• 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!

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

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


  • Total voters
    55
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

From stormfront probably...

:lamo

I wouldn't say "from stormfront". I'd say 'stormfrontesque'.
 
Last edited:
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

I wouldn't say "from stormfront". I'd say 'stormfrontesque'.
Dammit. Oh well....
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

Dammit. Oh well....


I does make one wonder, though... where do people get away with such racist crap? Like, who generally approves of that bile? Where does one get the impression that foaming racist rants are fine.
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

Why should YOU be offended when the vast majority of THEM arent offended.

I don't tell people what should or shouldn't be offensive to them.

redskins1.png
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

I does make one wonder, though... where do people get away with such racist crap? Like, who generally approves of that bile? Where does one get the impression that foaming racist rants are fine.
I dont know...I guess most of them get it from their liberal college professors. You know...how long can you be xposed to the rhetoric about poor downtrodden oppressed people before you adopt it.

3 in custody after Liberty City shooting that killed 2, injured at least 8 | News - Home

The outrage. The silent, absent, nonexistent outrage.
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

This is a better question than the other poll.

If your answer is "no," you should ponder why not. And maybe even post why not in this thread.

A truly complex problem for the politically correct on both sides of the American political divide.

Redskins: A derogatory and racist slur.
Native-Americans: Oh, shut the "h" up! People are always dividing Americans. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American. I'm offended.
Indians: How ignorant. in 1492 Columbus foolishly thought he's discovered a shortcut to India. We know better now. They're not Indians. Indians are from South Asia.
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

I don't tell people what should or shouldn't be offensive to them./QUOTE]

I know...right?

detail_1108_donna_huddle.jpg

I think it was you but somebody posted the guys pic earlier which says it best. Fake cry me a fake river...

crying-indian1.jpg
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

I don't tell people what should or shouldn't be offensive to them.

Where was he telling people what they should or shouldn't be offended by? He's asking WHY you should be offended by it.


Yes, a single instance (actually, the only historical instance of it being used as such I've found in any bit of research) of the word being used in relation to a bounty? Exactly what is the point? Hopefully not the point of the article making the rounds suggesting that "Redskin means the scalped head of a native american" since:

1. The only bounty documented actually using the word is from 1863...DECADES after the words first recorded use in general, in English, or in Print

2. IF the bounty is actually referring to the "scalped head" with the use of "red-skin" there, then it's not actually using the term "redskin" (referring to native americans) but rather speaking in the literal notion of the "red" SKIN. As such, it would make this bounty NOT an instance of the term "redskin" being used as a slur to refer to native americans, but is an instance of a literal reference.

3. The article CLAIMS that does "in fact" mean scalped head of a native american...then proceed to give zero facts to it and actually atttempts to dismiss actual FACTS and research done by someone by simply stating opinion, anecdotal, and irrelevant information to the claim of what it actually MEANS.

4. Contrary to the ego of the individual writing the esquire article, and contrary to the very argument you TRIED to make in your first line (and likely contradict if your source was the esquire peace), Baxter Holmes does not speak for all native americans. And as such, when he tries to claim what it "means" to native americans, despite native americans saying the exact opposite of his claims, it is actually HE who is declaring what people should find offensive by wrongfully representing all of the native american population as agreeing with him.

So please....your point to the picture was what exactly? And it related to your statement how exaclty?
 
Last edited:
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

I dont know...I guess most of them get it from their liberal college professors. You know...how long can you be xposed to the rhetoric about poor downtrodden oppressed people before you adopt it.

3 in custody after Liberty City shooting that killed 2, injured at least 8 | News - Home

The outrage. The silent, absent, nonexistent outrage.

Conspiracy theory and black crime spam. Figures.

Next... crap about the Jewish media suppressing crimes by blacks and sensationalizing crimes by whites to further the secret race war?
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

Yes I would, and I would expect them to call me a "White Devil" then we would exchange obsenities and part ways. I am not afraid of being offensive or controversial. In fact I pride myself in being offensive and controversial screw PC.

I'm sure you've made a lot of great friends this way!
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

I'm sure you've made a lot of great friends this way!

It's a good self-help book: "How to rage, play victim and win friends".
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

I think it was you but somebody posted the guys pic earlier which says it best. Fake cry me a fake river...

View attachment 67168734

Wasn't that the guy in the commercials years back that were about pollution, and at the end, someone tossed a bag of garbage out a car window and it landed at his feet (which is when he cried)?
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

Conspiracy theory and black crime spam. Figures.

Next... crap about the Jewish media suppressing crimes by blacks and sensationalizing crimes by whites to further the secret race war?
OH! Wait...you meant that other stuff...NOT the **** you were spewing. My bad...
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

I do find it amusing that the right-wing always has to rush to the side of the argument that is most racially offensive. My opinion is that if you want to deliberately offend a group of people, have at it. Lets see how that business model plays out in the 21st century.

