If "redskins" is offensive why not "white people" or " black people"?

[katsteve2012]

Frankly they do nothing for me that I have not already done or couldn have doen for myself. But is does give you something to whine about, as opposed to focusing on self improvement. Doesn't it?

I see.."racism" is important to negroes when they can use it as a weapon.
LMAO..negroes have "whined" about racism for over a hundred years...made whites open up schools and country clubs..and neighborhoods under threat of law..forbidding white people the freedom to associate with who we prefer....but now a group of negro "legislators" have formed solely for the purpose of advancing black agendas (legislators paid by tax dollars seized from whites) an exclusive club excluding whites in gvt.

Your double standard is obvious to everyone reading this.
Whatever..people are waking up and some corrections will be made.

Enjoy it while you can. It won't last.

Blanco, you don't have a clue what real racism is. If you were black even 50 years ago, let alone 100 you would have sat in the back of the bus, not been able to vote, and likely been arrested for being in a "sundown town" after dark. So you are not a victim, and n or am I. I don't personally need racism as a crutch and certainly don't view you as a threat or hinderance in my life here.

How exactly is a non white group if political mouthpieces restricting your path to success..if you even have the skill set to be successful?

The truth is they are not. Anymore than Internet white supremacists like you affect me. You don't.

Just because you are "offended" by the presence of non white political entities, you are far from being the target of racism.

Get over it.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The Congressional Black Caucus offends me and I demand they change their name because it's racist and non inclusive.
Now what?

Here's what. You might be better off moving to another country, because there is also a Congressional Native American Caucus, a Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and a Congressional Pacific Asian Caucus.

Looks like you have a lot to be offended about.

But there is no congressional white caucus and if there was, the media would be howling. That's the point the poster was making.

 

[Camp]

Red skins were what the bloody scalps turned in for bounty were called in the 1700's. Some revisionist have tried to argue against the evidence that supports that historical claim, but debated or not, many native Americans view the name offensive because of it's reminder that they were thought of as sub human pest and varmints worthy of killing and skinning on sight.

 

[Camp]

The Congressional Black Caucus offends me and I demand they change their name because it's racist and non inclusive.
Now what?

Here's what. You might be better off moving to another country, because there is also a Congressional Native American Caucus, a Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and a Congressional Pacific Asian Caucus.

Looks like you have a lot to be offended about.

But there is no congressional white caucus and if there was, the media would be howling. That's the point the poster was making.

Sure there is. How many black congressmen attend the Republican causcus?

 

[JakeStarkey]

ShootsSpeeders starts another racist thread.

 

[petro]

Too many are over-sensitive in PC America. The constant whining of every group that feels wronged by terms and language is out of control. Political correctness is making race relations worse than it ever was and is nothing more than an attempt at thought control and a way to stifle true debate about any matters regarding race relations. If you are offended by a term I can only conclude you are a weak-minded individual who is so unsure of themselves that you believe there is some sort of truth to the stereotype.
Call them the Washington Pollacks. I won't be offended and will probably get a laugh out of it/

BTW. EVERY race at some point in history has suffered injustice including slavery, even whites were enslaved by whites as blacks were enslaved by blacks during tribal wars in Africa. Even Natives in America used this practice.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right reactionaries and racists whine because they don't get their way, just like petro says above.

 

[dilloduck]

Are were going to have to change Rumplestilt's last name too ??

 

[BillyP]

Red skins were what the bloody scalps turned in for bounty were called in the 1700's. Some revisionist have tried to argue against the evidence that supports that historical claim, but debated or not, many native Americans view the name offensive because of it's reminder that they were thought of as sub human pest and varmints worthy of killing and skinning on sight.

They still are.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Red skins were what the bloody scalps turned in for bounty were called in the 1700's. Some revisionist have tried to argue against the evidence that supports that historical claim, but debated or not, many native Americans view the name offensive because of it's reminder that they were thought of as sub human pest and varmints worthy of killing and skinning on sight.

No. Wrong. You have to deal with the Oklahoma issue I raised above.

 

[Camp]

Red skins were what the bloody scalps turned in for bounty were called in the 1700's. Some revisionist have tried to argue against the evidence that supports that historical claim, but debated or not, many native Americans view the name offensive because of it's reminder that they were thought of as sub human pest and varmints worthy of killing and skinning on sight.

No. Wrong. You have to deal with the Oklahoma issue I raised above.

The Oklahoma issue is easy to deal with. Over a hundred years had passed since the scalps had been called "redskins" and the name redskins had lost it's original meaning and become an accepted term of describing Native Americans or "Indians". Native Americans came to accept the term redskin just as African Americans accepted the term *******. Dates mean a lot in history.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Red skins were what the bloody scalps turned in for bounty were called in the 1700's. Some revisionist have tried to argue against the evidence that supports that historical claim, but debated or not, many native Americans view the name offensive because of it's reminder that they were thought of as sub human pest and varmints worthy of killing and skinning on sight.

No. Wrong. You have to deal with the Oklahoma issue I raised above.

The Oklahoma issue is easy to deal with. Over a hundred years had passed since the scalps had been called "redskins" and the name redskins had lost it's original meaning and become an accepted term of describing Native Americans or "Indians". Native Americans came to accept the term redskin just as African Americans accepted the term *******. Dates mean a lot in history.

Except for the inconvenient facts that a scalp consists of hair and the skin is only bloody after the scalping and not when "turned in for bounty." Meanwhile, the actual skin coloration of natives was different from the settlers and noticed by both settlers and natives.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fact: what indigenous peoples think about the term "red skins" counts far more than anybody else

 

[Camp]

Red skins were what the bloody scalps turned in for bounty were called in the 1700's. Some revisionist have tried to argue against the evidence that supports that historical claim, but debated or not, many native Americans view the name offensive because of it's reminder that they were thought of as sub human pest and varmints worthy of killing and skinning on sight.

No. Wrong. You have to deal with the Oklahoma issue I raised above.

The Oklahoma issue is easy to deal with. Over a hundred years had passed since the scalps had been called "redskins" and the name redskins had lost it's original meaning and become an accepted term of describing Native Americans or "Indians". Native Americans came to accept the term redskin just as African Americans accepted the term *******. Dates mean a lot in history.

Except for the inconvenient facts that a scalp consists of hair and the skin is only bloody after the scalping and not when "turned in for bounty." Meanwhile, the actual skin coloration of natives was different from the settlers and noticed by both settlers and natives.

Well go find a native American that has red skin, or even a reference from the 1600's or 1700's that describe red skin be the color of native Americans. Do you believe native Americans have red skin?
Fact is that scholars and historians are split and each version of how the name came about seems as valid as the next. Some attribute the name coming from the vermilion colored clay the natives used to paint their faces and bodies with. The Phips Proclamation of 1766 that offered bounties for scalps is used to reference the term to scalps, The actual word red skins is used in reference to scalps in the 1860's when bounty scalps were referred to as red skins in news paper stories.