2014: Year of the fainting couch

[lilpixieofterror]

No, I don't believe you're self-loathing, and I can't comment further on this regarding you, but as for Sparko, I've seen his Facebook pictures from this forum's Facebook page, and I know that he looks 100% white. He may have had Native American ancestry somewhere along the line, but he's far enough removed from it that he wouldn't qualify under the researchers' target audience. Plenty of people will claim things like "I'm 1/16th Cherokee on my mother's side," but they didn't grow up in Native American culture at all, and besides, 1/16th means that they had one great-great grandparent who was Cherokee. Unless their ancestors all had children as teenagers, they probably weren't even alive at the same time as that Cherokee ancestor.

You do know that many different groups of people reported that the Native American's had blue eyed and blond children, right? I wasn't aware you could tell somebodies ancestors, just by a quick look at the color of their skin. When did you gain this amazing ability? I happen to have inherited blonde hair and green eyes, but my brother is quite a bit darker than I am and happened to have inherited a darker tone than I did (in fact, many people still have a hard time believing we are brother and sister). It is quite possible to look white, but have many different non white ancestors.

Then you can ask the Irish why they haven't historically objected to the name.

Many Irish don't care for the idea of them being characterized as having a temper and willing to fight, at the drop of a hat. Yet, that is often the parody picture of an Irishman. Why is it ok to depict white people, in a non flattering light, but it becomes wrong when the light is directed at a non white group? Can you explain this or does this only work for people who are not white? Please explain the difference between the 'Fighting Irish' and the 'Redskins' and why one is racist and the other isn't.

[fm93]

No need to explain something to you that is so apparent. If you can't see it, I can't help you.

If it's so apparent, then should you not easily be able to just point it out to me?

Those are just the ones I decided to pay attention to.

Okay, I see that the first one could've seemed a bit condescending. I apologize for that and will try to find better ways of phrasing in the future. I can also see why you might've thought the second one was condescending, but Sparko really did seem devoid of compassion and a willingness to understand--I mean, he explicitly pointed to the option of being callous and said "Yeah, that." However, I'm still not sure why you think the third one was condescending. I had been expressing a pet peeve of mine with Zymologist; I wasn't declaring myself the sole arbiter of what's objectively fine. I was just telling him that it doesn't bother me when people critique something after first accurately representing it. I apologized for the fourth one earlier.

I am sure you will give a tortured reason why none of those things are condescending.

But as you can see above, I didn't do that. To the contrary, I admitted that some of them probably did come off as condescending, and for the ones on which I disagreed with you, my explanation is not at all tortured.

And now, if I may segue into another question: why do you respond with such hostility and presumption towards me? I've noticed that multiple times, you've said things like "I am sure that you will/won't do something" after responding to me or to another poster talking about me, or things like "It's not like anything will be learned anyway." What's with that? It almost seems as if you've already made up my mind about what I will or won't do, rather than just seeing how things actually happen. As we've just seen, you were wrong about your presumptions. And as for the hostility, even if I've inadvertently come off as condescending towards you, I've never been overtly hostile towards you, so from where does this attitude towards me come from? You don't know me at all other than a few random posts on the Internet, yet you appear to be so bold and confident, and even insistent on pre-judging me.

[lilpixieofterror]

I know I haven't been here long, but I have to ask. Sparko, how many people have accused you of being too white?

Funny thing is, there's quite a few reports of different Native American groups being reported as having blonde haired and blue eyed children throughout the 16th-20th century. I wasn't aware that you could tell somebodies ancestor background, just because they happen to be white. I always thought that people, of mixed ancestry, could end up inheriting traits from one side or both sides. There is white Latino's and white Native Americans running around. SP is sounding kind of racist, for assuming that you are automatically 'white', just because you happen to have inherited traits from the white side of your ancestry.

[Sparko]

I know I haven't been here long, but I have to ask. Sparko, how many people have accused you of being too white?

LOL!

I wonder if Square_peg even realizes that with every post he makes, he is proving us right about him?

[lilpixieofterror]

So you accuse me of making bald assertions and say that I've made mistakes, but when I ask you to please show me where I've done that, you don't actually provide examples. That technically means that you're guilty of making bald assertions yourself.

You've been shown your mistakes, multiple times and several different ways (IE you seem to assume you could tell people's race, just by seeing some pictures). Of course, you'll never see yourself as wrong because you're perfect and never make a single error or mistake, right?

But I don't treat people who disagree with me poorly. To the contrary, I've been civil in the vast majority of my posts, whereas you frequently throw insults like "thick skulled" and accuse me of hypocrisy while never actually showing where this hypocrisy exists. If anything, it seems that it is you who treat people who disagree with you poorly, and who seems incapable of getting along with those who disagree with you. Is it not? You can certainly try to argue that my arguments are wrong, but there's no case to be made that I've often been hateful and and thrown insults, because it's empirically clear that I haven't been.

Sure you do, it just depends on what they disagree with you on. If they disagree with you on your claims of racism, you call them a bunch of names and assume they are insensitive and don't care about others. You've accused me of this several times, but when I explain why I think they are wrong... you ignore it and repeat your same tired assertions (as though those repeated assertions are arguments). Of course, what I find funny is how you sound kind of racist, when you say somebody who happens to have white skin, isn't who they claim to be. I assure you, I know my own ancestry and I'm sure Sparko does too. Both my husband and I do have American Native ancestors and while I might have blonde hair, green eyes, and light skin toned... there's plenty of evidence of there being white skinned American Indians too. So what sort of 'look' does a person need... in order for their opinion to count? Just wondering...

Well, see, I haven't accused "everybody" of misreading my posts. It's usually just you and Sparko. Cow Poke, KingsGambit, whag, and a host of other people generally seem to comprehend my posts just fine. So when you implicitly say that I accuse "everybody" of misreading my posts, that's exaggerated to the point of complete inaccuracy.

Yep, and those just happen to be people who dare disagree with you. I understand you, just find sweety. I've watched you before... when they start to disagree with you, the "DUH! You're not reading my post!" spills out of your mouth. Why is it that anybody, who doesn't agree with you, automatically accused of not reading your post? IE you're doing it to Jesse right now and you seem oblivious to it too. It would be funny, if you were not dead serious, but why is it that anybody, who doesn't agree with you, is automatically accused of not reading your post (even when it's clear you don't read their post, with all the mistakes and assumptions you make about them).

Not really. I can point out examples in which it's indisputably clear that it's another poster who misread my post, rather than me failing to make something clear and valid. For instance, that time I said "I'm not defending affirmative action, because I don't think it's perfect, but if we don't have it at all, some people of color believe they'll be unable to escape conditions of dire poverty" and Sparko launched into a tirade accusing me of having said "ALL black people are poor and unable to do anything for themselves." Or that time I said "I don't believe voter ID laws are racist..." and you said I believe voter ID laws are racist.

Pull up the specific thread, with the specific quote because I caught you, red handed, misrepresenting my post, right in this very thread, so sorry, but you are guilty of the same behavior you accuse others of or can you please show where I specifically said that YOU personally started thread to whine about me. Go ahead, show where I said that or do you just want to admit already that you are as guilty of not reading post, as you attack others for? Turnabout is fair play, don't you agree? If you refuse to read my post carefully, don't expect me to return something to you that you refuse to return to me.

I didn't make it up. You said "Soon, he'll start whining on threads in the psychotherapy room how he should be able to ignore you two as well for daring to disagree with him." I guess you meant "will begin to whine on threads that already exist," but it's somewhat ambiguous--you could've also meant "he'll start threads in the psychotherapy room to express whining."

Sorry idiot, but you can't read because here is what I said:

he'll start whining on threads

What does that part say, idiot? I took every precaution for you to READ what I said or are you STILL going to avoid admitting you're wrong because you just can't admit you might of made a mistake? I specifically said you will whine ON THREADS (repeat ON THREADS since you can't read) not that you will START THREADS. Now, try again, what does the part I highlighted say or do you need more lessons in basic reading comprehension? Again, you want to be a jerk, favor returned. Do you like it when you get treated with the same condensation tone, you treat others with? You deserved this, so enjoy the bed you made for yourself or you could try admitting you made a mistake or is that beyond your abilities?

As shown above, I certainly can, but your line contained a bit of ambiguity.

Nope, I said you will whine ON THREADS you twit. Again, you deserve this. Favor returned. When you can show me respect, you will get respect in return. Until that time, enjoy your attitude, hypocrite. No where did I say one word about you starting threads. Not once. Can you at least admit that I didn't say that and you ASSUMED it or are you incapable of admitting you're wrong (at least to me).

I wasn't aware that saying "it's hard to interpret vague insults" is itself an insult. And I can certainly aim to better understand people first before I post, but I find myself inclined to point out that whereas I will generally ask "Could you please explain what you mean by that" (see my discussions in other threads with Zymologist, for instance) if I feel that I don't understand something, I can't recall ever seeing you do that--instead, I only remember you responding by firing off insults.

Because you deserve it, with your own brand of smug condensation that is present in all of your post. Again, you deserve it. I tried being nice to you, until you started with the accusations, so I returned to you the same thing you did to me. What's the problem, do you not like getting treated with the same attitude you earned?

It's certainly possible that I might not be communicating clearly enough, but again:

1) Most of the time here, most people do not misunderstand what I mean. It's usually just you and Sparko. I find it hard to conclude that it's me who's doing a poor job of communicating when so many other people do understand my posts.

Every time I read a debate you do, you often end up accusing others of not 'reading your post'. IE what you are doing to Jesse, right this very moment.

2) If there are instances in which I legitimately did a poor job of clearly conveying my point, could you please just ask me to clarify what I mean, instead of responding with such hostility?

Than stop being a condensing jerk and I'll stop returning the same attitude you give onto others. IE accusing Sparko of being 'too white'. Really? You don't see that as being a jerk move, at all?

Technically, there's nothing wrong with seeing the worst in others. You sometimes have to see the worst in others if you want an accurate picture of the world. I believe you might be referring to only seeing the worst in others, or seeing something and always assuming the worst possible scenario or motive. But...I generally do NOT assume the worst or only see the worst in others. And so I have to ask: what specifically did I say that makes you think I have this attitude? When I said Sparko lacked compassion and empathy? I made that statement on the basis of clear evidence of him obviously not exhibiting compassion and empathy. I didn't just arbitrarily decide to say that he lacked those qualities based on something ambiguous.

You don't understand the concept of a hyperbole, do you? Do you even know what compassion and empathy looks like or do you only recognize your own brand and nobody else's counts?

I've already addressed part of this above. As for the last part, no, I don't agree. First of all, I generally don't personally insult you, but instead am often civil, so when you respond to me with such hostility, that isn't turnabout, but rather gratuitous meanness. Second of all, even if I did always insult you, and even if I was always the one at fault for communication gaps, how are you a better person for doing the same things in the same ways?

Civil? Sure, if you count your passive aggressive behavior as being 'civil' I guess you could call yourself civil, but sorry... that isn't 'civil' at all. That is being aggressive, while trying to make yourself look like you're not aggressive. IE what right do you have to determine how 'white' a person looks or doesn't look? What sort of look does one need, in order not to be counted as 'white'? Can you please explain how this works because I would think that is quite messed up and rather rude to say to somebody.

[fm93]

You do know that many different groups of people reported that the Native American's had blue eyed and blond children, right? I wasn't aware you could tell somebodies ancestors, just by a quick look at the color of their skin. When did you gain this amazing ability? I happen to have inherited blonde hair and green eyes, but my brother is quite a bit darker than I am and happened to have inherited a darker tone than I did (in fact, many people still have a hard time believing we are brother and sister). It is quite possible to look white, but have many different non white ancestors.

Huh? I didn't say that "you could tell somebody's ancestors just by a quick look at the color of their skin." I know that you can't--that's why no one who looked at Sparko would think "This guy must've had Native American ancestors," even if he did. Besides, my overall point was this: did Sparko actually grow up on a reservation, or live in a household with full exposure to Native American culture? If not, then he isn't part of who the researchers had in mind when they conducted that poll. What significance is there to claim to be Native American if one didn't actually have personal exposure to Native American culture?

Many Irish don't care for the idea of them being characterized as having a temper and willing to fight, at the drop of a hat. Yet, that is often the parody picture of an Irishman. Why is it ok to depict white people, in a non flattering light

Who said that I personally think it's okay?

but it becomes wrong when the light is directed at a non white group? Can you explain this or does this only work for people who are not white? Please explain the difference between the 'Fighting Irish' and the 'Redskins' and why one is racist and the other isn't.

Keep in mind that this isn't my personal opinion...from what I understand, by the time Notre Dame formally adopted the moniker "Fighting Irish," the Irish-American population had achieved a significant degree of acceptance in American society. The country wasn't nearly as hostile to the Irish as it once was, so at that point, the many Irish fans of Notre Dame figured they could re-brand the phrase "Fighting Irish" from "The Irish are prone to belligerence and violence" to "The Irish have a tough, tenacious fighting spirit that allowed them to overcome the hardships and injustice that they'd previously faced."

However, many Native Americans do not seem to believe that their race has achieved a similar level of acceptance, and so they still consider "redskin" to be hurtful, disparaging, and counter to acceptance in society.

[lilpixieofterror]

LOL!

I wonder if Square_peg even realizes that with every post he makes, he is proving us right about him?

And of course, he accuses us of lacking 'empathy and compassion'. Sounds like a rather jack ass move to me, if you ask me to pretty much say, "Sorry, you're too white to be counted as a Native American." Gosh... and he has the nerve to say others lack empathy and compassion?

[Sparko]

Well if I am too "white" to have an opinion or knowledge of the issue, then he is too "yellow" to have an opinion on it (he said he was asian, I am not trying to be racist)

But here is some history of my ancestry from one of my relatives. I also have some black and other races mixed in too.

http://sparksgenealogy.net/melungeons.html

[lilpixieofterror]

Huh? I didn't say that "you could tell somebody's ancestors just by a quick look at the color of their skin."

So you did not say:

"I've seen his Facebook pictures from this forum's Facebook page, and I know that he looks 100% white."

Do you have any idea how offensive and outright racist that ends up sounding? You accuse others of lacking in empathy and compassion, but you say stuff like that? Wow...

I know that you can't--that's why no one who looked at Sparko would think "This guy must've had Native American ancestors," even if he did. Besides, my overall point was this: did Sparko actually grow up on a reservation, or live in a household with full exposure to Native American culture? If not, then he isn't part of who the researchers had in mind when they conducted that poll. What significance is there to claim to be Native American if one didn't actually have personal exposure to Native American culture?

I didn't grow up on a reservation, but my grandmother did expose all of us grandchildren to some of our Native American culture. What sort of percentage, does one need to be, in order for these researchers to count? Plenty of American Indians do not live on reservations SP. Ever meet any of them?

Who said that I personally think it's okay?

Did you not say:

"Then you can ask the Irish why they haven't historically objected to the name."

The Irish didn't always get the best treatment, back in the day there SP. The Irish were treated pretty darn bad, back in the late 19th and early 20th century, so nobody really cared of they objected or not. I'm just curious about how far we're going to take this. So I guess the answer is that making parodies of Irishmen is ok, as so long as not too many people object to the name? Is that where you're going with this?

Keep in mind that this isn't my personal opinion...from what I understand, by the time Notre Dame formally adopted the moniker "Fighting Irish," the Irish-American population had achieved a significant degree of acceptance in American society. The country wasn't nearly as hostile to the Irish as it once was, so at that point, the many Irish fans of Notre Dame figured they could re-brand the phrase "Fighting Irish" from "The Irish are prone to belligerence and violence" to "The Irish have a tough, tenacious fighting spirit that allowed them to overcome the hardships and injustice that they'd previously faced."

And the same as been done to the Redskin label too, but that seems to be ignored.

BTW that isn't true at all, here is what the official web site says:

The most generally accepted explanation is that the press coined the nickname as a characterization of Notre Dame athletic teams, their never-say-die fighting spirit and the Irish qualities of grit, determination and tenacity. The term likely began as an abusive expression tauntingly directed toward the athletes from the small, private, Catholic institution. Notre Dame alumnus Francis Wallace popularized it in his New York Daily News columns in the 1920s.
http://www.und.com/trads/nd-m-fb-name.html

It started off as an insult and you can say, "But it isn't today" I wasn't aware the 'Redskins' mocker was an insult today either, but that sure doesn't stop people from acting all offended about it though. Again, that doesn't tell us anything. Why is one situation right and the other is wrong? How many people need to end up getting offended before anybody makes a big deal about it? You haven't answered this question, at all SP, so should all of these mockers be banned and we just call sports teams by their cities/ colleges and that's it?

However, many Native Americans do not seem to believe that their race has achieved a similar level of acceptance, and so they still consider "redskin" to be hurtful, disparaging, and counter to acceptance in society.

And yet, historically the term hasn't been associated with being disparaging, at all. Don't let the facts get in the way. They never do, eh? So the bottom line is quite simple... it only matters when enough people end up getting offended or at least enough people get offended that somebody makes a huge stink about it. Before that time, nobody cares. Got it. Thanks for showing why I find this whole debate as being complete and total contradictory nonsense. Couldn't of done it without you.

[Sparko]

Besides, my overall point was this: did Sparko actually grow up on a reservation, or live in a household with full exposure to Native American culture? If not, then he isn't part of who the researchers had in mind when they conducted that poll. What significance is there to claim to be Native American if one didn't actually have personal exposure to Native American culture?

wow so basically you just said someone isn't a real Indian unless they grew up on a reservation? And you are here claiming to be the one who stands up against racism and defending those who are offended.

wow.

Jesse was right, you really don't read your own posts, do you?

[fm93]

You've been shown your mistakes, multiple times and several different ways (IE you seem to assume you could tell people's race, just by seeing some pictures). Of course, you'll never see yourself as wrong because you're perfect and never make a single error or mistake, right?

I've admitted to making mistakes before. I've also apologized to Jesse after he specifically showed me some instances in which he said I came across as condescending, and I saw how he might've come to that conclusion. So right there, your claim that I never see myself as wrong has been proven false.

Sure you do, it just depends on what they disagree with you on. If they disagree with you on your claims of racism, you call them a bunch of names

False. I've never called anyone names based on that.

and assume they are insensitive and don't care about others. You've accused me of this several times, but when I explain why I think they are wrong... you ignore it and repeat your same tired assertions (as though those repeated assertions are arguments).

To use a specific example, I didn't "assume" that Sparko was insensitive--I said he was because he proved that he was. Also, I don't mean that he's literally always insensitive, but rather that in this context, he was being deeply insensitive.

Of course, what I find funny is how you sound kind of racist, when you say somebody who happens to have white skin, isn't who they claim to be.

This is incorrect. If it was correct, that would mean I said that Sparko ISN'T Native American at all, but that's not what happened. Instead, I acknowledged his ancestry, and then said that 1) no one who looked at him would think he had Native American ancestry, and 2) unless he actually grew up with exposure to Native American culture, he isn't who the researchers of that poll had in mind.

I know people who are full-blooded Chinese but were adopted at birth by white guardians, grew up in a white household, and never went to China or learned how to speak Chinese or anything like that. They had no exposure to Chinese culture, and so they wouldn't really be the right people to ask if you wanted to know what Chinese people felt about something pertaining to Chinese culture.

I assure you, I know my own ancestry and I'm sure Sparko does too. Both my husband and I do have American Native ancestors and while I might have blonde hair, green eyes, and light skin toned... there's plenty of evidence of there being white skinned American Indians too. So what sort of 'look' does a person need... in order for their opinion to count? Just wondering...

As I've explained above, you've focused too much on a peripheral point and ignored my main point--did he grow up with exposure to Native American culture? For someone's opinion to count regarding something related to Native American culture, someone has to actually be familiar with Native American culture.

Yep, and those just happen to be people who dare disagree with you. I understand you, just find sweety.

If you're going to condescendingly call me "sweety" or "your majesty," please don't incessantly accuse me of being condescending. Especially since you've also accused me of being hypocritical.

I've watched you before... when they start to disagree with you, the "DUH! You're not reading my post!" spills out of your mouth. Why is it that anybody, who doesn't agree with you, automatically accused of not reading your post? IE you're doing it to Jesse right now and you seem oblivious to it too. It would be funny, if you were not dead serious, but why is it that anybody, who doesn't agree with you, is automatically accused of not reading your post (even when it's clear you don't read their post, with all the mistakes and assumptions you make about them).

Well, see, I explicitly said that most people here actually understand my posts just fine, and that it's usually just a small, select group that consistently misunderstands my posts. If most people have read my posts correctly, it logically follows that it's not the case that "ANYBODY" who disagrees didn't read it. Yet here you are saying things like "ANYBODY who doesn't agree with you is automatically accused of not reading the post." What can I take away from this observation, other than that in this instance, it's you who didn't seem to read the specific section of the post? Why else would you keep saying "ANYBODY" when that's clearly not the case?

Pull up the specific thread, with the specific quote

Sure.. I'll even bold the relevant part for you. From this post:

Out of curiosity, do you think that voter ID laws are racist?

I personally don't think they were intended to be, but at the same time, I do think it's possible that some people may support such laws for racially influenced reasons. Either way, I was mostly challenging seer's questionable logic, not making a definitive statement.

Do you have any hard evidence of racism or am I suppose to believe it is racism because you said so?

Zymologist asked me if I thought voter ID laws are racist. I very clearly said that I don't believe they are. You actually quoted that post in which I said that, and then accused me of having said that it IS racism. It's possible that some misunderstandings might have been failures on my part, but in that instance, the fault was clearly not on me.

Sorry idiot, but you can't read because here is what I said:

he'll start whining on threads

What does that part say, idiot? I took every precaution for you to READ what I said or are you STILL going to avoid admitting you're wrong because you just can't admit you might of made a mistake?

How can I "still" be avoiding admitting to error when I did admit to error? Yes, that misunderstanding was a failure on my part. It's just that you accused me of having made that claim up, and I was just refuting that by pointing out how the misunderstanding happened.

I specifically said you will whine ON THREADS (repeat ON THREADS since you can't read) not that you will START THREADS. Now, try again, what does the part I highlighted say or do you need more lessons in basic reading comprehension? Again, you want to be a jerk, favor returned.

I don't want to be a jerk, though. It seems that you do, however, since you keep resorting to juvenile insults like "idiot" and whatnot.

Do you like it when you get treated with the same condensation tone, you treat others with?

It's clearly not the same tone, since I wasn't the one hostilely screaming "IDIOT!" and "twit" at others.

You deserved this

No I didn't, as I've just shown.

so enjoy the bed you made for yourself or you could try admitting you made a mistake or is that beyond your abilities?

I did admit to mistakes, as I've already shown.

Nope, I said you will whine ON THREADS you twit. Again, you deserve this. Favor returned. When you can show me respect

*searches own posts for "idiot," "twit," and other insults
*no results found

You've been much, much more disrespectful of me than I've been of you. This is hardly "returning" any favor.

Because you deserve it, with your own brand of smug condensation

I admit to being amused by the fact that you insult my intelligence yet seem to be unaware of the difference between "condescension" and "condensation."

that is present in all of your post. Again, you deserve it. I tried being nice to you, until you started with the accusations, so I returned to you the same thing you did to me. What's the problem, do you not like getting treated with the same attitude you earned?

You've responded to me in a rather mean and condescending manner yourself for quite a while. I certainly don't recall you ever being nice to me.

Than stop being a condensing jerk

Could you maybe stop being condescending to me yourself, with your phrases like "your majesty" and "sweety" and whatnot? Because I never acted like that towards you.

and I'll stop returning the same attitude you give onto others. IE accusing Sparko of being 'too white'. Really? You don't see that as being a jerk move, at all?

As I've explained, that isn't what I was saying about Sparko.

You don't understand the concept of a hyperbole, do you? Do you even know what compassion and empathy looks like or do you only recognize your own brand and nobody else's counts?

Well, how exactly does Sparko pointing to the option of being callous and insensitive and saying "Yeah, that" count as compassion or empathy? How does Sparko framing the Redskins controversy as "a bunch of liberal ninnies decided to be offended over something" count as compassion or empathy, especially when the reality is that quite a few Native Americans themselves have objected to the name for over 40 years?

Civil? Sure, if you count your passive aggressive behavior as being 'civil' I guess you could call yourself civil, but sorry... that isn't 'civil' at all. That is being aggressive, while trying to make yourself look like you're not aggressive. IE what right do you have to determine how 'white' a person looks or doesn't look? What sort of look does one need, in order not to be counted as 'white'? Can you please explain how this works because I would think that is quite messed up and rather rude to say to somebody.

As I've explained, that isn't what I was saying about Sparko, and since that appeared to be your only listed example of me supposedly being "passive-aggressive," you currently have not shown that I've been passive-aggressive. And even if I was, responding to passive-aggressiveness with outright hostility and overt aggressiveness goes way beyond "returning a favor" or "eye for eye."

[rogue06]

wow so basically you just said someone isn't a real Indian unless they grew up on a reservation? And you are here claiming to be the one who stands up against racism and defending those who are offended.

wow.

Jesse was right, you really don't read your own posts, do you?

If that is indeed the standard then Barack Obama isn't really black since he was raised by whites (his father left almost immediately after he was born) in environments where there aren't exactly a lot of folks of African descent.

[fm93]

So you did not say:

"I've seen his Facebook pictures from this forum's Facebook page, and I know that he looks 100% white."

Do you have any idea how offensive and outright racist that ends up sounding? [

How is it offensive to point out the empirical fact that Sparko looks white? That's not even saying that he IS completely white, just that he looks like it.

You accuse others of lacking in empathy and compassion, but you say stuff like that?

Non-sequitur.

I didn't grow up on a reservation, but my grandmother did expose all of us grandchildren to some of our Native American culture. What sort of percentage, does one need to be, in order for these researchers to count? Plenty of American Indians do not live on reservations SP. Ever meet any of them?

If you grew up with Native American culture, then you would be included in the group that the researchers had in mind. That's all I was saying.

Did you not say:

"Then you can ask the Irish why they haven't historically objected to the name."

The Irish didn't always get the best treatment, back in the day there SP. The Irish were treated pretty darn bad, back in the late 19th and early 20th century, so nobody really cared of they objected or not. I'm just curious about how far we're going to take this. So I guess the answer is that making parodies of Irishmen is ok, as so long as not too many people object to the name? Is that where you're going with this?

I know this. I was referring to why they haven't objected after Notre Dame officially adopted the name--which happened after the days of mistreatment.

And the same as been done to the Redskin label too, but that seems to be ignored.

Huh? The fact that entire organizations and tribes have said that they consider the term to be a derogatory slur means that it has not widely been re-branded.

BTW that isn't true at all, here is what the official web site says:

The most generally accepted explanation is that the press coined the nickname as a characterization of Notre Dame athletic teams, their never-say-die fighting spirit and the Irish qualities of grit, determination and tenacity. The term likely began as an abusive expression tauntingly directed toward the athletes from the small, private, Catholic institution. Notre Dame alumnus Francis Wallace popularized it in his New York Daily News columns in the 1920s.
http://www.und.com/trads/nd-m-fb-name.html

It started off as an insult and you can say, "But it isn't today"

This is actually complementary to what I said, rather than contradictory. The phrase "Fighting Irish" originally had insulting connotations during a specific time period in which Irish Americans were treated cruelly. But by the 1920s, Irish Americans had gained significantly more acceptance, and so the notion of "Fighting Irish" could be seen less as an insult and more as a tribute. I believe the press would've included some folks of Irish descent.

I wasn't aware the 'Redskins' mocker was an insult today either, but that sure doesn't stop people from acting all offended about it though. Again, that doesn't tell us anything. Why is one situation right and the other is wrong? How many people need to end up getting offended before anybody makes a big deal about it? You haven't answered this question, at all SP, so should all of these mockers be banned and we just call sports teams by their cities/ colleges and that's it?

Why exactly do I have to answer this question? I didn't even take a definitive stance either way on the controversy. I was mostly just pointing out the context and circumstances.

And yet, historically the term hasn't been associated with being disparaging, at all. Don't let the facts get in the way.

The fact that several dictionaries specifically denote the term as being "disparaging and offensive slang" belies your claim.

"Don't let the facts get in the way," indeed.

They never do, eh? So the bottom line is quite simple... it only matters when enough people end up getting offended or at least enough people get offended that somebody makes a huge stink about it. Before that time, nobody cares.

No, as I already pointed, Native Americans have been objecting to the name for over forty years. People cared about it for a long time.

[fm93]

wow so basically you just said someone isn't a real Indian unless they grew up on a reservation? And you are here claiming to be the one who stands up against racism and defending those who are offended.

*clears throat

Besides, my overall point was this: did Sparko actually grow up on a reservation, or live in a household with full exposure to Native American culture? If not, then he isn't part of who the researchers had in mind when they conducted that poll. What significance is there to claim to be Native American if one didn't actually have personal exposure to Native American culture?

So no, that isn't what I said. At all.

Gonna admit that you're the one who goofed here, or keep insisting that it's actually me?

[Sparko]

*clears throat



So no, that isn't what I said. At all.

Gonna admit that you're the one who goofed here, or keep insisting that it's actually me?

Yeah it was what you said. basically unless someone was raised on a reservation or was raised in native american culture, then their opinion doesn't count as native american. I know several full blooded Indians that were not raised on a reservation and basically grew up just like the rest of my neighbors in Eastern Kentucky. So I guess they dont count? Was Rogue right and Obama not count as being black since he was raised in a white household in an affluent neighborhood of Hawaii? He can't speak to what black people think, can he?

and since you are not Indian but Asian, that means your opinion on the matter means even less than mine does, right? So why do you insist on arguing about it and taking the side that "redskins" is racist? You don't have the cultural or ethnic background to speak on the matter, so maybe you should just shut up about it. eh?

And not being a woman, you should shut up about feminism and perceived sexual harassment. In fact, you should not speak on any matter not related to your ethnic origins. If even that. Do you actually speak the language of your race (Chinese, Korean, Japanese, or whatever?) - were you raised in that culture?