I find it amusing that the left always has to make everything about left and right.
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

A truly complex problem for the politically correct on both sides of the American political divide.

Redskins: A derogatory and racist slur.
Native-Americans: Oh, shut the "h" up! People are always dividing Americans. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American. I'm offended.
Indians: How ignorant. in 1492 Columbus foolishly thought he's discovered a shortcut to India. We know better now. They're not Indians. Indians are from South Asia.

And native americans are from central asia.
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

Moderator's Warning:
Vance and Eco...cut the basement level back and forth and the trolling. Stick to discussing the topic or action will be taken. Cease derailing this thread with your arguing
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

Wasn't that the guy in the commercials years back that were about pollution, and at the end, someone tossed a bag of garbage out a car window and it landed at his feet (which is when he cried)?
Yeah. He was Italian, funny enough.

The commercials were SO fricken ironic, considering the state of most Indian reservations. And if anyone studies even a little bit of history they will see most tribes werent all that concerned about conservation or the land (and to be fair...neither was anyone else). They used the land and resources until they were used up and then followed the hunt.
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

Where was he telling people what they should or shouldn't be offended by? He's asking WHY you should be offended by it.

To me, it's a caricature of a Native American. It's like when Japanese were depicted with buck teeth and yellow skin in American media. That's MY reason. What's your personal stake in perpetuating racial stereotypes?

Yes, a single instance

I sense that a logical fallacy is coming.

1. The only bounty documented actually using the word is from 1863...DECADES after the words first recorded use in general, in English, or in Print

2. IF the bounty is actually referring to the "scalped head" with the use of "red-skin" there, then it's not actually using the term "redskin" (referring to native americans) but rather speaking in the literal notion of the "red" SKIN. As such, it would make this bounty NOT an instance of the term "redskin" being used as a slur to refer to native americans, but is an instance of a literal reference.

And here it is (etymological fallacy). Regardless of how the word was used in the 1800s or 1950s, it is offensive to Native Americans now. It is offensive to non-Native Americans. That's the beginning and end of the argument.
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

I don't believe offense matters. The question is: do racial slurs (or stereotypes as some would argue) harm society. The answer is yes. On this ground I support removing the name, not on grounds of offense.

I find offense to be irrelevant.
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

I don't believe offense matters. The question is: do racial slurs (or stereotypes as some would argue) harm society. The answer is yes. On this ground I support removing the name, not on grounds of offense.

I find offense to be irrelevant.

Racial slurs harm society because they promote bigotry and are inherently divisive. I find that offensive, personally, but I agree that no one has a right to not be offended.

Anti-Jap9.jpg
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

To m
And here it is (etymological fallacy). Regardless of how the word was used in the 1800s or 1950s, it is offensive to Native Americans now. It is offensive to non-Native Americans. That's the beginning and end of the argument.

Except it isnt. Or rather its offensive to some, but mostly no one.
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

To me, it's a caricature of a Native American. It's like when Japanese were depicted with buck teeth and yellow skin in American media. That's MY reason. What's your personal stake in perpetuating racial stereotypes?

Care to ask the question in a more objective or neutral fashion than the pointedly biased and prejudiced manner from the very start? Your very question PRESUMES that it perpetuates a racial stereotype. Forgive me if I don't feel like answering a blowhard style question from someone who talks out of one side of his mouth about not telling people what they should be offended by, and then attempts to convince people to ask biased and slanted questions.

I sense that a logical fallacy is coming.

Really, I get that sense a lot from your posts.

Regardless of how the word was used in the 1800s or 1950s, it is offensive to Native Americans now.

1. It is offensive to SOME Native Americans now, which I've never suggested otherwise. Unlike you however, I'm not attempting to misrepresent the gorup.

2. I never claimed that the etymology of the word alone should mean that someone shouldn't be offended by it. It plays into why I am not offended by it, but each pereson makes their own decisions. What I DID claim was that the etymology of the word counters the claim made by the individual who recently popularized the image you posted sans any context, who suggested that Redskin "means" something that it does not.

That's the beginning and end of the argument.

No, it's not...unless you're ignorantly and hypocritically telling people what they should be offended by seeing as there are many native americans and non-native americans NOT offended by it, despite your implication that they are.
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

I don't get how it matters who's offended. It is what it is.
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

No. Regardless of whether or not redskin is a slur, I don't call people by their race 99% of the time.
 
Re: Would you call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

No. Regardless of whether or not redskin is a slur, I don't call people by their race 99% of the time.

Its really that simple, isn't it?
 
Back
Top Bottom