Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

Should the Redskins change their name?

Should the Washington Redskins change their name?

  • Yes

    Votes: 34 29.1%

  • No

    Votes: 83 70.9%
  • Total voters
    117
BigBull said:
It's sad that people are more worried about the name of a football than the living conditions on some of the reservations.
Click to expand...
Natives have always been concerned about those living conditions but no one cares enough to listen, who can do anything about it.
 
Double Barrel said:
I hope he can make it and call them 'redskins' to their faces. Y'know, since he apparently believes that it's not disparaging and it's cool and all.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's disparaging...I think there are far more things that happen on reservations that are more disparaging than a name....


but maybe the fair will change my mind. I always want to learn more...
 
Yvette said:
Natives have always been concerned about those living conditions but no one cares enough to listen, who can do anything about it.
Click to expand...

Great question honestly I wouldn't know where to start. I voted no on the poll before reading all the post, but I went back and read all the post and did a little research on the topic online now I'm starting to think that maybe the name should be changed.
 
BullNation4Life said:
I don't think it's disparaging...I think there are far more things that happen on reservations that are more disparaging than a name....


but maybe the fair will change my mind. I always want to learn more...
Click to expand...

I understand that you do not find the term disparaging. That said, I assume you would have no problem with calling the Tribal Chairman of the Comanche Nation a 'redskin' to his face?

The folks that made me truly aware were Native American elders. I agree there are a lot more problems going on in many places around the world, including reservations, but wouldn't a step in the right direction be to stop the silly caricatures of the many various tribes? When you belittle a people and their cultures, there is a subversive mentality going on in the mind to devalue them, as well.
 
Double Barrel said:
I understand that you do not find the term disparaging. That said, I assume you would have no problem with calling the Tribal Chairman of the Comanche Nation a 'redskin' to his face?

The folks that made me truly aware were Native American elders. I agree there are a lot more problems going on in many places around the world, including reservations, but wouldn't a step in the right direction be to stop the silly caricatures of the many various tribes? When you belittle a people and their cultures, there is a subversive mentality going on in the mind to devalue them, as well.
Click to expand...

wouldn't know, never met one. If I did, however, I would ask him if redskin offends him. If so, I would apologize but I have a sneaking feeling that the Tribal Chairman would inform me that there are far more important issues than silly caricatures and nicknames that he and his people are concerned about and need to address.

not the silly antics of the white man


but that's just my opinion...
 
BullNation4Life said:
wouldn't know, never met one. If I did, however, I would ask him if redskin offends him. If so, I would apologize but I have a sneaking feeling that the Tribal Chairman would inform me that there are far more important issues than silly caricatures and nicknames that he and his people are concerned about and need to address.

not the silly antics of the white man

but that's just my opinion...
Click to expand...

Please understand that I'm not trying to argue with you, but rather have a respectful conversation about both of our opinions.

I understand where you're coming from, as I was the same way. So I started asking those that it directly affected. And I found that ALL full blooded Native Americans that I asked did not like the name or use of the image, which is very sacred and an honor.

The folks that seem divided were the ones that were not full blooded Native Americans, and even then there was a substantial number that did not care for it.

I still ask to this day. I was at an Order of the Arrow function recently (a national honor society in BSA that promotes Native American traditions and values), and I asked many of the dancers and drummers.

I'm far from a PC kind of person. However, sometimes there are issues that might align with PC, and so be it. This is one of those issues that I've thought about a lot and my own perceptions have changed. I have already put my thoughts in this thread, so no point in going over it again.

My main point was that there is nothing wrong with changing your mind when something compelling comes to your perspective.
 
I am a weird position. I don't call anyone redskin or nego or chink..whatever the slang is it means nothing to me. Have I been called redneck or cracker ..yeah..but I take no offense to what it is I did look white as a saltine and had a red neck and a farmers tan at the time. Big deal to me ...I worked outside .

I figure there are bigger troubles. With that said I never thought of redskin as derogatory .i still remember a quantum leap episode where the Indian favorite team was the redskins(not that it mattered) I do wonder if opinions would change If the redskins were winning super bowls
 
Truth be told, to Daniel Snyder, it doesn't matter if you are redskin, blueskin, brownskin, whiteskin, or pink with purple polkadot skin.

Snyder only cares about one skin color, green and those skins will be the reason the name never changes...
 
Well looks like our little community isn't far off from the public:

Nearly three-fourths of Americans favor letting the Washington Redskins keep their nickname, but the percentage who think it should be changed has tripled in the past two decades, according to a poll conducted by Langer Research for "Outside the Lines."

Nearly a quarter (23 percent) of Americans surveyed now think the name should be changed, up from 8 percent in 1992 and up 9 percentage points in the past year alone.
Click to expand...

Link
 
I heard about this on the radio the other day (and they mentioned Bryant Gumbel taking the same stance):

Phil Simms, Tony Dungy unlikely to use 'Redskins' during broadcasts

Two notable NFL analysts and former Super Bowl champions say they're planning to a stand against the Washington Redskins' nickname by refusing to say it on the air.

Article
Click to expand...
 
Double Barrel said:
I heard about this on the radio the other day (and they mentioned Bryant Gumbel taking the same stance):
Click to expand...

I know sometimes change is needed but this still boggles me.

I've always known sometimes redskin was used as a pejorative.
I've always and still believe that was not the intention of the Redskins.

And yet all the sudden you see people planting a giant sanctimonious flag that it's obviously racist in any context and anyone who doesn't think so is despicable.

I'm still meh about it - seems to me "OK we'll change it as a courtesy" or "we'll take it in the spirit you possibly ignorantly intended it" seem equally good solutions voluntarily.

I just really can't fully sympathize because I 100% don't believe the name or the logo were intended to demean.
 
infantrycak said:
I know sometimes change is needed but this still boggles me.

I've always known sometimes redskin was used as a pejorative.
I've always and still believe that was not the intention of the Redskins.

And yet all the sudden you see people planting a giant sanctimonious flag that it's obviously racist in any context and anyone who doesn't think so is despicable.

I'm still meh about it - seems to me "OK we'll change it as a courtesy" or "we'll take it in the spirit you possibly ignorantly intended it" seem equally good solutions voluntarily.

I just really can't fully sympathize because I 100% don't believe the name or the logo were intended to demean.
Click to expand...

I agree with you about it's probable origin, even though George Preston Marshall was about as overtly racist as you can get (and the true definition of racist - i.e. white supremacy). Maybe it was derogory by him or maybe not, but fans never seemed to use it in that manner (my personal opinion is that Marshall was going for the bloodthirsty savages stereotype so prevalent in that era when entertainers were doing stuff like blackface stereotypes - a sign of the times).

And I guess I'm weird on this issue because I'm not offended by it. Truth be told, there is not a word in existence that truly offends me. Even the n-word is just vowels and consonants, but spoken toward another individual is when a line is crossed into offensiveness. At least that's how my Carlinist mind tends to work.

But, that said, where are we at today? The word is defined by all respectable English dictionaries as a offensive/ derogatory word. That's jsut basic fact now. Regardless of history, that is where it is today when a student looks it up in a legitimate source of defining words.

And when we look at two other aspects, the big picture history of the word (and let's be honest here, there are a lot of examples of derogatory usage, well documented in this thread), and how many full blooded Native Americans are perceiving it, we are seeing a slow evolution in perspectives shifting toward what we all know is most likely an inevitable conclusion.

So, as always, I'm not arguing, but just sharing perspectives out of respect. I do not have to agree to still respect someone.

An interesting personal insight:

A 'Redskin' Is the Scalped Head of a Native American, Sold, Like a Pelt, for Cash

What the word means to my family.

Native Americans pass down stories to preserve their history and heritage, because we don’t have much of it left. As tribes were systemically exterminated, so too were their respective cultures. But we have our stories, and when my mother was young, her parents shared one about the term “redskins.”

The story in my family goes that the term dates back to the institutionalized genocide of Native Americans, most notably when the Massachusetts colonial government placed a bounty on their heads.

The grisly particulars of that genocide are listed in a 1755 document called the Phips Proclamation, which zeroed in on the Penobscot Indians, a tribe today based in Maine.

Spencer Phips, a British politician and then Lieutenant Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Province, issued the call, ordering on behalf of British King George II for, “His Majesty’s subjects to Embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing and Destroying all and every of the aforesaid Indians.” They paid well – 50 pounds for adult male scalps; 25 for adult female scalps; and 20 for scalps of boys and girls under age 12.

These bloody scalps were known as “redskins.”

The mascot of the Washington Redskins, if the team desired accuracy, would be a gory, bloodied crown from the head of a butchered Native American.

Defenders of the team nickname say its origin was totally benign, and that it’s not possible to know the true meaning of the word. Those defenders cite a Smithsonian article that traces an origin to skin color, before the systematic scalping. (A later Smithsonian quote disputed it.)

But my mother knew what it meant, or what it came to mean, and so do many other Native Americans.

“That’s a hard lesson for a young girl to learn,” my mother says. I can’t remember when she passed it down to her four sons, only that the very mention of that word-the single-most offensive name one could ever call a Native American-has always made my blood boil.

Full article
Click to expand...

The full article is very interesting, and I would urge everyone on both sides of this issue to at least read it out of respect and to open your worldview just a little.
 
Some more history for y'all's reading pleasure:

The following quotes were printed in "The Aberdeen Saturday Pioneer," a weekly newspaper published in Aberdeen, South Dakota. The first was published immediately after Sitting Bull's assasination by Indian Police Dec. 15, 1890.

"Sitting Bull, most renowned Sioux of modern history, is dead.

"He was an Indian with a white man's spirit of hatred and revenge for those who had wronged him and his. In his day he saw his son and his tribe gradually driven from their possessions: forced to give up their old hunting grounds and espouse the hard working and uncongenial avocations of the whites. And these, his conquerors, were marked in their dealings with his people by selfishness, falsehood and treachery. What wonder that his wild nature, untamed by years of subjection, should still revolt? What wonder that a fiery rage still burned within his breast and that he should seek every opportunity of obtaining vengeance upon his natural enemies.

"The proud spirit of the original owners of these vast prairies inherited through centuries of fierce and bloody wars for their possession, lingered last in the bosom of Sitting Bull. With his fall the nobility of the Redskin is extinguished, and what few are left are a pack of whining curs who lick the hand that smites them. The Whites, by law of conquest, by justice of civilization, are masters of the American continent, and the best safety of the frontier settlements will be secured by the total annihilation of the few remaining Indians. Why not annihilation? Their glory has fled, their spirit broken, their manhood effaced; better that they die than live the miserable wretches that they are. History would forget these latter despicable beings, and speak, in later ages of the glory of these grand Kings of forest and plain that Cooper loved to heroism.

"We cannot honestly regret their extermination, but we at least do justice to the manly characteristics possessed, according to their lights and education, by the early Redskins of America."
Click to expand...

The editorial begins ambivalently, but concludes by calling for the extermination of American Indians.

The editor and publisher of "The Aberdeen Pioneer" who advocated genocide is well known: his name is L. Frank Baum. A decade later, his book "The Wizard of Oz" (1900) would become a classic.

Full article / source
Click to expand...

This was the mindset of the average American toward Native Americans at the time. The use of "redskin" was a reflection of that mindset. Offending Native Americans, like offending most ethnic minorities, was never a concern in 1890.
 
infantrycak said:
Well looks like our little community isn't far off from the public:



Link
Click to expand...

That's actually good news for people that want to change the name IMO. Support is growing rapidly.

Things like ESPN doing hour long specials on the controversy, Snyder being compelled to start a bogus website defending the name, and taking token plane trips to the Dakotas are further evidence that opinions are shifting away from him on the issue.
 
Just so i can have my 15 minutes of fame and so the whole country can worry about everyone elses business i am going to name my next child Scalp Redskin Smith, and i am half Indian. The sad thing is the name would prob get national coverage, that just goes to show you America really has nothing better to do than worry about dumb **** !
 
It doesn't matter now, this ship has already sailed. They will change their name in a few years or sooner. The dam is leaking and will burst and that will be the end of it.
 
