• 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!

Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

Bump...
shrubnose said:
Nope, serious as a heart attack.
Click to expand...
Gimmesometruth said:
You are seriously arguing that no one you knew who is Polish was bothered by the derogatory use of "Polack" when it was directed at them?

Whatever, but growing up in Phoenix I often saw my friends bothered when they were called "beaners".
Click to expand...
Still thinking about it?
 
Bodhisattva said:
He is party politics at its worst...
Click to expand...

The same man who commented on Obama only using a "Negro dialect" when he chose to has the audacity to spin his senile wheels about the name of a football team. His senility became evident when he called Clive Bundy a racist for using the word "Negro".

Get that man's brain in a jar of formaldehyde before it's completely caput.
 
Zyphlin said:
Quibble all you like...if you don't have anything remotely to offer factually to counter it the fact is it's the most accurate scientifically polled data on the subject that's available.



Because everyone has their own arbitrary line. And that's all it is, arbitrary.

There's a retired chief of one of the Native American tribes here in Virginia whose gone on record stating he'd be offended if they DO change the name. If 10% of the native american population felt that they'd be upset if the name WAS changed....would that somehow counter the other 10% for you? Since apparently 10% of a populatoin feeling a certain way is enough for you.

But to an even greater extent, the issue with the 10% isn't so much a "do it/don't do it" thing...but rather it highlights the dishonesty by many who attempt to paint this as though it's offensive to native americans as a GROUP. No, in reality, this is offensive to a small portion of native americans. It's entirely reasonable for someone to decide, PERSONALLY, if that small portion is enough to warrant action. But it's NOT reasonable to attempt to take that small portion and portray them as the group as a whole in order to gain further sympathy and emotional weight to your side. It's against that kind of tactic that the "10%" number is most often meant to combat.
Click to expand...

The first thing I do when I see a number from a study is to Google it and try to come up with the original source. The problems were mentioned right along with the first mention I found of it.

This is the actual study, from 2004. It was was not is "Redskin" an offensive term. The question, which was part of a large collection of other unrelated questions, asked was “The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn’t it bother you?” That's wholey different than asking if the term "redskin" would be offensive if applied to an actual person.

As for numerical issues, the survey randomly interviewed 65,047 individuals. Of those, 768 self identified as Native Americans. In 2004 the average poll response rate was 25%. That puts their overall response rate at around 1:400.

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr2.pdf

If you want a list of reasons
The poll is outdated, being more than a decade old.
The question wasn't given in a way which would promote any kind of introspection on the subject into a topic that had received essentially zero coverage.
The poll only required self identification, but did not follow up with any kind of follow-up questions to determine tribal membership or ancestry. There's a difference between being a self identified Native American and being an active member of a tribe.
The poll relied on landlines. In 2005 only half of all Native Americans living on a reservation had access to a land line.
The phrasing of the question is confusing. It combines do you find offensive with doesn't it bother you.
The survey didn't include anyone from Alaska or Hawaii.
The survey talked to 768 self identified native Americans. Lawsuits have been brought against the Redskins by 250 groups representing 1.2 million Native Americans.

So yeah.. the poll has issues.
 
Mason66 said:
When does anybody anymore use the Word Redskins unless they are talking about the team?

Can anybody post instances of where the term was used as a racial slur?
Click to expand...

Post #398 tried... perhaps you can help me understand what that source actually means?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Bump...
Still thinking about it?
Click to expand...

So because you know Mexicans who were offended by being called 'beaner', means that Polish people who shrubnose knows have to be offended by 'polack'? I don't see the connection. :dunno:
 
Mithros said:
Which evidence is that?
Click to expand...

Research conducted by a Senior Linguist of the Smithsonian institute.

The earliest use of the word "Red Skin" in print was in July 22nd, 1815 newspaper quoting a native american chief stating "I have never injured you, and innocence can feel no fear. I turn to all red skins and white skins, and challenge an accusation against me."

The earliest discovered reference to the word in history was from 1769, when a chief named Mosquito "And if any redskins do you harm, I shall be able to look out for you even at the peril of my life."

The earliest public reference of the word used in English was in 1812 by James Madison and a number of tribal leaders who made statements such as "I know the manners of the whites and of the red skins" and "I am a red-skin, but what I say is the truth, and notwithstanding I came a long way, I am content, but wish to return from there."

Every dictionary classifies it as a usually offensive term.
But even your reliance on the dictionary, it still does not follow what you claimed which was that it IS a racial slur...not that it USUALLY is. And I'd argue that the dictionary is hardly correct, since the words is used FAR more in society as a reference to a football team than it is as a direct reference to native americans, let alone as a slur. However, a word's relation to a team isn't part of a dictionary definition typically....which is why the ethnic slur "yankee" doesn't make mention of a baseball team.

Native Americans have been officially protesting the name since 1968.
Click to expand...

SOME native americans have been.

A huge list of announcers and writers have announced that they are boycotting the name redskins.
Click to expand...

And they can all go suck a duck. Peter King and his MMQB no longer receives any clicks from me. They're more than happy to indulge in their protest...their protest proves nothing about the name other than their displeasure with it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Does anyone have an explanation for why the Red Mesa School district, which according to their website:

is located in Red Mesa, Arizona, which is about 25 miles southwest of the Four Corners. The school is located on the Navajo Reservation and is a public school. We have nearly 100% Navajo students are coming from low-income families

calls its school sports teams "The Redskins"?

Why isn't anyone demanding that the Native American Navajo Indians on the reservation stop using a racial slur?

RMUSD #27 / Red Mesa High School
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Oh, I see, the use today of "Redskin" is not used in derogatory terms.
Click to expand...

It's origins were not derogatory. The vast majority of it's use in the modern day is not done in a derogatory fashion. At times in our history it's use was more derogatory than not, and in isolated instances today it still may be....but by and large it's use today is not in a derogatory fashion.
 
Rant:

I have really been trying to stay away from Politics here lately....both sides suck monkey testicles as it is...but this Redskins thing has me pissed. I am NOT a Redskins fan by any stretch of the imagination but their name is their name.

Harry Reid said he wants the name changed because it is offensive to Native American.....change the name or suffer the consequences.

Dan Snyder should hold a press conference and change the name of the team...period, no questions asked. And this is how I see that conference going...

"Today is the very last day you will ever see the name Washington Redskins. It is offensive, abusive and intolerant and I fought it long enough. Effective immediately, we will now be known as the Maryland Redskins because the name Washington has become so offensive to every American that we can not sit by and willingly offend the American people and the NFL fan base."
 
Bodhisattva said:
What the hell is that? What does it even mean? "Mentions" in what manner or context. Is it internet searches? Does the use on DP count as we discuss the term? Your source means next to nothing.
Click to expand...
Um...you asked:

"Who uses the term Redskin in today's world?"

It certainly gives an indication of the amount of use. Further it indicates the common understanding today that it is derogatory slang......but I imagine not even that makes a difference.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Florida Seminoles
Chicago Blackhawks
Cleveland Indians
Atlanta Braves
Golden State Warriors
Fighting Irish
Trojans
Spartans
Eagles
Redskins

To me it promotes courage, honor and spirit just as the Pittsburgh Pirates or Minnesota Vikings do. I am of Viking ancestry but do not find the Vikings offensive even though my ancestors murdered, raped, enslaved and pillaged innocent people for centuries.
Click to expand...

I think there's a bit of confusion here. We aren't talking about the offensiveness of using a Native American likeness as a sports mascot. We're talking solely about the Redskins which use a racial slur as a team name. By definition, redskins is offensive. (at least that's what the dictionary says).
 
Imnukingfutz said:
Rant:

I have really been trying to stay away from Politics here lately....both sides suck monkey testicles as it is...but this Redskins thing has me pissed. I am NOT a Redskins fan by any stretch of the imagination but their name is their name.

Harry Reid said he wants the name changed because it is offensive to Native American.....change the name or suffer the consequences.

Dan Snyder should hold a press conference and change the name of the team...period, no questions asked. And this is how I see that conference going...

"Today is the very last day you will ever see the name Washington Redskins. It is offensive, abusive and intolerant and I fought it long enough. Effective immediately, we will now be known as the Maryland Redskins because the name Washington has become so offensive to every American that we can not sit by and willingly offend the American people and the NFL fan base."
Click to expand...

I. Love. It.
 
tres borrachos said:
He's been yakking his loud mouth off for months about it,
but today he actually addressed Snyder on the Senate floor. And as the Daily Caller so aptly put it, he "gloated".
Click to expand...
Boy Harry sure gets to you doesn't he tb? :lamo
How dare he use his 1st amendment rights.
You may want to look up Pelosi's comments as well, though you guys have been tame on her lately--it's still early.

The fact that Reid is against the use of the name only makes me that much more in Snyder's court.
Click to expand...
certainly not hackish here.
Harry Reid is offensive to me.
Click to expand...
:lamo
I'll bet I can find 4 others who say the same thing.
Click to expand...
I'll bet I can find 40 million.
4 is a good # with you guys.
remember 4 dead in O--hi--o; just replace with Ben--gha--zi
I wonder if I can get him removed because he offends me.
Click to expand...
The GOP should have won this seat in 2010--that must be the maddening part to you.
In all sincerity, I would vote for Sen. Gillibrand over Sen. Warren for Majority Leader.
Warren is my pit bull .
 
Zyphlin said:
You keep making this asinine, idiotic comment in thread after thread. I continually inform you why this is an asinine and idiotic comment. And you repeatedly ignore that response and then just make it again.

Niggers and Redskins are not analogous words.
Click to expand...

Racial slur to racial slur. You're only pissed because it's your favorite team, so anything is "asinine" in your view. Maybe I want to honor black people for their bravery in the face of slavery and racism.

We have reached a point where the only acceptable racism is against Native Americans. And you're hanging on to it with all your might.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Post #398 tried... perhaps you can help me understand what that source actually means?
Click to expand...

He/She answered his/her own question.

It says right in the definition the word is dated which means it is not used anymore for that purpose.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Didn't the article state that the patent office had no power to prevent the redskins from continuing to use their name.
Click to expand...

The patent office doesn't have the power to violate the Constitution, neither.
 
rocket88 said:
Racial slur to racial slur. You're only pissed because it's your favorite team, so anything is "asinine" in your view. Maybe I want to honor black people for their bravery in the face of slavery and racism.

We have reached a point where the only acceptable racism is against Native Americans. And you're hanging on to it with all your might.
Click to expand...

Racial slurs are protected by the 1st Amendment.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um...you asked:

"Who uses the term Redskin in today's world?"

It certainly gives an indication of the amount of use. Further it indicates the common understanding today that it is derogatory slang......but I imagine not even that makes a difference.
Click to expand...

You can't be that obtuse... "Who uses the term", means in common conversation or as an actual insult and NOT in a form of debate or research. We have used the term "Redskin" (oh ****, I just used it again!) to talk about who really uses it as an insult. ...but then again, maybe you are just an intellectually dishonest person. Seems so thus far.
 
rocket88 said:
Racial slur to racial slur. You're only pissed because it's your favorite team, so anything is "asinine" in your view. Maybe I want to honor black people for their bravery in the face of slavery and racism.

We have reached a point where the only acceptable racism is against Native Americans. And you're hanging on to it with all your might.
Click to expand...

So the Native Americans in AZ who live on a reservation and have 100% of the student population comprised of Native Americans and use the name "Redskins" for their sports teams are, what...stupid because they don't know that they are slurring themselves?
 
Zyphlin said:
It's origins were not derogatory.
Click to expand...
I did not say it was, straw.

The vast majority of it's use in the modern day is not done in a derogatory fashion.
Click to expand...
Since the use is primarily referring to a NFL team, but you are admitting that its use is done still today in derogatory terms.

At times in our history it's use was more derogatory than not, and in isolated instances today it still may be....but by and large it's use today is not in a derogatory fashion.
Click to expand...
A piss poor excuse for it's continued use.
 
Imnukingfutz said:
Rant:

I have really been trying to stay away from Politics here lately....both sides suck monkey testicles as it is...but this Redskins thing has me pissed. I am NOT a Redskins fan by any stretch of the imagination but their name is their name.

Harry Reid said he wants the name changed because it is offensive to Native American.....change the name or suffer the consequences.

Dan Snyder should hold a press conference and change the name of the team...period, no questions asked. And this is how I see that conference going...

"Today is the very last day you will ever see the name Washington Redskins. It is offensive, abusive and intolerant and I fought it long enough. Effective immediately, we will now be known as the Maryland Redskins because the name Washington has become so offensive to every American that we can not sit by and willingly offend the American people and the NFL fan base."
Click to expand...

Harry Reid would do everyone a favor by chasing a plastic bag on the Southeast Freeway.
 
Zyphlin said:
Research conducted by a Senior Linguist of the Smithsonian institute.

The earliest use of the word "Red Skin" in print was in July 22nd, 1815 newspaper quoting a native american chief stating "I have never injured you, and innocence can feel no fear. I turn to all red skins and white skins, and challenge an accusation against me."

The earliest discovered reference to the word in history was from 1769, when a chief named Mosquito "And if any redskins do you harm, I shall be able to look out for you even at the peril of my life."

The earliest public reference of the word used in English was in 1812 by James Madison and a number of tribal leaders who made statements such as "I know the manners of the whites and of the red skins" and "I am a red-skin, but what I say is the truth, and notwithstanding I came a long way, I am content, but wish to return from there."

Every dictionary classifies it as a usually offensive term.
But even your reliance on the dictionary, it still does not follow what you claimed which was that it IS a racial slur...not that it USUALLY is. And I'd argue that the dictionary is hardly correct, since the words is used FAR more in society as a reference to a football team than it is as a direct reference to native americans, let alone as a slur. However, a word's relation to a team isn't part of a dictionary definition typically....which is why the ethnic slur "yankee" doesn't make mention of a baseball team.



SOME native americans have been.



And they can all go suck a duck. Peter King and his MMQB no longer receives any clicks from me. They're more than happy to indulge in their protest...their protest proves nothing about the name other than their displeasure with it.
Click to expand...

I'm not advocating forcing the Redskins to change their name. But they do deserve all of the PR backlash and boycotts that result from keeping the name. They have to decide if being called the redskins instead of just the skins worth that.
Click to expand...
 
Mithros said:
That's wholey different than asking if the term "redskin" would be offensive if applied to an actual person.
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct. Which is why I've never agued that "Redskin" CAN'T be used a slur, or CAN'T be used in an offensive manner. Rather, I've stated that it's usage as a Teams Name is not done in an offensive manner and that an overwhelming majority of native americans are not bothered by it.

As for numerical issues, the survey randomly interviewed 65,047 individuals. Of those, 768 self identified as Native Americans. In 2004 the average poll response rate was 25%. That puts their overall response rate at around 1:400.
Click to expand...

None of which changes that it was still conducted in accordance with the standards for scientifically conducting such a poll. The entire purpose of polling is to garner a sample that can then realistically be extrapolated to the samples group at large.

The poll is outdated, being more than a decade old.
Click to expand...

I admit, it's an old poll. The data may have changed slightly. But once again I'll note it is the most recent FACTUAL EVIDENCE on this manner that I've seen. if you have something more recent please present it. Otherwise I'll go with scientifically conducted, FACTUAL, information over anecdotal evidenced based primarily over whose loudest and gets the most media attention (Which has been deridingly skewed)

The question wasn't given in a way which would promote any kind of introspection on the subject into a topic that had received essentially zero coverage.
Click to expand...

I find this funny that you claim "native americans", stated in this broad fashion, have been complaining since the 60's...but then suddenly you're suggesting that native americans didn't have the knowledge to be introspective on the issue :roll:

The poll only required self identification, but did not follow up with any kind of follow-up questions to determine tribal membership or ancestry. There's a difference between being a self identified Native American and being an active member of a tribe.
Click to expand...

Not all native americans are members of active tribes.

The poll relied on landlines. In 2005 only half of all Native Americans living on a reservation had access to a land line.
Click to expand...

Once again, native americans on reservations are not the only native americans. Secondly, that still provides for a significant sample on reservations that were able to answer a land line poll. Once again, do some research and take some classes on how polling is conducted....the entire purpose for scientific polling is an understanding that you can't reach every single person within a population.

The phrasing of the question is confusing. It combines do you find offensive with doesn't it bother you.
Click to expand...

Which is why it's accurate to claim, at the very least, 90% of native americans are not bothered by the name.

And on and on you go...but I'll say again.

You find me something "more accurate" or "more recent" and I'll be happy to have it. If you don't, all you're doing is pissing and moaning with quibbles and casting stones because I'm actually going off something factually sound and you're going off pure and utter anecdotal. You say the poll has issues? I say your factual evidence as to the names offense or the belief of native americans that it should be changed to be nonexistent. I'll take some minor issues over nonexistent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom