• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

It's not hard at all.

Redskin CAN be a racial slur. It is not, nor has it ever been, JUST a racial slur.

And there's ample evidence to suggest that the method of it's use by the Washington Redskins is in line with the uses of it that don't align with a racial slur.

Which evidence is that? Every dictionary classifies it as a usually offensive term. By definition, it's offensive. Sure it's possible for someone to use the term as a legitimate compliment, but they're just using it wrong.

Native Americans have been officially protesting the name since 1968. A huge list of announcers and writers have announced that they are boycotting the name redskins. They're the 'skins, not the redskins. And even if you view this as a borderline issue, our historical mistreatment of the Native Americans would seem to argue for a little bit of deference.

What the Redskins do is their business. If they want a racist name and are willing to live with the consequences, then so be it. But changing their name to the Pigskins, or back to the braves is kind of the obvious call.
 
It offends me that Native Americans aren't subjected to the following taxes:

•Federal income taxes are not levied on income from trust lands held for them by the U.S.
•State income taxes are not paid on income earned on a federal Indian reservation.
•State sales taxes are not paid by Indians on transactions made on a federal Indian reservation.
•Local property taxes are not paid on reservation or trust land.

Comes with the institutional guilt we have for decimating their population, taking everything they had and then lying and cheating on damn near every treaty we signed with them. I'm not going to get too upset because they aren't paying taxes.
 
Nope, serious as a heart attack.
You are seriously arguing that no one you knew who is Polish was bothered by the derogatory use of "Polack" when it was directed at them?

Whatever, but growing up in Phoenix I often saw my friends bothered when they were called "beaners".
 
Are the females here offended by the company named Hooters?

I wasn't, but I'm adding it to my list.

Cracker Barrel
Easy Blonde
Hooters

I think Owls should be pissed that they've been sexualized in the name of chicken wings and beer.
 
So it may not be offensive to you, but it's certainly offensive to a large number of people.

Florida Seminoles
Chicago Blackhawks
Cleveland Indians
Atlanta Braves
Golden State Warriors
Fighting Irish
Trojans
Spartans
Eagles
Redskins

To me it promotes courage, honor and spirit just as the Pittsburgh Pirates or Minnesota Vikings do. I am of Viking ancestry but do not find the Vikings offensive even though my ancestors murdered, raped, enslaved and pillaged innocent people for centuries.
 
Comes with the institutional guilt we have for decimating their population, taking everything they had and then lying and cheating on damn near every treaty we signed with them. I'm not going to get too upset because they aren't paying taxes.

They're Americans, just like we are. They should pay taxes, just like we do.
 
Possibly. But more than that, I see the ugly head of political correctness driving the process--that concept that we must all think alike, embrace the same values (theirs), and be punished if we step out of line. And I can't shake the fact that it could even have the ultimate purpose of a giant, mostly bloodless coup that would allow the government to order a specific society into existence with full authority to discipline or punish any who failed to toe the required mindset and behavior. Once accomplished, the Constitution of the United States would effectively no longer exist at least as having any power whatsoever. And THAT would be the ultimate goal of would be dictators.
LOL.....yes....protecting minority views.....is a slipper slope....to totalitarianism....because everyone knows......totalitarianism is ALL ABOUT protecting the views of ethnic minorities!

War is Peace.
 
So the government is at fault for siding with the native Americans?

A Minority of whinnying little ****s. I've got family who are active in tribal politics, they scoff at these "offended people".

You don't have a right not to be offended.
 
You are seriously arguing that no one you knew who is Polish was bothered by the derogatory use of "Polack" when it was directed at them?

Whatever, but growing up in Phoenix I often saw my friends bothered when they were called "beaners".

But if in 100 years the term "beaner" was no longer used in a racist manner would Mexicans actually be offended? I doubt it.
 
What about the 5 Native Americans who brought the original suit? Should they have just remained silent?

They are free to make the suit but the issue is that the media, Harry Reid and the small minority should not jump on the bandwagon and just STFU about it.
 
But if in 100 years the term "beaner" was no longer used in a racist manner would Mexicans actually be offended? I doubt it.
Oh, I see, the use today of "Redskin" is not used in derogatory terms.
 
They should just change the name to the Niggers. I mean, that's fine right? It honors them.

Clearly you love saying that word. It's not the first time on this thread. I'm sensing something here.
 
Oh, I see, the use today of "Redskin" is not used in derogatory terms.

Who uses the term Redskin in today's world? I certainly have never heard it... not once, and I have been around reservations, cowboys and Native Americans (Cherokee and Apache) quite a bit.
 
They are free to make the suit but the issue is that the media, Harry Reid and the small minority should not jump on the bandwagon and just STFU about it.

Harry Reid is making this political. Did you see that SOB on the Senate floor today throwing lobs at Snyder?
 
Harry Reid is making this political. Did you see that SOB on the Senate floor today throwing lobs at Snyder?

I heard of it but I have only seen his big initial speech(s)
 
Well, I'd expect the same kind of support right? I mean, they should be able to use any racial slur they want to if we're going to say it's okay to use a racial slur.

Washington Stupid Micks?
Washington Wops?
Washington Crazy Ass Crackers?
Gooks?
Palefaces?

That is if you think Redskins is a racial slur.
 
I haven't denied the darkest part of the history either. History is what it is. And if we are honest historians we don't get to pick the part of history we like and ignore the less commendable, and we don't get to pick something bad in the history and present it as if that is all the history there is or all that is important.

But because the Indian people--our "Native Americans" around here mostly refer to themselves as "Indians" so I do too--were treated badly in their history, must we assume that it is shameful somehow to refer to any of their history now? And while we can tease or caricature or utilize a real or mythical trait of almost any other ethnic group for fun and profit, that Native American people are somehow too fragile or unworthy to be included in that?
I think the point is that they don't refer to themselves as "Redskins" instead of the more general term "Indians" or "Native Americans", any more than Asians refer to themselves as "Orientals".
 
I heard of it but I have only seen his big initial speech(s)

He's been yakking his loud mouth off for months about it, but today he actually addressed Snyder on the Senate floor. And as the Daily Caller so aptly put it, he "gloated".

The fact that Reid is against the use of the name only makes me that much more in Snyder's court.

Harry Reid is offensive to me. I'll bet I can find 4 others who say the same thing. I wonder if I can get him removed because he offends me.
 
He's been yakking his loud mouth off for months about it, but today he actually addressed Snyder on the Senate floor. And as the Daily Caller so aptly put it, he "gloated".

The fact that Reid is against the use of the name only makes me that much more in Snyder's court.

Harry Reid is offensive to me. I'll bet I can find 4 others who say the same thing. I wonder if I can get him removed because he offends me.

He is party politics at its worst...
 
It's not hard at all.

Redskin CAN be a racial slur. It is not, nor has it ever been, JUST a racial slur.

And there's ample evidence to suggest that the method of it's use by the Washington Redskins is in line with the uses of it that don't align with a racial slur.

When does anybody anymore use the Word Redskins unless they are talking about the team?

Can anybody post instances of where the term was used as a racial slur?
 
Back
Top Bottom