Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Political Correctness (Redskins)

R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 6:12:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
https://www.youtube.com...

Native Americans are waging a war against the Washington Redskins' name and mascot. This commercial will be aired during the NBA Playoffs, as Be Proud ramps up its efforts to apply pressure to the organization. Dozens of congressmen have signed a petition to prompt the Redskins to make the change.

What do you think? On one hand, we have a business who has a long, rich history of using this name in seemingly good-faith. On the other, we have progressives who want to eradicate any signs of racially-based language in our country.

Is "redskin" derogatory? Certain races have certain skin-tones... I find myself asking "why is a skin-tone offensive?" Why are describing certain racial traits disturbing to us?

It is interesting to me that describing people is so precarious. Was it always like this? If I tell my neighbor "hey, you know that black guy who lives down the street?" should my neighbor view me as crude and base? Because I know from experience that just describing somebody as "black" can cause tension with sensitive, progressive people.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
BodiSatva
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 8:25:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 6:12:53 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Native Americans are waging a war against the Washington Redskins' name and mascot. This commercial will be aired during the NBA Playoffs, as Be Proud ramps up its efforts to apply pressure to the organization. Dozens of congressmen have signed a petition to prompt the Redskins to make the change.

What do you think? On one hand, we have a business who has a long, rich history of using this name in seemingly good-faith. On the other, we have progressives who want to eradicate any signs of racially-based language in our country.

Is "redskin" derogatory? Certain races have certain skin-tones... I find myself asking "why is a skin-tone offensive?" Why are describing certain racial traits disturbing to us?

It is interesting to me that describing people is so precarious. Was it always like this? If I tell my neighbor "hey, you know that black guy who lives down the street?" should my neighbor view me as crude and base? Because I know from experience that just describing somebody as "black" can cause tension with sensitive, progressive people.

There is nothing wrong with the term Redskin for the NFL. SOME Native Americans oppose the terminology... not all. Some people have a problem with a lot of things. Hell, a very white guy at work started an argument with me over the term Native American claiming that the PC term is now First Americans. I know a Cherokee who thinks that is ridiculous as he wants to be known as a Cherokee and not even a Native American.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 9:06:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 6:12:53 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Native Americans are waging a war against the Washington Redskins' name and mascot. This commercial will be aired during the NBA Playoffs, as Be Proud ramps up its efforts to apply pressure to the organization. Dozens of congressmen have signed a petition to prompt the Redskins to make the change.

What do you think? On one hand, we have a business who has a long, rich history of using this name in seemingly good-faith. On the other, we have progressives who want to eradicate any signs of racially-based language in our country.

Is "redskin" derogatory? Certain races have certain skin-tones... I find myself asking "why is a skin-tone offensive?" Why are describing certain racial traits disturbing to us?

It is interesting to me that describing people is so precarious. Was it always like this? If I tell my neighbor "hey, you know that black guy who lives down the street?" should my neighbor view me as crude and base? Because I know from experience that just describing somebody as "black" can cause tension with sensitive, progressive people.

Well, words are never inherently bad or offensive. But they have awful historical connotations that we want to get rid of. Same with the n word.

I support changing the name.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 9:15:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://washington.cbslocal.com...

"In 2004, the National Annenberg Election Survey asked 768 people who identified themselves as Indian whether they found the name "Washington Redskins" offensive. Almost 90 percent said it did not bother them."

Granted that is from 2004, but how about some one do a new poll? Please show that this is not just some vocal minority.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2014 1:40:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 8:25:52 PM, BodiSatva wrote:

There is nothing wrong with the term Redskin for the NFL. SOME Native Americans oppose the terminology... not all. Some people have a problem with a lot of things. Hell, a very white guy at work started an argument with me over the term Native American claiming that the PC term is now First Americans. I know a Cherokee who thinks that is ridiculous as he wants to be known as a Cherokee and not even a Native American.

