Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
brah

WashPost Exposes 'Daily Show' Lying Ambush (Merged)

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

zurg

It is offensive to reduce a race or ethnic group to one area of accomplishment.

Let's be clear here, since this seems to be a big part of your argument.

 

How does naming a football team "Redskins" reduce American Indians to one area of accomplishment? Answer: it doesn't. It praises them for bravery, but makes no mention of other good qualities.

 

You see, YOU are the one who just reduced Indians to one area of accomplishment. YOU are the one with the racist viewpoint that Indians are only good at one thing -- being brave -- if that. YOU are the one going around inciting hatred where none exists. YOU are Al Sharpton. YOU are Jesse Jackson. YOU propagate needless stereotypes when in reality you should go see a good colorectal surgeon who can extract the huge rod you have up your ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
firecoco

The Washington Quickbeams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lyria

So, if for some reason, the Cowboys played the Redskins, would they be playing cowboys and Indians?

 

The Cowboys play the Redskins all the time - they're historically rivals - and yes, that's the joke when they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
USNRETWIFE

The Cowboys play the Redskins all the time - they're historically rivals - and yes, that's the joke when they do.

 

Shows how far behind I am when it comes to this, LOL. I do not watch football. Just played cowboys and Indians as a child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

Yup, LOL, the Dallas Cowboys vs the Washington Redskins is one of the longest standing rivalries in the NFL. Of course, for the most part it's a friendly rivalry; the stuff of jokes, not resentment.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

My best friend is an Indian, and I say Indian because she does. I have never, in 45 years, heard her refer to herself as a Native American. Nor, for that matter, have I heard the term Native American from the many Indians who live here in our little town close to the Rosebud reservation. Anyway, she and her Indian son are Redskin fans and have no problem with the name. She believes this is a contrived controversy meant to draw attention away from real problems that the media doesn't want to cover. And who am I, a white woman, to argue with her? :whistling:

 

Me too - I know lots of Indians, many of whom are very good, close friends. One of whom is a guitarist I perform with on many occasions. Not ONE of them is "offended" by the term "redskins".

 

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oki

It isn't a compliment to invoke the myth of the "noble savage" - the idea that native Americans are brave warriors and physically strong. This kind of thinking freezes native American cultures in a particular moment of time, from a particular perspective (that of whites), and it reduces native Americans to a particular set of attributes (prowess in war).

 

It would be considered offensive to refer to a debating club as The Jews or a mathematics club as The Koreans or a weight watchers' club as The Americans because of the racial / national stereotypes about the skills and aptitudes of members of those social groups. It is offensive to reduce a race or ethnic group to one area of accomplishment.

 

For many decades now, the word "redskin" has had deeply pejorative connotations. This is reflected in dictionary definitions of the word.

 

Words like wog, kike, negro had relatively benign or neutral origins. These are not considered respectful, socially appropriate labels today. Redskins is the same. Guess what - language isn't static. Language changes over time. It isn't relevant what redskins meant two hundred years ago. What matters is what it means today. It is offensive.

 

 

For your own education I highly suggest you come here sometime and visit a Rez'(reservation). You will get to see that the vast majority of people living there could care a less about the name of any pro sports team and more about how well Cradle to Grave government care has worked out for them.

 

By the way, I grew up in North Dakota. Many of my friends and even a few relatives where part or near full Indian.

Hell, the vast majority of Tribal Members support the name Fighting Sioux by the way. Why? Because they know how to look past a name and understand EVERYTHING ELSE that is represented.

Things such as bring a community together, hard work, team work, honor, loyalty, selflessness and being part of something far greater then yourself.

All of these things are represented by sports both at the local High School level all the way up through the pro's. Do we change names, culture, or anything else for the handfull who are 'offended'? Can I sue some Rappers because of there constant use of the N word? Maybe how many portray white people? Come on, tell me.

 

Oki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oki

Me too - I know lots of Indians, many of whom are very good, close friends. One of whom is a guitarist I perform with on many occasions. Not ONE of them is "offended" by the term "redskins".

 

B)

 

 

This ought to drive a few people nuts...

 

The Redskins Logo was DESIGNED BY AN INDIAN AND APPROVED BY NATIVE AMERICAN LEADERS..

 

Like the people in the clip say, most are more concerned with day to day issues Indians living on the Rez face. Hell, as you know in many small towns across the country the only thing people really have to look forward to are the local school sports. These games have brought communities together for generations know. Mascots are part of a towns identity and culture, especially small ones. Hell, my middle School was names the Warriors and half the damn team was Indian or part Indian. My high school was the Demons and not one Devout Christian had a problem with it. On a related note.. can you imagine teaching Sex ed when the mascot is named Trojan? Coarse not that kind but you get the idea.

 

Oki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThePatriot

The Washington Quickbeams

:biglaugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental

This ought to drive a few people nuts...

 

The Redskins Logo was DESIGNED BY AN INDIAN AND APPROVED BY NATIVE AMERICAN LEADERS..

 

Like the people in the clip say, most are more concerned with day to day issues Indians living on the Rez face. Hell, as you know in many small towns across the country the only thing people really have to look forward to are the local school sports. These games have brought communities together for generations know. Mascots are part of a towns identity and culture, especially small ones. Hell, my middle School was names the Warriors and half the damn team was Indian or part Indian. My high school was the Demons and not one Devout Christian had a problem with it. On a related note.. can you imagine teaching Sex ed when the mascot is named Trojan? Coarse not that kind but you get the idea.

 

Oki

 

My High School was also the warriors, however we were fashioned after the Greek Hoplites not the Indians.

 

char_sisk_hoplite.png

 

So I guess we were offending Greek's? So many beta males in this world today we are seeing it all, Brave New World, 1984 and Atlas Shrugged all in our society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lyria

Washington Nimrods.

 

You have to admit, it has a ring to it.

 

188958.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

I'm of Swedish/Scots ancestry. I can't decide if I'm more offended by "Vikings" or "Highlanders"

 

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SARGE

I'm of Swedish/Scots ancestry. I can't decide if I'm more offended by "Vikings" or "Highlanders"

 

B)

 

Since it's a misnomer, I find 'vikings' more offensive.

Edited by SARGE
  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

Since it's a misnomer, I find 'vikings' more offensive.

 

:D

 

(OK I confess - LOL - I have no idea why "vikings" is a misnomer.)

 

:shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SARGE

:D

 

(OK I confess - LOL - I have no idea why "vikings" is a misnomer.)

 

:shrug:

 

At the time of the "Viking Age", 793-1066, 'viking' referred to something you did ( "to go on an expedition") not what you were.

 

The old English prayer goes "Protect us, Oh Lord, from the fury of the Northmen/Norsemen", not the "fury of the Vikings".

  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

At the time of the "Viking Age", 793-1066, 'viking' referred to something you did ( "to go on an expedition") not what you were.

 

The old English prayer goes "Protect us, Oh Lord, from the fury of the Northmen/Norsemen", not the "fury of the Vikings".

 

I see. Thanks for the clarification.

 

:yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ticked@TinselTown

I'm of Swedish/Scots ancestry. I can't decide if I'm more offended by "Vikings" or "Highlanders"

 

B)

 

Easy, you can be a Vilander or a Hiking...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

Easy, you can be a Vilander or a Hiking...

 

Well I'm vile anyway.....

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ticked@TinselTown

Well I'm vile anyway.....

 

;)

 

The large but seemingly quiet group of Vile-Americans will foment outrage at being called vile...

 

There's another can of worms I have opened... Hey, maybe the Somalis will eat them since they don't have pork product in them! :biglaugh:

 

Sorry, couldn't resist cross contaminating threads!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ticked@TinselTown

At the time of the "Viking Age", 793-1066, 'viking' referred to something you did ( "to go on an expedition") not what you were.

 

The old English prayer goes "Protect us, Oh Lord, from the fury of the Northmen/Norsemen", not the "fury of the Vikings".

 

Wasn't it something like they went a-Viking? It was to go on an adventure with a purpose, mostly, uhm, shoplifting and bringing double breasted mammals back for the long, cold winters... :eyebrows:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

The large but seemingly quiet group of Vile-Americans will foment outrage at being called vile...

 

There's another can of worms I have opened... Hey, maybe the Somalis will eat them since they don't have pork product in them! :biglaugh:

 

Sorry, couldn't resist cross contaminating threads!

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

Don't Ever Appear on 'The Daily Show'

970 SEPT 23, 2014 4:07 PM EDTBy Megan McArdleIn mid-September, some Washington Redskins fans agreed to go on "The Daily Show" to defend the team’s name. In the course of negotiating their appearance, the fans asked whether they would be confronted by American Indians on the show. The producers said no, and then surprise! They were ambushed by irate American Indian activists.

 

  • Seriously, don’t go on "The Daily Show." They control the format, the questions and the editing process. There is no way you can win. Your purpose is to look like an idiot on the show, and they have all the tools they need to make sure you fulfill that purpose. There is a reason that you have never seen a video clip of someone who “beat” Jon Stewart -- or Bill O’Reilly, or any other host of a show that pits professional interviewers against ordinary subjects. It’s the same reason you haven’t seen clips of ordinary folks beatingEvander Holyfield: They are really good at this, and what they are good at is making you look like a stubborn moron who couldn’t find his backside with both hands in the dark.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-09-23/don-t-ever-appear-on-the-daily-show

I gather from McArdle's column that Stewart, whose show I have never seen, is a "just kidding" douchebag. Nor is he the only one. Stephen Colbert is a "just kidding" douchebag because he's a Jon Stewart wannabe. Garrison Keillor is the worst "just kidding" douchebag I've ever heard from. I refer to his suggestions that born-again Christians be prohibited from voting and that politically conservative people should be denied Social Security and Medicare. The problem, of course, isn't the "just kidding" douchebags, the problem is the nasty, truculent attitude of their fans. That's what makes Julianne Malveaux think it's OK to hope Justice Clarence Thomas dies of a heart attack, what makes Sandra Bernhard think it's OK to claim that Sarah Palin would be gang-raped by black men if she visited Manhattan, what makes Jon Stewart think it's perfectly OK to lie to the people he invites on his show. Just kidding, folks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

Well the segment just aired. I just finished watching it.

 

Did anybody else see it?

 

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howsithangin

Well the segment just aired. I just finished watching it.

 

Did anybody else see it?

 

B)

not at gunpoint, sorry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
E Van der Vliet

Well the segment just aired. I just finished watching it.

 

Did anybody else see it?

 

B)

And?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...