• 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!

Tribal chief: No FedEx until Redskins change team name

It has nothing to do with individuals either harmed or insulted. It has to do with racial stereotypes being bad for society. If you can't grasp that, I can't help you.

It's not a racial stereotype, it's a historical reference and a positive one at that. Big difference.
 
It's not a racial stereotype, it's a historical reference and a positive one at that. Big difference.

It's a racial stereotype and it marginalizes those left out.
 
breakdown of thread:..i cannot boycott the redskins and be affective [powerless tribal chief ], so i shall boycott those i can be effective against those that deal with the redskins.
 
breakdown of thread:..i cannot boycott the redskins and be affective [powerless tribal chief ], so i shall boycott those i can be effective against those that deal with the redskins.

Except he can't even be effective against FedEx.
 
Difference is that in Canada Native Canadians actually integrate in society, you see them everywhere. In the US you can go years without actually seeing one unless you go to a casino or reservation to buy cigarettes. :)

Tim-


You know, Tim. You have got that right. I have traveled the US by car extensively and the only place I come across "Indians" is on reserves, oops, reservations. I find though that I get treated very well on the reserves there, I suspect it might have something to do with BC Plates.

I say we are much better for it.
 
Your social ignorance does not dismiss the facts.

Your hyperbole doesn't dismiss the facts. Do you know a lick about Native American history? The warrior reference is a high compliment.
 
Your social ignorance does not dismiss the facts.

Your claiming social harm does not actually demonstrate social harm. When do you think you'll get around to actually doing that?
 
The warrior reference is a high compliment.

So what? It's still a stereotype and marginalizes those left out. It doesn't matter whether a stereotype is "positive" or negative, it marginalizes.


Your claiming social harm does not actually demonstrate social harm. When do you think you'll get around to actually doing that?

Stereotypes do not harm society?

I suppose if it was the Washington Gays, depicted as pansies, you'd be ok with that stereotype too.
 
It has nothing to do with individuals either harmed or insulted. It has to do with racial stereotypes being bad for society. If you can't grasp that, I can't help you.
Oh, you're grasping, alright. :roll:


It's a racial stereotype and it marginalizes those left out.
So, in the interest of consistency and fairness, you also openly and actively advocate for changing the name of the Minnesota Vikings. After all, Vikings were a well-known aggressive and war-like society, and Scandinavian pacifists might be marginalized and left out, and by your own admission in your other quote in this post, we just can't have that.
 
Stereotypes do not harm society?

I suppose if it was the Washington Gays, depicted as pansies, you'd be ok with that stereotype too.

Nope, not particularly. And somehow, I doubt that you'd find a sports team depicting themselves as limp-wristed prancing gay boys, that doesn't fit with the sports model, but it wouldn't actually affect society at all. It's just a sports team.
 
Your social ignorance does not dismiss the facts.
You confuse fact with opinion.


So what? It's still a stereotype and marginalizes those left out. It doesn't matter whether a stereotype is "positive" or negative, it marginalizes.
If we take your comments at face value, and do not consider the troll potential, in effect what you are arguing for is the complete elimination of ALL sports team names. Just call them by their city and leave it at that. Even naming a team after an animal, Lions as one example, might marginalize someone who would view that as stereotyping lions.
 
Nope, not particularly. And somehow, I doubt that you'd find a sports team depicting themselves as limp-wristed prancing gay boys, that doesn't fit with the sports model, but it wouldn't actually affect society at all. It's just a sports team.
I know, right? God forbid we should want to highlight a positive aspect of something.
 
It has nothing to do with individuals either harmed or insulted. It has to do with racial stereotypes being bad for society. If you can't grasp that, I can't help you.


Let that one go down in history ecofarm, the first time I ever agreed with anything you posted.
 
I know, right? God forbid we should want to highlight a positive aspect of something.

Hey, I'm not the one saying that "warrior" is a negative. It's been pointed out that, to many, it would be a very positive aspect.
 
Your hyperbole doesn't dismiss the facts. Do you know a lick about Native American history? The warrior reference is a high compliment.



NO. It. Is. Not.

I do know a **** load about "American First Nations" History, and "warrior" is only a compliment in some tribes. Your posts here show the usual level of "cowboys and injuns" myth starting with the fact that there were over a hundred co-existing nations with well formed societies, complete with legal structure some of whom taught the Pinksins how to survive.

The "warrior" label along with "redskin" is continuing the stereotypical myth that "Indians" are "savages", when it was they who were the scouts and frontiersmen who taught pinksins and were repaid by being kicked out of their traditional lands and slaughtered in "take no prisoners raids" killing women and children indiscriminately. The "savages" were the ones with cannons and muskets with a greed-thirst for free land
 
NO. It. Is. Not.

