• 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

Bodhisattva said:
The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964...
Click to expand...

Yes, and her statement was something along the lines of "How can it be racist if Native Americans like it?" - well, that's just ridiculous. Black people flocked to the Negro League games. That didn't make their creation any less racist or the result of a racist process. The whole concept of naming a team after a race of people is alien to me though. I simply don't see how a person can claim that there is nothing "racial" or even "racialist" about trying to make money on the backs of romanticized noble savage memorabilia that nobody in the team has any relation to. The fact that they expect no criticism for it is kind of like those black people who set up Chinese restaurants and then expect no criticism when people point out some of the food isn't even Chinese.
 
Bodhisattva said:
And there is an instance were you could say to a Native American, "Hey yo! Indian!" or, "What up Chief?!" :lol:

Sure you could... and get a tomahawk in the skull as a response! :lol:
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving the point of post 501 ;)
 
apdst said:
It appears we already have one...lol!
Click to expand...

It's been stated that baby steps work best to lull people when an agenda is being pushed, and the desired result is total conformity. Too much change all at once makes people suspicious and skeptical, it seems. :lol:

Greetings, apdst. :2wave:
 
Hatuey said:
Yes, and her statement was something along the lines of "How can it be racist if Native Americans like it?" - well, that's just ridiculous. Black people flocked to the Negro League games. That didn't make their creation any less racist or the result of a racist process. The whole concept of naming a team after a race of people is alien to me though. I simply don't see how a person can claim that there is nothing "racial" or even "racialist" about trying to make money on the backs of romanticized noble savage memorabilia that nobody in the team has any relation to. The fact that they expect no criticism for it is kind of like those black people who set up Chinese restaurants and then expect no criticism when people point out some of the food isn't even Chinese.
Click to expand...

The Redskins are a racist league played by Redskins and that white people wouldn't be caught alive participating in? Are you actually trying to parallel the two? :lol:

Thanks for proving the point of post 501
Click to expand...

The point was that Tres's point is correct. You made a weak analogy... the two are not analogous. The Civil Rights Act prohibits such things as the Negro League. The Redskins football organization are not the same. You are welcome to try again if you like though...
 
Hatuey said:
Yes, and her statement was something along the lines of "How can it be racist if Native Americans like it?" - well, that's just ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Always the 'race card'… :roll:


Redskins: The debate over the Washington football team's name incorrectly invokes history.

In 2005, the Indian language scholar Ives Goddard of the Smithsonian Institution published a remarkable and consequential study of redskin's early history. His findings shifted the dates for the word's first appearance in print by more than a century and shed an awkward light on the contemporary debate. Goddard found, in summary, that "the actual origin of the word is entirely benign."

Redskin, he learned, had not emerged first in English or any European language. The English term, in fact, derived from Native American phrases involving the color red in combination with terms for flesh, skin, and man. These phrases were part of a racial vocabulary that Indians often used to designate themselves in opposition to others whom they (like the Europeans) called black, white, and so on.

But the language into which those terms for Indians were first translated was French. The tribes among whom the proto forms of redskin first appeared lived in the area of the upper Mississippi River called Illinois country. Their extensive contact with French-speaking colonists, before the French pulled out of North America, led to these phrases being translated, in the 1760s, more or less literally as peau-rouge and only then into English as redskin. It bears mentioning that many such translators were mixed-blood Indians.
Click to expand...
 
Isn't it funny how white liberals are always telling the egreived groups they should be offended?
 
j-mac said:
Isn't it funny how white liberals are always telling the egreived groups they should be offended?
Click to expand...

It's tactical. They have to continue to pit races against each other to rhetorically and politically stay relevant. Mid terms are coming up ya know. :peace
 
j-mac said:
Isn't it funny how white liberals are always telling the egreived groups they should be offended?
Click to expand...

If everyone got along all the time, white, black, male, female, rich, poor, etc… what would the left have to campaign on? Serious question.
 
Arbo said:
If everyone got along all the time, white, black, male, female, rich, poor, etc… what would the left have to campaign on? Serious question.
Click to expand...

The question is what do they really stand for? Victimhood? I mean really, what else do they talk about besides some group being a victim?
 
As to the whole 5 people is quorum enough thing… I shall quote Hillary (of all people) … because it fits…

"“We cannot let a minority of people — and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people — hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.” - Hillary Clinton
 
j-mac said:
Isn't it funny how white liberals are always telling the egreived groups they should be offended?
Click to expand...

Yeah, like white Libbos have a clue...lol!
 
Winchester said:
We killed them, took their **** and forced them to become Americans, they're not just like we.
Click to expand...

Who is "we"? I never killed anyone and never took anything from anyone.

This is America. If you live here, you're living in America. I want to live here too, and the price I pay for it is taxes.

Which tribal people today were "forced" into becoming Americans? The ones whose parents were just passing through?
 
Hatuey said:
Your inability to comprehend the relationship between your statement and the Negro League example because you don't have the knowledge necessary to comprehend it is not my problem. However yes, this is exactly like black people who played in the Negro Leagues. They were leagues intentionally created for the segregation of blacks. Black people still participated in them, went to the games, cheered for their favorite teams but the creation of the leagues themselves - however.... wholehearted - were segregationist, racist and black people participated in the process even if they were the most damaged by it. In short, even though black people participated in the process of their creation, they were - from the beginning a step back in the group's assimilation.

Likewise, Redskin is in the same type of of segregationist social framework as reservations and "Indian Status". It's all part of a package even if the group willingly participates.
Click to expand...

The Washington Redskins are part of a segregationalist social framework, and are similar to reservations? You didn't seriously type that.
 
Winchester said:
Really, I'd be willing to be you living on land stolen from them at some point.
Click to expand...

Take that up with the people who migrated to this country. I'd call John Winthrop and yell at him for coming to New England and bringing his diseases to the Native Americans here who died from them, but since he's been dead since 1649, I doubt I'll get him on the phone.

As far as my land being stolen, the names on our deed (mine and my husband's) prove otherwise.
 
Hatuey said:
Yes, and her statement was something along the lines of "How can it be racist if Native Americans like it?" - well, that's just ridiculous. Black people flocked to the Negro League games. That didn't make their creation any less racist or the result of a racist process. The whole concept of naming a team after a race of people is alien to me though. I simply don't see how a person can claim that there is nothing "racial" or even "racialist" about trying to make money on the backs of romanticized noble savage memorabilia that nobody in the team has any relation to. The fact that they expect no criticism for it is kind of like those black people who set up Chinese restaurants and then expect no criticism when people point out some of the food isn't even Chinese.
Click to expand...

Again with the Negro Leagues. We aren't talking about the Negro Leagues, nor are we talking about black people and why they joined the only leagues they COULD join at the time.

Or are you saying that the reservation schools (with 100% Native American populations in them) have no choice but to use what you consider a slur?

So people shouldn't make money on the backs of others? Then when are you going to scream about the Vikings? How many Vikings play for the NFL in Minnesota?

Good grief.
 
50 years ago white people all over the South, without batting any eye, walked past countless drinking fountains, lunch counters, department stores, and hospitals which were denied to blacks. They sat at the front of the bus thinking nothing was odd when all the blacks were shuffled to the rear. A hundred years before then most of them thought enslaving blacks was fine too.

Well, today a bunch of whites watch football thinking nothing is wrong with calling a team "Redskins". What will people say about that 50 years from now? 150?
 
calamity said:
50 years ago white people all over the South, without batting any eye, walked past countless drinking fountains, lunch counters, department stores, and hospitals which were denied to blacks. They sat at the front of the bus thinking nothing was odd when all the blacks were shuffled to the rear. A hundred years before then most of them thought enslaving blacks was fine too.

Well, today a bunch of whites watch football thinking nothing is wrong with calling a team "Redskins". What will people say about that 50 years from now? 150?
Click to expand...

Which drinking fountains and lunch counters are the Washington Redskins denying to Native Americans?
 
tres borrachos said:
Again with the Negro Leagues. We aren't talking about the Negro Leagues, nor are we talking about black people and why they joined the only leagues they COULD join at the time.
Click to expand...

His Negro League thing is nothing more than a Straw Man Fallacy. Pretty much bunk and below his ability level too.
 
calamity said:
50 years ago white people all over the South, without batting any eye, walked past countless drinking fountains, lunch counters, department stores, and hospitals which were denied to blacks. They sat at the front of the bus thinking nothing was odd when all the blacks were shuffled to the rear. A hundred years before then most of them thought enslaving blacks was fine too.

Well, today a bunch of whites watch football thinking nothing is wrong with calling a team "Redskins". What will people say about that 50 years from now? 150?
Click to expand...

They'll agree that the people that thought calling a team the Redskins was perfectly fine... not to mention that your entire argument here is a Straw Man.
 
Winchester said:
Really, I'd be willing to be you living on land stolen from them at some point.
Click to expand...

No offense but that post sounds like it was written by a drunk...
 
tres borrachos said:
Which drinking fountains and lunch counters are the Washington Redskins denying to Native Americans?
Click to expand...

It's a metaphor for pointing out the changing standards. 30-40 years ago slurs were common: Gook, Chink, Spic, Kike, Jap...the whole nine yards, few people hesitated using them in 1975. Nowadays those words jump right out of the page at you.

Times change. Common sense suggests that the team in our nation's capital follows suit. It seems rather silly to defend their use of what many perceive is a racial slur. And, I don't even care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom