• 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

Verax

Disappointed in Trump
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
12,240
Reaction score
4,519
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
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.
 
It can be used as a slur, in the case of the Redskin's football team it is not used as a slur. No I do not believe because a few feel offended by something everything must change to satisfy them. If this were a majority of indian nations who felt offended and joined the lawsuit then I would consider it legitimate and suggest it be changed.
 
No, it's the name of an NFL team, countless school districts' sports teams, and used in the F-Troop theme song.

In my 52 years in this country I don't ever recall someone lobbing "Redskin" at someone as a means of insulting them. And I'm talking about Native Americans being on the receiving end.
 
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.
 
Perhaps Washington should keep the logo and change their name to the Washington Savages. It would be accurate and non-insulting.
 
It obviously can be used as a slur. There is no other denotational definition of redskin than an offensive term for Native Americans. If someone refers to Native Americans as redskins, that is a racist term. Regardless of the sports teams that are supposedly using them in a non-offensive manner, I hope that we can all agree it would be racist to name a sports team "the ni**as," so I don't see why this is acceptable as a sports team name because it degrades Native Americans as opposed to African Americans.

But to argue that the government should take action on this front is a complete waste of time and violation of free speech.
 
Maybe the thin skins should grow up and get a life.
 
It obviously can be used as a slur. There is no other denotational definition of redskin than an offensive term for Native Americans. If someone refers to Native Americans as redskins, that is a racist term. Regardless of the sports teams that are supposedly using them in a non-offensive manner, I hope that we can all agree it would be racist to name a sports team "the ni**as," so I don't see why this is acceptable as a sports team name because it degrades Native Americans as opposed to African Americans.

But to argue that the government should take action on this front is a complete waste of time and violation of free speech.

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.
 
I have never found it to be so. I have also found that many of my friends in the Alabama-Coushatta community also do not. Of course that is only one tribe and anecdotal. I did see on CBS News last night that there has only ever been one poll that asked tribe members if they found the term offensive and 90% said no.

I grew up in a Dallas Cowboys household, depending on if they beat us or not definitely played a role in how offensive I found them to be. ;)
 
Last edited:
It is just probably a smart thing not to name your team or establishment with a slur of a group of people. I personally thinking the Atlanta Braves logo is a more offensive drawing.

But changing the name isn't that end of life thing.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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".
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.;)
 
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'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.

My answer is not present. It can be used in a derogatory manner as a slur. It can also be used in a rather neutral and non-slurring manner as well.
 
Can we ask a white person, as well as any other person, who is interested in protecting free speech in this country?

Sure, but that wasn't the question asked in this thread. It was whether or not red skin was a racial slur.
 
There is no other denotational definition of redskin than an offensive term for Native Americans. If someone refers to Native Americans as redskins, that is a racist term.

First, most definitions actually acknowledge it is not always offensive in nature. Second, native Americans used the word originally to refer to themselves and some do still use it today, though it's largely out of active use in modern times.
 
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.

No. It is used at all levels of sport and was even used by the Native American's themselves from the very beginning.

If the vast majority of Natives thought it was a slur then my opinion would be irrelevant and the name should be changed... as it is, the vast majority don't think it is or they don't care.

Me? I have always viewed it as a term of strength and honor like Chief, brave, warrior, TBH.
 
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.

It is no more a slur than Cowboys, or Forty Niners, Or Steelers, or vikings
 
Back
Top Bottom