• 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!

Anti-Redskins ad airing during NBA Finals[W:125]

Re: Tonighjt June 11 Watch The NBA Half Time For A Redskins Protest of Racism

Went to high school with a "Bayou Ni&&er". His family's term not mine. It was the first time I had heard that. But they were from the swamps of Louisiana.
I have actually never heard that term in my life here. It could be something that his family came up with, or something that part of Louisiana says but I'm not familiar with it, we do have a lot of odd terms though.
 
Re: Tonighjt June 11 Watch The NBA Half Time For A Redskins Protest of Racism

I do believe that depends on which generation you ask, I know a lot of the older black folks I have talked to hate that aspect of the genre.

The race's perception of the word is irrelevant as to whether or not it perpetuates a stereotype. The majority of the black population is bellow the age of 40. I'm not saying all are rap listeners but a pretty good percentage are. Does their opinion on the subject change whether or not a word perpetuates a stereotype? Using what the majority of Native Americans think about a word is the old "I have a black friend who disagrees!" argument. It's irrelevant in the grand scope of the discussion. Like arguing that women should serve men because we've had female members on this forum who enjoy being subservient or because the FLDS endorses such nonsense.
 
Re: Tonighjt June 11 Watch The NBA Half Time For A Redskins Protest of Racism

The race's perception of the word is irrelevant as to whether or not it perpetuates a stereotype. The majority of the black population is bellow the age of 40. I'm not saying all are rap listeners but a pretty good percentage are. Does their opinion on the subject change whether or not a word perpetuates a stereotype? Using what the majority of Native Americans think about a word is the old "I have a black friend who disagrees!" argument. It's irrelevant in the grand scope of the discussion. Like arguing that women should serve men because we've had female members on this forum who enjoy being subservient or because the FLDS endorses such nonsense.
You really think that this is anything more than the PC police just making **** up? It's simple man, predominantly Indian schools are using the same mascot, for every one of the five people the Dems trotted out to complain, hundreds are saying it's not an issue. If the people supposedly affected don't care, why should I?
 
Re: Tonighjt June 11 Watch The NBA Half Time For A Redskins Protest of Racism

Doesn't matter, we are taking the concept of expanded offense to it's logical conclusion. Political correctness is the most ridiculous abuse of language and socializing ever come up with, so if we are going to play by the "offense" rules, where everything that might be an offense to someone is taboo, then everything must be removed because let's face it, someone of the Saginaw tribe may not want to be associated with a non-tribal area of Michigan and it just might offend them.

You do realize that this has nothing to do with association... yes? Or usage of a term outside of political boundaries? It has to do with the very dangerous corporate exploitation of a term used to demonize and attack Native Americans. Again, Saginaw is the correct term for a people. That's why nobody is offended by it. It's also why people don't get offended at names like French Quarter, Chinatown or Spanish Dock. Now try calling those places Faggot Quarter, Chinktown and Wetback Dock and see if people are offended or not.
 
Re: Tonighjt June 11 Watch The NBA Half Time For A Redskins Protest of Racism

That doesn't make etymological sense. Why would one race be referred to as "<color> <man>" and the other "<color> <skin>". That's inherently degrading to the race not called man.

You are right, I was making a point with a more commonly known native American term that relied on skin color. The oldest documented use of the term "Red Skin" in English was used by a Midwestern Chieftain in a negotiation with Envoys of President James Madison:

"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." (source)

The term Redskin is a direct translation of the word used by Midwestern Native Americans for all native people. (source)

I think you're the one lying or mistaken.

I was mistaken, but not in the way you think.

The liar is Suzan Harjo, the person at the center of the myriad of lawsuits against the Washington Redskins. She has made claims as the the origin of the termn Redskins, such as being the name given to bloody scalps of Native Americans, that have, time and again, been thrown our of court for lack of any historical verification. The historical documentation, as has been shown, shows the word being used by native Americans for themselves.

Harjo created a false story behind the name that too many people bought over the years.

So yeah, that ad is a lie, Suzan Harjo is a liar, and the name should be aloud to stay.
 
Re: Tonighjt June 11 Watch The NBA Half Time For A Redskins Protest of Racism

People need to grow up and stop concerning themselves with what teams are named.

Really?

So if they changed the name to the 'Child Molesters'...you would say the same thing?
 
Re: Tonighjt June 11 Watch The NBA Half Time For A Redskins Protest of Racism

You really think that this is anything more than the PC police just making **** up?

Redskin (slang) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Redskin as a derogatory term is nothing made up or new.

If the people supposedly affected don't care, why should I?

No one has asked you to care. It doesn't deter from the fact that it's still pushing for racial stereotypes. :shrug:
 
Really?

So if they changed the name to the 'Child Molesters'...you would say the same thing?

That's not the same thing. The Redskins aren't named that because they want their team to have a denigrating, offensive name. They're named that to honor Native American heritage. A team wouldn't call themselves something that they hate and that people hate.
 
Re: Tonighjt June 11 Watch The NBA Half Time For A Redskins Protest of Racism

The "I have a black friend" argument is attempting to excuse ones action towards the whole because of treatment of a single.

The argument that women should be subservient because a few individual women on this forum have expressed they felt that way is attempting to suggest the majority should act in the way a minority wants.

The argument that the vast MAJORITY of native americans don't believe the name needs to change is not "like" either of those. In both of those you're referencing a small minority as justification for action towards the majority.

If anything, pointing at a random individual native american saying it should change and using that as justification that it needs to change because it's offensive "to native americans" is closer to "I have a black friend" then the other way around.

The words origin is not that of a slur. The words history is not singularly that of a slur. The words use as the name of a team is not meant as a slur. The majority of native americans don't view the name as something that needs to change. The majority of americans don't view the name as something that needs to change. But SIMPLY because a small minority claim they're offended by it then we're told it must change becuase it's "racism" and damaging society.

And pointing that out is the thing that's supposed to be like saying "I've got a black friend"? :roll:
 
Re: Tonighjt June 11 Watch The NBA Half Time For A Redskins Protest of Racism

Redskin (slang) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Redskin as a derogatory term is nothing made up or new.



No one has asked you to care. It doesn't deter from the fact that it's still pushing for racial stereotypes. :shrug:
Wikipedia is not the be all end all for definitions. Seeing as anyone can edit it.
 
Re: Tonighjt June 11 Watch The NBA Half Time For A Redskins Protest of Racism

The "I have a black friend" argument is attempting to excuse ones action towards the whole because of treatment of a single.

The argument that women should be subservient because a few individual women on this forum have expressed they felt that way is attempting to suggest the majority should act in the way a minority wants.

The argument that the vast MAJORITY of native americans don't believe the name needs to change is not "like" either of those. In both of those you're referencing a small minority as justification for action towards the majority.

If anything, pointing at a random individual native american saying it should change and using that as justification that it needs to change because it's offensive "to native americans" is closer to "I have a black friend" then the other way around.

The words origin is not that of a slur. The words history is not singularly that of a slur. The words use as the name of a team is not meant as a slur. The majority of native americans don't view the name as something that needs to change. The majority of americans don't view the name as something that needs to change. But SIMPLY because a small minority claim they're offended by it then we're told it must change becuase it's "racism" and damaging society.

And pointing that out is the thing that's supposed to be like saying "I've got a black friend"? :roll:
I have a very good friend that is native American Indian. Its true.
 
Re: Tonighjt June 11 Watch The NBA Half Time For A Redskins Protest of Racism

At that point, Illinois should change it's name too, it is after all named for the Illinois Indian tribe, Montauk New York must change, Baton Rouge on a technicality because the French named it so after seeing a red stick which the natives used to denote a territorial marker(Baton(stick) Rouge(red)). In fact, Saginaw Michigan and the steering parts they manufacture would have to go, as would Milwuakee Wisconsin. Hell, I like this idea, take it to the absolute extreme to show just how silly this crap really is.
Exactly right. Out of respect...we should completely eliminate all references to Indians. No more exploiting them.
 
That's not the same thing. The Redskins aren't named that because they want their team to have a denigrating, offensive name. They're named that to honor Native American heritage. A team wouldn't call themselves something that they hate and that people hate.

He typed:
'People need to grow up and stop concerning themselves with what teams are named.'

So, I wanted to see whether he meant it or not.
 
Re: Tonighjt June 11 Watch The NBA Half Time For A Redskins Protest of Racism

Redskin as a derogatory term is nothing made up or new.

Anyone who suggests that Redskins can't BE a derogatory term is being ridiculous in my mind.

HOWEVER...

Anyone suggesting it simply IS a derogatory word is also being ridiculous. In some instances it is, in some instances it's not.

It's origins are not derogatory in nature. It's use at predominantly native american high schools is not derogatory in nature. Native Americans who refer to native americans by that term is not derogatory in nature. It's use as a sports franchise is not derogatory in nature.

When it's being used as a perjorative term for native americans it's being used as a derogatory term. That's not the only method in which the word is used however.

But I don't think that the poster was suggesting it's "made up" that Redskins CAN be derogatory. I believe he's suggesting that it's made up that the Washington Redskins use of the word is derogatory in nature.
 
That's not the same thing. The Redskins aren't named that because they want their team to have a denigrating, offensive name. They're named that to honor Native American heritage. A team wouldn't call themselves something that they hate and that people hate.

.... How do you honor something by calling it a derogatory name? ... Wait.. let's just look at the BS story by the Washington organization:

Washington Redskins name controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Snyder also states that the name was chosen in 1933 to honor Native Americans in general and the coach and four players at that time who were Native American; and that in 1971 the then coach George Allen consulted with the Red Cloud Indian Fund on the Pine Ridge reservation when designing the logo.[34] However the Red Cloud Athletic Fund sent a letter to the Washington Post stating that "As an organization, Red Cloud Indian School has never—and will never—endorse the use of the name “Redskins.” Like many Native American organizations across the country, members of our staff and extended community find the name offensive."[

Redskin (slang) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some accounts state that the name "Redskins" was chosen to honor William "Lone Star" Dietz, who began coaching in 1933, because his mother was Sioux. Dietz's true heritage has been questioned by some scholars, citing a birth certificate and census records that his parents were white.[50] There were four Native Americans on the original Redskins team of 1933.[51]

In short: The people who supposedly came up with the name, have distanced themselves from it. The guy it was named after wasn't even Native. The name picked was derogatory as far back as the 1900s.
 
He typed:
'People need to grow up and stop concerning themselves with what teams are named.'

So, I wanted to see whether he meant it or not.

You went ridiculous. He knows, you know and all of us know that a team would never call themselves that.
 
.... How do you honor something by calling it a derogatory name? ... Wait.. let's just look at the BS story by the Washington organization:

Washington Redskins name controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Redskin (slang) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



In short: The people who supposedly came up with the name, have distanced themselves from it. The guy it was named after wasn't even Native. The name picked was derogatory as far back as the 1900s.

So if the team owner changes the name, who compensates him the hundreds of millions of dollars that the brand name is worth? Perhaps the people who think it should be changed should come up with the cash?
 
You went ridiculous. He knows, you know and all of us know that a team would never call themselves that.

Well duh.

He made a ridiculous statement and I called him on it.

Still waiting for his answer.


Your opinion on this means nothing to me as I was not talking to you.

Good day.
 
Well duh.

He made a ridiculous statement and I called him on it.

Still waiting for his answer.


Your opinion on this means nothing to me as I was not talking to you.

Good day.

So you come up with a complete strawman to address his statement, when you knew damn well what he meant. Nice!
 
Re: Tonighjt June 11 Watch The NBA Half Time For A Redskins Protest of Racism

Anyone who suggests that Redskins can't BE a derogatory term is being ridiculous in my mind.

HOWEVER...

Anyone suggesting it simply IS a derogatory word is also being ridiculous. In some instances it is, in some instances it's not.

It's origins are not derogatory in nature. It's use at predominantly native american high schools is not derogatory in nature. Native Americans who refer to native americans by that term is not derogatory in nature. It's use as a sports franchise is not derogatory in nature.

When it's being used as a perjorative term for native americans it's being used as a derogatory term. That's not the only method in which the word is used however.

But I don't think that the poster was suggesting it's "made up" that Redskins CAN be derogatory. I believe he's suggesting that it's made up that the Washington Redskins use of the word is derogatory in nature.

When you refer to a person by the color of their skin you are in fact drawing a distinct line between that which is proper and normal (your society) and that which isn't. Whether or not you find some uses of the word acceptable, the very nature by which slurs are conceived makes it clear that these words are meant to isolate and discriminate against the group. The fact that redskin was in and of itself a slang term and not an officially sanctioned use of the word (as opposed to Africans and Indians) proves that at no point was this word meant to do anything other than single out Native Americans on basis of their color. Similarly, there simply isn't a context in which calling someone a kike or a wop would be anything more than a slur used to single out Native Americans as different and unlike the rest. In short, it's a racist word that revisionists have given new meaning to. However, this new meaning doesn't change the fact that it's a historically racist word.
 
So if the team owner changes the name, who compensates him the hundreds of millions of dollars that the brand name is worth? Perhaps the people who think it should be changed should come up with the cash?

That's not how losing money works. Teams don't lose money when they change names. If anything, the old jerseys become expensive memorabilia.
 
Re: Tonighjt June 11 Watch The NBA Half Time For A Redskins Protest of Racism

Redskin (slang) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Redskin as a derogatory term is nothing made up or new.

False. It IS a new interpretation of the word built on a stack of phony historical references that have been thrown out of court a few times now for lack of historical verification.

The only historical documentation of the term "Redskin" has been benign and originating with Native American tribes.
 
So yeah, that ad is a lie, Suzan Harjo is a liar, and the name should be aloud to stay.

That woman's dishonest activism has been the single biggest factor in this whole idiotic issue for decades.

In terms of her justification of the claim that the name came about due to scalping bounties:

There are some who claim that the "scalp evidence" has nothing to do with Indian or bloody skin, because they cannot find the words "skin" or "red" in bounty documents. They do not allow that scalp is skin, and that the skin of the head, with or without hair, is insufficient evidence of gender or age. (They also claim that native people introduced themselves as "Red Skin", because that's how Europeans translated to English what native men said in their tribal languages, when they likely said they were a Red, Blood, or Related Person or Man

(Source)

So she claims that the term "Redskin" is rooted in the bounties calling for the scalping of native americans despite the fact that she has NO EVIDENCE of "red" or "skin" showing up on these documents (let alone directly following each other). The reason for this? Essentially "um...scalps are skin and blood is red, so naturally it was saying REDSKIN without saying it. Do the math people!"

And the amazingly revolting and infuriating issue with this is that her unsubstantiated bull**** has been bought by others as fact and oft repeated in the media...where as the actual fact based, historical, academic research into the subject done by a Senior member of the Smithsonian Institute is basically never referenced by anyone in the media.

Which is part of the clear and obvious issue here; is that there's no effort, what so ever, on the part of the media to give anywhere near an honest, unbiased, even presentation of the facts as it relates to this. It reminds me of an instance from ESPN's "news" show, Outside the Line, debating this issue. Their portion for the "pro" side of keep the name?:

1. They grabbed a random blogger.
2. The host addressed every question from basically an attacking or negative starting point
3. The entire time they used a split screen playing three decade old footage from Redskin games of things that no longer occur (such as, at one time, the band being in costume but has not occured for YEARS).
 
Re: Tonighjt June 11 Watch The NBA Half Time For A Redskins Protest of Racism

Really?

So if they changed the name to the 'Child Molesters'...you would say the same thing?

Yes, I would.
 
That's not how losing money works. Teams don't lose money when they change names. If anything, the old jerseys become expensive memorabilia.

The Redskins is a valuable brand name. If he were to change it to appease a tiny minority of people, you can bet that the owner would demand compensation for that brand name. If the vast majority of people wanted the name changed, they could simply boycott the team until he changes it, then he would have to change it. I don't see that happening though.
 
Back
Top Bottom