Redskins Name Change


I grew up in the DC area and I’ve been following the Redskins for as long as I can remember.  As a Cowboys fan, they are our main rival. I’m Mexican-American and brown skinned, but if I get a bit of sun, I don’t really burn, but turn a nice reddish/gold.

As a kid, our family vacations were often to Laredo to see family and I remember fondly visiting my Tio Pete in Nuevo-Laredo.  To me, Laredo was one big city divided by the river. 

What’s the difference between the Aztec and the Navajo?  The Aztec’s were said to have come down from the north and there are linguistic similarities.  Sure, they were different nations, but were they different races?  I don’t think so, any more than I think the Germans and Swiss are different races. 

Am I Native American or am I Hispanic?  Even census and school questions still seem to have confusion on this.  If you say you are Native American, you are supposed to provide a tribe.  Is Mexico a tribe?  Is Tio Pete a different race than me?  Did my race change every time I crossed the border?  Something is wrong here – indigenous people are one race divided politically into nations.

Historically, what happened between Mexico and America is very similar to what happened between American and the tribes.  A supposed boarder, which America agreed to, then crossed.  A war, which America instigated.  What was a senator from Tennessee doing at the Alamo?  A war, which one side had to fight out of self-respect, but knowing they couldn’t win.  An alleged treaty, that was broken.  Land and resources grabbed by European-Americans, people captured and sort of annexed as second-class citizens, without the consent of the governed.

Look at the Marine fight song – “From the halls of Montezuma”, sung with such pride and gusto.  Are people really proud about that part of history?  I’m sure people really are proud of the bravery and sacrifices of soldiers, but want to overlook some aspects.  In the same way, when fans sing Hail to the Redskins, I’m sure they mean well, but they overlook what they need to focus on.  Was the term Redskin used in a disparaging way?  If someone calls me a brown skin (or a redskin during the summer), I’m going to have an issue with it.  So, please, change the name.

Comments

Jesse Albrecht said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
July 28, 2020 at 7:37 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more