• 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!

Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face? [W:166]

Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?


  • Total voters
    55
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

Yes, I'm being honest about this.

Please be honest back. How many times have you walked up to a total stranger and called that person a name based on an obvious physical attribute or ethnicity since you've been an adult?

I also wouldn't call someone a "Native American". I don't meet someone named "Vito Minelli" and say "Hey, an Italian!". Do you? If I meet someone with an obvious British accent, I don't say "Hey Limey" or "Hey Brit". Do you?

In answer to your question, I wouldn't.

You are being honest when you take the OP to be about name calling rather than about making the choice between using Native American or redskin? You really think the OP was referring to name calling?
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

Between friends is fine as you all know where the line is however it's silly to then use that line with other people who you do not know and may react differently.

Of course not I wouldn't use it with other people. Like I said I've been called wedita so many times it's almost like a nickname at this point, however I do know when someone is saying it as like an affectionate term rather then some person I don't know who is trying to be insulting. There is a difference. I do think redskins is a slur and I don't really agree with it as a name for a national football team.
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

Well, the OP gave the context he was referring to by mentioning the "other poll".

The OP provided little to no "context" to the situation, and the "other poll" provided little else since the "other slur" provides no context either in terms of how or when someone would be saying it to someone else but simply is asking if it's a slur.

So the TINY bit of "Context" the OP gave still presented zero context to the situation in question. So the only context was a situation where you're face to face with a native american, and that's it. This massive lack of context has naturally led people to have to provide for the various situations where such situations may occur.

Was the other poll talking about situations where you "address" people by their racial designation instead of their name?

The "other poll" simply asked if it's a slur or not. The other poll didn't address situations, it asked a question in an ABSOLUTE form as to whether or not the word is a slur.

It is more about the scenario where it happens to come to mind, and you had the choice between using it or using the word Native American, would you use 'redskin'?

So the "context"...and by "context" I mean the part you made up and applied to it and acted like everyone else should have done the same....is we're supposed to answer something based on a situation that would potentially never occur for us?

Shall I start a poll "If you saw a badger would you **** it" and then have you come in to "explain" the context to people that I'm really asking that if you're in a scenario where yo'ure sexually attracted to a badger, and thus have a desire to **** it, THEN would you **** it.

Whether or not the word is something that I'd routinely use or think to use as a means of describing native americans is ENTIRELY relevant to whether or not I'd use hte word to someones face, which is the ONLY context this post gave. Whether or not the word is something that is outdated and generally not used in common social conversatoin now is ENTIRELY relevant to whether or not I'd use the word to someones face, which is the ONLY context the post gave. I'm sorry that you want to magically gin up context out of thin air and demand everyone just accept it...especially when said context is asking a hypothetical that is unrealistic and ridiculous on the surface....but that's not how things work.
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

In answer to your question, I wouldn't.

You are being honest when you take the OP to be about name calling rather than about making the choice between using Native American or redskin? You really think the OP was referring to name calling?

I wouldn't call someone who is a Navajo "Native American" either. If I met someone from a Navajo tribe in Arizona, why would I say "Hey Native American".

Yes, I am being honest. The only answer for the OP is that neither I nor anyone I know would call anyone some name - funny, cute, insulting, complimentary - to his/her face, unless it's in the context of the example I gave earlier (the parties involved in the dicussion call each other names).
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

You don't think the OP was about the situation where it is necessary to use a person's racial designation, and you have a choice between something polite, like Native American, or something else, like redskin?

And in such cases I'd use "native american" or "indian" for the reasons listed, just as I'd use "african american" instead of "black" or "colored".

Despite that, I don't think "black" is a slur word and I don't think colored when used to describe a black person is ALWAYS a slur and similarly I don't think Redskins is always a slur. Context matters.

When addressing someone based on a racial designation, if I don't know them well, I'm always going to go with the MOST benign one possible because in general it's intelligent not to offend those you're having to deal with in some fashion. This is the same reason I don't talk about Politics or Religion with people at work or in public unless they're close friends.

If I do know the person, then I'm likely to use the words that are most apt to use commonly. It's that simple.
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

Blacks cannot escape racial injustice. It is systemic.
Yeah...especially when they live in areas where there a whole lot of black people committing crime. Damn racist cops..arresting black people for committing crimes.
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

I wouldn't call someone who is a Navajo "Native American" either. If I met someone from a Navajo tribe in Arizona, why would I say "Hey Native American".

Yes, I am being honest. The only answer for the OP is that neither I nor anyone I know would call anyone some name - funny, cute, insulting, complimentary - to his/her face, unless it's in the context of the example I gave earlier (the parties involved in the dicussion call each other names).

The OP isn't talking about saying "hey, Native American". Do you honestly think it is talking about that?
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

The OP isn't talking about saying "hey, Native American". Do you honestly think it is talking about that?

No, the OP was talking about calling someone "Redskin" to his face.

And for most adults, that would never happen. I dunno, maybe you & the OP know a lot of adults who engage in name calling to strangers. I don't.
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

And in such cases I'd use "native american" or "indian" for the reasons listed, just as I'd use "african american" instead of "black" or "colored".

Despite that, I don't think "black" is a slur word and I don't think colored when used to describe a black person is ALWAYS a slur and similarly I don't think Redskins is always a slur. Context matters.

When addressing someone based on a racial designation, if I don't know them well, I'm always going to go with the MOST benign one possible because in general it's intelligent not to offend those you're having to deal with in some fashion. This is the same reason I don't talk about Politics or Religion with people at work or in public unless they're close friends.

If I do know the person, then I'm likely to use the words that are most apt to use commonly. It's that simple.

And finally, you, the first conservative leaning person on this thread to do so, I think, have addressed the OP. Amazing how difficult that was to drag it out of someone.

So, now, why would you avoid the use of 'black' if it isn't offensive in some way? I want to know because I think it has a loose application pertaining to the use of the word redskin.
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

No, the OP was talking about calling someone "Redskin" to his face.

And for most adults, that would never happen. I dunno, maybe you & the OP know a lot of adults who engage in name calling to strangers. I don't.

Again, do you honestly think the OP was about name-calling? As in "hey, Redskin" or "hey, Native American". Or do you think it was about the situations where you do need to refer to a person's race in front of them and you have a choice between 'Native American' or 'Redskin'? Like, when AmericanWoman said she is half Mexican. I could have responded "How was it growing up here being part Mexican?" Or I could have responded "How was it growing up here being part wetback?" See how I have a choice between two words there? Do you think the OP was referring to that kind of situation rather than name calling? You REALLY and honestly think the OP was referring to the ridiculous situation of name calling?
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

I wouldnt call a native american a Redskin, because it has no meaning to me. Its just the name of a football team. I wouldn't necessarily call them native americans either because American is a European name, not a race. If you want to label people by physical characteristics, native americans are actually Asian, specifically Mongol Chinese, from what i understand. Perhaps the correct term is Mongol-American?

However since the point of this thread to somehow convince us that Redskin is derogatory, I dont see any proof of that in its use as the name of a football team, thus its ok. Intent is what matters.
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

Congratulations, you found another way to get right-wingers to look stupid. They're trying to remain firm and make excuses for why its okay, they think they can explain it away. :lamo Their responses in this thread are hilarious, talk about bs!

"In 2004, the National Annenberg Election Survey asked 768 people who identified themselves as Indian whether they found the name “Washington Redskins” offensive. Almost 90 percent said it did not bother them."

But a handful of 'activists' are playing soft white liberals, riding that white guilt pony for all it is worth. The sad thing is...those that pretend to actually care about this dont ACTUALLY give a **** about Indians and never have.
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

Again, do you honestly think the OP was about name-calling? As in "hey, Redskin" or "hey, Native American". Or do you think it was about the situations where you do need to refer to a person's race in front of them and you have a choice between 'Native American' or 'Redskin'? Like, when AmericanWoman said she is half Mexican. I could have responded "How was it growing up here being part Mexican?" Or I could have responded "How was it growing up here being part wetback?" See how I have a choice between two words there? Do you think the OP was referring to that kind of situation rather than name calling? You REALLY and honestly think the OP was referring to the ridiculous situation of name calling?

