• 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!

Which of these Indian mascot/team names do you believe to be offensive?

Which of these Indian mascot/team names do you believe to be offensive?

  • Total voters
    16
Went with illini as it looks silly
 
Mason66 said:
That may be but that has nothing to do with a team name.

Why is skin color more important than any other physical trait someone has?
Click to expand...

Because it has been used to enslave people for it and to deprive them of the same legal rights that others have in this nation and because of that it is a different trait altogether because of its consequences and our sensitivity to it.
 
Mason66 said:
I think the OP is trying to see who here have fallen for the PC crap and who haven't.
Click to expand...

"PC" is irrelevant (and another red herring). I'm only interested in what Native Americans think.
 
Mason66 said:
It would have to be a hockey team.
Click to expand...
Whatchoo talkin bout, Willis?

tumblr_mbxp6cKLE01qbt6hzo1_50011.jpg
 
CanadaJohn said:
That's really nonsense, in my view. We're talking about a team like the Washington Redskins, with a proud history and tradition that's a century old, and a bunch of bleeding heart busy-bodies want to stir up unrest at the altar of the politically correct gods who self-appoint themselves arbiters of offense. The fans of the Washington Redskins own that name, own that history and tradition, and they have just as much right to be offended by attempts to paint them all as racists as some **** disturber who's got nothing better to do with their life and demands change.
Click to expand...

Opinions on what Native Americans thought about "The Redskins" being used would have been considerably less valued a hundred years ago than even today, so "tradition" is irrelevant.
 
Luftwaffe said:
Are you Native American, I got some ancestry.

Here are the amount of ****s I give along with 99% of all the other native americans in the world.

View attachment 67172638
Click to expand...
Considering an Indian designed the Skins logo and it was approved by the Council of Chiefs...I'd say the majority of people truly 'offended' are...well...not Indians. Nor do they give half a damn about the actual problems facing the Indian population. But boy...they do love thems a 'cause'.
 
Luftwaffe said:
Are you Native American, I got some ancestry.

Here are the amount of ****s I give along with 99% of all the other native americans in the world.

View attachment 67172638
Click to expand...

Nope. But if someone was of Chinese descent and we called the team the "Chinks" should we name teams after that as well, even tho some Chinese people dont care?
 
Cardinal said:
Opinions on what Native Americans thought about "The Redskins" being used would have been considerably less valued a hundred years ago than even today, so "tradition" is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

A 2004 survey found just 9% of native Americans considered the Redskins to be racist, with a recent poll showing 67%. It would appear that it has been discovered that there could be something gained by opposition to it now.
 
Montecresto said:
A 2004 survey found just 9% of native Americans considered the Redskins to be racist, with a recent poll showing 67%. It would appear that it has been discovered that there could be something gained by opposition to it now.
Click to expand...

An interesting but ultimately irrelevant interpretation of that shift in thought.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Nope. But if someone was of Chinese descent and we called the team the "Chinks" should we name teams after that as well, even tho some Chinese people dont care?
Click to expand...

not some, if the majority don't care, then yes we can.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
An interesting but ultimately irrelevant interpretation of that shift in thought.
Click to expand...

Yes it is interesting, but as one poster already suggested, lawyers and/or other outside influences are at work on native Americans for ulterior motives. The team is over one hundred years old, there is reason for suspicion given native Americans indifference for nearly a hundred years and the sudden about face. So I believe its quite relevant.
 
VanceMack said:
Indian tribes had a tradition of 'merging' defeated braves that fought valiantly. Of course...if they chose NOT to 'merge' they were brutalized. Their women and children were also 'merged'.
Click to expand...

I think the Apaches really practiced that concept. Apaches routinely merged enemies- both native and mexican who were identified as having courage and fighting skills. Also, like the Spartans, the Apaches would screen their slaves for individuals with good fighting potential and then promote them to "apache hood".


Soemtimes, the idea back fired as one of the most lethally effective civilian cavalry scouts was a former Mexican slave who had been promoted by the Apaches. The Mexican, however, never forgot that a good part of his family was killed by the Apaches during the raid in which he was captured. He then deserted and fought against them.
 
Montecresto said:
Yes it is interesting, but as one poster already suggested, lawyers and/or other outside influences are at work on native Americans for ulterior motives. The team is over one hundred years old, there is reason for suspicion given native Americans indifference for nearly a hundred years and the sudden about face. So I believe its quite relevant.
Click to expand...

Indifference? Or resigned to the fact that nobody was going to give a crap what they thought and now they're saying, "Wait, you mean our opinions count now? Dayum!"

However, our give-and-take is irrelevant as the final say goes to the Native Americans. I mean, we're allowed to discuss it, certainly...free speech and all that...it's just that in the end our opinions matter less than a warm bucket of hyena offal compared to the people those terms are used for.

Like I said earlier, a bunch of Christians can get together and decide that "kike" isn't offensive. It doesn't mean I'm obliged to assign any value to that decision.
 
haymarket said:
I would agree. the only one which stands out as a pejorative is REDSKINS. They need to change that.
Click to expand...

I think that Redskin is the most likely to be interpreted as offensive, but I don't think it is fair to call any of them pejoratives. I don't see anyone saying that there is any intention "to express contempt or disapproval."
 
Cardinal said:
Opinions on what Native Americans thought about "The Redskins" being used would have been considerably less valued a hundred years ago than even today, so "tradition" is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

And if for some reason natives were offended by the word America, origins related to an Italian cartographer, should the United States be forced to change their name?

Canada got its name from the Huron-Iroquois word Kanata, meaning village. If suddenly the Huron and/or Iroquois Indians decided the use of the word offends them, should Canada change its name?

Lots of people are offended by lots of things and often for no other reason than they want/need attention. Pardon me if I have no time to coddle their unhealthy needs/desires.
 
CanadaJohn said:
And if for some reason natives were offended by the word America, origins related to an Italian cartographer, should the United States be forced to change their name?

Canada got its name from the Huron-Iroquois word Kanata, meaning village. If suddenly the Huron and/or Iroquois Indians decided the use of the word offends them, should Canada change its name?

Lots of people are offended by lots of things and often for no other reason than they want/need attention. Pardon me if I have no time to coddle their unhealthy needs/desires.
Click to expand...

As I told Montecresto, freedom of speech allows you to say and think that. Just don't expect your opinions on things you're not qualified to discuss to actually be worth anything. I can crash a physics forum frequented by actual physicists and start throwing my completely uneducated thoughts into their discussions, but it would just be silly of me to expect them to value my contributions.
 
Cardinal said:
Indifference? Or resigned to the fact that nobody was going to give a crap what they thought and now they're saying, "Wait, you mean our opinions count now? Dayum!"

However, our give-and-take is irrelevant as the final say goes to the Native Americans. I mean, we're allowed to discuss it, certainly...free speech and all that...it's just that in the end our opinions matter less than a warm bucket of hyena offal compared to the people those terms are used for.

Like I said earlier, a bunch of Christians can get together and decide that "kike" isn't offensive. It doesn't mean I'm obliged to assign any value to that decision.
Click to expand...

Yes indifference, it's not as though they weren't asked if the name redskins was offensive. They were asked and not ten years ago, 91% said no! So yes, there is good reason to believe there are others sticking a stick in this and stirring it up, and perhaps its Indians, the poorest amongst us that have been convinced of financial benefits if they insist on this.
 
Cardinal said:
As I told Montecresto, freedom of speech allows you to say and think that. Just don't expect your opinions on things you're not qualified to discuss to actually be worth anything. I can crash a physics forum frequented by actual physicists and start throwing my completely uneducated thoughts into their discussions, but it would just be silly of me to expect them to value my contributions.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that it's for the native Americans to decide whether or not its offensive. It's just my opinion, while we're all offering them up here, that this about face in the last few years is suspicious.
 
Montecresto said:
Yes indifference, it's not as though they weren't asked if the name redskins was offensive. They were asked and not ten years ago, 91% said no! So yes, there is good reason to believe there are others sticking a stick in this and stirring it up, and perhaps its Indians, the poorest amongst us that have been convinced of financial benefits if they insist on this.
Click to expand...

And did they give a reason for the shift in their opinions? I'd like to see those polls, by the way.
 
Luftwaffe said:
not some, if the majority don't care, then yes we can.
Click to expand...

How do you plan on doing that. Going out and polling everyone who is Chinese or has Chinese descent? There is a reason why something is called a racial slur, it carries a negative connotation with it.
 
Montecresto said:
I agree with you that it's for the native Americans to decide whether or not its offensive. It's just my opinion, while we're all offering them up here, that this about face in the last few years is suspicious.
Click to expand...

Public thought on things change all the time. I'm more interested in their reasons for that shift than yours, respectfully speaking.
 
Cardinal said:
As I told Montecresto, freedom of speech allows you to say and think that. Just don't expect your opinions on things you're not qualified to discuss to actually be worth anything. I can crash a physics forum frequented by actual physicists and start throwing my completely uneducated thoughts into their discussions, but it would just be silly of me to expect them to value my contributions.
Click to expand...

Yes, freedom of speech - wonderful thing - it would be a principle to live by and fight for - funny how the American government decided to remove the Washington Redskin's name patent protection without cause, thus denying them their actual free speech rights.
 
Cardinal said:
Public thought on things change all the time. I'm more interested in their reasons for that shift than yours, respectfully speaking.
Click to expand...

People up here are smoking if they think that Native Americans give a **** about this.

In all of Latin America they're more worried about the massive amounts of oppression they face.

Here in the USA they don't really complain that much.

It would be stupid for the few that do to complain about this instead of the massive amounts of alcoholism and sexual abuse in Native populations since their culture was massacred and they were forced onto tiny lands.
 
Cardinal said:
Public thought on things change all the time. I'm more interested in their reasons for that shift than yours, respectfully speaking.
Click to expand...

For argument's sake, I believe your user name is offensive since it denotes papist oppression in my opinion and an affront to gender equality - it's extremely offensive. I might be in a minority of one, but only my opinion counts so you should change it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom