• 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!

Is Redskin a slur? [W:282]

Is Redskin a slur?


  • Total voters
    96
And you do know why psychology is not accepted by many in the fields of medicine and biology as a natural science?

Because sampling opinions out of human resources is so unpredictably subject to change that studies are inconclusive.

So no poll is good enough. Got it.

I guess we'll never know how many Native Americans objected to the name then, since only 5 brought suit, and it doesn't sound like you're personally ready to ask them all. Nothing to debate here then.
 
Oops, sorry. I barely even look to the left to see who posted when I respond…. please forgive me.



Either you understand how polling works, or you do not. It appears you merely want to ignore it.

No. I see it as inconclusive and a waste of time.
Teachers unions 'represent' 'all' teachers as well, right? Yet they continually use dues for political things that not all of their members support… So just pointing out that even an organization does not always reflect the beliefs of all the people it represents.

So the various tribal councils of the native American peoples are nothing but "unions" to you? And you view them not as the representatives of a people but as subject through your political lense of categorising the world?
 
We will all take note that you will never, ever, use a poll to support any of your positions. Thanks.

Certainly not to support an argument.

Possibly to show potential movement.

Example: Polls in how a election is expected to tun out for a candidate.
 
So no poll is good enough. Got it.

No.

Polls can be used for various things, but not as 100% conclusive evidence.

They show notions which would have to be further researched by widening the source pool and efforts of research.

I guess we'll never know how many Native Americans objected to the name then, since only 5 brought suit, and it doesn't sound like you're personally ready to ask them all. Nothing to debate here then.

Yes you could.

By asking all 6 000 000.

Or putting trust into their representatives believing that they o their best in honestly representing their peoples concerns.
 
No.

Polls can be used for various things, but not as 100% conclusive evidence.

They show notions which would have to be further researched by widening the source pool and efforts of research.



Yes you could.

By asking all 6 000 000.

Or putting trust into their representatives believing that they o their best in honestly representing their peoples concerns.

So go ahead and ask all 6 million and let us know what they say.
 
I find politicians offensive. Can we ban them?

I wish. And they absolutely can't say that what they do does not cause harm or damages or negative consequences, but we have to allow them to exist.
 
Then if you can't, you have no idea how many Native Americans are offended by the term. If you refuse to accept the poll, then the reality is we are aware of only 5.

Not true.

Because I can rely on their representatives to be ernest and sincere.
 
We shouldn't need a poll to take into consideration others opinions.

I have absolutely no skin in the game...and I will defer to those that it does offend. If someone is not offended that's fine.

I don't use terms like "whitey", "blackie", slope, kike, beaner, or squaw because those that do use 'them' do so in disparaging ways. I don't need a poll to tell me that.

...and I would venture to guess those that don't have a problem with "redskin" don't have a problem throwing the occasional 'nigger' out there.
 
We shouldn't need a poll to take into consideration others opinions.

I have absolutely no skin in the game...and I will defer to those that it does offend. If someone is not offended that's fine.

I don't use terms like "whitey", "blackie", slope, kike, beaner, or squaw because those that do use 'them' do so in disparaging ways. I don't need a poll to tell me that.

...and I would venture to guess those that don't have a problem with "redskin" don't have a problem throwing the occasional 'nigger' out there.

You guessed wrong when it comes to me.

When was the last time you heard the term "Redskin", outside of the football team? Is it on par with the "N" word, which we hear a lot?
 
One guy on a different thread posted a poll in which the majority of 800 asked native Americans do not oppose the name.

Thing is, there are 6 000 000 native Americans.

You do understand how scientific polling works, right? You don't ask 100% of an entire population. You follow certain procedures and guidelines to get a sample size that gives you a representation of the populatoin as a whole within a certain level of certainty. Whether or not it's about "health care", if someone feels a teams name should be changed, or what their favorite mobile operating system is doesn't really matter.
 
I don't know that defining the color of someone else's skin is a slur. Obama is referred to as a black man, is he not? The "N" word was used in the 1700s and 1800s to diminish the black slaves. It was derogatory. Noting the color of someone's skin to be isn't necessarily derogatory. And in all my years, I never knew any use of "redskin" beyind the football team and F-Troop.

Not necessarily, since white and black are socially acceptable terms. However, it can be, evidenced by the "n" word being derogatory. I will admit that redskin is not a common word, and probably would not even be well known enough to be discussed if it weren't for sports teams naming themselves the redskins. If you look at the history of usage of "redskin," it was much more common in the late 1800's, and didn't become uncommon until the mid-20th century. (see link)

https://www.google.com/search?q=red...:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb

There were massacres, murders and battles in the early days of this country, but they were on both sides. The Indians massacred Anne Hutchinson and her children, and they massacred the residents of Deerfield MA. These are just a few examples. They didn't, I think, commit those acts out of racism towards the white people. They did it out of defense. The white people did the same thing to them, but not because of racism; they wanted the land and they felt they were inferior not because they were red skinned, but because they called them "heathens" (non Christians). Just like all of the Indians who died from disease, which I think was most of them, weren't intentionally killed. The English didn't plan that. Granted they didn't care that it happened, but it wasn't intentional.

Just because the conflict was mainly focused on land doesn't mean there wasn't racial division. It would have been considered largely unacceptable to uproot a white community, but it was done commonly to Native Americans, and it was considered acceptable by many, even after they converted to Christianity, which the five "civilized" tribes had done.

The Trail of Tears was a terrible thing to do, but I again think that was motivated by a desire for their land, not out of racism. It was also in the 1830s so this was a nation already, unlike in the 1600s when it wasn't. They allowed the ones who wanted to stay behind to do so, with the proviso that they fully assimilated. If I remember right, they even granted citizenship to those who stayed behind. That again all smacks of "our land, our country, if you want to be here, be one of us". If they were truly racist, they wouldn't have allowed the ones who wanted to stay to remain behind, and they certainly wouldn't have granted citizenship.

Of course, I'm neither 400 years old nor 200 years old so I don't know for sure, just know what I learned.;)

I wasn't aware of the part about citizenship; could you provide a link for that? I was also under the impression that the tribes moved by the Trail of Tears had already converted to Christianity. (see link)

Five Civilized Tribes ***

I'm curious what percentage of people think Redskin is a slur separate from whether or not the team's name should be changed.

By should the team name be changed, do you mean that the team should choose to change their name, or that they should be forced to change their name?
 
Their 5 "representatives"? And you know that these 5 people were tasked with representing all Native Americans....how exactly?

Not talking about congressmen and women.
 
You do understand how scientific polling works, right? You don't ask 100% of an entire population. You follow certain procedures and guidelines to get a sample size that gives you a representation of the populatoin as a whole within a certain level of certainty. Whether or not it's about "health care", if someone feels a teams name should be changed, or what their favorite mobile operating system is doesn't really matter.

And I already stated my opinion on this.
 
I wasn't aware of the part about citizenship; could you provide a link for that? I was also under the impression that the tribes moved by the Trail of Tears had already converted to Christianity.

In 1830, just a year after taking office, Jackson pushed a new piece of legislation called the "Indian Removal Act" through both houses of Congress. It gave the president power to negotiate removal treaties with Indian tribes living east of the Mississippi. Under these treaties, the Indians were to give up their lands east of the Mississippi in exchange for lands to the west. Those wishing to remain in the east would become citizens of their home state

Indian removal
 
First, most definitions actually acknowledge it is not always offensive in nature. Second, native Americans used the word originally to refer to themselves and some do still use it today, though it's largely out of active use in modern times.

Here's several definitions of redskin that label it as offensive.

https://www.google.com/search?q=red...:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb
redskin: definition of redskin in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)
Redskin - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Redskin | Define Redskin at Dictionary.com

You are correct that originally, Native Americans referred to themselves as redskins, but the term gradually became offensive in the 19th century, as outlined in the second link.
 
Neither was I.

What representatives are you talking about when you said this:

Not true.

Because I can rely on their representatives to be ernest and sincere.

Mhmm, I would trust the NCAI which is on the forefront of this issue to be representative of the people they represent.

For example.

I certain wont trust some inbreed hillbilly who probably still hides his children from black people, to have some valid point to make on this matter.

Neither do i trust you in that regard to have anything to say on this that is of any worth, unless you are a native American.
 
Back
Top Bottom