Do we hurt your feelings? We aren't PC enough? Tough. I'm done with you guys on here. I refuse to waste one more second "debating" with you. You ignore facts and try to see the world only the way you think it should be.
ISIS aka The Islamic State
- Thread starter cheryl
- Start date
Do we hurt your feelings? We aren't PC enough? Tough. I'm done with you guys on here. I refuse to waste one more second "debating" with you. You ignore facts and try to see the world only the way you think it should be.
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
The "Japs" is racist now, and racist in WWII as well. It was rather convenient that one of our enemies was racially different for us, so we could easily stereotype and pigeonhole them. Or imprison American citizens of Japanese origin. We called Germans names like "Jerries" etc. but since they were White, I guess we didn't need to belittle them racially.
Some people on here reveal themselves in surprising ways.
Okay...
If you're interested in improving the quality of your "homework" you could look up who registered browncafe on 10/12/1999.
this is a huge waste of time ::: it was me :::
Okay...
If you're interested in improving the quality of your "homework" you could look up who registered browncafe on 10/12/1999.
this is a huge waste of time ::: it was me :::
Im not going to argue with you. It is what it is.
TOS.
ImWaitingForTheDay
Annoy a conservative....Think for yourself
There is only so long a body can survive after someone is declared brain dead. Superlimpbaugh is going for the world record.
Give him credit, of all the posters on this site walking the borderline of pure racism, at least he was the ONLY one to use the N word willingly and honestly. It has since been taken down, but it was allowed up in the first place for all to see.
I give him kudos for speaking his mind honestly. I respect that. If only the others had the courage to be as brave.
TOS.
MAKAVELI
Well-Known Member
It's easy to be brave behind a keyboard. I'd like him to say that sh in Compton or Oakland and see how brave he is. To me he is nothing but a coward behind a keyboard.
Oh I agree with you, but at least he had the Superballs to actually type it and hit the post button.
Had it not been reported, it would still be there.
Now we know exactly who he is, unlike the "others" who cant be that brave.
TOS.
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
I don't find REDSKIN an offensive term. And neither does the owner of the nfl team in Washington.
I wonder if you feel VIKING is an offensive term?
Okay...
If you're interested in improving the quality of your "homework" you could look up who registered Browncafe on 10/12/1999.
this is a huge waste of time ::: it was me :::
You know what that means...... BrownCafe is 15 years old tomorrow...!!!!!!!!!!!
Amazing job Cheryl!!!
wkmac
Well-Known Member
The day we began to say good bye to Motley Fool. Good folks there I'll always remember very fondly.
Why would I? I don't find Chiefs, Indians, Padres or Braves offensive on their own, either. Logos may be a different story.
ImWaitingForTheDay
Annoy a conservative....Think for yourself
Definition of REDSKIN
usually offensive
: american indian
See redskin defined for English-language learners »First Known Use of REDSKIN
1699 From websters..GOT IT..USUALLY OFFENSIVE..
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
What about VIKING? Is that offensive?Definition of REDSKIN
usually offensive
: american indian
First Known Use of REDSKIN
1699 From websters..GOT IT..USUALLY OFFENSIVE..
49er? Indian?
You be sure to publish a list of every name that somebody somewhere MIGHT find offensive. Then you can shove that list right up your ..........
Definition of REDSKIN
usually offensive
: american indian
First Known Use of REDSKIN
1699 From websters..GOT IT..USUALLY OFFENSIVE..
The first gun control laws of california came from the governor at the time who's goal was to exterminate the REDSKINS from the frontier..
California’s First Gun Control Law
Though it had only been a part of the United States for less than two years, California became the 31st state in the union (without ever even having been a territory) on September 9, 1850. Two years prior, Mexico had ceded California and much of its northern territory to the United States in the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Signing the treaty was a decision the Mexican diplomats would soon regret. They pictured California as a region of sleepy mission towns with a tiny population of about 7,300 – not a tragic loss to the Mexican empire. Had they known that gold had been discovered at Sutter’s Mill in Coloma, California, nine days before they signed the peace treaty, they likely would have kept hold of California.
Beginning in 1849, “forty-niners” began flooding into California, chasing after the gold rumored to be strewn about the ground just waiting to be picked up. California’s population and wealth skyrocketed.
Unlike most newly acquired regions of the United States that went through long periods as territories before they had the 60,000 inhabitants needed to achieve statehood, California took the fast track. Prior to the Gold Rush, immigration to California had been so slow that it would have been decades before the population reached that number. With gold seekers pouring in at a torrential pace, more than 60,000 people came to California in 1849 alone. Congress allowed California to jump straight to full statehood without ever passing through the formal territorial stage in the Compromise of 1850.
But relations between settlers and the Native Americans were strained, to say the least. Governor Peter H. Burnett on January 7, 1851, described California’s view of the Native Americans as follows:
That a war of extermination will continue to be waged between the races, until the Indian race becomes extinct, must be expected. While we cannot anticipate this result but with painful regret, the inevitable destiny of the race is beyond the power or wisdom of man to avert.
