HawkShack.com

It looks like the cat is out of the bag, or rather, the Commanders are out of the bag:

Washington Commanders = confirmed.

The http://Commanders.com domain was transferred from Namecheap to MarkMonitor (same company NFL uses for all their domains) as of 7:34pm EST today.

No more WFT.

Hmmm.

Certainly not controversial, but uninspiring nonetheless.

Maybe should be Commandos, as I've heard that too many commanders spoil the broth.

Old but Slow wrote:Maybe should be Commandos, as I've heard that too many commanders spoil the broth.

Can you imagine the jokes had they chosen Commandos for a nickname? "Washington's cheerleaders are going Commando."

NorthHawk wrote:Certainly not controversial, but uninspiring nonetheless.

Well, it's better than the Cleveland Indians new nickname, the "Guardians". Sounds like a term a lawyer would use in a child custody arrangement.

This nonsense about the nickname controversies is still a thorn in my side.

Washington Bureaucrats

I’ve read that not all teams use markmonitor,and that Washington has been using GoDaddy....but seems like a fair bet.

Uppercut wrote:Washington Bureaucrats

I like it

The Commanders sounds like a Roller Derby name.

Commandos would be cooler.

Uppercut wrote:Washington Bureaucrats

The game would never get played. Every call would be argued for hours with nothing getting done. Everyone would hate them. They would be cheating and lying right to our faces every game, while selling us it's the other guys fault.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Commandos would be cooler.

Apparently you're not familiar with the slang "going commando":

The slang phrase to go commando means to wear no underpants beneath one’s clothing.

https://wordhistories.net/2019/04/21/go-commando/

The possibilities are endless.

Between the fact that it's hard to come up with a name that doesn't offend some disgruntled group in society and the fact that there are a zillion pro sports franchises that have already scarfed up meaningful names, it's quite difficult to come up with something solid.

Second Washington team to have a PC name change after the Bullets . That made less sense than this does . I could see if they had been named the AR 15s the name Redskins is a clear racial slur but I had to grow up to understand that . It’s not the same as Indians . It’s defining a race by their skin color . So I can live with that one . The league should be more concerned with the real time behavior of the owner than the vestiges of latent racism in a team name from many years ago.

Hawktawk wrote:The league should be more concerned with the real time behavior of the owner than the vestiges of latent racism in a team name from many years ago.

As they tout the Hall of Fame credentials of and bestow a sickening amount of accolades upon a sexual predator.

Exactly.

trents wrote:Between the fact that it's hard to come up with a name that doesn't offend some disgruntled group in society and the fact that there are a zillion pro sports franchises that have already scarfed up meaningful names, it's quite difficult to come up with something solid.

Boy, you can say that again. Here in WA, they've forced all public schools to do away with any nickname, no matter how innocent or inoffensive, that is in reference to Native Americans:

The Washington Legislature has approved a measure to ban the use of Native American names, symbols and images as school mascots, logos and team names at most public schools in Washington.

But, of course, it doesn't apply to Native Americans:

The ban does not apply to schools located on tribal lands or to schools in counties adjacent to Native American areas, as long as the nearest tribe is consulted and authorizes the use of the name.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-ne ... t-schools/

Hopefully WFT has consulted with the US Navy to make sure that the nickname "Commanders" is good to go.

RiverDog wrote:Apparently you're not familiar with the slang "going commando":

The slang phrase to go commando means to wear no underpants beneath one’s clothing.

https://wordhistories.net/2019/04/21/go-commando/

The possibilities are endless.

I am familiar with it. Commandos would be cooler in all ways.

It may not be PC, but cheerleaders going commando would make me watch.

c_hawkbob wrote:As they tout the Hall of Fame credentials of and bestow a sickening amount of accolades upon a sexual predator.

The bathroom statue will celebrate both his accomplishments on the field and off the field.

Lmfao

RiverDog wrote:Boy, you can say that again. Here in WA, they've forced all public schools to do away with any nickname, no matter how innocent or inoffensive, that is in reference to Native Americans:

The Washington Legislature has approved a measure to ban the use of Native American names, symbols and images as school mascots, logos and team names at most public schools in Washington.

