• 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!

Is Redskin a slur? [W:282]

Is Redskin a slur?

  • Total voters
    96
Gee, I don't know. Is 'darkies' a slur'? Is 'slant eyes' a slur? Of course its a slur, and what a bunch of white folks think about it really isn't relevant.
 
Verax said:
Its offensive to refer to somebody by their skin color. Do you walk up to a coworker or friend and say "hey black face, do you have the paperwork". Do we refer to Obama giving a speech as "black skin is on tv talking?". Yes we refer to him as a black man if it makes sense in context.

Do you guys even think these things through before you post?
Click to expand...

Who is "you guys"? Are you asking me to weigh in on behalf of everyone else?

Nobody walks up to a coworker and says "hey black face" or "hey yellow face". What does that have to do with the Washington Redskins?

So it's okay to recognize the color of one's skin as long as you don't utter the word "skin". Got it.
 
tres borrachos said:
It's the only poll that's ever been taken of all NAs on the question.
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, it was about 800 NAs, and was buried in another poll.

And ten years ago, polls on gay marriage and marijuana legalization would be quite different from today.

We need a fresh, reliable opinion poll to show what Indians today think of

But Kal'Stang has made it clear. It doesnt really matter what the poll will say. You'll stick with the ten year old poll regardless because it fits your predetermined conclusion.
 
Threegoofs said:
Well, to be fair, it was about 800 NAs, and was buried in another poll.

And ten years ago, polls on gay marriage and marijuana legalization would be quite different from today.

We need a fresh, reliable opinion poll to show what Indians today think of

But Kal'Stang has made it clear. It doesnt really matter what the poll will say. You'll stick with the ten year old poll regardless because it fits your predetermined conclusion.
Click to expand...

You went from "Kal'Strang" to "you" (as in me) in 3 sentences. I'm not Kal, you do know that, yes?

So then someone should take a new poll. This issue has been floating around since 2006.
 
Threegoofs said:
I know this might be a radical idea, but maybe consulting a dictionary might help.

OED- says its 'dated or offensive'
redskin: definition of redskin in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

Merriam Webster- 'usually offensive'

Redskin - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Dictionary.com? 'Often derogatory or offensive'

Redskin | Define Redskin at Dictionary.com

McMillan Dictionary? - 'offensive'

redskin - definition. American English definition of redskin by Macmillan Dictionary


Seems pretty clear to me.

But if they changed the logo to a bowl of mashed potatoes, it would work for me.
Click to expand...

But it has only been recently that dictionaries started identifying words like that as 'derogatory' to conform to the current political correct drumbeat.

Again, I have never ever, even from people I know to be racist in attitude, heard the term 'redskin' used in any kind of derogatory way and certainly never as a slur. I have never seen it written as a derogatory term or as a slur. I doubt there is a soul on the planet who can point to any harm or damages cause by the term 'redskin'. It is a tempest in a teapot probably stirred up by people hoping for some fame or notoriety or profit.
 
Verax said:
I'm curious what percentage of people think Redskin is a slur separate from whether or not the team's name should be changed.

I think a lot of people are so used to the Redskin name they don't even think of it as a slur because they see it simply as a descriptor of Native Americans or of its heritage and never thought of it as an insult.
Click to expand...

That isn't the issue. The issue is the capricious abuse of power shown by the US Patent and Trademark Office in it's politically motivated decision to rescind the Washington Redskin's trademark registration and protections.

Are you aware of these company names having trademark protection that hasn't been rescinded:

"Uppity Negro" - a clothing company

"Dago Swagg" - another clothing company

"Stinky Gringo" - a pre-mixed alcoholic beverage.

Do you think any of those perhaps contain racial slurs?

If the US Patent and Trademark Office is going to purge society of all racially sensitive language in patents and trademarks, they're doing a lousy job of it.
 
Here's a good way to figure it out. If you have a term for a demographic of people and it's not the term they would like to be called and what they consider the real name of their group, you have a slur. Just call people what they want to be called.
 
Wiggen said:
Gee, I don't know. Is 'darkies' a slur'? Is 'slant eyes' a slur? Of course its a slur, and what a bunch of white folks think about it really isn't relevant.
Click to expand...

Which is why I go by the fact that the majority of Native American's that were asked the question answered "no" as being my answer.
 
CanadaJohn said:
That isn't the issue. The issue is the capricious abuse of power shown by the US Patent and Trademark Office in it's politically motivated decision to rescind the Washington Redskin's trademark registration and protections.

Are you aware of these company names having trademark protection that hasn't been rescinded:

"Uppity Negro" - a clothing company

"Dago Swagg" - another clothing company

"Stinky Gringo" - a pre-mixed alcoholic beverage.

Do you think any of those perhaps contain racial slurs?

If the US Patent and Trademark Office is going to purge society of all racially sensitive language in patents and trademarks, they're doing a lousy job of it.
Click to expand...

I have a very large contingent of first, second, and third generation Italians in my famly and extended family and terms like Wopp and Dago are thrown around a LOT by Italians and non-Italians alike. You hear things like "you would have to be a wopp to get that" and the more traditional make their own Dago red wine--a real treat if you can get your hands on some. In such common usage the words lose all sting of racism and all power to insult. They are just terms like Yankee or Anglo or Southerner or Hillbilly or poor whites or whatever. You have to add some truly insulting adjective like 'dirty redskins' or 'ignorant Hillbilly' or 'poor white trash' or some such in order to make the words into something insulting.
 
Threegoofs said:
Im pointing out the parallels. I see its challenging for you to recognize them.

The history of the Chinks was certainly not meant to be a slur - its just what a guy from Pekin would call any oriental back at the turn of the century.

So since the intention was totally innocent, you must be fine with calling a team 'The Chinks', and duly outraged that our PC culture pressured the good people of Pekin (and you dont know how tongue in cheek that phrase is if you havent been to Pekin) to change the name.
Click to expand...
What you call pumping out the parallels is actually just you pumping out a non parallel. We know the etymology of the naming of the Washington Red Skins (which you choose to ignore) and it appears three times in this thread, as well as up the page. We know that even now the majority of the tribes do not find the term offensive and we know that tribal languages use the term, which is considered a non slur in that context as well. The Red Skins were named only forty seven years ago, when the team had a tribes member as coach and tribes members playing on the team, thus honoring them. So you have no parallel to draw comparison to. Good try, no cigar.

By the way, I don't see any duly outraged comments from anyone. Except the posters at DP that are arguing that Red Skin is a slur and the team name should be changed. Just like we don't see that coming from the tribes themselves either. As I mentioned before, I have friends in the Alabama-Coushatta nation and this topic has come up many times over the years. Usually when a new charge by the PC forces starts again. My friends in the tribal community actually laugh at all the drama over a term they are not offended by. Like them, the only people "duly outraged" over this issue I see are people like yourself, presenting arguments such as yours. Based upon those arguments and rationalizations so far it is no surprise you are not convincing people to share your view, that already don't. That has been the general reaction for decades now, the result of decided court cases and clearly now that someone in Washington DC decided to try to use the patent office as a weapon in this fight? Looks like we'll have another court case to look at the results of in the near future. Maybe you can contact the patent office and share your "chink" strategery with them?
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
But Kal'Stang has made it clear. It doesnt really matter what the poll will say. You'll stick with the ten year old poll regardless because it fits your predetermined conclusion.
Click to expand...

Yes I did make it clear. I made it clear that continueally making an issue of a word until such time as that word becomes a slur because you want it to be a slur and campaigned for it to be considered as such through dishonest spin should be ignored.

I consider "white" to be a slur since my skin isn't actually white...but tan...should I get my way by lying, cajoling and spin and get that word added to the PC list of words of "don't dare say or you're a racist!"? After all, "white" could be considered the absense of all color, and the absense of all color could mean the absense of humanity, or feelings.
 
Verax said:
Yeah when I get into a dispute with someone who is Irish I say "whatever fighting Irish" and he's like "yo man that was uncalled for, how could you be so crude". :roll:

No Redskins is the formal name of the team. A nickname is an unofficial title popularly used. Is your legal name CRUE CAB?
Click to expand...

You are spinning in circles. Redskin is a nick name, a slang name, a descriptive term. Not an insult or slur. No offence is or was meant by it. Plus have you ever seen how the logo and team name are treated by the fans?
Its viewed with pride and much affection. Its not treated with contempt. Its not treated as a joke.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Yes I did make it clear. I made it clear that continueally making an issue of a word until such time as that word becomes a slur because you want it to be a slur and campaigned for it to be considered as such through dishonest spin should be ignored.

I consider "white" to be a slur since my skin isn't actually white...but tan...should I get my way by lying, cajoling and spin and get that word added to the PC list of words of "don't dare say or you're a racist!"? After all, "white" could be considered the absense of all color, and the absense of all color could mean the absense of humanity, or feelings.
Click to expand...
Well said. In fact Threegoofs and posters of his ilk are admitting this is their approach. The one and only poll taken so far was taken as a direct result of this controversy! As Threegoofs and others demonstrate, they still want to push the argument that the name is a slur, despite the facts that argue against them. So when that poll came out and disemboweled the arguments of the forces for PC good, these forces did what they always do with regard to this team's name. Let's wait a few more years and relaunch all the same attacks arguments and complaints? Maybe if we can just keep harping on the issues for long enough we can get sentiment from within the tribal communities and elsewhere to change if we just keep beating the same drum? Seems to be the case. ;)
 
Paschendale said:
Here's a good way to figure it out. If you have a term for a demographic of people and it's not the term they would like to be called and what they consider the real name of their group, you have a slur. Just call people what they want to be called.
Click to expand...

And how far do you take it? What about the black people I know who refuse to be called "African Americans" because they want to be just plain Americans? There was a time I hated being called 'missy' or 'sweetie' or 'little lady' or some such in the work place, but were those terms slurs? Of course not. And to make a federal case out of it would have said a whole lot more about my feelings of insecurity and lack of common sense than it would have said about well-intentioned people who used the terms.

To make something into a slur just because you don't like the term is not the way to achieve harmony, acceptance, and be seen as equals in the social order. I would very much like to dump political correctness into the trash bin and not assign unintended meanings to words and phrases and make something evil out of what is intended as good natured and not insulting.
 
tres borrachos said:
Who is "you guys"? Are you asking me to weigh in on behalf of everyone else?

Nobody walks up to a coworker and says "hey black face" or "hey yellow face". What does that have to do with the Washington Redskins?

So it's okay to recognize the color of one's skin as long as you don't utter the word "skin". Got it.
Click to expand...

I'm saying "you guys" because a lot of you are making these bizarre arguments where you split things up in ways that do not make sense if you would take a step back and think about it.

Do you not understand that it is impolite to refer to somebody by their skin color as a title? It is okay to refer to somebody by their skin color in context if you have a reason to do so. I don't know how to explain something so basic to somebody, its common sense.
 
CanadaJohn said:
That isn't the issue. The issue is the capricious abuse of power shown by the US Patent and Trademark Office in it's politically motivated decision to rescind the Washington Redskin's trademark registration and protections.

Are you aware of these company names having trademark protection that hasn't been rescinded:

"Uppity Negro" - a clothing company

"Dago Swagg" - another clothing company

"Stinky Gringo" - a pre-mixed alcoholic beverage.

Do you think any of those perhaps contain racial slurs?

If the US Patent and Trademark Office is going to purge society of all racially sensitive language in patents and trademarks, they're doing a lousy job of it.
Click to expand...

This thread is about whether the term Redskins is a slur. So far most on this forum seem to think it is not a slur which brings light to the subject as a likely reason why so many think the Redskins name is fine besides bringing all these other arguments into the fold. If you want to argue that, maybe you should do it in the thread for that.
 
CRUE CAB said:
You are spinning in circles. Redskin is a nick name, a slang name, a descriptive term. Not an insult or slur. No offence is or was meant by it. Plus have you ever seen how the logo and team name are treated by the fans?
Its viewed with pride and much affection. Its not treated with contempt. Its not treated as a joke.
Click to expand...

