And you thought Redskins is offensive....

[burrrton]

Bravo, Oly. You sound just like my wife. Modern academia could use a lot more people like you and her.

[Oly]

Bravo, Oly. You sound just like my wife. Modern academia could use a lot more people like you and her.

Thanks, man. And there are schools where it's not as much of an issue as others, but where it's a problem is like a virus. After a while, you just start to stop having discussions about anything, killing academic discourse, which is the worst outcome on a college campus I can imagine.

I'm pretty fortunate that it's not an issue where I teach, partly due to the student culture and partly due to the fact that we happen to have a lot of profs who do think like me. In all but one department, the faculty here show a pretty nice range of political and religious beliefs, which certainly helps support the students' natural respect when talking about issues like these. But I'm also connected with other schools where it's a huge, huge problem, and that is tough to see.

[c_hawkbob]

It's striking how quickly we start considering our opinions more sacred than others' given the right situation, isn't it?

I hope you realize the dripping irony of this statement.

[mykc14]

As a leftist college professor who finds the Washington team name incredibly offensive, I cannot find anything offensive about Missionaries. It's a dumb mascot, and as someone who did missionary work as a younger man, I now find the work of missionaries to be a bit narcissistic and off-putting, but not offensive.

Hey, Oly! What exactly are you a professor of, if you don't mind me asking. There was a time in my life when I thought for sure I would be a Literature or History professor, but alas I had a different calling: High School/Middle School teacher. At least I get to coach football though!

[Oly]

Hey, Oly! What exactly are you a professor of, if you don't mind me asking. There was a time in my life when I thought for sure I would be a Literature or History professor, but alas I had a different calling: High School/Middle School teacher. At least I get to coach football though!

Psych, and I teach a lot of stats classes.

My hat's off to anyone who can teach middle school. I think that would be way, way harder than what I do. I can tell the feckless ones to piss off without their parents calling me!

[mykc14]

Psych, and I teach a lot of stats classes.

My hat's off to anyone who can teach middle school. I think that would be way, way harder than what I do. I can tell the feckless ones to piss off without their parents calling me!

Yeah, Middle Schoolers have a really fun energy to them. The worst part of teaching Middle School is dealing with parents who are completely apathetic and uninvolved. Its also difficult trying to build a positive relationship, have fun/interesting activities, and incorporate all of the ridiculous state curriculum/testing/pre-testing. This year I will spend well over a month just in the computer lab pre-testing and testing these kids for the state assessment. That is time that I could have been doing fun projects or something. It is quite frustrating!

[burrrton]

LOL. I think you're getting my drift, Bob. Maybe I should have noted the inverse, too: how strikingly quick some people go from:

A. "Nobody's opinion matters more than anyone else's."

to

B. "My opinion matters more than anyone else's."

I'm not the one claiming everyone should bow to my opinion, though (except when being sarcastic and/or devil's advocate to illustrate a point).

[RiverDog]

As a leftist college professor who finds the Washington team name incredibly offensive, I cannot find anything offensive about Missionaries. It's a dumb mascot, and as someone who did missionary work as a younger man, I now find the work of missionaries to be a bit narcissistic and off-putting, but not offensive.

But as HC said, if a school wants to change it for their own reasons, then I guess I don't care one way or another. If I was a prof on that campus, I'd just as soon change it for the more banal reason that I would probably get sick of culture warriors grilling me about the name and making me justify it, but I wouldn't think they were right about it.


(Now, the broader leftist culture in higher ed right now that finds offense all over the place and wants places that are safe from ideas they don't like pisses me off. The liberalism I embrace is, by definition, open to others and their ideas. Freaking out on anyone who doesn't toe your particular brand of liberal ideology isn't liberal at all. A few years ago, my favorite group of fellow profs to have conversations with a few years ago was a group of very conservative, very religious guys. We hated everything each other had to say, but the conversations were lively and fun because we all enjoyed the beer in the pitcher and respected each other. I think the posters in here are absolutely right to decry the intellectual climate on many campuses right now.

I think that they've taken a good and necessary idea and run completely amok with it. But, just like Peter calling wolf when there weren't any, I now almost reflexively write off any call of microaggressions and safe spaces. It's too bad, because there are probably some legit ones in there, but they're so buried under the sh*t heap of people saying it's offensive to see someone wear a Trump hat that I don't care to listen.

Sorry for the rant. It felt good to type, even if most in here won't give two sh*ts about it.)

Post of the Year. And I gave two sh*ts about it. Might even give 3 or 4 sh*ts about it before the night is over.

[burrrton]

Your daily example of why SJWs (and their ilk) are ridiculed and laughed at:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/16/profe ... supremacy/

[c_hawkbob]

SJWs?

[burrrton]

SJWs?

Social Justice Warriors, aka Culture Warriors, aka people that see racism in their Cheerios.

[c_hawkbob]

How are people supposed to know that? I have never heard anybody put those letters together and expect it to actually convey a meaning ... is it really that hard to just spell sh!t out? Half the time reading on line I feel like I'm trying to make sense of a spoonful of alphabet soup ... and good lord then there's texting!

(excuse the old guy rant, it ain't meant to be personal)

[burrrton]

How are people supposed to know that? I have never heard anybody put those letters together and expect it to actually convey a meaning ... is it really that hard to just spell sh!t out? Half the time reading on line I feel like I'm trying to make sense of a spoonful of alphabet soup ... and good lord then there's texting!

(excuse the old guy rant, it ain't meant to be personal)

It's a social media thing. You're right that I could have very easily spelled it out (no offense taken, though!).

[obiken]

LOL. I think you're getting my drift, Bob. Maybe I should have noted the inverse, too: how strikingly quick some people go from:

A. "Nobody's opinion matters more than anyone else's."

to

B. "My opinion matters more than anyone else's."

I'm not the one claiming everyone should bow to my opinion, though (except when being sarcastic and/or devil's advocate to illustrate a point).

Everyone's opinion matters to me in an arena where its based in an honest difference of opinion. The problem Burry, is that I am not going to value a jerk's opinion because anyone can be one. For example: Sorry, the Holocaust happened. Blacks are human beings, they are not Monkeys, and Redskin is wrong. Sorry if you think that is Left wing arrogance.

[burrrton]

The problem Burry, is that I am not going to value a jerk's opinion because anyone can be one.

Well, obi, why don't you give everyone your algorithm for objectively defining a "jerk" and we can all calibrate to your more sacred opinion?

Sorry if you think that is Left wing arrogance.

What is it if not arrogance when a person believes *they* know better than everyone else what is and isn't offensive?

[RiverDog]

For example: Sorry, the Holocaust happened. Blacks are human beings, they are not Monkeys, and Redskin is wrong. Sorry if you think that is Left wing arrogance.

That's part of why I object to some of these name changes, Obi, particularly the one in the OP. It's revisionist history. The Germans want to pretend that the Holocaust never happened, the Japanese want to pretend that Pearl Harbor and the Bataan Death March never happened, and now people in our country (sorry, but it's mostly you libs) want to sell us this idea that the settling of the west was all about eminent domain and nothing about innocent pioneers wanting a better life for their families and that treachery and murder was only committed by whites, and they're doing it by manipulating our educational system to fit their world view.

[HumanCockroach]

*sigh*

[NorthHawk]

hat's part of why I object to some of these name changes, Obi, particularly the one in the OP. It's revisionist history. The Germans want to pretend that the Holocaust never happened, the Japanese want to pretend that Pearl Harbor and the Bataan Death March never happened, and now people in our country (sorry, but it's mostly you libs) want to sell us this idea that the settling of the west was all about eminent domain and nothing about innocent pioneers wanting a better life for their families and that treachery and murder was only committed by whites, and they're doing it by manipulating our educational system to fit their world view.

The Germans are a bad example as they openly and publicly admit the atrocities of their actions.
The Japanese haven't been so open and even deny things happened. I get the impression it's about a loss of face to admit they behaved badly.
Regarding the Indians, there were gov't programs in place to get the existing people out of the way of what the newcomers called progress.
It's why the Reservation concept was instilled - so the existing people wouldn't negatively impact the European newcomers way of life and possible attainment of riches. It's also why some of the lands reserved for Indians was expropriated when gold and other riches were found.
It's about the European style or idea of wealth and the accumulation of it.

[RiverDog]

The Germans are a bad example as they openly and publicly admit the atrocities of their actions.
The Japanese haven't been so open and even deny things happened. I get the impression it's about a loss of face to admit they behaved badly.
Regarding the Indians, there were gov't programs in place to get the existing people out of the way of what the newcomers called progress.
It's why the Reservation concept was instilled - so the existing people wouldn't negatively impact the European newcomers way of life and possible attainment of riches. It's also why some of the lands reserved for Indians was expropriated when gold and other riches were found.
It's about the European style or idea of wealth and the accumulation of it.

I'd heard the opposite about the Germans, but that was quite a long time ago, so they could have changed their ways. If so, I'll stand corrected and tip my hat to the Germans. Nevertheless, there is still a very large number of people that don't believe the Holocaust happened, something that General Eisenhower feared when the Allies liberated Nazi concentration camps at the end of WW2.

Not so with the Japanese. I've heard complaints from Americans that have been to the Hiroshima Memorial that have complained that it is devoid of any record of how the war started or the Japanese behavior with regard to captured soldiers and other non combatants (the Rape of Nanking, for example). I am told that it gives visitors the impression that Japan was the victim of American aggression when in truth it was the exact opposite, a military regime looking to expand their empire.

I agree with you about how many if not most white Europeans treated natives, particularly in the 19th century, and it's not limited to the North American continent, either. It was a travesty, one that is well documented. I just got through visiting ruins left by Incas in Peru when the Spanish conquered and pillaged them. It's something we should never lose sight of.

But my point is that not every white American was interested in raping and pillaging the natives to take their riches and expand their power. Many of them, including the Whitmans, were simply immigrants that were looking for a better way of life for them and their families, not much different than most people immigrating to this country nowadays. They simply wanted to live their lives peacefully and in co-existence with the natives. The premise for the name change in the OP is an attempt to revise history IMO.

[NorthHawk]

My father was a POW in Japan and ended up in Sendai working in the coal mines. He rarely talked about it, but occasionally a horrific statement or story would come out.
Just recently the Japanese have acknowledged "comfort women" - basically slave prostitutes from Korea but tried to rationalize it. The major crimes that their soldiers committed have never been officially acknowledged and I read a story from a Japanese university professor decrying the cleansing of history in their textbooks. I don't know how true it is, but we do have to separate the wartime army and the civilians. Those civilians that were in Hiroshima and Nagasaki really took a hit to hasten the end of the war, so I can see how they those survivors consider themselves victims.

Regarding the pioneers, well they were symbols of oppression and theft to the native peoples. It's natural to fight back when you see your way of life being taken from you. The local Indians didn't have the means to strike back at the powers in Washington, so they did what anyone would do when strangers come onto their land and started marginalizing them. The options were to try to remove the newcomers or lose what they hold dear including their freedoms.

[RiverDog]

My father was a POW in Japan and ended up in Sendai working in the coal mines. He rarely talked about it, but occasionally a horrific statement or story would come out.
Just recently the Japanese have acknowledged "comfort women" - basically slave prostitutes from Korea but tried to rationalize it. The major crimes that their soldiers committed have never been officially acknowledged and I read a story from a Japanese university professor decrying the cleansing of history in their textbooks. I don't know how true it is, but we do have to separate the wartime army and the civilians. Those civilians that were in Hiroshima and Nagasaki really took a hit to hasten the end of the war, so I can see how they those survivors consider themselves victims.

Regarding the pioneers, well they were symbols of oppression and theft to the native peoples. It's natural to fight back when you see your way of life being taken from you. The local Indians didn't have the means to strike back at the powers in Washington, so they did what anyone would do when strangers come onto their land and started marginalizing them. The options were to try to remove the newcomers or lose what they hold dear including their freedoms.

That statement legitimizes your story about your dad. My uncle won the silver star in Sicily, and the normally gregarious and talkative guy would avoid talking about what happened, except for one occasion after a Thanksgiving dinner. It was a struggle for him to tell it. It makes perfect sense to me that your dad seldom talked about what happened to him during the war.