I do know a **** load about "American First Nations" History, and "warrior" is only a compliment in some tribes. Your posts here show the usual level of "cowboys and injuns" myth starting with the fact that there were over a hundred co-existing nations with well formed societies, complete with legal structure some of whom taught the Pinksins how to survive.

The "warrior" label along with "redskin" is continuing the stereotypical myth that "Indians" are "savages", when it was they who were the scouts and frontiersmen who taught pinksins and were repaid by being kicked out of their traditional lands and slaughtered in "take no prisoners raids" killing women and children indiscriminately. The "savages" were the ones with cannons and muskets with a greed-thirst for free land
If you dismiss the savagery of Native Americans, then you don't know **** about their history. Yes, there were peaceful tribes, but the vast majority of them were brutally savage. Unless you think dashing the heads of infants against a tree is perfectly peaceful.
 
If you dismiss the savagery of Native Americans, then you don't know **** about their history. Yes, there were peaceful tribes, but the vast majority of them were brutally savage. Unless you think dashing the heads of infants against a tree is perfectly peaceful.


FGFS I did not dismiss the savagery of "Native Americans", another false stereotype, but rather pointed out that pinkskins were at least just as "savage" and a lot of the time more. If you want to dwell on the "savages" feel free. But there is a whole other culture out there, from smoke ceremonies [that never involved a "peacepipe"] to a legal system some progressive societies are seeing as superior and are adopting them.

So, before you accuse someone of ignorance, you may want to do some reading about these "Redskin savages!"
 
"red·skin noun \ˈred-ˌskin\
CloseStyle: MLA APA ChicagoDefinition of REDSKIN
usually offensive
: american indian"
Redskin - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

"Learner's definition of REDSKIN
[count] informal + offensive
: native american ◊ The word redskin is very offensive and should be avoided."
Redskin - Definition for English-Language Learners from Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary

"redskin [red-skin] /ˈrɛdˌskɪn/ IPASyllables Word Origin noun, Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive.
1.
a North American Indian."
Redskin | Define Redskin at Dictionary.com

Why should dictionary definitions be considered significant in this discussion? Because dictionaries are created by reviewing and cataloging how words are actually used in books, newspapers, magazines, etc. The dictionary definition represents a consensus definition based on how the word is actually used. The fact that nearly every modern dictionary indicates that the word is considered offensive is solid evidence that research shows that the word is indeed generally considered offensive.
 
FGFS I did not dismiss the savagery of "Native Americans", another false stereotype, but rather pointed out that pinkskins were at least just as "savage" and a lot of the time more. If you want to dwell on the "savages" feel free. But there is a whole other culture out there, from smoke ceremonies [that never involved a "peacepipe"] to a legal system some progressive societies are seeing as superior and are adopting them.

So, before you accuse someone of ignorance, you may want to do some reading about these "Redskin savages!"

Where do you think I acquired my knowledge about native Americans? Speaking of ignorance, I suggest you research their history a little more deeply.
 
Nope, not particularly. And somehow, I doubt that you'd find a sports team depicting themselves as limp-wristed prancing gay boys, that doesn't fit with the sports model, but it wouldn't actually affect society at all. It's just a sports team.

Nihilism to protect racism. How attractive.


You confuse fact with opinion.

That stereotypes marginalize those left out is a fact.

If we take your comments at face value, and do not consider the troll potential, in effect what you are arguing for is the complete elimination of ALL sports team names. Just call them by their city and leave it at that. Even naming a team after an animal, Lions as one example, might marginalize someone who would view that as stereotyping lions.

Nonsense. I'm against stereotyping a race. Stereotyping a job or animal is fine.

I know, right? God forbid we should want to highlight a positive aspect of something.

While it's irrelevant to my point, what you consider a positive aspect others might not. Even "positive" stereotypes are detrimental to society because the marginalization of contributions is harmful to society.


Let that one go down in history ecofarm, the first time I ever agreed with anything you posted.

Well, now that you've joined the "race traitors", might as well go whole hog and define racism by societal factors and not merely the individual act of racial bigotry.
 
So what? It's still a stereotype and marginalizes those left out. It doesn't matter whether a stereotype is "positive" or negative, it marginalizes.

Oh Bull! The Redskins have been the Redskins since 1936 in DC. With the backing for all of those years of the American Indian Nations...Now all of the sudden lib/progs want to shake down the team...I suppose of the Redskins offered to pay a generous sum to the Indian Nation all would be good...:roll:

Stereotypes do not harm society?

I suppose if it was the Washington Gays, depicted as pansies, you'd be ok with that stereotype too.

The Washington Gays? What's that, a new liberal team proposing to play?
 
Back
Top Bottom