Moderator's Warning: Vance and Eco...cut the basement level back and forth and the trolling. Stick to discussing the topic or action will be taken. Cease derailing this thread with your arguing
My opponent is a liar, and he can not be trusted
This election began like a car wreck; a bad thing, but I couldn't help but look away. It's now more like a beheading video; a sickening display where I can't hit the red X fast enough.
The commercials were SO fricken ironic, considering the state of most Indian reservations. And if anyone studies even a little bit of history they will see most tribes werent all that concerned about conservation or the land (and to be fair...neither was anyone else). They used the land and resources until they were used up and then followed the hunt.
I sense that a logical fallacy is coming.Yes, a single instance
And here it is (etymological fallacy). Regardless of how the word was used in the 1800s or 1950s, it is offensive to Native Americans now. It is offensive to non-Native Americans. That's the beginning and end of the argument.1. The only bounty documented actually using the word is from 1863...DECADES after the words first recorded use in general, in English, or in Print
2. IF the bounty is actually referring to the "scalped head" with the use of "red-skin" there, then it's not actually using the term "redskin" (referring to native americans) but rather speaking in the literal notion of the "red" SKIN. As such, it would make this bounty NOT an instance of the term "redskin" being used as a slur to refer to native americans, but is an instance of a literal reference.
I don't believe offense matters. The question is: do racial slurs (or stereotypes as some would argue) harm society. The answer is yes. On this ground I support removing the name, not on grounds of offense.
I find offense to be irrelevant.