I understand why the natives fought back when they saw their lifestyles changing, but you can use that rationale to justify whites oppressing blacks, particularly in the deep south. They saw their lifestyle changing just as the natives saw the world they were living in changing, and today, when people are so resistant to immigrants coming into what they consider to be their country. It's a natural feeling, but it does not legitimize murder and treachery of otherwise innocent individuals, and that's exactly what many of the pioneers were subjected to. That story must be told right along with all the atrocities that were committed by white Europeans. I do not want my children or grandchildren being taught anything less than the full story of our history, and IMO efforts to ignore atrocities committed by natives is doing just that.

In all wars, including the indian wars of the old west, there are atrocities committed on both sides of the contest. In the indian wars, the percentage of atrocities was probably 90% committed by the whites, but that doesn't mean that we can ignore the 10% committed by the natives.

[HumanCockroach]

So the theory is the "winning" side stayed true to the atrocities committed after the fact? Yeah ok. Sure. Your percentages are rather high. Maybe 98% to 2%. History is written by the victors, they as a whole blunt the horrible things they did. Rationalize, lie, whitewash or lessen the actions. On the other hand, they emphasize, elaborate, embellish and lie about the horrid actions of those "vaquished".

It's this new information?

[burrrton]

History is written by the victors, they as a whole blunt the horrible things they did. Rationalize, lie, whitewash or lessen the actions.

So all the history books are rationalizing, lying, and whitewashing, yet *you* are able to discern the 'actual' numbers ("Your percentages are rather high. Maybe 98% to 2%") to a remarkable degree of accuracy.

Pretty impressive.

[HumanCockroach]

Did I say that was a fact? No? Ok then. It's an estimation based on common practice of vilifying the vanquished. Spare me. If you want to follow along with the attacked natives retaliated against "innocent settlers looking for a better life" be my guest. The same excuse can be used whenever and wherever you want throughout history ( and has). I'm not into pretending like destroying an existing civilization is OK because my ancestors wanted more land, but feel free to go to town with it.

Where exactly are the lines drawn though? I mean the Nazis could claim the same, the British empire, the Roman empire, every single group could claim they just needed a "better life for its people" to justify their actions. Slavers could claim they "needed" slavery to forge a better life ( and did by the way) so where's the "cutoff" and what exactly makes you or RD or anyone qualified to assess when it was justified atrocities or not?

[HumanCockroach]

http://endgenocide.org/learn/past-genoc ... americans/

[burrrton]

Did I say that was a fact? No? Ok then. It's an estimation based on common practice of vilifying the vanquished.

LOL. You laid claim to knowledge of 2 significant figures. That's a pretty detailed estimation, fact or not. You must have all the "good" resources to read. Poor RD and all his 'bad' resources.

If you want to follow along with the attacked natives retaliated against "innocent settlers looking for a better life" be my guest.

And if you want to follow along with the "peaceful, enlightened brown people attacked by the evil, violent white people" narrative, you can be mine.

Where exactly are the lines drawn though?

Tough question philosophically- I tend to think each situation needs to be considered individually with heavy consideration (when looking backward) given to the norms of the time (I don't expect Italy to give back whatever land the Romans took from the Greeks in 10AD, or whatever).

You seem to have all the answers, though, so why don't you tell us what you thought would happen when a relatively modern civilization came into contact with a bunch of scattered tribes living virtually in the stone age?

[HumanCockroach]

And you seem to as well. Not interested in claiming someone else is a hypocrite when I'm being one myself. You're condemnation and condensation is duly noted. I have little interest in continuing a pointless debate. I don't feel it is right to persecute a race because of a desire for land, you do, and you are welcome to that thought, and expressing it as am I, and as of 1968 Native Americans as well.

[burrrton]

And you seem to as well.

Yeah, I was really laying down the law there, wasn't I? Sorry for that.

I don't feel it is right to persecute a race because of a desire for land, you do

It's not a "right"- it was *inevitable* at a time when the planet was still being explored and settled. Further, Native Americans of that time disagreed with your opinion vehemently. They were vicious fighters that absolutely BUTCHERED each other, stole land from each other, enslaved conquered foes, and so on and so forth.

It was only when they started fighting people no longer using pointy sticks that the tide turned permanently against them, but the behavior that makes you so uncomfortable in 2016 was ubiquitous at that time, not at all limited to Euro settlers.

[RiverDog]

So the theory is the "winning" side stayed true to the atrocities committed after the fact? Yeah ok. Sure. Your percentages are rather high. Maybe 98% to 2%. History is written by the victors, they as a whole blunt the horrible things they did. Rationalize, lie, whitewash or lessen the actions. On the other hand, they emphasize, elaborate, embellish and lie about the horrid actions of those "vaquished".

It's this new information?

Just like you, I picked my percentages at random without doing any research or relying on anything more than a personal impression. Besides, whether it's 90%, 95%, or 98%, the point remains the same: Far more atrocities were committed by the whites than the natives, but that fact should not be allowed to cleanse history to say that it was an absolute 100%.

As far as history being written by the victors, initially, perhaps, as it can be influenced from contemporary opinions and biases, but as was discussed earlier in this thread, Japan was certainly not a victor in WW2 yet they are offering their version of historical events that at some points conflict sharply with that of the victorious Americans. The history of the Spanish's conquest of the Incas was not written by the Spanish, it's been research and deduced by using all possible sources on both sides. As a rule, the more time that elapses from a certain event, the more objective the historical analysis, which is why most historians worth their salt wait 15-20 years after they've left office before doing a historical analysis of a POTUS.

[THX-1138]

Screw all of you.

[burrrton]

Screw all of you.

Screwing is a tool of the White Supremacist Patriarchy™. I'm triggered.

[HumanCockroach]

Fine, even if it was inevitable, that in no way changes that the vast majority of those atrocities were committed by the poor innocent settlers just " looking for a better life". At no point have I claimed it was avoidable or even something that didn't benefit me or anyone else with those ancestors, the difference is. I don't make excuses for it, I don't ignore it, I don't pretend like it was right or just or remotely some sort of whimsical movie where the poor put upon settlers had to overcome all odds against the deranged savages that occupied this land for thousands of years.

I certainly don't feel the need to justify it by claiming "they did it too", nor do I feel the need to defend an offensive slur against a race for lack of a better term performed genocide on knowingly to "civilize" this country, 500 years later. Whether Native Americans found the nickname offensive 80 yeas ago I haven't the foggiest, nor unfortunately does anyone as the name and team were founded a full 36 years before they had a right to even say whether it did or not ( freedom of speech issued to them in 1968) Hell, they were only even considered citizens of the United States 7 years prior to the founding of the team.

Continuing to rub salt in the wounds of the people that were summarily killed, raped, butchered and exterminated doesn't seem humane to me, whether it's 10k or 10 million, that opinion will not change. If that makes me some sort of bleeding heart liberal PC warrior in your or anyone else's eyes, so be it, I could give a flying f#ck. If a racial slur doesn't raise my hackles when directed at me, I think I can live with people on a message boards feelings on this topic...

( good news is, because of this stupidity of claiming the name isn't/wasn't originally a derogatory term, I learned quite a bit about the origins of other racial slurs - Wop: without papers ( mine). N-word - simple a color based on the Greek word for black ( sound familiar?) etc. So as least despite the foolishness of a debate over a teams racial slur being used as a mascot I learned something- so at least there's that)

[RiverDog]

Fine, even if it was inevitable, that in no way changes that the vast majority of those atrocities were committed by the poor innocent settlers just " looking for a better life". At no point have I claimed it was avoidable or even something that didn't benefit me or anyone else with those ancestors, the difference is. I don't make excuses for it, I don't ignore it, I don't pretend like it was right or just or remotely some sort of whimsical movie where the poor put upon settlers had to overcome all odds against the deranged savages that occupied this land for thousands of years.

I certainly don't feel the need to justify it by claiming "they did it too", nor do I feel the need to defend an offensive slur against a race for lack of a better term performed genocide on knowingly to "civilize" this country, 500 years later. Whether Native Americans found the nickname offensive 80 yeas ago I haven't the foggiest, nor unfortunately does anyone as the name and team were founded a full 36 years before they had a right to even say whether it did or not ( freedom of speech issued to them in 1968) Hell, they were only even considered citizens of the United States 7 years prior to the founding of the team.

Continuing to rub salt in the wounds of the people that were summarily killed, raped, butchered and exterminated doesn't seem humane to me, whether it's 10k or 10 million, that opinion will not change. If that makes me some sort of bleeding heart liberal PC warrior in your or anyone else's eyes, so be it, I could give a flying f#ck. If a racial slur doesn't raise my hackles when directed at me, I think I can live with people on a message boards feelings on this topic...

( good news is, because of this stupidity of claiming the name isn't/wasn't originally a derogatory term, I learned quite a bit about the origins of other racial slurs - Wop: without papers ( mine). N-word - simple a color based on the Greek word for black ( sound familiar?) etc. So as least despite the foolishness of a debate over a teams racial slur being used as a mascot I learned something- so at least there's that)

CBob is right. You do tend to attribute words, statements, and sentiments never said or suggested to others in order to accentuate the differences between your opinion and someone else's. You seem to think that I am trying to justify the actions of whites vs. the natives. I am not. I am simply wanting everything reported as it happened without any filters or biases.

I have never, nor has anyone else in this thread, made excuses or ignored anything. It's the exact opposite. I want ALL of what happened on display and remembered by our posterity... the good, the bad, and the ugly. I want the My Lai Massacre and the Trail of Tears remembered just as much as I want the Bataan Death March remembered.

[HumanCockroach]

That's precisely the point RD, the history you are relying on in this instance is the "Japanese" version of the telling ( hopefully you understand my point) there is simply no way too know whether the "attack on the innocent missionaries" was in any way "provoked". I'm not saying it was with that particular group ( though a fairly strong case could be made that even IF that group had done 100% nothing but helped and included every one, that the US had ALREADY provoked them even IF the missionaries hadn't. Add in to that, that plenty of missionaries had done some fairly horrible things ( and still do to this day, though thankfully not in America) ). There's simply no way to verify they hadn't they themselves provoked said attack. Could have been something simple, selling land that the Indians laid claim to ( after all crossing borders causes plenty of violent attacks does it not?) showing disrespect to a tribes leader, the assault on an Indian, etc... There is literally hundreds of things that could have happened that might have generated that response, and of those hundreds of provocations, do you honestly think ANY of them would have made it into a history book? Or into the accounting by the missionaries ( even IF whomever had known what the provocation was?).

I am NOT saying that is a "fact" but it seems impossible to me, that you are expressing a "fact" either. I don't doubt for a second that Native Americans performed atrocities, I'm sure it happened just like I'm sure it happens now in this country,however, the percentages are so minute in comparison as to be akin to claiming all Americans are rapists, murderers, drug addicts as thieves because some of them are. Ten million Native Americans to 300 thousand in a couple hundred years. It wasn't an "occasional" atrocity, it was planned, executed and encouraged. Hell, people used to shoot them for sport off the backs of trains, with zero repercussions. I would not have worried too much about which white man/woman or child "deserved" it if that was the environment I was placed in. You?

[burrrton]

I don't make excuses for it, I don't ignore it, I don't pretend like it was right or just or remotely some sort of whimsical movie where the poor put upon settlers had to overcome all odds against the deranged savages that occupied this land for thousands of years.

Just stop- I'm not making excuses when I point out that brutal treatment of The Other was simply a reality of culture clashes like this. I'm not saying it was right.

You just seem to think you're being virtuous in acting offended for others. One side was certainly stronger than the other so the conflict was largely one-sided, but quit acting like it wasn't committed by both sides.

It's like whining that NAs should be apologizing for Little Big Horn.

Whether Native Americans found the nickname offensive 80 yeas ago I haven't the foggiest, nor unfortunately does anyone as the name and team were founded a full 36 years before they had a right to even say whether it did or not

Hehe. So now we've gone from "It absolutely is and always has been an n-bomb level slur" to "Eh I haven't the foggiest."

Continuing to rub salt in the wounds of the people that were summarily killed, raped, butchered and exterminated doesn't seem humane to me

Nobody is rubbing salt in any wounds. Also, *both* sides summarily killed, raped, butchered, and exterminated to the best of their ability.

[HumanCockroach]

y

RiverDog » Wed Apr 13, 2016 9:55 pm
HumanCockroach wrote:
I highly doubt a term used to describe a races skin, especially one that Europeans killed, raped and exterminated at will is a "contrived" insult, or history people should be happy, or content to proudly hold on to.

I'm personally not offended by the word, however I'm also not offended by the slur associated with my ethnicity, that said, I highly doubt the Chicago Wops would be welcomed at any point by my ancestors or current relatives, despite it being an acronym. That teams stadium, offices etc would more than likely have a series of unknown fires, explosions etc.

Quite a stretch equating a job, or machine to a slur or term used to describe an entire race

.

Don't act as if the Europeans were the only ones to have killed, raped, and exterminated others. The very story behind the Whitman Missionaries is one of treachery and murder of unarmed and completely innocent human beings at the hands of a group of Native Americans.

That's one of the problems I have with the reasoning behind this particular name change. The Whitman Missionaries were completely innocent, inoffensive group of people that reached out to all people no matter what their race, and history is being revised to depict them as some sort of wild west Nazi's that are not representative of an institution that considers themselves "inclusive."

I'm sorry if that wasn't what was meant. This certainly seems like the pot calling the kettle black though. Were in my post did I claim White Europeans were the only ones that were doing so?

I didn't. This isn't the first time you, Bob or numerous others have done the EXACT same thing you just chastised me for. I don't do it more often than you RD or Obi or Bob. The difference is I don't point it out. Whether it be claims about my opinion on the offensive line ( regularly attributing statements or my satisfaction with it) or in this very thread, it happens often, with regularity. We can go ahead and point it out every time, or we can understand that sometimes people misunderstand what we've posted, or what we tried to relay. I choose the latter. Obviously you and Bob prefer the former, doesn't bother me. I also become offended when claims of what I said do not in any way actually relate to what I posted. I typically just ignore it, or instead of choosing to claim someone is doing so, attempt to clarify my position.

[HumanCockroach]

Burton-

Whatever. You want to act like a child, so be it. I simply am not going to be baited by you Burton. I don't care what your opinion is. Obviously you feel the Mascot name is fine ( despite not having the foggiest either. Something you continually, conveniently neglect to add or admit) and you are entitled to that opinion. Never once have I said otherwise, I disagree ( something I certainly have earned the right to as well). Shall I insult you now? Will that make me "not a whiner"? Because you know, your approval of me is so incredibly high on my priority list.

By the by, I never said YOU claimed it was right, I said I DON'T.

Nor did I ever claim it was ABSOLUTELY an N-word level slur. I pointed out that the N- word ALSO didn't start as a slur, but a description of skin color ( or are you claiming that that in some way isn't accurate? Does Redskin not describe skin color?)

You were saying RD about attributing things not posted? Look down as well..

[burrrton]

You want to act like a child, so be it.

LOL. Ok, HC.

Obviously you feel the Mascot name is fine ( despite not having the foggiest either. Something you continually, conveniently neglect to add or admit)

I've repeatedly stated my position is "Change it, don't change it, I don't give a sht, but quit acting like its etymology is clearly racist and/or that all NAs consider it racist."

Radical and childlike, I know.

[edit- the "whiner" part was uncalled for, though- I'm removing it]

[HumanCockroach]

I've repeatedly stated my position is "Change it, don't change it, I don't give a sht, but quit acting like its etymology is clearly racist and/or that all NAs consider it racist."

Radical and childlike, I know.

Now if you could simply show me where I said either of those things, I would greatly appreciate it.

[burrrton]

Radical and childlike, I know.

Now if you could simply show me where I said either of those things, I would greatly appreciate it.

Burton-Whatever. You want to act like a child, so be it.

LOL:

You were saying RD about attributing things not posted? Look down as well..