Posted by
• 05.19.16 10:22 pm


Two years ago, I screamed this until “my tear ducts were too tired” but nobody would listen and it’s not 78%. It’s more like 96%. I remember seeing a poll that said this back in 2004. Then it became the hot thing to complain about and everyone jumped on board. 

Here I am trying to explain it to Gov. Ventura who disagreed because he saw some Indians at a protest. They were cashing in on the grievance industry currency white people set up for them.

Of course, after the free shit and attention wears off, we go back to the truth.


(Oooh! That’s a good name for a show)

  1. H.J. says:

    ESPN’s Around The Horn panel discussed this poll today. The general consensus of the panel was that Native Americans probably aren’t informed enough about their own history and heritage to understand where that term comes from and why it’s so offensive. In other words, ESPN’s panel thinks that Native Americans are too ignorant and stupid to be offended by that word, so it’s up to liberal sportswriters to be offended on their behalf!

  2. TWalsh2 says:

    I always figured if they were pissed off enough they could buy it themselves. A bunch of tribes get together throw in some casino money and buy Schneider out. They could name it whatever the hell they want.
    I suspect if that were to happen they’d be smart enough to keep the brand Redskins ’cause it’s worth a few billion and they’re not fucking stupid – necklace of beads for Manhattan trade notwithstanding.

  3. Alec Leamas says:

    It’s pretty obvious that “Redskin” is not a virulent derogatory epithet because no one runs around calling Indians “redskins” to harm or embarrass them.

  4. frank says:

    Gavin and similar are always busy going on about shit that was thoroughly figured out 30 and 100 years ago. Mr. Ted Kaczynski:

    The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call “feelings of inferiority” and “oversocialization.” Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential. […] They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The terms “negro,” “oriental,” “handicapped” or “chick” for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. “Broad” and “chick” were merely the feminine equivalents of “guy,” “dude” or “fellow.” The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves.

  5. Uma Thurman says:

    Ah yes the profound insights of the would be post master.

  6. Po'clit-ically co'rect-um says:

    The ESPN crowd solved it? Who was in on it today? Kate Fagan putdown the pussy-pop long enough to comment? Did LZ Granderson and Israel Gutierrez stop jerking each other and just hold hands to give the gay, black man perspective as one strong voice?

  7. Sitting Bull says:

    Red necks, Whitey, blackies, black Irish, yellow man, Rainbow coalition, people of color, it’s ok, we not thin skinned. How we going to be colored without color? If black is beautiful what about Red skin?
    The only color I see that’s a no no, is White. Self hating White Man. Replacing your $20’s great Injun warrior Andrew Jackson with a low land female gorilla, Harriet Tubman. I’m Sitting BULL not cow. Too bad, you was once Men, but are now ESPN.

Leave A Reply