• 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
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.
Just as you choose not to understand the meaning of ilk, so too do you choose not to understand the facts that contradict your arguments. The "chink" non parallel you were "pumping out" included.
 
Just as you choose not to understand the meaning of ilk, so too do you choose not to understand the facts that contradict your arguments. The "chink" non parallel you were "pumping out" included.

I dont know why the analogy to the Chinks is not understood by you.

Seems pretty clear to me. It also is starting to become clear that you are labeling it as a non parallel because you cant challenge it rationally.
 
I dont know why the analogy to the Chinks is not understood by you.

Seems pretty clear to me. It also is starting to become clear that you are labeling it as a non parallel because you cant challenge it rationally.
I do know why you choose not to recognize the meaning of ilk as well as acknowledge the facts that contradict your arguments and rationalizations. I just don't care about them, as they are very obvious. It clear that now you need to fall back on another internet cliche, the 'you are being irrational by observing and commenting upon the postures I'm striking' cliche. Which will no more lend your arguments that ignore inconvenient facts credence than your "chink" contortion did.
 
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.

You can't be serious. I'm really at a loss to explain this to you, but I will try again.

Ok so take a look at lists of slurs, many of them are references to skin color. "whitey", "pinky", "pasty", "darky", understand?

If you were to refer to somebody as "whiteskin" as a title it is construed as offensive.

An example is "This whiteskin at the library was being so rude". Notice this is a hair away from "This whitey at the library was being so rude".

If you refer to somebody as "white skinned" as a description of them out of utility, it is not offensive.

An example is "This white guy at the library was being so rude". Depending on the context and the tone of the person that says it, even this could sound ridiculing. If say a black person said this in a manner construing "you know how them white people are".

Do you understand the difference? The connotation matters here. When you refer to somebody as X skin it places emphasis on their skin color as though it has additional meaning (possibly negative as in a racist construct).
 
You can't be serious. I'm really at a loss to explain this to you, but I will try again.

Ok so take a look at lists of slurs, many of them are references to skin color. "whitey", "pinky", "pasty", "darky", understand?

If you were to refer to somebody as "whiteskin" as a title it is construed as offensive.

An example is "This whiteskin at the library was being so rude". Notice this is a hair away from "This whitey at the library was being so rude".

If you refer to somebody as "white skinned" as a description of them out of utility, it is not offensive.

An example is "This white guy at the library was being so rude". Depending on the context and the tone of the person that says it, even this could sound ridiculing. If say a black person said this in a manner construing "you know how them white people are".

Do you understand the difference? The connotation matters here. When you refer to somebody as X skin it places emphasis on their skin color as though it has additional meaning (possibly negative as in a racist construct).
Yes she does understand the matter and the connotation or context that this team name was picked under. Tribes member head coach and tribes members as players at the time of the selection of the name. In the decades since numerous attempts have been made by the PC forces, despite what the actual opinion of the majority of the tribes members is and despite court rulings on the matter. The main battle cry of posters such as yourself regarding this topic is basically ignore reality and all those pesky facts that I am! Lend credence to the arguments and rationalization that I enjoy cleaving to as I reject and ignore those realities which argue against my stance. The overwhelming answer seems to be, no.
 
I do know why you choose not to recognize the meaning of ilk as well as acknowledge the facts that contradict your arguments and rationalizations. I just don't care about them, as they are very obvious. It clear that now you need to fall back on another internet cliche, the 'you are being irrational by observing and commenting upon the postures I'm striking' cliche. Which will no more lend your arguments that ignore inconvenient facts credence than your "chink" contortion did.


Well, my 'ilk' comment was a bit flippant. Sorry. You obviously cant handle nuance, I guess.

The analogy to the Chinks is very relevant. And I see you are happy to create a word salad to avoid actually stating whether you think the "Chinks' is an inapprorpiate name for a team.
 