But, of course, it doesn't apply to Native Americans:

The ban does not apply to schools located on tribal lands or to schools in counties adjacent to Native American areas, as long as the nearest tribe is consulted and authorizes the use of the name.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-ne ... t-schools/

Hopefully WFT has consulted with the US Navy to make sure that the nickname "Commanders" is good to go.

Crazy, I went to Squalicum HS in Bellingham. I wonder what they will change the name to.Or maybe its ok because thats just the school name and the mascot is Storm?

RiverDog wrote:Boy, you can say that again. Here in WA, they've forced all public schools to do away with any nickname, no matter how innocent or inoffensive, that is in reference to Native Americans:

The Washington Legislature has approved a measure to ban the use of Native American names, symbols and images as school mascots, logos and team names at most public schools in Washington.

But, of course, it doesn't apply to Native Americans:

The ban does not apply to schools located on tribal lands or to schools in counties adjacent to Native American areas, as long as the nearest tribe is consulted and authorizes the use of the name.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-ne ... t-schools/

Hopefully WFT has consulted with the US Navy to make sure that the nickname "Commanders" is good to go.

EmeraldBullet wrote:Crazy, I went to Squalicum HS in Bellingham. I wonder what they will change the name to.Or maybe its ok because thats just the school name and the mascot is Storm?

My understanding is that it only applies to nicknames or mascots, not the actual name of the school. It's going to be expensive enough for the scores of schools to change signage, uniforms, etc.

One of the local schools here in the Tri Cities where I live, Kamiakin High School, the mascot is the Braves, and they have been very close with the Yakama Indian Tribe since back in the 70's when the school first opened, consulting them on the design of a totem pole, for example. The tribe responded with classroom visits to help teach history from a NA POV. They were able to get an exemption from the tribe to retain their nickname.

Somehow my HS alma mater went from the Meadowdale Chiefs to the Meadowdale Broncos. Even adopted Denver's colors and logo (from classic blue and white with a block "M" on the helmet). Yuck.

c_hawkbob wrote:Somehow my HS alma mater went from the Meadowdale Chiefs to the Meadowdale Broncos. Even adopted Denver's colors and logo (from classic blue and white with a block "M" on the helmet). Yuck.

You could talk me into agreeing with the argument that "Redskins" is offensive if a person could show that even a large minority of NA's felt that it was, but I fail to see how the nicknames "Chiefs", "Indians," and "Braves" are derogatory to Native Americans.

RiverDog wrote:My understanding is that it only applies to nicknames or mascots, not the actual name of the school. It's going to be expensive enough for the scores of schools to change signage, uniforms, etc.

One of the local schools here in the Tri Cities where I live, Kamiakin High School, the mascot is the Braves, and they have been very close with the Yakama Indian Tribe since back in the 70's when the school first opened, consulting them on the design of a totem pole, for example. The tribe responded with classroom visits to help teach history from a NA POV. They were able to get an exemption from the tribe to retain their nickname.

Yeah, it only applies to nicknames and mascots right now. The school I coach and teach at just transited from the Indians to the Riverhawks. It’s a difficult line to walk as I have talked to many local Natives about it. We have had a very close relationship with the local Cowlitz tribe for a century and almost all of the older tribal members were honored by the name. We had tribal members coming into the school, teaching their history and showing tribal building techniques. The Natives who were vocally against it were the younger generation (although it was a small minority). At the end the day, even though our school sits on the site of an old Cowlitz village they don’t have any reservation lands in our county or any adjacent counties (they have land in Clark county- the Iliani Casino) so we didn’t qualify for any exemptions. There are many Cowlitz tribal members who were very upset that we couldn’t remain the Indians and although we are trying to maintain that connection I can see it slipping away over time.

mykc14 wrote:Yeah, it only applies to nicknames and mascots right now. The school I coach and teach at just transited from the Indians to the Riverhawks. It’s a difficult line to walk as I have talked to many local Natives about it. We have had a very close relationship with the local Cowlitz tribe for a century and almost all of the older tribal members were honored by the name. We had tribal members coming into the school, teaching their history and showing tribal building techniques. The Natives who were vocally against it were the younger generation (although it was a small minority). At the end the day, even though our school sits on the site of an old Cowlitz village they don’t have any reservation lands in our county or any adjacent counties (they have land in Clark county- the Iliani Casino) so we didn’t qualify for any exemptions. There are many Cowlitz tribal members who were very upset that we couldn’t remain the Indians and although we are trying to maintain that connection I can see it slipping away over time.

That's one of the unintended consequences that our short sighted pols and others that support this cancel culture society can't seem to grasp. By changing mascots and removing monuments and symbols, you lose a teaching opportunity. Even the Robert E. Lee statute and stars and bars flags, of which I support removing simply because a majority, or at least a significant minority, are in favor of removal, could be re-purposed to include a fair and accurate accounting of history that people claim they're interested in. But the long-term effect is the opposite, an erasing or cleansing of history, hence the very accurate and entirely fitting term "cancel culture", where they'll end up getting their education off the internet or social media instead of getting an in person, in the flesh opportunity to learn such as the situation that you're talking about.

RiverDog wrote:That's one of the unintended consequences that our short sighted pols and others that support this cancel culture society can't seem to grasp. By changing mascots and removing monuments and symbols, you lose a teaching opportunity. Even the Robert E. Lee statute and stars and bars flags, of which I support removing simply because a majority, or at least a significant minority, are in favor of removal, could be re-purposed to include a fair and accurate accounting of history that people claim they're interested in. But the long-term effect is the opposite, an erasing or cleansing of history, hence the very accurate and entirely fitting term "cancel culture", where they'll end up getting their education off the internet or social media instead of getting an in person, in the flesh opportunity to learn such as the situation that you're talking about.

I don't think those statutes should have ever been built myself. Celebrating a guy who fought to destroy the country seems strange to me. I can only surmise that it was done as an FU to the North and a celebration of racial prejudice. I'd rip them down myself. I don't see a teachable opportunity. I see the statues as symbols of a Southern culture that did not want to give up on their view of race and the evil that came from that idea.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I don't think those statutes should have ever been built myself. Celebrating a guy who fought to destroy the country seems strange to me. I can only surmise that it was done as an FU to the North and a celebration of racial prejudice. I'd rip them down myself. I don't see a teachable opportunity. I see the statues as symbols of a Southern culture that did not want to give up on their view of race and the evil that came from that idea.

I can understand it being removed from a public square or in front of a courthouse, but I don't agree with them being torn down or reduced to scrap. I would prefer that they be moved to a Confederate cemetery, a museum, or Civil War battlefield.

I can't speak to the Robert E. Lee statute, but the Stars and Bars hasn't always been viewed as a racist symbol, at least not a majority as there is nowadays. Rather, it was more of a regional pride thing to identify someone as being from the South. Indeed, the Dukes of Hazard, an early 80's TV series, featured a Dodge Charger with a Confederate flag painted on the roof.

But the symbols aren't my main problem. It's these name and mascot changes that are absurd IMO.

RiverDog wrote:I can understand it being removed from a public square or in front of a courthouse, but I don't agree with them being torn down or reduced to scrap. I would prefer that they be moved to a Confederate cemetery, a museum, or Civil War battlefield.

I can't speak to the Robert E. Lee statute, but the Stars and Bars hasn't always been viewed as a racist symbol, at least not a majority as there is nowadays. Rather, it was more of a regional pride thing to identify someone as being from the South. Indeed, the Dukes of Hazard, an early 80's TV series, featured a Dodge Charger with a Confederate flag painted on the roof.

But the symbols aren't my main problem. It's these name and mascot changes that are absurd IMO.

I like you didn't think much of the Stars and Bars when I was young and watching the Dukes of Hazard. But now that I know what the Confederate Flag is, not sure why it's still flying in the country. It's the flag of traitors and people who fought to enslave other people. Southern Pride means what exactly? I support racism? I'm not even sure what Southern Pride means. Back when the Confederate Flag flew that flag meant "I support racism and slavery and I will destroy the Constitution to maintain my right to own and enslave people." I don't see the point of pretending it means something good at this point. Either the Southern folk are part of the United States or they aren't. They don't need some flag that represented something vile.

As far as the mascots and names, Redskin is likely a pejorative. I don't much see the problem with Chiefs, Braves, Indians, and the like. Then again how would I even know considering most of the native population has been wiped out, blended with the majority, and are all shoved on reservations with very little political or economic power. How do you even find out much what a people think that have been reduced to 1% of the total United States population in a land they originally inhabited? There are more people from elsewhere of just about any group than there are the native peoples that once inhabited this land. They pretty much been destroyed to the point only various remnants of them exist in various areas in this land with nowhere to really expand to. How do you find out what they think when many are part of unassociated tribes and spread in pockets throughout the land on reservations?

How many native people you even know? Most people claim some native blood in them, but there are very few actual natives still living in America. Sounds like about 5 million natives still living here. A little over 1% of the population. Talk about being wiped out as a people. I can't think of many places where the native population has been so thoroughly hammered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States#:~:text=Today%2C%20there%20are%20over%20five,Americans%20in%20the%20United%20States.

I kind of leave it alone. It's not worth it to worry too much if even a vocal minority wants them changed. No people in world I know of have been quite as hammered as the natives of America. Almost a forgotten people who make up a small percentage of America and the world population. There are more people from other nations in America than the people that once inhabited this land. I cannot even imagine what it feels like as a people to have your land taken and your people so thoroughly reduced to such a small number.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I like you didn't think much of the Stars and Bars when I was young and watching the Dukes of Hazard. But now that I know what the Confederate Flag is, not sure why it's still flying in the country. It's the flag of traitors and people who fought to enslave other people. Southern Pride means what exactly? I support racism? I'm not even sure what Southern Pride means. Back when the Confederate Flag flew that flag meant "I support racism and slavery and I will destroy the Constitution to maintain my right to own and enslave people." I don't see the point of pretending it means something good at this point. Either the Southern folk are part of the United States or they aren't. They don't need some flag that represented something vile.

Did you realize that as Governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton signed into law a bill that honored the Confederate flag:

The state flag of Arkansas sports 25 white stars and four blue ones. And in 1987, while serving as governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton signed a bill affirming that one of those blue stars is there in honor of the Confederate States of America.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bill-cli ... _n_7638542

Aseahawkfan wrote:As far as the mascots and names, Redskin is likely a pejorative. I don't much see the problem with Chiefs, Braves, Indians, and the like. Then again how would I even know considering most of the native population has been wiped out, blended with the majority, and are all shoved on reservations with very little political or economic power. How do you even find out much what a people think that have been reduced to 1% of the total United States population in a land they originally inhabited? There are more people from elsewhere of just about any group than there are the native peoples that once inhabited this land. They pretty much been destroyed to the point only various remnants of them exist in various areas in this land with nowhere to really expand to. How do you find out what they think when many are part of unassociated tribes and spread in pockets throughout the land on reservations?

Reduced? Wiped out? They've willingly bred themselves into the non native population.

Aseahawkfan wrote:How many native people you even know? Most people claim some native blood in them, but there are very few actual natives still living in America. Sounds like about 5 million natives still living here. A little over 1% of the population. Talk about being wiped out as a people. I can't think of many places where the native population has been so thoroughly hammered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States#:~:text=Today%2C%20there%20are%20over%20five,Americans%20in%20the%20United%20States.

I kind of leave it alone. It's not worth it to worry too much if even a vocal minority wants them changed. No people in world I know of have been quite as hammered as the natives of America. Almost a forgotten people who make up a small percentage of America and the world population. There are more people from other nations in America than the people that once inhabited this land. I cannot even imagine what it feels like as a people to have your land taken and your people so thoroughly reduced to such a small number.

The requirement for membership in tribes sanction by the Bureau of Indian Affairs is 1/16th native blood. That's 4 generations in the past, or one of your 16 great-great grandparents. It's laughable, but they've had to set the bar that low in order to keep their tribes viable. So you're exactly right, it's extremely difficult if not impossible to get a true consensus of Native American opinion.

As far as how many people that I personally know that are NA's, I'm not sure. I went to college with a number of NA's, played pickup basketball with them, had classes with them, went to keggers with them. One of my mentors in my first job out of college was 50% Cherokee, but I don't know anyone within my current circle of friends that claims to be a NA as our genealogy isn't something that we normally discuss, and at 1/16th blood, I would imagine that there's a lot of people that are technically a native American but are unaware of it.

RiverDog wrote:Did you realize that as Governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton signed into law a bill that honored the Confederate flag:

The state flag of Arkansas sports 25 white stars and four blue ones. And in 1987, while serving as governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton signed a bill affirming that one of those blue stars is there in honor of the Confederate States of America.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bill-cli ... _n_7638542

Slimy Bill? Big surprise. What do I care what Slimy Bill thinks when he would change his tune to whatever netted him the most votes.

Reduced? Wiped out? They've willingly bred themselves into the non native population.

Willingly? How exactly do you interpret willingly? You get forced onto reservations at gunpoint by the U.S. Military, your land taken, and all of it is well documented and you interpret this as willingly? Really? Talk about a guy who has spent almost no time studying what happened to the Native populations here. There was no willingly. There was only an acceptance that the land was lost and the had to endure it.

The requirement for membership in tribes sanction by the Bureau of Indian Affairs is 1/16th native blood. That's 4 generations in the past, or one of your 16 great-great grandparents. It's laughable, but they've had to set the bar that low in order to keep their tribes viable. So you're exactly right, it's extremely difficult if not impossible to get a true consensus of Native American opinion.

As far as how many people that I personally know that are NA's, I'm not sure. I went to college with a number of NA's, played pickup basketball with them, had classes with them, went to keggers with them. One of my mentors in my first job out of college was 50% Cherokee, but I don't know anyone within my current circle of friends that claims to be a NA as our genealogy isn't something that we normally discuss, and at 1/16th blood, I would imagine that there's a lot of people that are technically a native American but are unaware of it.

So you yourself know no natives in a land many tribes once populated from border to border. And that doesn't strike you as unusual considering even in Africa, Europe, Asia, and the like, the people there tend to be people who originally inhabited the land.

There was not willingly. There was merely acceptance of an end result they could not stop. Why do you post stuff like this when there is even a period in documented American history known as the Indian Wars.

The natives have little to no political or economic power and are not united people as the tribal cultures that existed in this land never formed nation states with the closest analogue tribal associations like The Cherokee Nation.

You're going to find out as you are now that many of the ideas that you think we're ok, were never ok with the people most affected by them. It was merely a resigned acceptance that the European ancestry majority didn't care what they thought and are only forced to care as minorities grow in economic and political power and forced them to care.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Willingly? How exactly do you interpret willingly? You get forced onto reservations at gunpoint by the U.S. Military, your land taken, and all of it is well documented and you interpret this as willingly? Really? Talk about a guy who has spent almost no time studying what happened to the Native populations here. There was no willingly. There was only an acceptance that the land was lost and the had to endure it.

You're talking about events that took place 150 years ago, 4-5 generations displaced from contemporary life. I'm talking about recent generations, those that grew up on reservations, not their great-great grandparents that were forced onto them. The more recent generations willingly left their places of birth and started interbreeding with non-natives, which is the primary reason why tribes have been gradually disappearing.

Aseahawkfan wrote:So you yourself know no natives in a land many tribes once populated from border to border. And that doesn't strike you as unusual considering even in Africa, Europe, Asia, and the like, the people there tend to be people who originally inhabited the land.

There was not willingly. There was merely acceptance of an end result the could not stop.

I didn't say that I didn't know any. I don't have any that don't KNOW OF any that are within my relatively small circle of current friends. It's not a topic that we discuss. FYI I live about 50 miles from the nearest reservation, so it shouldn't be a huge surprise that none are close friends of mine.

The Americas were the last two continents to be inhabited by man, having arrived about 15-20k years ago, and up until the 17th century when Europeans began to migrate here, were relatively sparsely populated by native people when compared to populations on the other continents and islands. In addition, the native Americans in this country, although they do have some physical differences to European characteristics, they are not on the same scale as differences between Europeans and Africans, Asians, and Aboriginals, so no, it's no big surprise that the natives in this country have blended into the general population to the point where there are very few with discernable physical differences that one can detect with the naked eye.

We're starting to veer off topic here, so if you like, we can continue this discussion over in the OT forum.

RiverDog wrote:You're talking about events that took place 150 years ago, 4-5 generations displaced from contemporary life. I'm talking about recent generations, those that grew up on reservations, not their great-great grandparents that were forced onto them. The more recent generations willingly left their places of birth and started interbreeding with non-natives, which is the primary reason why tribes have been gradually disappearing.

That's different than willingly. That's accepting the situation and adapting.

I didn't say that I didn't know any. I don't have any that don't KNOW OF any that are within my relatively small circle of current friends. It's not a topic that we discuss. FYI I live about 50 miles from the nearest reservation, so it shouldn't be a huge surprise that none are close friends of mine.

The Americas were the last two continents to be inhabited by man, having arrived about 15-20k years ago, and up until the 17th century when Europeans began to migrate here, were relatively sparsely populated by native people when compared to populations on the other continents and islands. In addition, the native Americans in this country, although they do have some physical differences to European characteristics, they are not on the same scale as differences between Europeans and Africans, Asians, and Aboriginals, so no, it's no big surprise that the natives in this country have blended into the general population to the point where there are very few with discernable physical differences that one can detect with the naked eye.

We're starting to veer off topic here, so if you like, we can continue this discussion over in the OT forum.

This is one of those topics will never be able to cover on a forum. The depth of the conversation and the differences between people of Latin, Central, and North America alone would require serious discussion. The Eskimos as an example are last I read closer to the genetics of folk from China. There is a huge amount of genetic variation in every area you listed and I can't even be sure what you mean by the physical differences not being on the same scale. They were definitely as different when it comes to genetic variation. You definitely see a lot more prominent native features in Latin and Central America because the native populations were larger and more able to sustain their genetics than in North America.

The native peoples have very little political or economic power in America, less than most other major groups at this point.

And I don't think it's a big deal to change some names of sports teams if some vocal minority is unhappy. About the best argument I can think of for not changing is the majority of words used are Anglicization of native meanings for certain words that differed according to tribe and there is no real collective idea of a Chief or Brave or Indian. Redskin was often used as pejorative term. And it's more the symbols that some find offensive than the words themselves. I'm not sure how you keep the names and make less offensive symbols.

Aseahawkfan wrote:That's different than willingly. That's accepting the situation and adapting.

Call it whatever terms that floats your boat. It's a voluntary act vs. an involuntary one. They got married to non-natives because they fell in love with them, and over the course of time, diluted NA blood to the point where their common identity as NA's has virtually disappeared.

Aseahawkfan wrote:There is a huge amount of genetic variation in every area you listed and I can't even be sure what you mean by the physical differences not being on the same scale.

I didn't say genetic differences. I said physical characteristics, like skin color amongst Africans and Aboriginals and eyes and facial features of Asians. They're obvious physical differences that one can detect on a person from some distance. Especially today with as much of interbreeding that has occurred, you cannot differentiate by eyesight between a native American and a non Native like you can an African or Asian. I had a Hispanic friend that used to brag about being able to go fishing on a reservation and never being challenged to prove his identity. It used to be a joke, like if you went on a winter vacation in the Caribbean, you came back looking like a native due to the suntan.

Aseahawkfan wrote:And I don't think it's a big deal to change some names of sports teams if some vocal minority is unhappy. About the best argument I can think of for not changing is the majority of words used are Anglicization of native meanings for certain words that differed according to tribe and there is no real collective idea of a Chief or Brave or Indian. Redskin was often used as pejorative term. And it's more the symbols that some find offensive than the words themselves. I'm not sure how you keep the names and make less offensive symbols.

I agree that some of the symbols used by some of the teams with NA teams were blatantly offensive. The one that sticks out the most in my mind is the Cleveland Indians used to have a guy in the left field bleachers called "Chief Knockahoma", dressed in a NA costume that used to beat on a drum when Cleveland runners got on base, and they had this almost cartoon figure with a big, teethy grinning NA they wore on their caps. But I have a much harder time understanding the problem with other symbols, such as the arrowhead displayed on the KC Chief's helmet, or a spear adorned with feathers. Someone would have to explain to me what's offensive about those types of symbols outside of the fact that they're commonly associated with NA's.

IMO a lot of these objections are more about attention seeking rather than being truly offended by the nicknames/symbols.

Phillip Morris used to make cigarettes' called Commanders

RiverDog wrote:Call it whatever terms that floats your boat. It's a voluntary act vs. an involuntary one. They got married to non-natives because they fell in love with them, and over the course of time, diluted NA blood to the point where their common identity as NA's has virtually disappeared.

I do not see how you can say it was voluntary. That's just BS. They were geocided, driven onto reservations, and their land was taken. Being assimilated is not voluntary. It's being assimilated. You with this romanticized BS version of events about falling in love and this rubbish is some of the biggest horsecrap I've seen you post. There is piles and piles of evidence of this forced assimilation. So you are the one calling it "voluntary" when I call it what happens when you get assimilated.

The reduction of Native blood was a combination of genocide, disease, assimilation voluntary and involuntary.

If you don't want to admit this occurred and it allows you to sleep better at night spreading that lie about voluntary, have at it.

To me what happened to the Native Americans was forced colonization. It's why they have very little political and economic power.

I didn't say genetic differences. I said physical characteristics, like skin color amongst Africans and Aboriginals and eyes and facial features of Asians. They're obvious physical differences that one can detect on a person from some distance. Especially today with as much of interbreeding that has occurred, you cannot differentiate by eyesight between a native American and a non Native like you can an African or Asian. I had a Hispanic friend that used to brag about being able to go fishing on a reservation and never being challenged to prove his identity. It used to be a joke, like if you went on a winter vacation in the Caribbean, you came back looking like a native due to the suntan.

Depends on the tribe and the area. In North America the Native blood is so small that it takes up a small percentage of the population. So how would you even know?

IMO a lot of these objections are more about attention seeking rather than being truly offended by the nicknames/symbols.

You get to say this because you are part of the majority that assimilated the Native population. You don't have to worry about them and can completely ignore them as has been done for years. What do you care? It's just some team names you don't think are a big deal because you've never been part of a group that has had their land taken, got shoved on reservations, or forcibly assimilated where your option was assimilate or die off because there is nowhere to expand in the land your people once populated.

This is why I spend time contemplating what it would be like to be other people, to imagine having the land taken by a group with different ideas of ownership, warfare, and control. Then you see a bit what they had to deal with. It's why a group who once populated this land from border to border is now reduced to around 5 million people who can claim native blood.

Not this BS idea you have them just all falling in love with Europeans and voluntarily assimilating because they were just so happy.

Whatever floats my boat is not lying BS that completely ignores documented history. That is for certain.

I think ASF is on track with my understanding.
European countries traveled the world destroying societies and cultures in search of greater wealth and power.
Both Americas, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East have all bee subject to European abuses. Some were populous enough to withstand the
cultural onslaught but most were not and suffered greatly because of it. The indigenous peoples of NA were thought to be a hindrance to
progress and were isolated from the settlers. They were given lands for them to live on with exclusive use - unless riches were found on
those lands. They were then pushed off of them to other less valuable areas while the settlers exploited the wealth for their own benefit.

NorthHawk wrote:I think ASF is on track with my understanding.
European countries traveled the world destroying societies and cultures in search of greater wealth and power.
Both Americas, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East have all bee subject to European abuses. Some were populous enough to withstand the
cultural onslaught but most were not and suffered greatly because of it. The indigenous peoples of NA were thought to be a hindrance to
progress and were isolated from the settlers. They were given lands for them to live on with exclusive use - unless riches were found on
those lands. They were then pushed off of them to other less valuable areas while the settlers exploited the wealth for their own benefit.

That is basically what happened. The only addendum I would add is the first people colonized were the Europeans, but it was so long ago that people forget the first people screwed by the war-like power groups from Europe were the people in Europe. In these discussions there seems to be a general idea of European or white men abuses and it's way more complex when you realize Europe was at one time similar to other tribal nations, but you had colonial invaders come along like the Anglo-Saxons and the Romans who took over and assimilated those regions. It is power groups that do most of the vile crap, not the common human, but their rulers that are the ones who installed European hierarchies that oppressed Europeans and built the systems they knew how to use to conquer and control other lands. It was not voluntary for Europeans any more than it was voluntary anywhere else.

As far as its applicability for this topic, Redskins historically is a pejorative term. It has always seemed strange it became the name of a football team.