langleyparkjoe wrote:philly can eat a .... and choke on it
Finally, someone starts talking some sense!

langleyparkjoe wrote:philly can eat a .... and choke on it
langleyparkjoe wrote:philly can eat a .... and choke on it
Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:langleyparkjoe wrote:philly can eat a .... and choke on it
I agree with this, as long as it's not mine. They're not getting anywhere near mine.
Deadskins wrote:Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:Deadskins wrote:Your whole point revolves around the assumption that Redskins is a racist pejorative.
Redskins is a racist pejorative. It is defined as such. That's not up for debate here.
That's where you are wrong. Do you know when it was first listed as a pejorative by dictionaries? Words change meaning all the time. It's time for this one to be updated again, Do you know the history of the word itself? Why is it racist to refer to an American Indian as redskin, but not a person of European descent, white, or African descent, black? You said previously that no tribes support the name, but that's not true. There is great support for the team by local tribes. When we played Arizona last year, there were counter-protests by Indians supporting the name. There are schools on reservations that use the name and logo. A logo, that btw, was designed by, and put on the helmets at the behest of, American Indians. The state of Oklahoma needs to change it's name too. It means "Red People" in Choctaw. I'd say it is very much up for debate.