Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face? [W:166]

Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

Ockham said:

Everything is a slur.

Click to expand...

Apparently.

Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

Kal'Stang said:

People weren't avoiding anything. The OP lacked actual context. It's only natural for people to fill in the missing context.

Except that race wouldn't come up in such a dialog. When introduced most people either say "hello" or "hello mr./mrs. <insert last name here>. No one says "Oh hey!, A redskin!". Not because it is or isn't offensive. But because from childhood we are trained so much in saying "hello" or "hello mr./mrs. <insert last name>" that it is ingrained into us. It's pretty much become instinct to greet that way. As such you provided a false context. Something that simply wouldn't happen due to our training in greetings.

Please. We all know why these Redkins threads are starting up. Don't even pretend to claim that these threads are nothing more than attempts to portray the word "redskins" as having nothing but a negative connotation no matter what. And don't pretend that you're not trying to do the same.

Click to expand...

Except that it is irrelevant whether or not race would actually come up in that dialog. The point is that race does come up in some dialogs. You should make up your own if you don't agree with mine. And when you do make up any dialog you wish where race comes up, would you choose the phrase 'Native American' or 'Redskin'. Again, focusing on whether the dialog I presented was realistic (it wasn't, and it really wasn't meant to be) is beside the point. I didn't think the realism of my dialog would become yet another way for people to avoid the question, so I didn't put as much effort into it as I could have to make a realistic one where race comes up. Do you REALLY think my point rests on whether I presented a realistic dialog? Does it REALLY matter if it is realistic? Do you think I REALLY want to convince you that it was realistic?

Zyphlin got what I was saying, or he at least addressed it. And when he did, I made it pretty clear that I don't think I agree with the OP.

Dezaad said:

Zyphlin said:

Dezaad said:

Zyphlin said:

Dezaad said:

You don't think the OP was about the situation where it is necessary to use a person's racial designation, and you have a choice between something polite, like Native American, or something else, like redskin?

Click to expand...

And in such cases I'd use "native american" or "indian" for the reasons listed, just as I'd use "african american" instead of "black" or "colored".

Despite that, I don't think "black" is a slur word and I don't think colored when used to describe a black person is ALWAYS a slur and similarly I don't think Redskins is always a slur. Context matters.

When addressing someone based on a racial designation, if I don't know them well, I'm always going to go with the MOST benign one possible because in general it's intelligent not to offend those you're having to deal with in some fashion. This is the same reason I don't talk about Politics or Religion with people at work or in public unless they're close friends.

If I do know the person, then I'm likely to use the words that are most apt to use commonly. It's that simple.

Click to expand...

And finally, you, the first conservative leaning person on this thread to do so, I think, have addressed the OP. Amazing how difficult that was to drag it out of someone.

So, now, why would you avoid the use of 'black' if it isn't offensive in some way? I want to know because I think it has a loose application pertaining to the use of the word redskin.

Click to expand...

I already stated that TWICE now, so let me do it again.

I recognize that SOME people within that group do find it offensive to be labeled as such, so when dealing with people on a direct level where I have to reference race I tend to go with the word with the least potential to offend that would normally be in my vocabularly regarding that race.

A PERSON finding a word offensive is different than the word inerently being only usable in an offensive manner.

It's also because it's a situation where I'm directly referencing a person. Referencing things AROUND a person is a situation that needs less discretion. If I'm having to reference a black person by their race, I'm probably going "african american". If I'm talking about racial relations AROUND a black person, I'll probably talk use the word "black" as a reference to that race.

The reason for that is I think, in general, people are less apt to reasonably look at the context of a statement that is directed at them then a generalized one because of the personal nature of it. So the more likely a scenario is that I think someone will quickly take offense if they find something offensive, the more I'll try to be polite and go with the least likely to offend topic or word. The less likely that they'll take quick offense in a scenario, the more natural I'll let myself speak.

But because I'm not an ass or a hyper partisan type looking to make a point in everything I do, I don't go out of my way to use words or express views or thoughts that don't normally come to my mind simply to prove a point.

I've never suggested there aren't native americans that find Redskins offensive in all forms, OR that would find it offensive when used specifically in the modern day to refer to them or their race. I absolutely acknowledge it CAN be used in an offensive manner, and some ARE offended. And because I have politeness and tact, when I'm addressing someone specifically (or a group of someones specifically) I'm going to go with the least objectionable. But what I have suggested is that it's not ALWAYS offensive in all contexts and that a majority of native americans are not significantly offended or bothered by it as a name of a sports team.

Click to expand...

I can see what you are saying, and might even agree with you.

My own take on it is whether a significant part of a group of people finds it offensive. When it is a small minority, I put it down to people simply wanting to be offended. But when it is a larger minority or majority, I tend to think there is cause for it to be considered offensive. For example, words can change to being offensive to a significant minority when they are in widespread use with even a derogatory tone.

I haven't really definitively heard whether the word 'redskin' offends very many these days. I wouldn't use it in the contexts meant by the OP because I just don't mind being cautious, and I know that there is a perfectly accepted phrase that has the necessary meaning. So, I can sympathize with anyone that has actually addressed the OP by stating that they wouldn't use it in the contexts meant by the OP, and yet state that this doesn't necessarily mean that the word is offensive.

The OP attempts to make a point that avoidance of the use of a potentially offensive word in place of an accepted word means that the potentially offensive word is in fact offensive. I think it fails to make that point.

Click to expand...

The OP did bring up an interesting point that bears discussion. It is one that often comes up in these kinds of debates and I think it should be addressed. Zyphlin addressed it perfectly.

But, it was ridiculous to take the OP at its most ridiculous scenario, and then "discuss" that, when there was a more sensible interpretation available to discuss. In the first place, why choose the most ridiculous scenario? Why 'fill in the context' with the one that makes the OP look the most foolish? You think that is honest dealing? It is a very common dishonesty, but its commonality doesn't make it less dishonest. The people doing it know Deuce, and at the very least must know he isn't that stupid, whatever their disagreements. I think it is childish.

And where the **** did I try to pretend the OP wasn't about portraying the word Redskins as a slur?

Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

Bodhisattva said:

Intellectual Integrity my ass. What pathetic idiocy, unless you don't understand what a False Dilemma is...

False Dilemma / Bifurcation Fallacy

The bifurcation fallacy is committed when a false dilemma is presented, i.e. when someone is asked to choose between two options when there is at least one other option available. Of course, arguments that restrict the options to more than two but less than there really are are similarly fallacious.


Logical Fallacies» False Dilemma / Bifurcation Fallacy

I have repeatedly shown that there is at least one other option available. If you try to weasel your way out again I am done with you. Feel free to post your tripe again... or you could grow a pair and man up for a change.

Click to expand...

You keep taking me to mean something I did not, and you cannot demonstrate that I did mean what you are making out. Feel free to do so, but I have presented a dialog that demonstrates what happened when someone got it. See post http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...kin-their-face-w-166-a-23.html#post1063446203

And please, by all means, feel free to be "done with me".

Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

Dezaad said:

Zyphlin got what I was saying, or he at least addressed it. And when he did, I made it pretty clear that I don't think I agree with the OP.

Click to expand...

To be fair it took MULTIPLE posts back and forth between us before I finally got your point and got to a point where the core of your point was something I actually understood and saw as reasonable. Your initial points regarding the "context" of the OP still don't make sense to me...but I realized that you weren't really talking about context of the OP, but actually just making ASSUMPTIONS as to the most benign and straight forward contrived manner that the OP could've been placed as.

Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

Zyphlin said:

To be fair it took MULTIPLE posts back and forth between us before I finally got your point and got to a point where the core of your point was something I actually understood and saw as reasonable. Your initial points regarding the "context" of the OP still don't make sense to me...but I realized that you weren't really talking about context of the OP, but actually just making ASSUMPTIONS as to the most benign and straight forward contrived manner that the OP could've been placed as.

Click to expand...

Well, then we are at an impasse. To me, the conservatives (generally it is conservatives) are making the OP out to be as ridiculous as it can be. I still believe that is the most contrived way to interpret it, and it says more about the people contriving it than the person who posted it.

Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

Zyphlin said:

To be fair it took MULTIPLE posts back and forth between us before I finally got your point and got to a point where the core of your point was something I actually understood and saw as reasonable. Your initial points regarding the "context" of the OP still don't make sense to me...but I realized that you weren't really talking about context of the OP, but actually just making ASSUMPTIONS as to the most benign and straight forward contrived manner that the OP could've been placed as.

Click to expand...

Am I getting the False Dilemma wrong then?

Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

The Choctaw word for red people.....Oklahoma. They must change the name of their state. It's racist. Where do we draw the line?

Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

SgtRock said:

The Choctaw word for red people.....Oklahoma. They must change the name of their state. It's racist. Where do we draw the line?

Click to expand...

If you want to trace the etymology of every word or term, you're going to be in trouble. 'Juggernaut' was intended as a Hindu slur, but it made its way into the vernacular. No one is suggesting that we take extreme measures and disassemble every word or term that has offensive origins.

If you want to offend some people, use the term. If you don't, then avoid it. That's as far as I'd be willing to go in terms of 'censorship'.

Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

Bodhisattva said:

Am I getting the False Dilemma wrong then?

Click to expand...

I think you have the false dilemma notion correct, I just think now that I better understand Dezaad's point that it doens't really apply.

Essentially the issue is this...

The OP posted something sans any kind of real content. They posted a big, broad, opened ended question that has a myriad of potential "situations" one could imagine that would apply to it.

Since the OP failed to provide any context what so ever, posters basically had to interject their own context into the situation. Some did so by treating the OP's question as if it related to an instance of just walking up to someone and going "Hey [racial term]". Some treated it as ANY situtaion, including joking situations. Others treated it as if he was meaning specifically in instances where for some reason you would be referencing a person as a racial term. And still others responded in kind of a wholistic way touching upon multiple situations.

Deezad was basically criticizing those who look at the OP and it's AMAZING lack of context, and decided to only respond to it from the stand point of going up to someone and going "Hey [racial term]" because Deezad beleives that wasn't the intent of the OP, and as such a person interested in honest debate wouldn't have assumed that most extreme situation as being what the OP meant.

So indeed, Deezad is recognizing that there ARE multiple options available as to what situations one thinks the OP is referring to. He's simply suggesting that those who ONLY settle on the most absurd of such situations, and spend their time debating based off that point, are engaging in a dishonest form of debate.

Where I likely part ways with him is his suggestion that somehow that it speaks worse of those who are doing it than it does with the OP who failed to provide any meaningful context at all. This is in part because I believe the lack of context was meaningful to attempt to better push the clear agenda that motivated his question. When a question is seemingly asked from an inherently dishonest stand point and with a dishonest intent, I don't have as big of an issue with people engaging it in a similarly low way. I don't necessarily find those who JUST do that to be making a great case, but I don't somehow grade them lower in my reading than the OP whose style and method they're building off of.

Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

Amadeus said:

If you want to offend some people, use the term. If you don't, then avoid it. That's as far as I'd be willing to go in terms of 'censorship'.

Click to expand...

Actually, a more accurate representation would likely be....

If you don't mind offending some people use the term. If you don't mind offending other people, then avoid using it.

I think there are few people who are actively WANTING to offend, but rather most simply are not bothered if someone does take offense. Though I am sure there are some dicks out there who would possibly now use it BECAUSE they want to be dicks and want to offend people...but most are probably doing it without a desire to offend, but simply without concern if it does have such a result.

I can tell you that where I live I will find FAR more instances of people being offended if I'm actively making an effort to avoid saying that word than I would if I said it.

Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

VanceMack said:

Lets start with the sheer dont give a ****edness of every person here that posts their outrage over the 'slur' and has never said word one (or has never done the first thing to help) about the real and actual problems facing the Indian communities at large.

You are all full of ****. The only person here I have ever seen be honest about it is Eco. He at leasts admits he doesnt care about Indians and merely posts because he doesnt like slurs. The rest of you? Its just another race rant.

Click to expand...

Weird, I'm pretty involved in American Indian issues. My fiance is a card carrying Cherokee and I'm a card carrying Creek. Her parents lived on a reservation and my grandmother did. We both grew up in areas dominated by American Indians. In other words....like the majority of your posts you're talking out of your ass.

You don't know **** about American Indians but consider yourself an expert on what they should find offensive or not. You don't give a **** about American Indian issues but feel you act like you are some moral authority because others give maybe an ounce more of a ****. Grow up.

Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

iliveonramen said:

Weird, I'm pretty involved in American Indian issues. My fiance is a card carrying Cherokee and I'm a card carrying Creek. Her parents lived on a reservation and my grandmother did. We both grew up in areas dominated by American Indians. In other words....like the majority of your posts you're talking out of your ass.

You don't know **** about American Indians but consider yourself an expert on what they should find offensive or not. You don't give a **** about American Indian issues but feel you act like you are some moral authority because others give maybe an ounce more of a ****. Grow up.

Click to expand...

Can I ask you how you and your wife feel about the name as a professional football team and do you support them changing their name or not?

Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

americanwoman said:

Can I ask you how you and your wife feel about the name as a professional football team and do you support them changing their name or not?

Click to expand...

I honestly don't care one way or another.

For my fiance it is an issue.

Its not as much changing the name I care about as much as people telling others what should be considered offensive or not. My fiance grew up in an area where American Indians were looked down upon and pretty much treated like garbage.

Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

Zyphlin said:

I think you have the false dilemma notion correct, I just think now that I better understand Dezaad's point that it doens't really apply.

Essentially the issue is this...

The OP posted something sans any kind of real content. They posted a big, broad, opened ended question that has a myriad of potential "situations" one could imagine that would apply to it.

Since the OP failed to provide any context what so ever, posters basically had to interject their own context into the situation. Some did so by treating the OP's question as if it related to an instance of just walking up to someone and going "Hey [racial term]". Some treated it as ANY situtaion, including joking situations. Others treated it as if he was meaning specifically in instances where for some reason you would be referencing a person as a racial term. And still others responded in kind of a wholistic way touching upon multiple situations.

Deezad was basically criticizing those who look at the OP and it's AMAZING lack of context, and decided to only respond to it from the stand point of going up to someone and going "Hey [racial term]" because Deezad beleives that wasn't the intent of the OP, and as such a person interested in honest debate wouldn't have assumed that most extreme situation as being what the OP meant.

So indeed, Deezad is recognizing that there ARE multiple options available as to what situations one thinks the OP is referring to. He's simply suggesting that those who ONLY settle on the most absurd of such situations, and spend their time debating based off that point, are engaging in a dishonest form of debate.

Where I likely part ways with him is his suggestion that somehow that it speaks worse of those who are doing it than it does with the OP who failed to provide any meaningful context at all. This is in part because I believe the lack of context was meaningful to attempt to better push the clear agenda that motivated his question. When a question is seemingly asked from an inherently dishonest stand point and with a dishonest intent, I don't have as big of an issue with people engaging it in a similarly low way. I don't necessarily find those who JUST do that to be making a great case, but I don't somehow grade them lower in my reading than the OP whose style and method they're building off of.

Click to expand...

Good break down and you have given it more thought that I did as I was only interested in show his logical fallacy after he would not accept my interpretation of the OP. I had no intention of understanding him due to his fairly obtuse manner of looking at this OP, IMO.

Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

iliveonramen said:

Weird, I'm pretty involved in American Indian issues. My fiance is a card carrying Cherokee and I'm a card carrying Creek. Her parents lived on a reservation and my grandmother did. We both grew up in areas dominated by American Indians. In other words....like the majority of your posts you're talking out of your ass.

You don't know **** about American Indians but consider yourself an expert on what they should find offensive or not. You don't give a **** about American Indian issues but feel you act like you are some moral authority because others give maybe an ounce more of a ****. Grow up.

Click to expand...

I work with them on an at least weekly and often daily basis. Forall your "card carrying" bull****, the only time you get twisted about "Indian affairs" is over a sports team nickname. You ought to be embarrassed. Hell...you ought to be ****ing ashamed of yourself.

But at least we have you now calling them American Indians and not Native Americans. Hell...thats a start. You know...for a card carrying 'Creek'. Since...you know...you care and stuff.

How.

Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

iliveonramen said:

Its not as much changing the name I care about as much as people telling others what should be considered offensive or not.

Click to expand...

In general I agree with this. I may not agree with the reasons someone is offended, but it's not my place to tell them they shouldn't be offended. At the same time, it's not other peoples place to tell any of us that we SHOULD be offended.

Some people arguing whether or not people SHOULD be offended, which I think is kind of a pointless debate. What can be argued though is the REASONS someone is or isn't offended. Suggesting someones reasons for being offended, or not offended, are wrong isn't the same as suggesting that they shouldn't or should be offended.

Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

I voted no because I would not call anyone redskin at any time.

Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

VanceMack said:

I work with them on an at least weekly and often daily basis. Forall your "card carrying" bull****, the only time you get twisted about "Indian affairs" is over a sports team nickname. You ought to be embarrassed. Hell...you ought to be ****ing ashamed of yourself.

But at least we have you now calling them American Indians and not Native Americans. Hell...thats a start. You know...for a card carrying 'Creek'. Since...you know...you care and stuff.

How.

Click to expand...

Actually I haven't mentioned anything about being angry at the nickname. Not only are you an idiot for assuming a lot about people but you lack in reading comprehension.

I called you out for your comments about liberals not caring about American Indians by asking if you believe President Obama has done enough for them. You of course completely ignore the issue and go on some idiotic rant about who I am and what I do. You're a lot of dumb hot air. That's about it.

Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

Zyphlin said:

In general I agree with this. I may not agree with the reasons someone is offended, but it's not my place to tell them they shouldn't be offended. At the same time, it's not other peoples place to tell any of us that we SHOULD be offended.

Some people arguing whether or not people SHOULD be offended, which I think is kind of a pointless debate. What can be argued though is the REASONS someone is or isn't offended. Suggesting someones reasons for being offended, or not offended, are wrong isn't the same as suggesting that they shouldn't or should be offended.

Click to expand...

Well I would ask this, if supposedly the mascot is a tribute to American Indians, then why the hell wouldn't you change if they didn't want the supposed tribute? Change it to the Washington Kikes or Shylocks. Make it a tribute to Snyder's ancestry.

Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

iliveonramen said:

Actually I haven't mentioned anything about being angry at the nickname. Not only are you an idiot for assuming a lot about people but you lack in reading comprehension.

I called you out for your comments about liberals not caring about American Indians by asking if you believe President Obama has done enough for them. You of course completely ignore the issue and go on some idiotic rant about who I am and what I do. You're a lot of dumb hot air. That's about it.

Click to expand...

Liberals DONT care about American Indians and for all your bull****, neither do you. Do you know WHY we arent having a discourse on the plight of the American Indian or what Obama may or may not have done? It is because the only time you or any other liber surfaces on Indians it is to whine bitch and moan about a stupid sports team logo.

You 'claim' to be somehow tribal affiliated...and yet THIS is the ONLY time you ever so much as bring issues up. You have NEVER...E V E R...expressed concern about the poverty, unemployment, education, unwed mothers, domestic violence, sexual assault, substance abuse, growing gang problems, violent crimes and other problems that are a major component of res life. NEVER. E V E R. Oh but you are gonna surface any time you get to do your fauxcahontas act on THIS subject.

Hot air? You ought to be embarrassed. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

iliveonramen said:

Well I would ask this, if supposedly the mascot is a tribute to American Indians, then why the hell wouldn't you change if they didn't want the supposed tribute?

Click to expand...

If I honestly believed the words entire history, as a reference to native americans, had been one of a derogatory and disparaging fashion I'd be more apt to believe it should be changed. If I honeslty believed the most common use of the word today was as a means of referring to american indians in a slurring fashion I'd be more apt to change the name. If I honestly believed the intent of the team in choosing the name was insulting or belittling in nature i would be more apt to change the name. If I honestly believed that a majority of native americans felt that the name should be changed because it deeply offended them then I would likely be more apt to believe it should be changed. If I honestly believed the name was causing some kind of significant "harm" to Native Americans in this country I would likely be more apt to change the name.

However...

Based on what I've researched and read regarding the history of the word, it has not always been used as a means of derogatorily or disparagingly referring to native americans and is not ALWAYS used in a slurring fashion.

Based on what I've personally experienced, various means of lay research (such as examining internet searches for the use of the word), and talks with others I believe the word is most commonly used in the vast majority of this country as a means of referencing the Football team and not as a derogatory means of referring to native americans.

Based on what I've read and researched with regards to the origins of the name of the team, the steps they've taken over the years with other aspects related to the name (such as their current logo), and common sense as it relates to the naming of sports teams I simply don't believe the name was done with an intent to disparage or insult or degrade or mock or disrespect american indians.

Based on the only polls on the issue I've seen conducted, individuals I've spoken to in my area and when attending the NNALEA conference, interviews and statements made by some native americans in the media and online, input from individuals who have researched and visited reservations gathering opinions, and the presense of predominantly native american schools who themselves use the name I don't believe "native americans", as an all encompassing over all group, feel that the name should change and I do believe the vast majority hover between "don't want it to change" and "don't really care either way".

Based on an understanding of the challenges facing Native Americans on and off the reservations in this country, and the lack of actual tangible evidence of any "harm" being directed towards native americans due to the name other than some peoples opinion that it "Stereotypes" them which inherently "harms" them, I can't honestly say there is any "harm" coming to the american indian community over all due to the name, let alone "harm" that could be considered "significant" when stacked agaisnt the multitude of troubles affecting large portions of the community.

This is all combined with a belief that many, in what I think are a minority, of those offended by the name are, in part, offended based on a spurious and incorrect assertion, propogated by a questionable activist source, that the word means, or is originated from a reference to, "scalped native americans"....an assertion used as the basis for offense often by those who claim offense, including a recent Salon writer and a tribal leader in another story I read recently.

So no...I don't find it offensive. I understand some DO find it offensive, and they're free to do so...but I don't, and I'm not going to change my mind based on a false premise that they constantly attempt to use to justify WHY they feel it's right to tell others, or attempt to guilt others, into being offended.

Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

Zyphlin said:

If I honestly believed the words entire history, as a reference to native americans, had been one of a derogatory and disparaging fashion I'd be more apt to believe it should be changed.

Click to expand...

Absolutism as an excuse? haha

If I honeslty believed the most common use of the word today was as a means of referring to american indians in a slurring fashion I'd be more apt to change the name.

Click to expand...

Referring to a group by skin color is inherently a slur.

So no...I don't find it offensive.

Click to expand...

Offense is irrelevant.

Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

ecofarm said:

Absolutism as an excuse? haha



Referring to a group by skin color is inherently a slur.



Offense is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Apparently only those that are offended are a bunch of politically bent Indians playing a bunch of liberal crusaders for all they are worth. It has been shown before that 90% of the Indians in this country dont CARE...but hey...as was posted...go to the actual source...

“What a bunch of BS,” said Don. “Keith Olbermann’s secretary called me looking for an interview, but I don’t care for him (Olbermann denies attempting to contact Wetzel). So I decided to call you. I’ve known you for a long time, my friend, and I know you’ll tell this story the right way.”

“It needs to be said that an Indian from the state of Montana created that logo, and he did it the right way,” Don said. “It represents the Red Nation and it’s something to be proud of.”

Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

VanceMack said:

Apparently only those that are offended

Click to expand...

Offense is irrelevant.

Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

ecofarm said:

Offense is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Eco...my ancestry and family is from Denmark. If someone speaks harshly of Denmark...even though it doesnt bother me...will you be my hero?