon liver?

[Nitro Express]

I love all these divide and conquer tactics. People are making it like the KKK and neo Nazis are having million man marches and black people hang from the trees like Christmas ornaments. Got to try and rub salt in old wounds. Got to start a race war. This shit is so 1960's. It's old and frankly less people give a damn.

[ELVIS]

Hey, what am I?

A Socialist asshole who deletes content he doesn't like, for starters...

[Angel]

Still 100% sure, you dumb broad ??

Yes...I am 100% sure, and I know the debates about it as well. Plain and simple, it's a derogatory racial slur.

Still a misogynistic cunt? Yes, you are...

[ELVIS]

You're really an idiot, aren't you ??

[ELVIS]

Maybe you should actually read up on the subject, or at the very least, read this thread...

[ELVIS]

Here's a song for you...



Compliments of DONNIEP...

[Angel]

I can also be seen as spelled Misketo...

I'm wondering if the angry revisionist historian Angel has even heard the name...

Mosquito First Nation is Treaty 6 territory. It is a Nakota/Cree band.

Your quote is in English so means nothing because it was an English speaking person who translated it. Give it to me in Cree and I will tell you exactly what he said.

Considering my minor is Indigenous Studies and many of my classes are taught by traditional Elders through the oral tradition...I'll take their knowledge over yours any time...