View Poll Results: Is Redskin a slur?

Voters
108. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    43 39.81%
  • No

    65 60.19%
Page 2 of 31 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 307

Thread: Is Redskin a slur? [W:282]

  1. #11
    Guru
    Joe Steel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    St. Louis, Missouri, USA
    Last Seen
    05-11-16 @ 07:36 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    3,054

    re: Is Redskin a slur? [W:282]

    Quote Originally Posted by Verax View Post
    I'm curious what percentage of people think Redskin is a slur separate from whether or not the team's name should be changed.
    Are you serious? Reducing a whole nation to the color of their skin? How can that be anything but a slur?
    Proud to be a tax and spend leftist.

    Proud supporter of the real Second Amendment.

  2. #12
    Guru
    99percenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    4,076

    re: Is Redskin a slur? [W:282]

    Of course redskins is a slur. I dont see any teams with the name whiteskins or blackskins. I think that all native american names used in sports needed to be changed. Marquette did it. Its not that hard.
    bears, bulls, white sox fan 4 life!!!

  3. #13
    Guru
    Joe Steel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    St. Louis, Missouri, USA
    Last Seen
    05-11-16 @ 07:36 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    3,054

    re: Is Redskin a slur? [W:282]

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    Except "ni&&er" (I hate that word) doesn't refer to any physical traits. ...
    You don't think that world comes from "negro," Spanish for black?
    Proud to be a tax and spend leftist.

    Proud supporter of the real Second Amendment.

  4. #14
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,234

    re: Is Redskin a slur? [W:282]

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Steel View Post
    You don't think that world comes from "negro," Spanish for black?
    No, it actually came from "Niger" which is Latin for black. It didn't evolve into a positive word. The Indians who the white men met here in the 1600s had red skin. They didn't call them "Redders" or "Redasses".

  5. #15
    Educator SocialDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    The beautiful Pacific Northwest
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 04:30 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    922

    re: Is Redskin a slur? [W:282]

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    Except "ni&&er" (I hate that word) doesn't refer to any physical traits. It's a derogatory term exclusively. Native Americans did have reddish skin, so the term came about because of the physical reality of their being. They (the Native Americans) referred to the English as "the white man". It would appear that each original group was merely referring to the color of the others' skin, and not in any derogatory way.

    I completely agree with your last sentence.
    Actually, ni**er is based on a physical trait. It's derived from "negro," Spanish for black, and therefore refers to skin color. The difference between referring to the European settlers as white and Native Americans as redskins is that the "traditional" name, if that's want you want to call it, for White people is white, while for Native Americans it isn't redskin. Since there was so much racial tension between settlers and natives during the colonization of North America, I would argue that just as settlers referred to Native Americans as redskins with racial animosity, the Native Americans, at least to a degree, referred to settlers as white with a certain degree of racial animosity at the time.

  6. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Last Seen
    07-21-14 @ 07:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    614

    re: Is Redskin a slur? [W:282]

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    No, it actually came from "Niger" which is Latin for black. It didn't evolve into a positive word. The Indians who the white men met here in the 1600s had red skin. They didn't call them "Redders" or "Redasses".
    It bears noting that within native Americans languages, the words that translate out to roughly "red peoples" is not an uncommon name for other native Americans.

  7. #17
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,234

    re: Is Redskin a slur? [W:282]

    Quote Originally Posted by SocialDemocrat View Post
    Actually, ni**er is based on a physical trait. It's derived from "negro," Spanish for black, and therefore refers to skin color. The difference between referring to the European settlers as white and Native Americans as redskins is that the "traditional" name, if that's want you want to call it, for White people is white, while for Native Americans it isn't redskin. Since there was so much racial tension between settlers and natives during the colonization of North America, I would argue that just as settlers referred to Native Americans as redskins with racial animosity, the Native Americans, at least to a degree, referred to settlers as white with a certain degree of racial animosity at the time.
    Yes I just posted about that. But the N word is from Niger, Latin for black, which came before Negro.

    So if the "N" word is simply pointing out that the person has black skin, then it isn't a slur?

    I don't think the original settlers were racist. They were land grabbers. The color of the Indians' skin wasn't relevant except in its noteworthiness to them as they had never seen it before. I have a copy of John Winthrop's journals which I have read and seen his use of the words "red skin" when describing the Indians. His issue with them was that they weren't Christian, not that they were a different color.

  8. #18
    Educator SocialDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    The beautiful Pacific Northwest
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 04:30 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    922

    re: Is Redskin a slur? [W:282]

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    Yes I just posted about that. But the N word is from Niger, Latin for black, which came before Negro.

    So if the "N" word is simply pointing out that the person has black skin, then it isn't a slur?
    No. Evidenced by my original post, I think they're both racial slurs. :P My point was that based on their respective etymologies, there isn't a significant difference between the two words.

    I don't think the original settlers were racist. They were land grabbers. The color of the Indians' skin wasn't relevant except in its noteworthiness to them as they had never seen it before. I have a copy of John Winthrop's journals which I have read and seen his use of the words "red skin" when describing the Indians. His issue with them was that they weren't Christian, not that they were a different color.
    Indeed, not all settlers held racist sentiments, and I'd agree that religion was all a factor in the tensions between them. But I think that there racism played into a large part of it; even though there were attempts to convert Native Americans to Christianity, there were also a large number of massacres, murders, and battles. In addition, the Trail of Tears incident forced Native Americans who had already "Americanized" their own cultures to pick up and move themselves.

  9. #19
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,234

    re: Is Redskin a slur? [W:282]

    Quote Originally Posted by SocialDemocrat View Post
    No. Evidenced by my original post, I think they're both racial slurs. :P My point was that based on their respective etymologies, there isn't a significant difference between the two words.



    Indeed, not all settlers held racist sentiments, and I'd agree that religion was all a factor in the tensions between them. But I think that there racism played into a large part of it; even though there were attempts to convert Native Americans to Christianity, there were also a large number of massacres, murders, and battles. In addition, the Trail of Tears incident forced Native Americans who had already "Americanized" their own cultures to pick up and move themselves.
    I don't know that defining the color of someone else's skin is a slur. Obama is referred to as a black man, is he not? The "N" word was used in the 1700s and 1800s to diminish the black slaves. It was derogatory. Noting the color of someone's skin to be isn't necessarily derogatory. And in all my years, I never knew any use of "redskin" beyind the football team and F-Troop.

    There were massacres, murders and battles in the early days of this country, but they were on both sides. The Indians massacred Anne Hutchinson and her children, and they massacred the residents of Deerfield MA. These are just a few examples. They didn't, I think, commit those acts out of racism towards the white people. They did it out of defense. The white people did the same thing to them, but not because of racism; they wanted the land and they felt they were inferior not because they were red skinned, but because they called them "heathens" (non Christians). Just like all of the Indians who died from disease, which I think was most of them, weren't intentionally killed. The English didn't plan that. Granted they didn't care that it happened, but it wasn't intentional.

    The Trail of Tears was a terrible thing to do, but I again think that was motivated by a desire for their land, not out of racism. It was also in the 1830s so this was a nation already, unlike in the 1600s when it wasn't. They allowed the ones who wanted to stay behind to do so, with the proviso that they fully assimilated. If I remember right, they even granted citizenship to those who stayed behind. That again all smacks of "our land, our country, if you want to be here, be one of us". If they were truly racist, they wouldn't have allowed the ones who wanted to stay to remain behind, and they certainly wouldn't have granted citizenship.

    Of course, I'm neither 400 years old nor 200 years old so I don't know for sure, just know what I learned.

  10. #20
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    re: Is Redskin a slur? [W:282]

    Quote Originally Posted by Amadeus View Post
    Depends. Is yellow skin a slur?

    I do have some 'skin' in the game, but not enough to really be impacted by the term. I do think you'd have to ask a Native American, not a white person interested in preserving a trademark.
    Can we ask a white person, as well as any other person, who is interested in protecting free speech in this country? Who is interested in not allowing the U.S. Patent Office to become the arbiter of what is and what is not offensive AFTER they have patented a trademark, especially one that has been in use for eight decades? Who is interested in not trivializing what real harm and real offense and real racism is instead of making a federal case, literally, out of the name of a football franchise that triggers no negative connotatins towards any people for the vast majority of Americans and does no harm to 100% of Americans?
    "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

Page 2 of 31 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •