Minn. politicians criticize Redskins'...

Minn. politicians criticize Redskins' name

There are 7 comments on the Inside Bay Area story from Nov 7, 2013, titled Minn. politicians criticize Redskins' name. In it, Inside Bay Area reports that:

Gov. Mark Dayton was asked about the Redskins' nickname at a Thursday morning news conference.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Inside Bay Area.

“I am always right.”

Since: Oct 09

Former MN Taxpayer

#2 Nov 8, 2013
With all the issues there are in the world today, this is what Gov GoogleyEyes and his band of bandits thinks is a priority?

"...current Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton called it 'racist' and suggested every member of Congress should boycott the team to put pressure on its owners."

"Also Thursday, Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak released a statement saying the name disrespects indigenous people. Six members of the Minneapolis City Council had recently sent a letter to the team's owner and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell calling the nickname and team mascot racist."

No wonder this state and nation are so screwed up.
Willie

Hopkins, MN

#4 Nov 8, 2013
It is racist. It's not up to you 2 to decide If they should be offended or not.

“I am always right.”

Since: Oct 09

Former MN Taxpayer

#5 Nov 8, 2013
Willie wrote:
It is racist. It's not up to you 2 to decide If they should be offended or not.
So...white boys Gov GoogleyEyes, Archie Rybak, and you get to determine what is racist and what is not?

No you don't.

"In the only recent poll to ask native people about the subject, 90 percent of respondents did not consider the term offensive, although many question the cultural credentials of the respondents."

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how...

Get a life and worry about something worthwhile like what scheme be Libs are going to cook up next to pick the pockets of hard working middle class Americans.
Willie

Hopkins, MN

#6 Nov 8, 2013
IrishMN wrote:
<quoted text>
So...white boys Gov GoogleyEyes, Archie Rybak, and you get to determine what is racist and what is not?
No you don't.
"In the only recent poll to ask native people about the subject, 90 percent of respondents did not consider the term offensive, although many question the cultural credentials of the respondents."
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how...
Get a life and worry about something worthwhile like what scheme be Libs are going to cook up next to pick the pockets of hard working middle class Americans.
It's not a question of it being racist, because it is. The issue is it offends many natives and who are you to decide if they should be offended or not. Get a life? LMAO You are on this stupid forum non stop.

Since: Sep 11

Rogers, MN

#7 Nov 8, 2013
Willie wrote:
<quoted text>It's not a question of it being racist, because it is. The issue is it offends many natives and who are you to decide if they should be offended or not. Get a life? LMAO You are on this stupid forum non stop.
Apparently, you lose on this since the people of Washington, the NFL and most (if not all) of the Native Americans in Washington have chosen not to be offended. And the only reason our local pols are even concerned is to make them selves look good because they spoke up on what it essentially a non-issue, and to try and stave off any confrontation with Bellacourt and the ACLU.

Notice the key phrase above..."chosen not to be offended" as opposed to those who have "chosen to be offended".
Archie

Amery, WI

#10 Nov 8, 2013
IrishMN wrote:
<quoted text>
So...white boys Gov GoogleyEyes, Archie Rybak, and you get to determine what is racist and what is not?
No you don't.
"In the only recent poll to ask native people about the subject, 90 percent of respondents did not consider the term offensive, although many question the cultural credentials of the respondents."
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how...
Get a life and worry about something worthwhile like what scheme be Libs are going to cook up next to pick the pockets of hard working middle class Americans.
so fat white Americans like you can decide being called a redskin is not a racist term? No, you don't. You worry about the boogie man coming to take your measly assets. The rest of us have work to do. You racists are a stubborn bunch. Luckily, you're a dying breed.
mike hock

Teaneck, NJ

#12 Nov 8, 2013
Willie wrote:
It is racist. It's not up to you 2 to decide If they should be offended or not.
The origin of the name was to distinguish them from the Boston Braves baseball team. that was also the original name of the football team. when they moved to washington they already had the name. the boston braves name refers to the boston tea partyZ executed by white men, so the name really has nothing to do with american indians. just wanted you to know what you're talking about before you go on farther. as an aside, I'm 1/2 seneca iriquois and not offended.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Minneapolis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
This forum sucks now 4 hr Cat Fan 4
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 5 hr Mothra 37,864
Cadet bone spur 10 hr Davycrockett 1
Why Sun KyTEE 1
Threads Gone I'm Gone Sun figgypops 7
Liberals crying over trump comments again Jan 17 God 38
Megyn Kelly's mysterious Olympics benching by N... Jan 16 Me Too 7

Minneapolis Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages