• 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!

Poll: 71 percent say keep Redskin

AliHajiSheik said:
Looking back through this entire thread,
Click to expand...

Do you understand now or no?


"Do you support racial stereotypes?" is vague and as deceitful as the question: "are you still beating your wife?" They are both simple yes or no questions after all. Sorry, but they aren't.
Click to expand...

That's not the same thing at all. Either one understands stereotypes marginalize and is thereby against stereotypes, or one doesn't understand or doesn't care.

There is no legitimate support of a racial stereotype. It doesn't depend on any circumstances. Either a person is ignorant or they are not - end of story.



And stereotyping a race to be "warriors" is pretty nasty. Why not just call them orcs.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Do you understand now or no?.
Click to expand...

I understand you completely. You think everyone who doesn't agree with you 100% is stupid, ignorant, or incapable of understanding.

Since you selectively quoted, I have nothing further to discuss with you. The wall near me is easier to have a discussion with and I don't have to wonder why it keeps repeating the same points.
 
 
AliHajiSheik said:
I understand you completely. You think everyone who doesn't agree with you 100% is stupid, ignorant, or incapable of understanding.
Click to expand...

Just ignorant. Stupid means cannot learn and this environment doesn't make that easy. Incapable could be the result of many things.

Since you selectively quoted, I have nothing further to discuss with you. The wall near me is easier to have a discussion with and I don't have to wonder why it keeps repeating the same points.
Click to expand...

Enjoy racial stereotyping, make sure to tell everyone it's good.
 
Change the name to "The Washington Cavalry". We shouldn't have named it after the losers in the first place. There. With that, no one can bitch that the name is a racial slur. Problem solved. And maybe the team will do better because it gets named after winners.
 
ecofarm said:
The paint worn in regard to the Redskins is, obviously, intended to be war paint.

Are you claiming the Redskins do not depict NA warriors?
Click to expand...

For the same reason the Vikings logo doesn't depict a Nordic woman gathering berries.

Football is steeped in warrior lingo and military metaphors. If you have a problem with this then I would suggest you just not watch football. Problem solved.
 
Moot said:
Your poll was part of a 2004 national election survey and it didn't verify the race of those who claimed to be Indians. If it was a stand alone poll that polled only native Americans then you might have something....but you don't. So yes, your poll was deeply flawed.

"...The survey most frequently cited by opponents of change was performed in 2004 as part of the National Annenberg Election Survey. Among other questions regarding election year issues, respondents from the 48 continental U.S. states were asked: "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?"

The problem of individuals claiming to be Native American when they are not is well known in academic research, limiting the value of public opinion polls of the mascot issue.[230]...."
Washington Redskins name controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Your poll is flawed on an even deeper level. It suggests that if popular opinion supports prejudice and racism (or racist mascots) then the matter is settled when in fact it isn't.


"...It suggests that popular opinion can settle troubling questions about prejudice, power, and privilege. Hence, if the majority support mascots (or racial segregation or sexual harassment), then such symbols and practices are acceptable. And worse, [it] asserts that if members of marginalized and oppressed groups consent to their marginalization and oppression, then everything is OK. If most Blacks supported racial segregation, would it be a justifiable system? If most women saw nothing wrong with sexual harassment, would we not still want to suggest such actions were reprehensible and problematic? Unfortunately, in the end, "The Indian Wars" encourages Americans to avoid thinking critically about the history and significance of race....."
American Indian Sports Team Mascots
Click to expand...

Again It looks like because you do not like the results of my poll so you make bogus accusations of the participants not being Indians. The truth is most people have better things to do that act like effeminate emasculated males whining that a sports team name being offensive.
 
jmotivator said:
For the same reason the Vikings logo doesn't depict a Nordic woman gathering berries.
Click to expand...

Nordic is not a race.

You think Nordic = white people?
 
Navy Pride said:
The irony is most Indian tribes have no problem with the name.
Click to expand...

Once again NP couldn't be more wrong. Sometimes , actually....almost always you have to wonder where he comes up with some of this stuff.
 
ecofarm said:
Nordic is not a race.

You think Nordic = white people?
Click to expand...

Oh Ironic straw man. I responded to your argument about the warrior stereotype and your only lame response is to try and start another fight about race.

To Recap: You were talking about the Redskins logo being a stereotype because it depicted a warrior. I was pointing out to you how stupid your argument is because football is soaked in warrior culture and terminology. It is why the Viking Helmet has a Viking WARRIOR and not a Viking berry picker.

This knee jerk assumption on your part that any statement must be racial in nature, even when you have to get their by ignoring your own argument, should come as a surprise to exactly nobody.
 
ecofarm said:
Is Nordic a race? No. Off-topic.


Next.
Click to expand...

Ahahahahah!! After I call you on your idiotic race-filter and point out that the "stereotype" of the Redskins warrior is a product of the NFL culture your decide to scrap the stereotype argument and stick ONLY to race. Typical.

But, back to the logo: A brief history of the origin of Indian iconography is sports.

Summary: In the 1930s when the Redskins were formed the American Indian was seen in the popular culture and extremely gifted athletically and as warriors. This, in my own estimation, was connected to the mega stardom of Jim Thorpe in the 1910s and 1920s. To this day Thorpe is considered to be one of the greatest athletes of all time, and probably single handedly launched the Indian athlete craze of the 1930s.

Many teams picked Indian mascots in that era because of that cultural wave. Marshall, unlike other teams that simply used an Indian name, built his team around Indian players, and while many other teams increasingly went cartoonish in their mascots, the Redskins remained one of the only teams to keep the more dignified iconography.
 
ecofarm said:
I'll take that as "Nordic is not a race, you're right it's different".
Click to expand...

I never claimed it was, ya dufus! I am pointing out that football mascots and culture are steeped in warrior terminology and imagery and that that has nothing to do with race.

You could just as moronically claim that every time a football player is called a warrior that the announcer is just stereotyping whatever race the player happens to be. Actually, you'd probably do just that. :roll:
 
jmotivator said:
I never claimed it was, ya dufus! I am pointing out that football mascots and culture are steeped in warrior terminology and imagery and that that has nothing to do with race.

You could just as moronically claim that every time a football player is called a warrior that the announcer is just stereotyping whatever race the player happens to be. Actually, you'd probably do just that. :roll:
Click to expand...

If you can't restrict your discussion to the narrow topic that certain posters want to restrict it to, then you are wasting your time. Apparently stereotypes are only "marginalizing" when they are racial and anything else is off THEIR topic regardless of the inconsistency.
 
ecofarm said:
Then it's off topic as a matter of scale.
Click to expand...

My comment was completely on your chosen tangent of the particular iconography being a stereotype of the group. I pointed out many times now that the warrior iconography is simply part of the culture of football in general. No matter what group a team selects as its mascot you can bet that the iconography will be of a warrior of that group. In fact, it doesn't matter WHAT the mascot is, it's a good bet it will be a fighting version, be it a gamecock, a turkey, a turtle or an Irishman.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
If you can't restrict your discussion to the narrow topic that certain posters want to restrict it to, then you are wasting your time. Apparently stereotypes are only "marginalizing" when they are racial and anything else is off THEIR topic regardless of the inconsistency.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the baffling thing here is that I wasn't even off THEIR topic! :lamo
 
jmotivator said:
Yeah, the baffling thing here is that I wasn't even off THEIR topic! :lamo
Click to expand...

I understand your point which include some aspects I hadn't considered. I can see a time when someday the name will be changed, but some people are just hard to have a discussion with, so it is best to stop trying after a while.
 
ecofarm said:
If it's a "negative stereotype", it marginalizes positive examples. If it's a "positive stereotype", it marginalizes other contributions.

Either way, the people left out are marginalized.
Click to expand...

Too dogmatic, and not like real life. I doubt that Germans, for example, are marginalized by being stereotyped as precise and hard-working.
 
For a business name, saying 71 percent 'doesn't offend' isn't good actually. That's serious loss of 'goodwill' actually.
 
Jack Hays said:
Too dogmatic, and not like real life. I doubt that Germans, for example, are marginalized by being stereotyped as precise and hard-working.
Click to expand...

That marginalizes artistic contributions, if I can presume your subjective view of 'precise' and 'hard-working'. You see, in your subjective definition of 'precise' and 'hard-working' lies the fraudulent nature of your social object (a stereotype).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom