Are we allowed to talk about the Washington Redskins name change?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Just wondering if all of what you say here makes what the citizens of the United States did to the Native Americans in the 1800's right?

Isn't it rather simplistic to lump all US citizens in one group, lump all Native Americans in another group, then play them off against each other?

Many US citizens and Native Americans got along quite well. US citizens brought horses and rifles to the Indians, making it easier and safer to hunt. They brought written language to preserve Native American history. Have you ever wondered why most of the earliest Native Americans we know about lived in the 1800s, like Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull, Little Crow, and so on? Those who lived before have largely been lost to history because of the lack of written language.

The Ojibwe had a famine crisis every winter, until Europeans taught them to parch their rice so it would last through the winter. European medicines extended life expectancy. And US citizens ended what had been constant raiding and warfare between various tribes.

Look at the attached picture. Before Europeans came to this continent, Native Americans hadn't even invented the wheel; they used travois instead, and before horses came to the continent, they were pulled by hand.

Take all of it together. The US citizens treated the Native Americans better than any "conquerers" in history. Better than Ghengis Khan treated his conquered, better than Alexander treated his, better than PolPot, Hitler, Caesar, Hannibal, and so on.

In fact, it wasn't even a "conquering." It was a melding.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Isn't it rather simplistic to lump all US citizens in one group, lump all Native Americans in another group, then play them off against each other?

Many US citizens and Native Americans got along quite well. US citizens brought horses and rifles to the Indians, making it easier and safer to hunt. They brought written language to preserve Native American history. Have you ever wondered why most of the earliest Native Americans we know about lived in the 1800s, like Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull, Little Crow, and so on? Those who lived before have largely been lost to history because of the lack of written language.

The Ojibwe had a famine crisis every winter, until Europeans taught them to parch their rice so it would last through the winter. European medicines extended life expectancy. And US citizens ended what had been constant raiding and warfare between various tribes.

Look at the attached picture. Before Europeans came to this continent, Native Americans hadn't even invented the wheel; they used travois instead, and before horses came to the continent, they were pulled by hand.

Take all of it together. The US citizens treated the Native Americans better than any "conquerers" in history. Better than Ghengis Khan treated his conquered, better than Alexander treated his, better than PolPot, Hitler, Caesar, Hannibal, and so on.

In fact, it wasn't even a "conquering." It was a melding.

agree..and your comments about written language is what I was commenting about first to organize things. Not the first but first to discover a river etc .

I think we are lucky that the U.S was the first country to have the nuclear weapon, what if it was Iran?

[steve B]

Ghengis Khan was in many ways - especially for his time - a benevolent ruler.
The immediate conquering was very harsh, but once a city was part of the Mongol empire they were allowed to keep their religion, usually local form of government (Not the original rules, they were usually the first to go)
Crafts people were held on esteem, as well as the literate.
Contemporary accounts of traveling to China from Europe say the mongo empire was very peaceful. While the journey across Europe was perilous due to bandits and "difficult" feudal lords, the travel from eastern Europe all the way to China was entirely uneventful.

Sometimes I picture Ghengis and Cobb sitting down griping about what a raw deal they got from history.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by steve B

Ghengis Khan was in many ways - especially for his time - a benevolent ruler.
The immediate conquering was very harsh, but once a city was part of the Mongol empire they were allowed to keep their religion, usually local form of government (Not the original rules, they were usually the first to go)
Crafts people were held on esteem, as well as the literate.
Contemporary accounts of traveling to China from Europe say the mongo empire was very peaceful. While the journey across Europe was perilous due to bandits and "difficult" feudal lords, the travel from eastern Europe all the way to China was entirely uneventful.

Sometimes I picture Ghengis and Cobb sitting down griping about what a raw deal they got from history.

Slaves on plantations tended to be peaceful too. What choice was there?

If some of these conquered people stepped out of line......... I wonder how "benevolent" Ghengis Khan would've been then.

I've never heard Khan, one of the worst butchers of innocents who ever lived, defended so eloquently. I guess I focus on the The immediate conquering was very harsh part, and the realization that living under such a ruler was only "peaceful" as long as one accepted the fact he was now a conquered slave.

Cobb got a raw deal from history. Ghengis Khan was one of its worst mass murderers. That his conquered saw resistance as futile doesn't mean they were happy or content.

[vintagewhitesox]

Changing the name is a good start.
As a white guy, I have no real say in the matter. all I can do is listen to native americans who say "hey, that depiction of my culture is offensive to me." Who am I to say, "no it isnt?" All I know, if there was a team called the New York Heebs, and the logo was a stereotypical jewish person, it would offend me.

furthermore, "those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."