Because the OP was a roundabout (and silly) way to ask the same question that was asked in the other poll, which is "Do you think "Redskin" is a slur".

The OP asked if you would call someone "Redskin" to his face. My answer is "no" and not because I think "Redskin" is an intentional slur. It's because I don't call anyone names, slurs or otherwise, to his face.

Your example of "How was it growing up part Mexican" versus "How was it growing up part Wetback" leads me to the question...why would you even ask that? Would you consider framing a question that way? I do hope your answer is "no". That's something a kid would do, not an adult.
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

"In 2004, the National Annenberg Election Survey asked 768 people who identified themselves as Indian whether they found the name “Washington Redskins” offensive. Almost 90 percent said it did not bother them."

But a handful of 'activists' are playing soft white liberals, riding that white guilt pony for all it is worth. The sad thing is...those that pretend to actually care about this dont ACTUALLY give a **** about Indians and never have.

Here is an article with a more nuanced context for that poll:

How Many Native Americans Think ‘Redskins’ is a Slur? « CBS DC
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

I voted No.

The reason is I generally call people by their names. If they are strangers, a conversation can be done without knowing names.

If the poll is trying to link the term to the NFL and why the team name should change, the poll is flawed.

It all depends on the context in which the word is used. Yelling out "hey, whitesking person or redskin person " may be offensive to some. Asking someone how are the Washington Redskins going to do in the upcoming season is not, imo.
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

Because the OP was a roundabout (and silly) way to ask the same question that was asked in the other poll, which is "Do you think "Redskin" is a slur".

The OP asked if you would call someone "Redskin" to his face. My answer is "no" and not because I think "Redskin" is an intentional slur. It's because I don't call anyone names, slurs or otherwise, to his face.

Your example of "How was it growing up part Mexican" versus "How was it growing up part Wetback" leads me to the question...why would you even ask that? Would you consider framing a question that way? I do hope your answer is "no". That's something a kid would do, not an adult.

Funny how you think that it is something a kid would do rather than an adult, and yet AmericanWoman 'liked' my post.

I wouldn't ask the question because I already have enough information along those lines. However, there is nothing wrong with asking people about themselves and the specific context of their lives. Thus, if I did want to know, I would rephrase it slightly to the following "How did growing up part Mexican affect you? Did you notice any difficulties, or were things pretty smooth?" I would rephrase it this way only because I wouldn't want to make it seem like the experience of people in specific situations was monolithic.

I disagree that an adult cannot ask about a person's experiences with regard to their race. I want to know first hand experiences because I believe it contributes to the ability to empathize. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

That said, it is irrelevant whether you think it is something a child would do. Any specific example of using a racial designation in front of a person can be conveniently characterized as 'immature' or whatever in order to attempt to avoid answering the question, but I think the person should have to repeatedly avoid answering the question so that it becomes very clear what that person is doing. You haven't answered the question once yet, and instead have been answering a different question - the question as to whether it is ok to name-call. Nobody is asking whether it is ok to name call. Everyone pretty much agrees it is not ok to name call, and that redskin would be a way to name call which would not be ok. Since that is the case, I wonder why you are so interested in making that point. But, I mean that rhetorically, I hardly need an answer from you to figure that one out.

In that light, let's try again. Do you honestly think the OP was about name calling or do you think it was about the need to use a racial designation in front of a Native American person, and choosing between 'Native American' or 'Redskin'?
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

This is a better question than the other poll.

If your answer is "no," you should ponder why not. And maybe even post why not in this thread.

answered no.

why would someone bring that up? i know i wouldn't.

people are people!!
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

Yup. If I am with my native friends and we are playing around, yeah I might throw it out there but I would never just say that to some randon person I don't even know.

And the same is true for virtually anyone else. Most of us weren't raised by billy goats, without any social skills. Even the most coarse of us should have the good sense not to even push the issue, and we don't normally want to hurt anyone's feelings, unless we have serious issues ourselves. I believe the op was just an attempt at being over the top and hyperbolic, for effect. The truth is that it's very unlikely that someone is going to call a total stranger red skin, whitey, or any other of a variety of terms pointing strictly to skin color.

I would say that just because I consider some NA's to be literally family members, and they know I would never intentionally insult them. They have their nicknames for me too.
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

This is a better question than the other poll.

If your answer is "no," you should ponder why not. And maybe even post why not in this thread.
I wouldn't, but then I wouldn't call them an Indian, Chief, Brave or Warrior either.
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

So, now, why would you avoid the use of 'black' if it isn't offensive in some way?

I already stated that TWICE now, so let me do it again.

I recognize that SOME people within that group do find it offensive to be labeled as such, so when dealing with people on a direct level where I have to reference race I tend to go with the word with the least potential to offend that would normally be in my vocabularly regarding that race.

A PERSON finding a word offensive is different than the word inerently being only usable in an offensive manner.

It's also because it's a situation where I'm directly referencing a person. Referencing things AROUND a person is a situation that needs less discretion. If I'm having to reference a black person by their race, I'm probably going "african american". If I'm talking about racial relations AROUND a black person, I'll probably talk use the word "black" as a reference to that race.

The reason for that is I think, in general, people are less apt to reasonably look at the context of a statement that is directed at them then a generalized one because of the personal nature of it. So the more likely a scenario is that I think someone will quickly take offense if they find something offensive, the more I'll try to be polite and go with the least likely to offend topic or word. The less likely that they'll take quick offense in a scenario, the more natural I'll let myself speak.

But because I'm not an ass or a hyper partisan type looking to make a point in everything I do, I don't go out of my way to use words or express views or thoughts that don't normally come to my mind simply to prove a point.

I've never suggested there aren't native americans that find Redskins offensive in all forms, OR that would find it offensive when used specifically in the modern day to refer to them or their race. I absolutely acknowledge it CAN be used in an offensive manner, and some ARE offended. And because I have politeness and tact, when I'm addressing someone specifically (or a group of someones specifically) I'm going to go with the least objectionable. But what I have suggested is that it's not ALWAYS offensive in all contexts and that a majority of native americans are not significantly offended or bothered by it as a name of a sports team.
 
Last edited:
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

"In 2004, the National Annenberg Election Survey asked 768 people who identified themselves as Indian whether they found the name “Washington Redskins” offensive. Almost 90 percent said it did not bother them."

But a handful of 'activists' are playing soft white liberals, riding that white guilt pony for all it is worth. The sad thing is...those that pretend to actually care about this dont ACTUALLY give a **** about Indians and never have.

Keep spinning, keep making excuses. Its an offensive term, you're wrong, get over it.
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

"In 2004, the National Annenberg Election Survey asked 768 people who identified themselves as Indian whether they found the name “Washington Redskins” offensive. Almost 90 percent said it did not bother them."

But a handful of 'activists' are playing soft white liberals, riding that white guilt pony for all it is worth. The sad thing is...those that pretend to actually care about this dont ACTUALLY give a **** about Indians and never have.

What do you base this on? President Obama has done a lot for American Indians.
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

I already stated that TWICE now, so let me do it again.

I recognize that SOME people within that group do find it offensive to be labeled as such, so when dealing with people on a direct level where I have to reference race I tend to go with the word with the least potential to offend that would normally be in my vocabularly regarding that race.

A PERSON finding a word offensive is different than the word inerently being only usable in an offensive manner.

It's also because it's a situation where I'm directly referencing a person. Referencing things AROUND a person is a situation that needs less discretion. If I'm having to reference a black person by their race, I'm probably going "african american". If I'm talking about racial relations AROUND a black person, I'll probably talk use the word "black" as a reference to that race.

The reason for that is I think, in general, people are less apt to reasonably look at the context of a statement that is directed at them then a generalized one because of the personal nature of it. So the more likely a scenario is that I think someone will quickly take offense if they find something offensive, the more I'll try to be polite and go with the least likely to offend topic or word. The less likely that they'll take quick offense in a scenario, the more natural I'll let myself speak.

But because I'm not an ass or a hyper partisan type looking to make a point in everything I do, I don't go out of my way to use words or express views or thoughts that don't normally come to my mind simply to prove a point.

I've never suggested there aren't native americans that find Redskins offensive in all forms, OR that would find it offensive when used specifically in the modern day to refer to them or their race. I absolutely acknowledge it CAN be used in an offensive manner, and some ARE offended. And because I have politeness and tact, when I'm addressing someone specifically (or a group of someones specifically) I'm going to go with the least objectionable. But what I have suggested is that it's not ALWAYS offensive in all contexts and that a majority of native americans are not significantly offended or bothered by it as a name of a sports team.

I can see what you are saying, and might even agree with you.

My own take on it is whether a significant part of a group of people finds it offensive. When it is a small minority, I put it down to people simply wanting to be offended. But when it is a larger minority or majority, I tend to think there is cause for it to be considered offensive. For example, words can change to being offensive to a significant minority when they are in widespread use with even a derogatory tone.

I haven't really definitively heard whether the word 'redskin' offends very many these days. I wouldn't use it in the contexts meant by the OP because I just don't mind being cautious, and I know that there is a perfectly accepted phrase that has the necessary meaning. So, I can sympathize with anyone that has actually addressed the OP by stating that they wouldn't use it in the contexts meant by the OP, and yet state that this doesn't necessarily mean that the word is offensive.

The OP attempts to make a point that avoidance of the use of a potentially offensive word in place of an accepted word means that the potentially offensive word is in fact offensive. I think it fails to make that point.
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

Funny how you think that it is something a kid would do rather than an adult, and yet AmericanWoman 'liked' my post.

I wouldn't ask the question because I already have enough information along those lines. However, there is nothing wrong with asking people about themselves and the specific context of their lives. Thus, if I did want to know, I would rephrase it slightly to the following "How did growing up part Mexican affect you? Did you notice any difficulties, or were things pretty smooth?" I would rephrase it this way only because I wouldn't want to make it seem like the experience of people in specific situations was monolithic.

I disagree that an adult cannot ask about a person's experiences with regard to their race. I want to know first hand experiences because I believe it contributes to the ability to empathize. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

That said, it is irrelevant whether you think it is something a child would do. Any specific example of using a racial designation in front of a person can be conveniently characterized as 'immature' or whatever in order to attempt to avoid answering the question, but I think the person should have to repeatedly avoid answering the question so that it becomes very clear what that person is doing. You haven't answered the question once yet, and instead have been answering a different question - the question as to whether it is ok to name-call. Nobody is asking whether it is ok to name call. Everyone pretty much agrees it is not ok to name call, and that redskin would be a way to name call which would not be ok. Since that is the case, I wonder why you are so interested in making that point. But, I mean that rhetorically, I hardly need an answer from you to figure that one out.

In that light, let's try again. Do you honestly think the OP was about name calling or do you think it was about the need to use a racial designation in front of a Native American person, and choosing between 'Native American' or 'Redskin'?

I'm confused about what American Woman liking your post has to do with what I wrote?

Do you honestly think the OP was about name calling or do you think it was about the need to use a racial designation in front of a Native American person, and choosing between 'Native American' or 'Redskin'

The OP, as I've already said more than once, was another poll that was asking the same question as the first poll on here about the use of the word "Redskins". It was a trap for the people who said they don't think "Redskin" is a slur, and a feeble attempt to get people to rethink their answers by saying "Would YOU call someone a Redskin to his face"?

I keep repeating that. The poll here is flawed. I also don't think "Blondie" is a slur, but I wouldn't call someone I don't know "Blondie". So the poll is flawed because he may as well have asked "Do you ever call a stranger a name other than his name?"
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

Yeah...especially when they live in areas where there a whole lot of black people committing crime. Damn racist cops..arresting black people for committing crimes.

What? That sounds like a Stormfront rant.
 
Back
Top Bottom