According to you it is not a slur, thanks for the input.
 
Filthy McNasty said:
Well said. In fact Threegoofs and posters of his ilk are admitting this is their approach. The one and only poll taken so far was taken as a direct result of this controversy! As Threegoofs and others demonstrate, they still want to push the argument that the name is a slur, despite the facts that argue against them. So when that poll came out and disemboweled the arguments of the forces for PC good, these forces did what they always do with regard to this team's name. Let's wait a few more years and relaunch all the same attacks arguments and complaints? Maybe if we can just keep harping on the issues for long enough we can get sentiment from within the tribal communities and elsewhere to change if we just keep beating the same drum? Seems to be the case. ;)
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure I dont have any 'ilk'.

I dont understand how the facts are against me. I showed virtually every dictionary definition I could find says the word is 'offensive'. Thats a fact.

I made a comparison with the name "chinks", which got your undies in a bunch, but I noticed no one stood up for the poor people of Pekin who just wanted their Chinks moniker to stay. Do you think the 'Chinks' is an appropriate high school team name, or do you think the damn PC police are too hard on Pekin?

And the argument has been made by Verax that the intention of the name is irrelevant, and that Native American organizations that provide a voice for NA's have condemned the name.

As I said before, I'm OK with the name as long as they change the mascot to a basket of mashed potatoes.

red_potatoes_redskins.jpg
 
Verax said:
I'm saying "you guys" because a lot of you are making these bizarre arguments where you split things up in ways that do not make sense if you would take a step back and think about it.

Do you not understand that it is impolite to refer to somebody by their skin color as a title? It is okay to refer to somebody by their skin color in context if you have a reason to do so. I don't know how to explain something so basic to somebody, its common sense.
Click to expand...

They are bizarre arguments to you. My arguments aren't bizarre to me.

It isn't impolite if you refer to me as a white woman. Is it impolite to refer to Obama as a black man? The "black" part means the color of his skin.

What is the context of "red skin" that differs from white skin or black skin? By the way, the name refers to a football team, not someone else.
 
Threegoofs said:
I'm pretty sure I dont have any 'ilk'.

I dont understand how the facts are against me. I showed virtually every dictionary definition I could find says the word is 'offensive'. Thats a fact.

I made a comparison with the name "chinks", which got your undies in a bunch, but I noticed no one stood up for the poor people of Pekin who just wanted their Chinks moniker to stay. Do you think the 'Chinks' is an appropriate high school team name, or do you think the damn PC police are too hard on Pekin?

And the argument has been made by Verax that the intention of the name is irrelevant, and that Native American organizations that provide a voice for NA's have condemned the name.

As I said before, I'm OK with the name as long as they change the mascot to a basket of mashed potatoes.
red_potatoes_redskins.jpg
Click to expand...

So the name isn't offensive, just the logo?
 
Wiggen said:
Gee, I don't know. Is 'darkies' a slur'? Is 'slant eyes' a slur? Of course its a slur, and what a bunch of white folks think about it really isn't relevant.
Click to expand...

Why? Why is the term 'darkie' a slur? Why is the term "slant eyes' a slur? At least any more of a slur than say "blondie" or "round eyes" or "shortie" or "fatso" or 'baldie'? Unkind? Yes, some of those phrases can be and I think nice people wouldn't use most of them. But a slur? How? Why?

Not that long ago I attended the funeral of a wonderful, funny, intelligent, brilliant black lady, a former colleague who became one of my closest friends for forty years. There are very few people in my life as close as she and I were, and in teasing and banter she would call me 'honky' or 'white trash' and I would call her the "n" word and we would laugh and go on with whatever we were doing. The words had no power to hurt because they were not said out of anything but pure fun, pure love. Even as I type this I am choking back tears because I loved her so much.

Things are insulting or hurtful or unacceptable only when we intend them to be. There is no such intent with the name of the Washington Redskins and nobody is harmed or hurt or disadvantaged or threatened in any way by that team name. No honest court in the land would find any damages of any kind because of it. To use the U.S. Patent office to attack it is unconstitutional, dangerous, and wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom