• 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

We killed them, took their **** and forced them to become Americans, they're not just like we.

So how long are we going to hang onto the past?
 
No, because that has nothing to do with what I posted.

Your inability to comprehend the relationship between your statement and the Negro League example because you don't have the knowledge necessary to comprehend it is not my problem. However yes, this is exactly like black people who played in the Negro Leagues. They were leagues intentionally created for the segregation of blacks. Black people still participated in them, went to the games, cheered for their favorite teams but the creation of the leagues themselves - however.... wholehearted - were segregationist, racist and black people participated in the process even if they were the most damaged by it. In short, even though black people participated in the process of their creation, they were - from the beginning a step back in the group's assimilation.

Likewise, Redskin is in the same type of of segregationist social framework as reservations and "Indian Status". It's all part of a package even if the group willingly participates.
 
So how long are we going to hang onto the past?

As far as federal taxes and the native american, probably should be forever, small price to pay.
 
As far as federal taxes and the native american, probably should be forever, small price to pay.

So basically we should never move on from the past. Thanks for answering.
 
Your inability to comprehend the relationship between your statement and the Negro League example because you don't have the knowledge necessary to comprehend it is not my problem. However yes, this is exactly like black people who played in the Negro Leagues. They were leagues intentionally created for the segregation of blacks. Black people still participated in them, went to the games, cheered for their favorite teams but the creation of the leagues themselves - however.... wholehearted - were segregationist, racist and black people participated in the process even if they were the most damaged by it. In short, even though black people participated in the process of their creation, they were - from the beginning a step back in the group's assimilation.

Likewise, Redskin is in the same type of of segregationist social framework as reservations and "Indian Status". It's all part of a package even if the group willingly participates.

The name honors the fighting spirit of native Americans, it doesn't disparage them.
 
Take it up with Zyp, even he admits it is still used today as a derogatory term.

It is recognized as such by multiple dictionaries and encyclopedias. I have no idea what point you have left.

That nobody actually uses the term anymore, much like pakeha here... and he admits that it "sometimes" used derogatorily, but I am seeing a pattern with you in twisting things.
 
Why worry about unemployment, tension in Iraq, skyrocketing deficits, stifling debt, healthcare costs and other mundane topics when you can carry on about an NFL team's name? Please, pol. He has a busy schedule to keep. He has bigger things to worry about - The Koch brothers still walk among us, the Redskins name makes him cry, and Dick Cheney wrote an Op-Ed.

There is truth to what you say. :mrgreen: It's just that it is shocking to see tears and tantrums when the word "compromise" is mentioned, and just because he's been pushing his luck does not mean he can expect to continue to do so indefinitely without blowback. His own people are complaining about his lack of leadership in getting anything done in the Senate!
 
It ain't human nature to move on from the past.

There is really no point in dwelling on the past. You can't change it, and you can't very well fix it, so we either move on or we just stay stuck in a past we can't do anything about.
 
I SPECIFICALLY responded to your comment:

You absolutely did, you responded to my comment by ignoring every bit of context my comment was written about and taking a singular sentence and isolating it.

Which was referring to "native americans" as an over arching group of people, not of individual instances of singular people or groups. But in terms of "Native Americans" as a whole, or as an actual factual representation of the whole.
 
correct. the government can't silence something simply because they or someone else might find it offensive. that does not pass constitutional muster.
the patent office doesn't have the right to cancel a trademark as long as the team as paid and continued to pay for the trademarking.

I guarantee if you look more into this the Obama administration or harry reid has pressured someone in the patent office to do it.

redskins will fight this an win just like they have all the other times before.

Hell yeah some scumbag politician is behind this.
 
Kind of like black people who played in the Negro Leagues. But yeah...

The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964...
 
How much do you want to bet that we're going to see a new bureaucracy created to review all patent and trademark requests to ensure that they aren't offensive to anyone?

It appears we already have one...lol!
 
The name honors the fighting spirit of native Americans, it doesn't disparage them.

Fighting spirit.... by making a direct reference to skin color? Yeah, you keep believing that. Look, there is a reason nobody has made a fuss about The KC Chiefs, The ATL Braves, Chicago Blackhawks and Cleveland Indians. Hell, most of those names make reference to things which they've been called without much ado. However, RED - SKIN makes a direct reference to skin color, one which is disparaging, there isn't a context in which you'd be able to call Native American person "Hey yo! Red skin!" and there wouldn't be a racial aspect to the name. Trying to downplay it so you can feel good about your anti-PC shtick doesn't make it any less disparaging.
 
You absolutely did, you responded to my comment by ignoring every bit of context my comment was written about and taking a singular sentence and isolating it.

I notice he does this a lot...
 
And finally, the really important part:

Thanks for the appeal to authority. The guys writing is interesting and I'll read a bit more in it. However I question anything that requires a belief that the person somehow has the ability to read peoples intentions and meanings for things as some kind of fact. Indeed, the first thing you bold runs somewhat counter to the notion of Redskins...which was not created, nor is always used as a means of a dominant group to sustain inequality. The problem is that the source is SPECIFICALLY talking about slurs, but the issue is that it uses an ASSUMPTION that something that can be a slur is always being used a slur.

Furthermore, the slut comparison is not an accurate comparison. No one calling a rape victim a "slut" can legitimately suggestion that they're calling her a "kitchen maid"...unless you can suggest to me in some fashion exactly how being forced to engage in sexual relations equates to being a kitchen made. However, one can make a legitimate suggestion that they Washington Redskins are referencing the name Native Americans used to describe themselves, as the team is making reference to native americans and native americans did refer to themselves in that name. In the case of the Redskins, it's use is a reasonable 1:1 comparison. In your example with "Slut"it absolutely is not.
 
Fighting spirit.... by making a direct reference to skin color? Yeah, you keep believing that. Look, there is a reason nobody has made a fuss about The KC Chiefs, The ATL Braves, Chicago Blackhawks and Cleveland Indians. Hell, most of those names make reference to things which they've been called without much ado. However, RED - SKIN makes a direct reference to skin color, one which is disparaging, there isn't a context in which you'd be able to call Native American person "Hey yo! Red skin!" and there wouldn't be a racial aspect to the name. Trying to downplay it so you can feel good about your anti-PC shtick doesn't make it any less disparaging.

And there is an instance were you could say to a Native American, "Hey yo! Indian!" or, "What up Chief?!" :lol:

Sure you could... and get a tomahawk in the skull as a response! :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom