US Army tribal aircraft names are racist.....

Boris Badenov said:
Oh and hey, one more thing. If you don't have an Irish passport, YOU'RE NOT IRISH. STOP SAYING IT. YOU SOUND LIKE AN IDIOT.

OK, I'm done now.
Click to expand...

First generation immigrant Irish and I very much approve.

As an aside as a Tennesseean I'd welcome your thoughts about moving the Redskins to Kentucky and renaming them the Blue People.
 
Crop Duster said:
Heh, heh. I get that...i'imagine! (to be pronounced like an ol' Vermonter (the other appalachian)) ;)
Click to expand...


Someone told me once that New Hampshire was the South of the North. Did they miss the mark, like the Army of the Potomac, or were they just well intentioned, but a bit confused, like Meade?
 
Boris Badenov said:
Someone told me once that New Hampshire was the South of the North. Did they miss the mark, like the Army of the Potomac, or were they just well intentioned, but a bit confused, like Meade?
Click to expand...

These days in many northern tier states, it seems the farther North you go, the farther South you get. If you've ever been to the far north, you'll realize this sorta illuminates the socio-economic genesis of most of today's political frision. You can usually tell the sins of the preachers by what they're preaching against.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Someone told me once that New Hampshire was the South of the North. Did they miss the mark, like the Army of the Potomac, or were they just well intentioned, but a bit confused, like Meade?
Click to expand...
BTW, I get extremely confused when I drink Mead.
 
Crop Duster said:
These days in many northern tier states, it seems the farther North you go, the farther South you get. If you've ever been to the far north, you'll realize this sorta illuminates the socio-economic genesis of most of today's political frision. You can usually tell the sins of the preachers by what they're preaching against.
Click to expand...

A buddy of mine got hitched to a Mainer a few years ago. They live a quiet life. She's all in to natural child-rearing, and he goes out and hunts with what pass for "good ole boys" up there. I spent a little time, and I realized that, you know, we're not all that different, them and me. Nice people. Very polite, seemed to have a notion of civic virtue, etc etc. Except for that horrible • accent. It's like nails on a chalkboard! Sorry, no, the accent is enough to kill over. So WHEN'S ROUND TWO?
 
Bumblebee said:
TO be fair, all the names you mentioned were tribal names, but calling any one of those people a "Redskin" was a derogatory term.
Click to expand...

This.

There are a lot of honorable attributes related to specific tribes that can be translated to a sports team or something military related. If that is your motivation and that specific tribe (or spokesman thereof) approves, then I don't see anything wrong with it.

But the name redskins is like renaming the Harlem Globetrotters the Big Dongs. Its taking a stereotypical attribute of a group of people and labeling them. Even if you don't understand how that is offensive, it boggles my mind that people think that the name of the sports team they watch while sitting on the couch drinking beer is more important than the opinions of a group of people who's ancestors were basically exterminated from North America. I'm not saying there should be reparations, but a little respect is certainly due.
 
Roger Roger said:
From what I've seen in native villages, and growing up in a state that had a lot of Indian reservations, Joe Native is worried about a lot of more important things than what Washington calls it's football team. Granted it's probably time to move on, I mean "redskin" was legitimately used derogatorily unlike UND and all the aforementioned aircraft which simply coopted the names of tribes (not sure how that would be offensive, I mean it is literally like me complaining about naming a bush plane the Norseman). But there are much, much bigger fish to fry. I guess I'm just tired of hearing about all of these things I'm supposed to be upset about and all these reasons were spiraling towards a breakdown of civilization.
Click to expand...

Agreed. When the issue came up the UND sports team played a video before every game that basically said "The Fighting Sioux are named after a people who were known for their bravery, honor, and courage. We honor their heritage in using this name." It was always met with the entire arena cheering and I'm not sure I ever saw anyone do or say anything that I would consider racist. That said, if the Sioux asked us to stop using their name (which they did...after being prodded by the NCAA) I think its important to honor their wishes because in the grand scheme of things, the name of a sports team really isn't that important.
 
I agree (see the "likes"), but I'm not sure who's really at the helm of the Sioux Nation (or whatever Nations). There's a long and extremely unpleasant history of "too many Chiefs, not enough Injuns" (pardon the expression) at the heart of the relationship between the Native American tribes and the US Gummint. Google "striking people from the rolls" if you want to know more. Yes, we absolutely screwed these people and it stands right next to our slave-holding ways in the pantheon of the Original Sins of the United States. But that doesn't make me any more anxious to assist in sending a lot money to a few people who have set themselves up as the "true Native Americans" at the expense of the rest of their supposed "people". Just look at the disparity in wealth between tribes in the same general area based on casino grants, etc. Corruption is as real for "them" as it is for "us". "We" do have some responsability, I reckon, but I don't think our responsability is to make a few tin-pot asshats rich while "their" people starve/drink themselves to death. The whole thing is a morass of disgusting corruption, and that's a fact.
 
Screaming_Emu said:
This.

There are a lot of honorable attributes related to specific tribes that can be translated to a sports team or something military related. If that is your motivation and that specific tribe (or spokesman thereof) approves, then I don't see anything wrong with it.

But the name redskins is like renaming the Harlem Globetrotters the Big Dongs. Its taking a stereotypical attribute of a group of people and labeling them. Even if you don't understand how that is offensive, it boggles my mind that people think that the name of the sports team they watch while sitting on the couch drinking beer is more important than the opinions of a group of people who's ancestors were basically exterminated from North America. I'm not saying there should be reparations, but a little respect is certainly due.
Click to expand...
There is some reasonable debate whether the term is offensive.

If we look at the entirety of the Indian and non-Indian literary record, we would find that derogatory use is exceptional.

Beyond that, it is customary to defer to the potential victims. Have representatives of the Indian nations spoken in an official capacity on the matter? I could have missed that.

This Redskin fan, while working on a reservation, asked about this issue before it became a public debate. I was somewhat surprised that respondents took pride in the reference, found no offense, or didn't care.

I find it offensive that white liberals find themselves comfortable speaking on behalf of the American Indians. I'm more offended that in many cases this is the extent of their activism.

That said, if it is offensive, let the market decide. Free speech includes offensive speech. I don't see a role for the government in this debate.
 
Boris Badenov said:
I agree (see the "likes"), but I'm not sure who's really at the helm of the Sioux Nation (or whatever Nations). There's a long and extremely unpleasant history of "too many Chiefs, not enough Injuns" (pardon the expression) at the heart of the relationship between the Native American tribes and the US Gummint. Google "striking people from the rolls" if you want to know more. Yes, we absolutely screwed these people and it stands right next to our slave-holding ways in the pantheon of the Original Sins of the United States. But that doesn't make me any more anxious to assist in sending a lot money to a few people who have set themselves up as the "true Native Americans" at the expense of the rest of their supposed "people". Just look at the disparity in wealth between tribes in the same general area based on casino grants, etc. Corruption is as real for "them" as it is for "us". "We" do have some responsability, I reckon, but I don't think our responsability is to make a few tin-pot asshats rich while "their" people starve/drink themselves to death. The whole thing is a morass of disgusting corruption, and that's a fact.
Click to expand...

Lol. If you want to experience the true nadir of this cesspool, go to Minnesota. You'll never meet more blond haired, blue eyed injuns. And, no, they are not the debs-cum-hippies rejecting daddy's money by donning beads, braiding their hair and proclaiming membership in the Wannabe Tribe. These are actual injuns, 'cause in a lot of cases "being a native" is simply a matter of having the tribe accept you as a member. In other words, if the tribe says you're an injun, you're an injun with the full rights, privileges, and dividend checks accruing thereto. Thus, blond/blue injuns.
 
Crop Duster said:
Lol. If you want to experience the true nadir of this cesspool, go to Minnesota. You'll never meet more blond haired, blue eyed injuns. And, no, they are not the debs-cum-hippies rejecting daddy's money by donning beads, braiding their hair and proclaiming membership in the Wannabe Tribe. These are actual injuns, 'cause in a lot of cases "being a native" is simply a matter of having the tribe accept you as a member. In other words, if the tribe says you're an injun, you're an injun with the full rights, privileges, and dividend checks accruing thereto. Thus, blond/blue injuns.
Click to expand...
There's a difference between being a member of a tribe and being a citizen of a federally recognized Indian nation. Normally, to be eligible for any tribal or federal benefits, you need to be a citizen of an Indian nation. Often, membership in a tribe is honorary in nature, you are a political advocate, you are a volunteer, or you wrote a check. The criteria for recognition as a citizen of an Indian nation is more strict. Damn strict if there is gaming money on the table.

Okay, now you did it, I'm playing my Indian card. My great grandmother was Cherokee. As she was on the 1924 Baker census, I'm eligible for citizenship in the Eastern Band of Cherokee. That requires 1/16 or better blood and my great grandmother was Cherokee, so that make me 1/8 Cherokee. Unless I'm discussing genealogy, I never give it much thought. Even when doing some work on reservations, I didn't mention it.

If you have ancestors that settled in the frontier of our country in the late 1700's to mid-1800's, there is a good chance that you have some Indian blood.

A number of Indian Nations are reaching out to those blond-haired, blue-eyed descendents you describe. I know a red-headed girl that is attending college on a partial tribal scholarship. She had to meet citizenship requirements and go through two rounds of interviews.

Oh, I'm a self-loathing Redskin fan.
 
Last edited:
Pilot Fighter said:
There is some reasonable debate whether the term is offensive.

If we look at the entirety of the Indian and non-Indian literary record, we would find that derogatory use is exceptional.

Beyond that, it is customary to defer to the potential victims. Have representatives of the Indian nations spoken in an official capacity on the matter? I could have missed that.

This Redskin fan, while working on a reservation, asked about this issue before it became a public debate. I was somewhat surprised that respondents took pride in the reference, found no offense, or didn't care.

I find it offensive that white liberals find themselves comfortable speaking on behalf of the American Indians. I'm more offended that in many cases this is the extent of their activism.

That said, if it is offensive, let the market decide. Free speech includes offensive speech. I don't see a role for the government in this debate.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about the gummint getting involved? I get that there exists a tendency in some folks to conflate their reflexive reaction to what they perceive to be PC with their reflexive mantra of "gummint is bad" with their reflexive proclivity to label uncomfortable things as "liberal”.
But @Screaming_Emu said nothing even suggesting government involvement, except, perhaps, nebulously to intimate a reaching implication that the US government (circa 1800s) may have been complicit in the near extinction of the native races.

What I heard Emu say was that naming a team The Niggers, or The Kikes, or The Wops, or The Redskins is offensive. Even if I am misinterpreting Emu, would you disagree that those names are offensive monikers for sports teams?

Also, I lived on reservations for many years, and I would not pretend to know what the other residents of those two reservations held in their minds or souls, let alone what the residents of the scores of other reservations thought about at 2AM. Perhaps there are some, or even many natives who love the name “Redskins”. However, in no case would I pretend that the words of the subjugated when addressing the occupier are the truth… maybe not even out of respect but just as a common sense, in-country survival kind of thing, hmm? (you do know the derivation of the term in-country, yes?)

Furthermore, all that reflexive twitching must feel weird. "Delenda est Carthago!" “Cum tormentis et butyri, Testosterone et Cortisol, Vivant Cato!”
 
Screaming_Emu said:
Agreed. When the issue came up the UND sports team played a video before every game that basically said "The Fighting Sioux are named after a people who were known for their bravery, honor, and courage. We honor their heritage in using this name." It was always met with the entire arena cheering and I'm not sure I ever saw anyone do or say anything that I would consider racist. That said, if the Sioux asked us to stop using their name (which they did...after being prodded by the NCAA) I think its important to honor their wishes because in the grand scheme of things, the name of a sports team really isn't that important.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I just really don't care anymore. The Sioux thing is done and over with and guess what? They're still packing out stadiums like they were before the name change.

On another note flying to native villages even in a relatively civilized part of the state is a really interesting cultural experience. Note that I'm not claiming to be an expert on native issues but even from what I can see they've got some real problems to overcome and from my limited understanding the white man is still not innocent in all of those.
 
Crop Duster said:
Who said anything about the gummint getting involved? I get that there exists a tendency in some folks to conflate their reflexive reaction to what they perceive to be PC with their reflexive mantra of "gummint is bad" with their reflexive proclivity to label uncomfortable things as "liberal”.
But @Screaming_Emu said nothing even suggesting government involvement, except, perhaps, nebulously to intimate a reaching implication that the US government (circa 1800s) may have been complicit in the near extinction of the native races.

What I heard Emu say was that naming a team The Niggers, or The Kikes, or The Wops, or The Redskins is offensive. Even if I am misinterpreting Emu, would you disagree that those names are offensive monikers for sports teams?

Also, I lived on reservations for many years, and I would not pretend to know what the other residents of those two reservations held in their minds or souls, let alone what the residents of the scores of other reservations thought about at 2AM. Perhaps there are some, or even many natives who love the name “Redskins”. However, in no case would I pretend that the words of the subjugated when addressing the occupier are the truth… maybe not even out of respect but just as a common sense, in-country survival kind of thing, hmm? (you do know the derivation of the term in-country, yes?)

Furthermore, all that reflexive twitching must feel weird. "Delenda est Carthago!" “Cum tormentis et butyri, Testosterone et Cortisol, Vivant Cato!”
Click to expand...
I was challenging the comparison of "redskin" with other terms that have broad acceptance as being derogatory.

My other points were not direct responses. I have concerns with anybody claiming to represent the interests of a population without approval or mandate from that group. Liberals often assume that role. My comment about the government was referring to the actions of the U.S. Patent Office. Without a single written complaint, they denied someone of their property rights. I think that's disturbing.

In-country, ingroup, and outgroup are terms and concepts I am familiar with.
 
Pilot Fighter said:
There's a difference between being a member of a tribe and being a citizen of a federally recognized Indian nation. Normally, to be eligible for any tribal or federal benefits, you need to be a citizen of an Indian nation. Often, membership in a tribe is honorary in nature, you are a political advocate, you are a volunteer, or you wrote a check. The criteria for recognition as a citizen of an Indian nation is more strict. Damn strict if there is gaming money on the table.

Okay, now you did it, I'm playing my Indian card. My great grandmother was Cherokee. As she was on the 1924 Baker census, I'm eligible for citizenship in the Eastern Band of Cherokee. That requires 1/16 or better blood and my great grandmother was Cherokee, so that make me 1/8 Cherokee. Unless I'm discussing genealogy, I never give it much thought. Even when doing some work on reservations, I didn't mention it.

If you have ancestors that settled in the frontier of our country in the late 1700's to mid-1800's, there is a good chance that you have some Indian blood.

A number of Indian Nations are reaching out to those blond-haired, blue-eyed descendents you describe. I know a red-headed girl that is attending college on a partial tribal scholarship. She had to meet citizenship requirements and go through two rounds of interviews.

Oh, I'm a self-loathing Redskin fan.
Click to expand...

I can't get more Irish looking if I tried. I'm actually third generation on my father's side and have dual citizenship. I'm also a 1/16th Pueblo Indian on my mother's side. How many green eyed, red haired Indians you seen lately?

I hate the Redskins too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top