"Native American" is the stupidest term for them that has ever been used. If Cherokee et al. are all "Native Americans," then what does that make me? A non-native american? So what am I a native of? Some European country that I've never even visited? No, I am a Native American, and just about everybody in America is a Native American.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Crescendo
Posts: 470
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2014 1:46:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/11/2014 1:40:02 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 6/10/2014 8:25:52 PM, BodiSatva wrote:

There is nothing wrong with the term Redskin for the NFL. SOME Native Americans oppose the terminology... not all. Some people have a problem with a lot of things. Hell, a very white guy at work started an argument with me over the term Native American claiming that the PC term is now First Americans. I know a Cherokee who thinks that is ridiculous as he wants to be known as a Cherokee and not even a Native American.

"Native American" is the stupidest term for them that has ever been used. If Cherokee et al. are all "Native Americans," then what does that make me? A non-native american? So what am I a native of? Some European country that I've never even visited? No, I am a Native American, and just about everybody in America is a Native American.

Proto-American, perhaps? Indigenous American?
My View of the World:
http://www.debate.org...

My Greatest Debate (As of so far):
http://www.debate.org...
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2014 4:56:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/11/2014 1:46:12 PM, Crescendo wrote:
At 6/11/2014 1:40:02 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 6/10/2014 8:25:52 PM, BodiSatva wrote:

There is nothing wrong with the term Redskin for the NFL. SOME Native Americans oppose the terminology... not all. Some people have a problem with a lot of things. Hell, a very white guy at work started an argument with me over the term Native American claiming that the PC term is now First Americans. I know a Cherokee who thinks that is ridiculous as he wants to be known as a Cherokee and not even a Native American.

"Native American" is the stupidest term for them that has ever been used. If Cherokee et al. are all "Native Americans," then what does that make me? A non-native american? So what am I a native of? Some European country that I've never even visited? No, I am a Native American, and just about everybody in America is a Native American.

Proto-American, perhaps? Indigenous American?

Indigenous Americans would be acceptable for those times when one is compelled to label the group as a whole, but as somebody posted earlier, the only truly respectful way to label them is by their tribe. Whites celebrate their English, French, Polish, etc. heritage and we usually don't lump them together and call us all European Americans... it makes sense that we should call them Oneida, Menominee, Cherokee, etc. When you really think about it, the reason we don't label them as such already is because we don't recognize (or respect) Ojibwe as much as we do Germany (for example).

At any rate, it's a completely different thing between respecting a particular Ho Chunk person's heritage (by calling them "Ho Chunk" instead of "Indian" or "Native," which almost sounds like barbarian) than trying to respect the theoretical construct of the American Indian population by attacking a football team's name, a name that millions of fans cherish, no less! What evidence of derogatory usage do they have? My African-American guitar-player told me, at our gig last Sunday, that he had to nigger-rig his amp. Was he disrespecting his own heritage or was it fine because he is a special authority in the matter? Or maybe it's all just a bunch of hooey ;)
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2014 9:37:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/11/2014 4:56:29 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 6/11/2014 1:46:12 PM, Crescendo wrote:
At 6/11/2014 1:40:02 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 6/10/2014 8:25:52 PM, BodiSatva wrote:

There is nothing wrong with the term Redskin for the NFL. SOME Native Americans oppose the terminology... not all. Some people have a problem with a lot of things. Hell, a very white guy at work started an argument with me over the term Native American claiming that the PC term is now First Americans. I know a Cherokee who thinks that is ridiculous as he wants to be known as a Cherokee and not even a Native American.

"Native American" is the stupidest term for them that has ever been used. If Cherokee et al. are all "Native Americans," then what does that make me? A non-native american? So what am I a native of? Some European country that I've never even visited? No, I am a Native American, and just about everybody in America is a Native American.

Proto-American, perhaps? Indigenous American?

Indigenous Americans would be acceptable for those times when one is compelled to label the group as a whole, but as somebody posted earlier, the only truly respectful way to label them is by their tribe. Whites celebrate their English, French, Polish, etc. heritage and we usually don't lump them together and call us all European Americans... it makes sense that we should call them Oneida, Menominee, Cherokee, etc. When you really think about it, the reason we don't label them as such already is because we don't recognize (or respect) Ojibwe as much as we do Germany (for example).

When I celebrate my whiteness, I typically get called a racist. However, depending on the size of the tribe, that may not be the only respectable way. After all, if I asserted that it is disrespectful to call me an American and you have to address me as a Portlander, then it is I that is being unreasonable, not someone that addresses me as an American.


At any rate, it's a completely different thing between respecting a particular Ho Chunk person's heritage (by calling them "Ho Chunk" instead of "Indian" or "Native," which almost sounds like barbarian) than trying to respect the theoretical construct of the American Indian population by attacking a football team's name, a name that millions of fans cherish, no less! What evidence of derogatory usage do they have? My African-American guitar-player told me, at our gig last Sunday, that he had to nigger-rig his amp. Was he disrespecting his own heritage or was it fine because he is a special authority in the matter? Or maybe it's all just a bunch of hooey ;)
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 4:24:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Meh. It's just a mascot. It's kind of racist. What's the problem with changing it?

We had a similar thing here with football. One of the teams was sponsored by a brothel, which are legitimate businesses here. But the league decided that it was inappropriate for a family-oriented sport to be publicly supported by brothels.

It's the same with this. Widely influential sport, lots of child fans and an anachronistic racist stereotype. Just get rid of it.
IrishWolverine
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 3:22:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Perhaps if we REALLY wanted to show how sensitive and PC we are, we wouldn't have essentially exterminated these "Redskins" from their homeland in the first place. It's a little late to start acting like we're on their side.
"I'm the best there is at what I do, but what I do best isn't very nice. " ///

"You either die a hero...or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 9:04:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 3:22:59 PM, IrishWolverine wrote:
Perhaps if we REALLY wanted to show how sensitive and PC we are, we wouldn't have essentially exterminated these "Redskins" from their homeland in the first place. It's a little late to start acting like we're on their side.

Yes, let's resign ourselves from doing good things because we've done bad things in the past.
IrishWolverine
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 10:08:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 9:04:20 PM, Hematite12 wrote:

Yes, let's resign ourselves from doing good things because we've done bad things in the past.

No, let's stop acting like we care about BS issues just to make ourselves feel like we're doing some good. Let's do some actual good.
"I'm the best there is at what I do, but what I do best isn't very nice. " ///

"You either die a hero...or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 4:56:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 10:08:25 AM, IrishWolverine wrote:
At 6/12/2014 9:04:20 PM, Hematite12 wrote:

Yes, let's resign ourselves from doing good things because we've done bad things in the past.

No, let's stop acting like we care about BS issues just to make ourselves feel like we're doing some good. Let's do some actual good.

Yeah? Like what?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 12:08:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 9:15:57 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://washington.cbslocal.com...

"In 2004, the National Annenberg Election Survey asked 768 people who identified themselves as Indian whether they found the name "Washington Redskins" offensive. Almost 90 percent said it did not bother them."

Granted that is from 2004, but how about some one do a new poll? Please show that this is not just some vocal minority.

I would say they are polling the wrong people. It should be offensive to all people because it is a skin color label. Indians alone don't get to make that call for our society.
Conservative101
Posts: 191
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 1:14:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 6:12:53 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Native Americans are waging a war against the Washington Redskins' name and mascot. This commercial will be aired during the NBA Playoffs, as Be Proud ramps up its efforts to apply pressure to the organization. Dozens of congressmen have signed a petition to prompt the Redskins to make the change.

What do you think? On one hand, we have a business who has a long, rich history of using this name in seemingly good-faith. On the other, we have progressives who want to eradicate any signs of racially-based language in our country.

Is "redskin" derogatory? Certain races have certain skin-tones... I find myself asking "why is a skin-tone offensive?" Why are describing certain racial traits disturbing to us?

It is interesting to me that describing people is so precarious. Was it always like this? If I tell my neighbor "hey, you know that black guy who lives down the street?" should my neighbor view me as crude and base? Because I know from experience that just describing somebody as "black" can cause tension with sensitive, progressive people.

It's not racist. Racism is the act of discriminating a certain race. If I call a brunette person a brunette, am I discriminating against all brunettes? According to progressives, I am.

Logic doesn't add up.
When in doubt, start riots and scream racism
numberwang
Posts: 1,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 1:28:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Redskin is a racial slur, even if the team doesn't intend the name to be offensive. It'd be like if I called my sports team the Washington Chinks or the Washington Crackers or the Washington Porch Monkeys. It's not necessarily racist to use a Native American mascot, but redskin has been used as a slur and that's really the problem, at least in my opinion.
numberwang
Posts: 1,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 1:35:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 1:14:57 PM, Conservative101 wrote:
At 6/10/2014 6:12:53 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Native Americans are waging a war against the Washington Redskins' name and mascot. This commercial will be aired during the NBA Playoffs, as Be Proud ramps up its efforts to apply pressure to the organization. Dozens of congressmen have signed a petition to prompt the Redskins to make the change.

What do you think? On one hand, we have a business who has a long, rich history of using this name in seemingly good-faith. On the other, we have progressives who want to eradicate any signs of racially-based language in our country.

Is "redskin" derogatory? Certain races have certain skin-tones... I find myself asking "why is a skin-tone offensive?" Why are describing certain racial traits disturbing to us?

It is interesting to me that describing people is so precarious. Was it always like this? If I tell my neighbor "hey, you know that black guy who lives down the street?" should my neighbor view me as crude and base? Because I know from experience that just describing somebody as "black" can cause tension with sensitive, progressive people.

It's not racist. Racism is the act of discriminating a certain race. If I call a brunette person a brunette, am I discriminating against all brunettes? According to progressives, I am.

Logic doesn't add up.

That's not at all what it is. If it was the Washington Native Americans or the Washington Indians or Washington (insert tribe here) that'd be fine. But redskin is and has been a racial slur. If you were using an offensive term for brunettes (not that there is one to my knowledge) your analogy would work.
Conservative101
Posts: 191
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 1:42:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 1:35:54 PM, numberwang wrote:
At 6/17/2014 1:14:57 PM, Conservative101 wrote:
At 6/10/2014 6:12:53 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Native Americans are waging a war against the Washington Redskins' name and mascot. This commercial will be aired during the NBA Playoffs, as Be Proud ramps up its efforts to apply pressure to the organization. Dozens of congressmen have signed a petition to prompt the Redskins to make the change.

What do you think? On one hand, we have a business who has a long, rich history of using this name in seemingly good-faith. On the other, we have progressives who want to eradicate any signs of racially-based language in our country.

Is "redskin" derogatory? Certain races have certain skin-tones... I find myself asking "why is a skin-tone offensive?" Why are describing certain racial traits disturbing to us?

It is interesting to me that describing people is so precarious. Was it always like this? If I tell my neighbor "hey, you know that black guy who lives down the street?" should my neighbor view me as crude and base? Because I know from experience that just describing somebody as "black" can cause tension with sensitive, progressive people.

It's not racist. Racism is the act of discriminating a certain race. If I call a brunette person a brunette, am I discriminating against all brunettes? According to progressives, I am.

Logic doesn't add up.

That's not at all what it is. If it was the Washington Native Americans or the Washington Indians or Washington (insert tribe here) that'd be fine. But redskin is and has been a racial slur. If you were using an offensive term for brunettes (not that there is one to my knowledge) your analogy would work.

That would depend on who you ask. I don't believe it's a slur. The name has been there for 80+ years, and it has always intended to be positive and respectful. Only recently has progressives twisted the meaning of racism to make it seem like it's a slur, but knowing the background of the name, we learn that it wasn't meant to be that way at all.
When in doubt, start riots and scream racism
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 1:51:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Just so everyone knows Native Americans really don't have red skin.

Apparently it at one point was a used by Native Americans to describe themselves, but in today's day and age, it would not be appropriate to name a team, "Black Skins", "Yellow Skins", "White Skins".

This will get support over time. Might as well get the change over and the new brand started today.

http://www.npr.org...

More interesting are the other teams. Indians, Blackhawks, Braves, Chiefs........
numberwang
Posts: 1,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 1:51:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 1:42:28 PM, Conservative101 wrote:
At 6/17/2014 1:35:54 PM, numberwang wrote:
At 6/17/2014 1:14:57 PM, Conservative101 wrote:
At 6/10/2014 6:12:53 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Native Americans are waging a war against the Washington Redskins' name and mascot. This commercial will be aired during the NBA Playoffs, as Be Proud ramps up its efforts to apply pressure to the organization. Dozens of congressmen have signed a petition to prompt the Redskins to make the change.

What do you think? On one hand, we have a business who has a long, rich history of using this name in seemingly good-faith. On the other, we have progressives who want to eradicate any signs of racially-based language in our country.

Is "redskin" derogatory? Certain races have certain skin-tones... I find myself asking "why is a skin-tone offensive?" Why are describing certain racial traits disturbing to us?

It is interesting to me that describing people is so precarious. Was it always like this? If I tell my neighbor "hey, you know that black guy who lives down the street?" should my neighbor view me as crude and base? Because I know from experience that just describing somebody as "black" can cause tension with sensitive, progressive people.

It's not racist. Racism is the act of discriminating a certain race. If I call a brunette person a brunette, am I discriminating against all brunettes? According to progressives, I am.

Logic doesn't add up.

That's not at all what it is. If it was the Washington Native Americans or the Washington Indians or Washington (insert tribe here) that'd be fine. But redskin is and has been a racial slur. If you were using an offensive term for brunettes (not that there is one to my knowledge) your analogy would work.

That would depend on who you ask. I don't believe it's a slur. The name has been there for 80+ years, and it has always intended to be positive and respectful. Only recently has progressives twisted the meaning of racism to make it seem like it's a slur, but knowing the background of the name, we learn that it wasn't meant to be that way at all.

Historically it is and has been a slur. What if it was the Washington F@gs or the Washington Beaners? This wouldn't even be a question even if it was only offensive to a minority.

Look up the etymology of the word and the history of it. You'll pretty clearly see where I am coming from.
IrishWolverine
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 6:07:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 4:56:25 AM, rross wrote:
At 6/14/2014 10:08:25 AM, IrishWolverine wrote:
At 6/12/2014 9:04:20 PM, Hematite12 wrote:

Yes, let's resign ourselves from doing good things because we've done bad things in the past.

No, let's stop acting like we care about BS issues just to make ourselves feel like we're doing some good. Let's do some actual good.

Yeah? Like what?

Donate to a charity, volunteer for a worthy cause, learn a skill that can help others. Use your imagination, there are plenty of more useful things to be doing than making a scene just to be making scene.
"I'm the best there is at what I do, but what I do best isn't very nice. " ///

"You either die a hero...or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 9:41:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 1:28:45 PM, numberwang wrote:
Redskin is a racial slur, even if the team doesn't intend the name to be offensive. It'd be like if I called my sports team the Washington Chinks or the Washington Crackers or the Washington Porch Monkeys. It's not necessarily racist to use a Native American mascot, but redskin has been used as a slur and that's really the problem, at least in my opinion.

I have to disagree. If I have a certain tint of skin, and somebody highlights that, it is worlds apart from being called a monkey. Monkeys are lower animals, and that has all sorts of implications - stupidity, throwing poop, etc. Chink and Cracker are not so connotative, but they are meant only as hurtful devices. I don't see that Washington Redskins fans use that term at all to hurt American Indians.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 9:43:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 1:35:54 PM, numberwang wrote:

That's not at all what it is. If it was the Washington Native Americans or the Washington Indians or Washington (insert tribe here) that'd be fine. But redskin is and has been a racial slur. If you were using an offensive term for brunettes (not that there is one to my knowledge) your analogy would work.

"Offensive" is a relative term. "Hurtful" is not. If I call a black person the n-word because I feel I am superior to them, then that is different then, say, me repeating the lyrics to my favorite rap song and some soccer mom being offended. Let's establish this difference and recognize it please!
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 9:52:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 1:51:25 PM, slo1 wrote:
Just so everyone knows Native Americans really don't have red skin.

I was actually kind of wondering about that, I always figured they had a slightly redder tint but I know many American Indians (they are pretty prevalent in Wisconsin) and I've never seen a red one before lol.

Apparently it at one point was a used by Native Americans to describe themselves, but in today's day and age, it would not be appropriate to name a team, "Black Skins", "Yellow Skins", "White Skins".

Well this is a different day and age. If somebody did that, it would only be to cause strife. There was a time when that wasn't so, however, and I don't recall ever hearing evidence that the organization has ever used that name unethically. If anything, they are proud of it. Does a Bears fan think less of a bear? Do Buccaneers fans think less of pirates? I'd argue that these titles only bring fascination, awareness, and appreciation to the things they are named after.

This will get support over time. Might as well get the change over and the new brand started today.

http://www.npr.org...


More interesting are the other teams. Indians, Blackhawks, Braves, Chiefs........

Seeing those other teams pressured to change is only an indication that it is being pushed too far - is it not?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 9:55:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 1:51:40 PM, numberwang wrote:

Historically it is and has been a slur. What if it was the Washington F@gs or the Washington Beaners? This wouldn't even be a question even if it was only offensive to a minority.

Again, these terms are 100% hate. One group decided "we hate these people and we want to design a name for them that will bring humiliation, shame, etc. That is not how Redskins is used at all.

Look up the etymology of the word and the history of it. You'll pretty clearly see where I am coming from.

From Slo's article, it appears it was the American Indians who both created and employed the term to describe themselves.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 9:58:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Not for nothing, but if the Oneidas are so concerned about ethics, and this isn't a completely self-interested power-play (which it obviously is), then maybe they should reconsider operating all their casinos and ruining people's lives by selling them a dream of fortune and letting them spend all their family's money there. I think Gambling is more fundamentally negative than using the word Redskin.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
numberwang
Posts: 1,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 1:17:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 9:55:10 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 6/17/2014 1:51:40 PM, numberwang wrote:

Historically it is and has been a slur. What if it was the Washington F@gs or the Washington Beaners? This wouldn't even be a question even if it was only offensive to a minority.

Again, these terms are 100% hate. One group decided "we hate these people and we want to design a name for them that will bring humiliation, shame, etc. That is not how Redskins is used at all.

The term was used hatefully in the 1900s and late 1800s. It may not currently be used that way because we dont go around hating native americans anymore (there arent enough around to bother hating them as a group!) but that doesnt change the fact that it was used as a racial slur for a large part of our nations history. Look at any dictionary, they all mark the word as 'offensive'.

Look up the etymology of the word and the history of it. You'll pretty clearly see where I am coming from.

From Slo's article, it appears it was the American Indians who both created and employed the term to describe themselves.

Whether or not it came from skin tone, bounty hunting or Indians themselves is disputed. Regardless, it was used as a slur by white americans in the 1900s and can and should be seen as offensive as a result.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 4:38:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/11/2014 9:37:05 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/11/2014 4:56:29 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:

When I celebrate my whiteness, I typically get called a racist.

Perhaps it's because you ARE a racist:

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Specifically:

White:
"free from spot or blemish"
"free from moral impurity"


Black:
"thoroughly sinister or evil : wicked "
"indicative of condemnation or discredit <got a black mark for being late>"
"connected with or invoking the supernatural and especially the devil <black magic>"
"very sad, gloomy, or calamitous <black despair>"
"marked by the occurrence of disaster <black Friday>"
"characterized by hostility or angry discontent : sullen <black resentment filled his heart>"


This is why we've gravitated from characterizing race by color.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 4:40:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 6:12:53 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Native Americans are waging a war against the Washington Redskins' name and mascot. This commercial will be aired during the NBA Playoffs, as Be Proud ramps up its efforts to apply pressure to the organization. Dozens of congressmen have signed a petition to prompt the Redskins to make the change.

This has been ongoing for decades.

What do you think? On one hand, we have a business who has a long, rich history of using this name in seemingly good-faith. On the other, we have progressives who want to eradicate any signs of racially-based language in our country.

Is "redskin" derogatory? Certain races have certain skin-tones... I find myself asking "why is a skin-tone offensive?" Why are describing certain racial traits disturbing to us?

It is interesting to me that describing people is so precarious. Was it always like this? If I tell my neighbor "hey, you know that black guy who lives down the street?" should my neighbor view me as crude and base? Because I know from experience that just describing somebody as "black" can cause tension with sensitive, progressive people.

See my comment #29.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?