Former California Governor Peter Burnett
Former California Governor Peter Burnett
With his powers as governor, Peter H. Burnett sought to achieve that goal of exterminating Native Americans using Article VII of the first California Constitution, which gave the governor the power “to call for the militia, to execute the laws of the State, to suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.” MilitaryMuseum.org details his actions:
In his annual address to the California Legislature on January 7, 1851, Governor Burnett highlighted significant events that transpired during 1850, including “repeated calls…upon the Executive for the aid of the militia to resist and punish the attacks of the Indians upon the frontier.” During 1850, Governor Burnett called out the militia two times. The first order was prompted by incidents at the confluence of the Gila and Colorado rivers on April 23, 1850; in response, the Governor ordered the sheriffs of San Diego and Los Angeles to organize a total of 100 men to “pursue such energetic measures to punish the Indians, bring them to terms, and protect the emigrants on their way to California.” The second instance occurred in October 1850, when Governor Burnett ordered the sheriff of El Dorado County to muster 200 men. The commanders were instructed to “proceed to punish the Indians engaged in the late attacks in the vicinity of Ringgold, and along the emigrant trail leading from Salt Lake to California.”
Thus, with the Native Americans facing “extermination” at the hands of the governor and still being able to defend themselves with firearms and ammunition purchased on the open market, the proverbial crisis that precedes most gun control measures was born. The solution was to create the first California firearm law, which regulated a class of “prohibited persons.”
In 1851, California Representative Alonzo Adams “gave notice that he would, at an early day, ask leave to introduce a bill entitled ‘an Act to prevent the sale, or furnishing Fire-arms and other implements of war to Indians.’” As with most first attempts at new gun control measures, the act was not passed.
Three years later, in 1854, the act was geographically narrowed and picked up by Representative Edward A. Stevenson, who gave notice that “he would at an early day introduce a bill for an Act to prohibit Indians from carrying fire arms or munitions of war in El Dorado county” – a more limited approach than Representative Adams took in 1851. But he too was unsuccessful, because his efforts were too narrow in scope.
Soon after Representative Stevenson introduced his bill, Representative Stephen Girard Whipple introduced Assembly Bill No. 80 (1854), “An Act to prevent the sale of fire arms and ammunition to the Indians in this State.” Note the lack of the bill’s inclusion of “munitions of war” and “implementations of war” that existed in the bill’s predecessors. By this time, there was no need for propaganda and the agenda was clear – “Indians” should not have guns or ammunition.
On March 21, 1854, Assembly Bill 80 was passed, making the sale of firearms and ammunition to “Indians” a misdemeanor. The full text of California’s first statewide gun control law, which became Penal Code section 398, is as follows:
Section 1. any person or persons who shall sell, or give, or in any way dispose of, to any Indian or Indians, of either sex, in this State, any fire-arms or ammunition of any description, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof in any court of competent jurisdiction in this State. [sic] shall be fined in a sum not less than twenty-five dollars, nor more than five hundred dollars, or sentenced to the county jail not less than one month nor more than six months, or both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.
Sec. 2. Of all fines so collected one-fourth shall be paid to the person informing, one-fourth shall be paid to the County Treasury for road purposes, and one-half shall be paid into the State Treasury, for Common School purposes.
Sec. 3. This Act to take effect from and after thirty days after its passage.
Penal Code section 398 remained law within the State of California for almost 60 years. On April 22, 1913, the California Legislature approved the repeal of section 398. The repeal became effective August 10, 1913.
THE origin of the use of the term REDSKIN, officially by the california govenor Peter Burnett
http://www.kooriweb.org/foley/resources/pdfs/91.pdf
The term REDSKIN is as offensive as the N word.
TOS.
http://www.kooriweb.org/foley/resources/pdfs/91.pdf
The term REDSKIN is as offensive as the N word.
TOS.
If you ONLY understood how the word was used in this nations history, you wouldnt be so oblivious.
TOS.
the governor Peter Burnett used the term REDSKIN like this..
In his January 1851 message to the California legislature, California Governor Peter H. Burnett promised "a war of extermination will continue to be waged between the two races until the Indian race becomes extinct." Newspapers cheered on the campaign. In 1853 the Yreka Herald called on the government to provide aid to "enable the citizens of the north to carry on a war of extermination until the last redskin of these tribes has been killed. Extermination is no longer a question of time--the time has arrived, the work has commenced and let the first man who says treaty or peace be regarded as a traitor."
How people can claim the term REDSKIN is not offensive, when it was used to exterminate Indians is beyond understanding.
When hitler exterminated JEWS, everyone came to help. Everyone felt sorry for the jews. We are always reminded of what happened to the jews.
But the indians? Whos gives a crap seems to be the case.
TOS.
In his January 1851 message to the California legislature, California Governor Peter H. Burnett promised "a war of extermination will continue to be waged between the two races until the Indian race becomes extinct." Newspapers cheered on the campaign. In 1853 the Yreka Herald called on the government to provide aid to "enable the citizens of the north to carry on a war of extermination until the last redskin of these tribes has been killed. Extermination is no longer a question of time--the time has arrived, the work has commenced and let the first man who says treaty or peace be regarded as a traitor."
How people can claim the term REDSKIN is not offensive, when it was used to exterminate Indians is beyond understanding.
When hitler exterminated JEWS, everyone came to help. Everyone felt sorry for the jews. We are always reminded of what happened to the jews.
But the indians? Whos gives a crap seems to be the case.
TOS.