Yvette said:
cak, no amount of spin will cause me to feel any different or think it's any less racist and derogatory.

Obviously, what I say and how I feel doesn't matter to the majority of you all either.
Click to expand...

Found you a hammer, eh? Gonna use it to pulverize all opposition, eh? Intent doesn't matter. You're gonna be mad anyway. You'll fit right in with the victim nonsense.

I'd love a little more emphasis on the "CONTENT OF THEIR CHARACTER" portion of King's speech.
 
Marshall said:
Found you a hammer, eh? Gonna use it to pulverize all opposition, eh? Intent doesn't matter. You're gonna be mad anyway. You'll fit right in with the victim nonsense.

I'd love a little more emphasis on the "CONTENT OF THEIR CHARACTER" portion of King's speech.
Click to expand...
Intent does matter. If you know a term or characterization is insulting to a person or persons when you continue to use it anyway that shows you have no respect for those persons and your intent IS to insult. If not, being a civilized person, you would apologize for the insult - intended or not - and refrain from using that term again.

Again, that's not PC, that's just good manners.
 
Marshall said:
Found you a hammer, eh? Gonna use it to pulverize all opposition, eh? Intent doesn't matter. You're gonna be mad anyway. You'll fit right in with the victim nonsense.

I'd love a little more emphasis on the "CONTENT OF THEIR CHARACTER" portion of King's speech.
Click to expand...

Marshall, what you THINK doesn't matter. Redskins isn't offensive to me either. But facts are facts. "Redskins" is a racial slur about Native Americans, a group our nation practiced genocide against as a government policy at the time. You'd think as a society we'd know better.
 
Wolf said:
I am a weird position. I don't call anyone redskin or nego or chink..whatever the slang is it means nothing to me. Have I been called redneck or cracker ..yeah..but I take no offense to what it is I did look white as a saltine and had a red neck and a farmers tan at the time. Big deal to me ...I worked outside .

I figure there are bigger troubles. With that said I never thought of redskin as derogatory .i still remember a quantum leap episode where the Indian favorite team was the redskins(not that it mattered) I do wonder if opinions would change If the redskins were winning super bowls
Click to expand...

:headhurts: "Nego"? Just messin' with ya...I knew what ya meant. For what it's worth black people occasionally referr to oursleves as "negroes" and "colored people" when joking amonst ourselves.

Yvette would be quick to point out that she DOES NOT speak for the Comanche Nation, but I will say that on this topic she speaks for me.
 
Hookem Horns said:
Is that really surprising? I wonder if there were a poll done in 1850 to white people in the US asking if the word n*gger was offensive if the results would have been similar.
Click to expand...
Probably. I'm also fairly certain that a poll conducted today would show that 90+% of the U.S. population has never heard the term Redskin used in a derogatory manner. The term n*gger would likely get similar results...except the 90+% would be on the other side of the ledger.

ObsiWan said:
Intent does matter. If you know a term or characterization is insulting to a person or persons when you continue to use it anyway that shows you have no respect for those persons and your intent IS to insult. If not, being a civilized person, you would apologize for the insult - intended or not - and refrain from using that term again.

Again, that's not PC, that's just good manners.
Click to expand...
So, how does that work for the NA schools using the term for their own mascot? This isn't street talk where one guy may call another guy "his n*gger", but another man might get shot for doing the same thing. This is a school, where anyone could go to the sporting event and yell "go redskins" among a large group of NAs and not offend a soul.
 
disaacks3 said:
Probably. I'm also fairly certain that a poll conducted today would show that 90+% of the U.S. population has never heard the term Redskin used in a derogatory manner. The term n*gger would likely get similar results...except the 90+% would be on the other side of the ledger.

So, how does that work for the NA schools using the term for their own mascot? This isn't street talk where one guy may call another guy "his n*gger", but another man might get shot for doing the same thing. This is a school, where anyone could go to the sporting event and yell "go redskins" among a large group of NAs and not offend a soul.
Click to expand...
If they understood the history behind that term, they'd probably change too. At least I would hope so. And, for record, I wish to hell that N-word would disappear from the language too. It shows a definite ignorance of and disrespect for all that fought for Civil Rights in this country. If Richard Pryor could stop using it, these rappers can too.
off :soapbox:
 
disaacks3 said:
So, how does that work for the NA schools using the term for their own mascot? This isn't street talk where one guy may call another guy "his n*gger", but another man might get shot for doing the same thing. This is a school, where anyone could go to the sporting event and yell "go redskins" among a large group of NAs and not offend a soul.
Click to expand...

This from the previous article I posted, as written by a full blooded Native American, fwiw:

I understand, to a degree, the complex connection between a team and its offensive mascot, because the mascot for Tuskahoma’s elementary school is “Savages.” I wore that word on my chest when I played for its basketball team, even if that word disgraced my ancestors.

But “redskins” is not just a twisted compliment, like “Savages,” “Warriors,” “Braves” or “Red Men.” It represents a trophy of war—the bloody scalp of a murdered Native American, slaughtered for money, the amount dependent on whether it was a man, woman or child.

The team has had the Redskins name since 1933, when it was based in Boston, so it’s easy to say, “We’ve always done it this way.” But if America “always did it this way,” then terms like “Wetback,” “Negro,” and its much uglier cousin would still be a part of our lexicon. We learn.

Also, consider the history of Native Americans, a race all but annihilated because of genocidal policies instituted by people like Spencer Phips. Our identity has been stripped away, lost to time, yet the most offensive word toward us still exists—where else?—but in this nation’s capital.

Article
Click to expand...

For me, the genocidal history of this country toward Native Americans is a stain that we should hold heavier in our hearts than we do. And the reason it is not a talked about issue today, like slavery, is because 9/10ths of Native Americans were either killed by European diseases or systematically destroyed as their lands were stolen and they were herded into camps...errr....reservations. They simply do not have the political capital as a voting block to make a difference. So we ignore it.

That we, as a people, are so ambivalent about our nation's bloody history says a lot about us and our own lack of ability to face our country's sinful past. That's why this particular issue, while not offensive or directly impacting me, is a small gesture of reconciliation and sorrow for the atrocities of our ancestors.
 
Double Barrel said:
This from the previous article I posted, as written by a full blooded Native American, fwiw:

For me, the genocidal history of this country toward Native Americans is a stain that we should hold heavier in our hearts than we do. And the reason it is not a talked about issue today, like slavery, is because 9/10ths of Native Americans were either killed by European diseases or systematically destroyed as their lands were stolen and they were herded into camps...errr....reservations. They simply do not have the political capital as a voting block to make a difference. So we ignore it.

That we, as a people, are so ambivalent about our nation's bloody history says a lot about us and our own lack of ability to face our country's sinful past. That's why this particular issue, while not offensive or directly impacting me, is a small gesture of reconciliation and sorrow for the atrocities of our ancestors.
Click to expand...

Yeah, ok...I fully acknowledge the history. I'm just not buying the everything being sold. For example:

But “redskins” is not just a twisted compliment, like “Savages,” “Warriors,” “Braves” or “Red Men.” It represents a trophy of war-the bloody scalp of a murdered Native American, slaughtered for money, the amount dependent on whether it was a man, woman or child.
Click to expand...

That's just BS. Redskins sometimes represented a scalp (and where did that originate). It started off purely as an identification no different than Indians calling the Europeans some variant of white. I'm not denying its bad uses and maybe it should never be used again out of consideration but as Obsiwan said, maybe all future uses can be judged offensive but it just isn't true for all past uses. And if you can see the compliment in Savages why can't you in Redskins. Savages is an inherent statement of inferiority.

And I'm not sure you are taking note of the full agenda here. These spokespeople like the one quoted here don't want any Indian symbols or names used. Redskins is the chink not the final result.

Yes America as a whole bears and needs to own up to an historical guilt. That doesn't mean acquiesce to the most strident voice. I'm not letting Jesse Jackson define my white guilt for slavery/Jim Crow and I doubt you would either.
 
Problem solved, it's what I do.





6a00d8341bf80a53ef019b0001d148970b-pi
 
infantrycak said:
Yeah, ok...I fully acknowledge the history. I'm just not buying the everything being sold. For example:

That's just BS. Redskins sometimes represented a scalp (and where did that originate). It started off purely as an identification no different than Indians calling the Europeans some variant of white. I'm not denying its bad uses and maybe it should never be used again out of consideration but as Obsiwan said, maybe all future uses can be judged offensive but it just isn't true for all past uses. And if you can see the compliment in Savages why can't you in Redskins. Savages is an inherent statement of inferiority.

And I'm not sure you are taking note of the full agenda here. These spokespeople like the one quoted here don't want any Indian symbols or names used. Redskins is the chink not the final result.

Yes America as a whole bears and needs to own up to an historical guilt. That doesn't mean acquiesce to the most strident voice. I'm not letting Jesse Jackson define my white guilt for slavery/Jim Crow and I doubt you would either.
Click to expand...

'eh, they all suck to me. They originate from derogatory stereotypes, so I could not give a crap if we did away with all of them.

I cannot call someone's personal story bullshit, but that's just me.

If I would not go up to a Native American and call him by "redskin", or "savage", then I do not see anything honorable about using those names for sports teams. There are literally hundreds of other names that would suffice for such purposes.

Personally, I think America needs to grow out of it's inherently racist past, and this is just another brick in that road to redemption. But, that's just me, wishing we had higher standards for ourselves as a nation.
 
Double Barrel said:
'eh, they all suck to me. They originate from derogatory stereotypes, so I could not give a crap if we did away with all of them.

I cannot call someone's personal story bullshit, but that's just me.
Click to expand...

I'm not calling anyone's personal story bullshit. That guy doesn't have any kind of personal knowledge on every occasion the word has been used and is patently wrong. Seriously, over your NFL watching history you've said Redskins a thousand times, probably usually in context of beat the Cowboys, but still. You had no racist intent in doing so.

If I would not go up to a Native American and call him by "redskin", or "savage", then I do not see anything honorable about using those names for sports teams. There are literally hundreds of other names that would suffice for such purposes.

Personally, I think America needs to grow out of it's inherently racist past, and this is just another brick in that road to redemption. But, that's just me, wishing we had higher standards for ourselves as a nation.
Click to expand...

If by grow out of you mean acknowledge and learn from, sure. But I am not going to say everyone who has ever used those terms is racist. I consider it absurd. Indians have been time and time again portrayed both badly and as worthy opponents, respected in defeat who maybe we should have learned more from. It's not one or the other. Sports mascots were the latter. Maybe it is time to retire them but that decision shouldn't involved revisionist crap that they were picked with racist demeaning intentions.
 
Dread-Head said:
:headhurts: "Nego"? Just messin' with ya...I knew what ya meant. For what it's worth black people occasionally referr to oursleves as "negroes" and "colored people" when joking amonst ourselves.

Yvette would be quick to point out that she DOES NOT speak for the Comanche Nation, but I will say that on this topic she speaks for me.
Click to expand...

Hey Dread clear something up for me....When did the word "ninja" become a replacement word for the "n" word?

I read about Justin Timberlake tweeting to Madonna "Happy B-Day my mutha huggin ninja!" and people lost their damn minds...

often wondered if the word "negro" came from the spanish word "negro" meaning black or did the spanish adopt that word after hearing it in the United States back in the day...
 
BullNation4Life said:
often wondered if the word "negro" came from the spanish word "negro" meaning black or did the spanish adopt that word after hearing it in the United States back in the day...
Click to expand...

Look up black in a lot of languages and you'll find something close to negro. Not sure why anyone would think it comes from the people. The color predates them.
 
infantrycak said:
I'm not calling anyone's personal story bullshit. That guy doesn't have any kind of personal knowledge on every occasion the word has been used and is patently wrong. Seriously, over your NFL watching history you've said Redskins a thousand times, probably usually in context of beat the Cowboys, but still. You had no racist intent in doing so.

If by grow out of you mean acknowledge and learn from, sure. But I am not going to say everyone who has ever used those terms is racist. I consider it absurd. Indians have been time and time again portrayed both badly and as worthy opponents, respected in defeat who maybe we should have learned more from. It's not one or the other. Sports mascots were the latter. Maybe it is time to retire them but that decision shouldn't involved revisionist crap that they were picked with racist demeaning intentions.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying and do not disagree in many ways.

For me, at this point at least, it's just a matter of principle.
 
chicagotexan2 said:
Why are you Michael Sam?
Click to expand...
I'm not the one with the foreskin obsession
:)


...but you got my point whether you realized it or not. When I suggested you associate that caricature with youself, you were none to pleased about it. Why do you think anyone else would like it either.
 
BullNation4Life said:
Hey Dread clear something up for me....When did the word "ninja" become a replacement word for the "n" word?

I read about Justin Timberlake tweeting to Madonna "Happy B-Day my mutha huggin ninja!" and people lost their damn minds...

often wondered if the word "negro" came from the spanish word "negro" meaning black or did the spanish adopt that word after hearing it in the United States back in the day...
Click to expand...

someone figured "ninja" wouldn't offend anyone. It happened kind of gradually. And Yes it did come from Spanish.
 
infantrycak said:
French - noir
Italian - nero
Spanish - negro
Catalan - negre
Corsican - neru
Portugese - negro
Romanian - negru




Latin - niger
Click to expand...

Niger (pronounced Nee-jyer) please! Sorry Cak...couldn't resist. Personally I'd have no issue beig refered to as:

Le homme noir that sounds kind of cool. It sounds like someone whom chicks would dig. :dread:
 
Dread-Head said:
Niger (pronounced Nee-jyer) please! Sorry Cak...couldn't resist. Personally I'd have no issue beig refered to as:

Le homme noir that sounds kind of cool. It sounds like someone whom chicks would dig. :dread:
Click to expand...

Wasn't that the name of Frazier's brother?
 
Originally Posted by Dread-Head View Post
Niger (pronounced Nee-jyer) please! Sorry Cak...couldn't resist. Personally I'd have no issue beig refered to as:

Le homme noir that sounds kind of cool. It sounds like someone whom chicks would dig.
Click to expand...

Marshall said:
Wasn't that the name of Frazier's brother?
Click to expand...

Nigel...

But is the first name of this cat...

83094806.jpg


Nyjer Morgan
 
The Washington DC football team owner is missing an enormous opportunity in my opinion. I think changing the team's nickname presents an unparalleled opportunity for merchandising. I have no idea of his politics, but assuming he's a supporter of one of the two main parties (for arguments sake let's say the Republicans), then he should simply rename the team after that party; the Washington Republicans. "Ah," I hear you say, "but you've now alienated half your fan base", and there can be no argument that that is indeed the case. However, what you've also done is make this DC team the second favorite team of half the politically opinionated (at the last count, everyone) population of the USA.

Screw it, NFL, put another team in DC and call them the Democrats and place them in the other conference. What better way to decide who becomes president every 4 years than the quadrennial game between the Washington democrats and the Washington republicans? Darn sight better idea than letting the people decide.
 
markn said:
The Washington DC football team owner is missing an enormous opportunity in my opinion. I think changing the team's nickname presents an unparalleled opportunity for merchandising. I have no idea of his politics, but assuming he's a supporter of one of the two main parties (for arguments sake let's say the Republicans), then he should simply rename the team after that party; the Washington Republicans. "Ah," I hear you say, "but you've now alienated half your fan base", and there can be no argument that that is indeed the case. However, what you've also done is make this DC team the second favorite team of half the politically opinionated (at the last count, everyone) population of the USA.

Screw it, NFL, put another team in DC and call them the Democrats and place them in the other conference. What better way to decide who becomes president every 4 years than the quadrennial game between the Washington democrats and the Washington republicans? Darn sight better idea than letting the people decide.
Click to expand...

The whole country would tune in for "Senate Sunday" - that is for sure!
 
markn said:
Screw it, NFL, put another team in DC and call them the Democrats and place them in the other conference. What better way to decide who becomes president every 4 years than the quadrennial game between the Washington democrats and the Washington republicans? Darn sight better idea than letting the people decide.
Click to expand...


You know, you're right, it might work better than what's happening now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top