Redskins
- Thread starter The 5 solas
- Start date
Okay, I've been irenic through a great deal of inferential insult and nonsense. I'm going to be a bit less so in this, though I'll state categorically that I like Frank, our differences notwithstanding.
I see you haven't said anything about the most recent study I linked to, the one that showed a dramatic difference in Native American response to being called a redskin by those not of their particular ethnicity. I can't blame you. It's devastating to someone trying to marginalize the complaint against the popular use.
Look, you're obviously not the person I addressed my argument to. You're comfortable with the insult. I'm sorry to hear it, but that takes you outside of my argument. My aim was singular and declared, to get those who say they meant no offense or who claimed to mean a praise of sort to understand the impact of their actions and to alter their behavior in accord with that principle.
Or, if you don't mean to offend and find yourself offending, stop doing that.
Anything is possible, but it isn't likely and the supporting data doesn't leave a great deal of room for it. Data you haven't made yourself familiar with in your opposition (see: case finding) and I suspect or hope that would impact your opinion.
That goes back to the evidence that supports or fails to support, supra. But to simply assume those people are all liars or liberals (perhaps a repetition to you) might serve your feeling, but is unseated in objective facts.
It's a name that draws one.
I've read the history of it. It was, so far as records can tell, first used by white men to describe other white men, oddly enough. But it's literal use now is to note those first peoples to inhabit, establish culture and civilization, as I noted prior. It doesn't set a value on that, only note it. It's a better way of doing that than "redskin" with its baggage.
You keep saying this sort of thing but have literally offered no evidence to support it.
I agree that distinguishes (the point) between initial groups and cultures and subsequent immigrants. That's how I applied it. I don't agree it holds a valuation on the distinction nor did I insinuate any in noting it.
I get you're the hero of your narrative, Frank. But that's just more declaration without support (and a bit of insult to boot). Where I think you're just hostile on the point and under informed, willfully and admittedly, coming to judgment without even availing yourself on the very court holding we're discussing.
Native Americans aren't a "so called" minority. They're an actual one. You used the words. If you don't fully explain or qualify them the onus and problem are yours.
At least I've managed to move you from white liberals only. But you're still making an easy dismissal from a want of fact and that is the safe harbor of extremists who conclude before the facts are even in. If you're comfortable with that I won't move you. No one could. If you're comfortable with that I wasn't talking to you to begin with and I said as much.
There's no objective standard advanced that would make Native American insulting. There's nothing misleading about it. It makes a clear distinction. Inflammatory? Offense tends to be, when offered. And so my solution to those who claimed to mean something else.
I see you haven't said anything about the most recent study I linked to, the one that showed a dramatic difference in Native American response to being called a redskin by those not of their particular ethnicity. I can't blame you. It's devastating to someone trying to marginalize the complaint against the popular use.
Right after you give up your Klan membership, to match you.You're giving up on your liberal white guilt trip? That's great news!
Look, you're obviously not the person I addressed my argument to. You're comfortable with the insult. I'm sorry to hear it, but that takes you outside of my argument. My aim was singular and declared, to get those who say they meant no offense or who claimed to mean a praise of sort to understand the impact of their actions and to alter their behavior in accord with that principle.
Or, if you don't mean to offend and find yourself offending, stop doing that.
Last edited:
Ok. And one would assume you wouldn't do this because Yankees isn't as offensive as Redskins? or is there some other reason?
So then Yankees really is offensive even though it could not be ruled so in court?
That would depend on the term actually being offensive or not.
If a term isn't really offensive, then it doesn't matter what a court says. And thus can continue to use the term with a clear conscience knowing that we are on a higher moral ground than other people that apply non-use of a term based on the whim of a court or some activists.
The point is that I care more about offense than you do. I can say that because I actually discern between a real offense and a ginned up one.
As I thought I said, you'd have to make the case the way those Native Americans had to make the case about usage in the patent period for the term actually at the heart of this discussion.
I don't know how you got that out of the quote that proceeded it. Else, supra.
I wrote: You should read the court holding and the evidence that convinced it on the point, but if we reserve the right to dismiss the offense we offer as unreasonable then our declarations about not meaning to offend become something less than honest.
You still don't get this, but you don't determine that. The people offended do. So you may or may not feel the offense taken is reasonable, but it's real. Then you have to decide if it's reasonable, which means getting off your bias and exploring the evidence presented and context AND deciding if you care that it's offensive in any event.
Moreover, if you looked at the more recent study I linked to a few posts ago it's significantly more than that one in ten who find the use offensive when the user is from outside of the description.