Yes she does understand the matter and the connotation or context that this team name was picked under. Tribes member head coach and tribes members as players at the time of the selection of the name. In the decades since numerous attempts have been made by the PC forces, despite what the actual opinion of the majority of the tribes members is and despite court rulings on the matter. The main battle cry of posters such as yourself regarding this topic is basically ignore reality and all those pesky facts that I am! Lend credence to the arguments and rationalization that I enjoy cleaving to as I reject and ignore those realities which argue against my stance. The overwhelming answer seems to be, no.

The only reason Redskin is not considered a slur by many is because Native Americans are less than 1% of the population. There are plenty of Natives that find it offensive and a slur. Why are all other titles referring to a person's skin color unacceptable but its okay with Redskin? Its because there aren't very many of them.
 
Well, my 'ilk' comment was a bit flippant. Sorry. You obviously cant handle nuance, I guess.

The analogy to the Chinks is very relevant. And I see you are happy to create a word salad to avoid actually stating whether you think the "Chinks' is an inapprorpiate name for a team.
And now on to the thinly veiled ad hominem 'you can't handle' nuance cliche. Yes I get that you think you have a brilliant argument, problem is it is unconvincing. Particularly couched in all the feeble cliches.
 
These people don't seem to like it, imagine if there were 25x more of them.

 
And now on to the thinly veiled ad hominem 'you can't handle' nuance cliche. Yes I get that you think you have a brilliant argument, problem is it is unconvincing. Particularly couched in all the feeble cliches.

Nice dance. (and I've never heard a phrase I just came up wtih...
'you cant handle nuance' get elevated into a cliche inside a few minutes. Do you know what a cliche is? )

So you're OK with the Chinks? Or no?
 
Is redhead a slur? Is cajun or creole a slur? Is the fighting Irish a slur?
 
You can't be serious. I'm really at a loss to explain this to you, but I will try again.

Ok so take a look at lists of slurs, many of them are references to skin color. "whitey", "pinky", "pasty", "darky", understand?

If you were to refer to somebody as "whiteskin" as a title it is construed as offensive.

An example is "This whiteskin at the library was being so rude". Notice this is a hair away from "This whitey at the library was being so rude".

If you refer to somebody as "white skinned" as a description of them out of utility, it is not offensive.

An example is "This white guy at the library was being so rude". Depending on the context and the tone of the person that says it, even this could sound ridiculing. If say a black person said this in a manner construing "you know how them white people are".

Do you understand the difference? The connotation matters here. When you refer to somebody as X skin it places emphasis on their skin color as though it has additional meaning (possibly negative as in a racist construct).

Yes, I'm perfectly serious, and you don't have to be at a loss to explain it to me. I don't see it as you do. You see it as a "slur". I don't see recognizing the color of skin as a slur.

If you call me a white skinned woman, you aren't slurring me. It isn't offensive to me for someone to mention the color of my skin. End of story.
 
Is redhead a slur? Is cajun or creole a slur? Is the fighting Irish a slur?

I would think if an English school decided to name their team the Fighting Irish, and for quite a bit of their history excluded most Irish from attending because they were too poor, and low class to attend, that yes... having a London boarding school filled with English called the 'fighting Irish' might be actually considered a slur, especially if you were Irish and your ancestors fought and were killed by the English. Dont you?
 
Nice dance. (and I've never heard a phrase I just came up wtih...
'you cant handle nuance' get elevated into a cliche inside a few minutes. Do you know what a cliche is? )

So you're OK with the Chinks? Or no?

Was Chink when first used intended to be an insult to a particular group? I'm asking only because I don't know. If it was intended to insult, then it's a slur.

"Redskin" wasn't intended to slur anyone. It was an observation of the skin color of the Native Americans.
 
Was Chink when first used intended to be an insult to a particular group? I'm asking only because I don't know. If it was intended to insult, then it's a slur.

"Redskin" wasn't intended to slur anyone. It was an observation of the skin color of the Native Americans.

Does it matter WHY they were called 'The Chinks"? Would you support the Pekin HS Dragons to reclaim their name today? If they did, would you think its OK if they promised that the name wasnt intended to insult anyone, just as an homage to their great basketball teams of the 50s?
 
Does it matter WHY they were called 'The Chinks"? Would you support the Pekin HS Dragons to reclaim their name today? If they did, would you think its OK if they promised that the name wasnt intended to insult anyone, just as an homage to their great basketball teams of the 50s?

So what was the origin of the word "Chink"? Was it an insult or not? Redskin wasn't an insulting term when it was first used. And the football team isn't trying to insult anyone?
 
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.

Again, whether or not you find it offensive is immaterial. If native americans find it offensive, it matters.
 
Is nigger a slur? You can use it in a polite manner with your friend to say good morning, "what's good my nigger?". Does that make it no longer a slur?
Often times it is. There are times when it's not being used as a slur or in a derogatory fashion.
Yes yankee is a slur too. However it doesn't refer to skin color and is not racial.
So you at least acknowledge you rationalize and pick and choose which slurs you find more offensive and which slurs you don't. So why is your rationalization and opinions on what is more or less worthy of comdenmnation something that people should care about our respect more than anyone elses?
[quoet]Also Native Americans lost their land in a bloody and devastating conflict in which they were shamed. [/quote]
Appeal to emotion. This has nothing to do with whether or not the word is always used in a slurring fashion.
As I said earlier technically it is a slur whether you like it or not.
And as I said earlier, no it's not. It CAN be used a slur, it isn't ONLY or ALWAYS a slur. It can be used in a non-disparaging or insulting manner, which even your definitions indicate by noting it is use is not ONLY offensive in nature, and as such is not always a slur.
 
The only reason Redskin is not considered a slur by many is because Native Americans are less than 1% of the population. There are plenty of Natives that find it offensive and a slur. Why are all other titles referring to a person's skin color unacceptable but its okay with Redskin? Its because there aren't very many of them.
That makes no sense, particularly given that the word red skins is used in tribal language to describe other tribes. Then there is another problem with your claim. 90% of tribes members polled also did not find the term offensive, particularly in the context or connotation it is used in as the name of this football team. You are ignoring that connotation or context, which is striking because you were accusing someone else of ignoring connotation or context. ;)


Nice dance. (and I've never heard a phrase I just came up wtih...
'you cant handle nuance' get elevated into a cliche inside a few minutes. Do you know what a cliche is? )

So you're OK with the Chinks? Or no?
There is nothing surprising about the fact that a poster who keeps flinging out cliches and thinly veiled ad hominems? Flings out cliched comments like 'you cant handle nuance' at a internet message board, as a passionate defense of his admiration for cliches and thinly veiled ad homs. Meanwhile, your so called arguments are unconvincing. Particularly couched in all of those cliches while you ignore the facts that contradict you. :2wave:
 
So what was the origin of the word "Chink"? Was it an insult or not? Redskin wasn't an insulting term when it was first used. And the football team isn't trying to insult anyone?

Again, it doesnt matter now, does it? Unless you are supporting the use of the name "The Chinks".
 
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.

Actually it's a dishonest representation of facts. The majority of dictionary definitions suggest it CAN be offensive, not that it ALWAYS is offensive. Thus, suggesting it is singularly a SLUR and is not able to be used in any other fashion but as a slur is incorrect.
 
There is nothing surprising about the fact that a poster who keeps flinging out cliches and thinly veiled ad hominems? Flings out cliched comments like 'you cant handle nuance' at a internet message board, as a passionate defense of his admiration for cliches and thinly veiled ad homs. Meanwhile, your so called arguments are unconvincing. Particularly couched in all of those cliches while you ignore the facts that contradict you. :2wave:

Again.... I think you might want to look up the word "cliche'.



And you still dance.... are you OK with calling a team "The Chinks"?
 
Which is still newer than any polling information you have.
But the people dissatisfied with that polling result ten years ago have spent the last ten years "educating" the peoples of the tribes! So that they may more readily recognize that they should be offended, we need "new" data that does not contradict the old data we ignored. Perhaps this time the poll result will be more agreeable to our cause, but if not we'll ignore it and keep on educating anyway. Call for a new poll in another few years....................:cowboy:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom