- Joined
- Feb 28, 2013
- Messages
- 32,445
- Reputation
- -10,662
- Daps
- 22,266
- Reppin
- The Original Rec Room Gang
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/sack-article-1.1926865#ixzz3CITGowZS
The New York Times has now joined the other Tofu eating men who have decided NOT to use the term Redskins.
But they won't even use the Logo
Now I love the Logo, and I can't see a Injun having a problem with it either
How is that logo NOT THE shyt
Its amazing to me how the media can tell you something is bad, and ppl just run along with it.
You don't like the name, I disagree on it being a racial slur since nobody alive has used it as such
If I see an Indian guy, I'd call him John Redcorn to insult him (Tru Story)
I'd be like "What's up chief" everytime I see him
If he played a sport, I might thru a piece of corn on the field
In all of my racist wit right there, I would not have thought to call him Redskin if i was trying to insult
You know why? Look at that logo again, its so damn majestic. But no, some hipster felt we should hid and be ashamed of a native american as a logo done in a tasteful manner
Here is the logo they will use in that paper
Now, with all this change you have to just assume the paper and the author of the article making the proclamation would have done his homework on the topics at hand.
So then, is this guy just a clueless moron when it comes to sports and he's just using his position to push an agenda?
Ok, well its established this guy is an agenda pusher.
But if that isn't enough, these quotes from the article should make it that much clearer..
I'm brown in color, but I'll accept black since there are so many shades of brown. And African American I don't even like. American African sounds better 
But the term itself is racist, more racist than Redskin. Because any white person that becomes American then goes by American. Only those with uber country pride might say "I'm russian-american" and they would have an accent. Only the minorities gotta put a label outside of just being American. When I fill out a form and it ask which race I am, I hesitate to check African American because I know why they COULD be asking.
2.) I have never in my life used the term Redskin in a derogatory way because its not a modern day racial slur
If anyone wants to look it up, it was only deemed a bad name for about 30yrs, 100's of years ago, because a racist white person had beef with a "redskin" which is a term Redskinned people used to refer to THEMSELVES. So realize who is leading the parade here. Keyword, LEADING
3.) Yup an ESPN poll seems to hold way too much weight for a national newspaper to swag off of. But do you hear me tho?
The New York Times has now joined the other Tofu eating men who have decided NOT to use the term Redskins.
But they won't even use the Logo

Now I love the Logo, and I can't see a Injun having a problem with it either
How is that logo NOT THE shyt

Its amazing to me how the media can tell you something is bad, and ppl just run along with it.
You don't like the name, I disagree on it being a racial slur since nobody alive has used it as such

If I see an Indian guy, I'd call him John Redcorn to insult him (Tru Story)
I'd be like "What's up chief" everytime I see him
If he played a sport, I might thru a piece of corn on the field
In all of my racist wit right there, I would not have thought to call him Redskin if i was trying to insult
You know why? Look at that logo again, its so damn majestic. But no, some hipster felt we should hid and be ashamed of a native american as a logo done in a tasteful manner

Here is the logo they will use in that paper
Now, with all this change you have to just assume the paper and the author of the article making the proclamation would have done his homework on the topics at hand.
So then, is this guy just a clueless moron when it comes to sports and he's just using his position to push an agenda?
Maroon and Yellow?The Daily News said that the Redskins’ logo “depicting a feathered Native American has been replaced with an image that uses the team’s maroon and yellow colors to key readers to stories, columns and statistics relating to Washington.”
Ok, well its established this guy is an agenda pusher.But if that isn't enough, these quotes from the article should make it that much clearer..
1. So now Negro is supposed to be a bad word1.) See the end of “Negro” and the rise of “black” or “African-American,” the end of “retarded” and the rise of “developmentally disabled,” the end of “handicapped” and the rise of “people with disabilities.”
2.) Here’s a simple test of whether Redskin passes muster: Would you use the term in referring to Native Americans in anything other than a derogatory way?
3.) In a recent ESPN poll, 71% of those surveyed supported keeping the nickname while 23% said the team should adopt a new one — up 9 points from just a year ago. Movement is headed in the right direction and we’re proud to be part of the trend.
I'm brown in color, but I'll accept black since there are so many shades of brown. And African American I don't even like. American African sounds better 
But the term itself is racist, more racist than Redskin. Because any white person that becomes American then goes by American. Only those with uber country pride might say "I'm russian-american" and they would have an accent. Only the minorities gotta put a label outside of just being American. When I fill out a form and it ask which race I am, I hesitate to check African American because I know why they COULD be asking.
2.) I have never in my life used the term Redskin in a derogatory way because its not a modern day racial slur
If anyone wants to look it up, it was only deemed a bad name for about 30yrs, 100's of years ago, because a racist white person had beef with a "redskin" which is a term Redskinned people used to refer to THEMSELVES. So realize who is leading the parade here. Keyword, LEADING

3.) Yup an ESPN poll seems to hold way too much weight for a national newspaper to swag off of. But do you hear me tho?



and said "yooooou blackskin
"
" clueless on if I was just insulted or not