Except all you really done is declared, without evidence and in the face of actual evidence to the contrary, that no one is offended therefore...and that's neither true nor argument.
But like I said, if you really don't care if you offend or not my point was never for you. Go on and use it. I think you should use it every time you meet someone of Native American descent and to their face. Begin the conversation with, "I see you're a Redskin." Then let us know how it works out for you.
So not only do you want to use the term, you want to look noble for using it.
That's chutzpa. Like I said, go ahead and get back to us on that.Declaring without consideration of the evidence and to suit your inclination is neither virtue nor discernment. It's waving a checkered flag at yourself and waiting on the applause...Yankee (I just decided that you aren't offended, that the Yankee nonsense was drummed up by right wingers to obscure a legitimate point and now I hold the moral high ground).
Woo-hoo! I like you, too, Townie.
Ah, yes! The ubiquitous mountain of supporting data which magically appears just at the right time and place. It did impact my opinion negatively.
Yes, the terms "liberal" and "liar" are synonymous and that rooted in objective fact.
Yes, it draws one to court over allegedly damaged "feelings."
I can award you a BINGO for that.
Maybe in your world. People don't head to court or appeal to government agencies without setting a value on something.
:darwinsm: Prejudicial. the name "Redskin" didn't have any baggage, as you term it, for five decades prior to the manufactured dustup by the supposedly offended.
Other than the obvious which seem to evade your consideration.
We have no evidence to establish the currently so-called "Native Americans" as an initial group or culture on this continent. What we have are unchallenged assumptions which work wonderfully as politics.
Great! I had put you among the culpably ignorant.
:darwinsm: They're a politically-concocted group.
I always knew that liberals come in more than one ethnic flavor. Yes, to the politically-correct, truth is a form of extremism.
It's insulting to me. Oh! That's right! In the great scheme of things I don't count because I'm not a member of the NA Club.
:rotfl:
Anybody can gin up stats to prove a point.
Oh my! Struck a nerve somewhere?Right after you give up your Klan membership, to match you.
Sure. I understand you are among the white liberal guilt-ridden politically-correct.
Applies only to designated right-wing extremists and KKK members.
heck frank, i'm still trying to figger out why he was calling you irene
Well there you go.
I've been meaning to ask a few people who add the "ie" on the end though, what's the deal with that? A thing you haven't read can't really reasonably impact your opinion and it didn't appear magically, unless you consider research magic and you use an incantation to start your computer.
I'd say extremists tend to view and relate to the world through an objectively distorted lens, but I don't think leftists or hard right wingers are lying so much as failing to exert due diligence.
It's a patent hearing and when you have a legitimate complaint, as the petitioners were found to have, that's where you take it.
I'm more of a Yahtzee guy, but sweet anyway.
I didn't say people don't place a value on their identification. I noted the term is simply a distinction. It doesn't have the negative baggage of the alternative.
That's simply not true. You should really read the court holding and evidence.
Sure we do. You not availing yourself of it is something else. But we have everything from physical evidence to the reports of the first Europeans to arrive and find them ensconced.
lain: Have you read the definition on those terms or are you just deciding it again. Like black people and mathematicians then...
lain: I'm just wondering at what point you come up for a rational breath on the topic.No, declarations without fact and running contrary to fact, failing to avail yourself of available facts and purporting what cannot be supported by them or reasoned argument is, however, frequently indicative of extremism.
I didn't say it wasn't insulting to you or anyone. I said there was no objective standard by which that offense could be rendered reasonable.
I get it. Doesn't matter to you. Like I said.
Anyone can turn a blind eye to the actual and rest on their feelings. But I wouldn't counsel in favor of it.
No, just illustrating what you did there a bit more dramatically. I think your part is emotionally driven, that it's why you haven't read the court opinion, try to declare the response of the people offended, etc.
The same way you "understand" Native Americans weren't earlier settlers of our land...it may feel good, but it's an uninformed bit of nonsense, Frank.
I wrote: if you don't mean to offend and find yourself offending, stop doing that.
No, it applies to anyone who doesn't mean to offend.
If factually and argumentatively opposing your part on this offends you then I'm fine with offending you on the point, though I wouldn't be happy about it.
Last edited:
Christ's Word
New member
Like you saying millions when thousands is the truth?:devil:
More like you saying thousands when a million is, by even a conservative estimate, the floor. I don't mind someone getting a thing wrong if they're open to examining it and changing their position. But when you can't be bothered it's another thing altogether.
I realize that you are math (and language) challenged, but "millions" is a multiple of "thousands"
"thousands" is a fraction of "millions"
That's fine. So even though you couldn't be assured of court action removing the Yankees trademark, you can stand with me and call for the Yankees to change their name due to offense.
Because you said people decide.
Not entirely. There is gain in the offended being catered to. Thus, if the offense is taken for the purpose of gain, as it is with the term Redskins, then the offense can be ignored.
Sure it's real. A thief feeling bad because they got caught also, really, feel bad. Real doesn't mean valid.
No doubt. Propaganda works on Indians just as well as any other human.
I said no one is offended. Only if it was clearly hyperbole.
Of course I care about offense. In fact carrying about it more than those that are trying to get a football team to change its name as demonstrated.But like I said, if you really don't care if you offend or not my point was never for you. Go on and use it. I think you should use it every time you meet someone of Native American descent and to their face. Begin the conversation with, "I see you're a Redskin." Then let us know how it works out for you.
So not only do you want to use the term, you want to look noble for using it.
I've considered the evidence. The conclusion of the court is wrong. In fact, they should have questioned the reasonableness of the claim when it was compared to the n-word since the reason teams, even black colleges, won't call themselves that word explains the simple difference between the terms. Why a difference? Because the n-word would be offensive because that is its modern definition as created by people of African descent. And, sure, people like Jesse Jackson ended up not only gaining power but money off that word in part, but these current Indian offended people could create the same with that word. Wiser Indians see how this would do no good for any Native American to change the word Redskins into another n-word, but the gain by a few Indians and many bureaucrats is overpowering.Declaring without consideration of the evidence and to suit your inclination is neither virtue nor discernment. It's waving a checkered flag at yourself and waiting on the applause...Yankee (I just decided that you aren't offended, that the Yankee nonsense was drummed up by right wingers to obscure a legitimate point and now I hold the moral high ground).
:rotfl: I don't either. The only Irene I know, currently, is a drop-dead gorgeous blonde.
It's more affectionate familiar, bearing no ill will. It's as if we are singing Kumbaya whilst casting rose petals into the air.Well there you go.
I've seen a lot of magical research and digital incantations in recent times. It comes in my email titled "National Memo." (Democrat Party agit-prop.)
A failure to exert due diligence would make one culpably ignorant. I figure the self-styled centrist (aka :Commie
crowd are in that mix.The complaint may or may not be legitimate. That's up to the judging body to determine, which judging body may or may not be legitimate.
Haven't played that in years.I'm more of a Yahtzee guy, but sweet anyway.
Yet, again, my opinion doesn't count. Maybe I'll have to resuscitate my old group, the NAAMWP. (That is, the National Association for the Advancement of Mostly White People.)
I should, yes. It would expand my knowledge of sham courts and sham evidence.
Nope. All we know, for certain, is that the Indians were here prior to the first European settlers. We do not know that the Indians were the first ever to set foot on the continent. Such is the nonsense that springs from anthropological pipe dreams.
:darwinsm: If the shoe fits ...
:darwinsm: We are of like mind on that.Like black people and mathematicians then...
:shocked: That make all liberals extremists!
You mean, my group of offendees doesn't have the politically-correct standing required.
What you have said so far is that any argument I might advance is simply irrelevant to the liberal politically-correct stand.
:darwinsm: Likewise, I'm sure.
:darwinsm: Another nice try.
Did not say that. You are assuming what I say through your rosy-colored political filter again. I said the Indians cannot be known to be the first ever on the continent. The fact that they were here before the first (known) Europeans does not award them any pretentious title as "Native Americans" as opposed to "native Americans." (I assume "native Americans" refers to those filthy immigrants from 400+ years ago.)
I agree that you're argumentative, yes, factual, sometimes. Be of good cheer! I remain happy even though offended. :cloud9:
No. See my repeated answer on that point prior.
I said the people offended decide if they're offended. Sure. And then there are a couple of following questions for the other side of the coin. First, is the offense intended/is the offense taken, intended or not, something the offending party cares about, which likely ties into the reasonableness of the offense.
But once you decide you don't mean to offend and/or mean to praise a people and instead discover you offend, it's time to change the practice. All you had to offer was a personal response. If it's an honest one and not just something you've created to attempt to make a parallel, then all you've established is your own response to the term. The team may a) not find your response reasonable and b) may not care either way.
If you're willing to assume and declare that the majority (looking at the more recent study) of Native Americans who are offended when people outside of their group use that term to describe them aren't honest people...well, you just have another problem, don't you.
lain:I know you believe that. But there's no reason for anyone else to.
So you'd have no problem with me setting up a real time quiz on that evidence presented to demonstrate your familiarity?
To everyone else, if you care about offending and you now have every objective reason to understand you're offering that, you should consider not doing that.
lain:
Back into history ....
Did we not have Indian images featured upon various coins of our official money? The buffalo nickle comes to mind. Must have been a terrible raft of racism at the mint. :chuckle: I remember a popular tobacco product which featured an Indian image. (Remember also the famous cigar-store Indian.) Of course, Indians are never remembered for introducing lung cancer into the white population. Wouldn't be politically-correct.
But... but... it's traditional. And it's football.
The world will end I guess, if they change the name, just because it's a slur. Don't really care, myself, but I'm guessing if someone started a team called the Oakland Honkies, there'd be blowback.
The world will end I guess, if they change the name, just because it's a slur. Don't really care, myself, but I'm guessing if someone started a team called the Oakland Honkies, there'd be blowback.
They have "Redskins" written on them? Turn of the century bit, wasn't it? When did they stop making those anyway?
Yes, who can forget the hoards of Native Americans descending upon innocent invade...I mean settlers, forcing the poor, half starved Europeans to smoke their demonic weed. Insisting...somehow, that they carry that back to spread across their homeland.
It's not a blanket filled with disease, but it's still paying dividends.
lain:
moparguy
New member
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_11AySJoaqPk/S6PIFgFhMyI/AAAAAAAAAhg/WT2AsWETfgU/s1600-h/Redskins.jpg
*cough*
100% Navajo high school, from what I hear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Mesa_High_School
Gee, golly, I wonder when these people will figure out that ... treating any reference to native americans like dirty words is insulting to said people...
"Any reference to you is racist because it's a reference to you."
You should try to read the court's opinion on the historical usage relating to the patent, then check out my link to a fairly recent study clarifying how those Native Americans mostly feel about non Native Americans using the term.
Or you could just find the first example of a group that uses it among themselves without offense and generalize from there. But gee, golly that would be seriously flawed as approaches go, wouldn't it.
Oy, but that last response was hurried. I'll try to be more clear despite having little time.
Then my point stands as a yet unanswered rebuttal. Discerning which offenses are real or not shows a greater respect for real offenses.
This current crop of Indians offended by Redskins could create the same kind of definition. But wiser Indians see how this would do no good for almost all Native Americans; to change the word Redskins into another n-word. But the gain for few Indians and many bureaucrats is overpowering and it will probably happen anyway (and you helped!).
Please note, even you can and do still type the word "Redskins" without hesitation but you can't do that with the n word.
Your repeated answer: "You should read the court holding and the evidence that convinced it on the point, but if we reserve the right to dismiss the offense we offer as unreasonable then our declarations about not meaning to offend become something less than honest."
Then my point stands as a yet unanswered rebuttal. Discerning which offenses are real or not shows a greater respect for real offenses.
Thus:
is something you cannot rationally determine.
I've considered the evidence. The conclusion of the court is wrong. In fact, they should have questioned the reasonableness of the claim the moment it was compared to the n-word. The reason teams, even black colleges, won't call themselves the n-word explains the simple difference between the terms. What's the difference? The n-word would be offensive because of its modern definition as dictated by people of African descent. People like Jesse Jackson and a lot of bureaucrats ended up not only gaining power but money off that word in part, but almost all the rest of the people of African descent are hurt by its status.If you're willing to assume and declare that the majority (looking at the more recent study) of Native Americans who are offended when people outside of their group use that term to describe them aren't honest people...well, you just have another problem, don't you.
This current crop of Indians offended by Redskins could create the same kind of definition. But wiser Indians see how this would do no good for almost all Native Americans; to change the word Redskins into another n-word. But the gain for few Indians and many bureaucrats is overpowering and it will probably happen anyway (and you helped!).
Please note, even you can and do still type the word "Redskins" without hesitation but you can't do that with the n word.
I'll give it a try, but the only Indians I know are friends and we already call each other redskin and paleface. I can't do the n word even with my black friends. Know why that is? Because they cannot hear that word without the requirement of a negative reaction. That's the position you want to force Indians into. It's not nice and it's the reason that I objectively care more about avoiding offense than you.
And as I just demonstrated, I care more about avoiding offending than you.To everyone else, if you care about offending and you now have every objective reason to understand you're offering that, you should consider not doing that.