RFKFedEx Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Droppin knowledge Salistala! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Droppin knowledge Salistala! If only he would use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Yeah, I sure am shocked to know that racism existed, towards Native Americans, 100 years ago. I mean, growing up in a state which celebrates thousands of white folks climbing over each other, to grab a bunch of "free" land which Natives had been herded onto, shortly prior to that, I had no idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Is that the ban hammer I hear comin' down the warpath? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Sal, Even if everything you are posting is true, choosing to find offense in the name of the football team means you are ignoring context, and essentially saying "the word has only one definition, and that definition is whatever I say it is." The fact is, words mean different things at different times. Context matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 I getting ready to grind up some Oreos and have oreo pie later. Context indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveakl Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 I getting ready to grind up some Oreos and have oreo pie later. Context indeed. I'll clean up the mess with some spic and span. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 No such rule exists To suggest that only the violent acts of racism are the real acts and words and images are harmless is foolishly ignorant of human history and the acts of aggression we perpetrate against each other. Racism can be seen as a spectrum, from machete massacres and crematoriums to offensive words and images, with redskins being a misguided definition of an entire continent of people. This is the environment in which Marshall chose the name, and then he continued the offense by making his "Indians" dress up in fake head-dresses and dance in fake dances to a fake war chant with lyrics from Marshall's own wife during half-time while the white athletes rested. It was marketing, pure and simple, that drew Marshall to the name so he could capitalize on the vaudevillian pageantry of the "Indian" Wild West. That is how big "R" Redskins continued the offensiveness of little "r" redskin. The heritage of the team that the fans seek is still immersed in this past, the fake costumes are gone (for the most part), the fake dances are gone, the fake war chant continues (sanitized, but it is still there), and the name continues. Yes, the rule does exist. It's #11. I only said, didn't just suggest, that the name controversy is not real racism. That is backed up by context and the majority opinion of NAs, as well as the common usage of the word. Marshall was the only one apparently who was racially insensitive back in the day. No other teams had an Indian theme and used pageantry. Clearly something from 80 years ago should be penalized today when it isn't in effect. And clearly all NAs agree with you, which is why no legit poll exists to support your position and why several NA schools use Redskins to this day. Neither of those two things would be true if your position were entirely true. You and others have to rely on ignoring context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salistala Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Yes, the rule does exist. It's #11. 11. Please do not use the “Quote” feature to quote any large sections of text. It unnecessarily extends and clutters threads and is annoying. If you would like to respond to the contents of a particular post, simply quote the sentence or idea that you're commenting upon, not the entire post if it's lengthy. Still not an offence as you suggest, I was simply demonstrating that the majority of your post dealt with Renegade7 and wasn't relevant to my argument. In my original post (#11082) I did actually use only the sentence I was focusing on, but Larry accused me of cherry picking that one sentence to misquote you and advance my position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salistala Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 If only he would use it. What's your response to the Goddard quote that ended his paper on the origins of the redskin word? “The descent of this word into obloquy is a phenomenon of more recent times.” (Goddard 2005) If the word has never, ever been a slur, why would the man that did all that research that demonstrated a benign origin that refutes most Native American "activists" theories then end his paper with that sentence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Still not an offence as you suggest, I was simply demonstrating that the majority of your post dealt with Renegade7 and wasn't relevant to my argument. In my original post (#11082) I did actually use only the sentence I was focusing on, but Larry accused me of cherry picking that one sentence to misquote you and advance my position. You just said yourself that the majority of my post wasn't relevant. There's this thing called the delete key. You can use it to delete an entire entry save for the part you are addressing I did this when I replied to your post before and now. And all you've been doing is cherrypicking, just as most on your side have done throughout the entire debate due to having a very shaky position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 If the word has never, ever been a slur, why would the man that did all that research that demonstrated a benign origin that refutes most Native American "activists" theories then end his paper with that sentence? Only a few in here have said that, and they've been corrected by the rest. Maybe one day you'll address an actual argument, such as: current context and usage of the word as benign, even when used as a slur, the word was also used as a descriptor and its origin is benign, legitimate poll results that disagree with you, and that NA schools use the name Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 11. Please do not use the “Quote” feature to quote any large sections of text. It unnecessarily extends and clutters threads and is annoying. If you would like to respond to the contents of a particular post, simply quote the sentence or idea that you're commenting upon, not the entire post if it's lengthy. Still not an offence as you suggest, I was simply demonstrating that the majority of your post dealt with Renegade7 and wasn't relevant to my argument. In my original post (#11082) I did actually use only the sentence I was focusing on, but Larry accused me of cherry picking that one sentence to misquote you and advance my position. Actually,yes it was and is an offense in regards to the rule. There are other ways to accomplish what you were trying to do without violating it. Call that a "verbal" warning. Other than that,carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 What's your response to the Goddard quote that ended his paper on the origins of the redskin word? “The descent of this word into obloquy is a phenomenon of more recent times.” (Goddard 2005) If the word has never, ever been a slur, why would the man that did all that research that demonstrated a benign origin that refutes most Native American "activists" theories then end his paper with that sentence? That's an easy answer, it's in the definition... Any linguist would know. Otherwise, it's a neutral or positive word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Yes, the rule does exist. It's #11. I've edited the offensive block of text down to a eye pleasing paragraph and along with PCS's "verbal" warning, I trust that the issue is resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Let the mods handle it so that threads don't become a debate of the rulebook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salistala Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 You just said yourself that the majority of my post wasn't relevant. There's this thing called the delete key. You can use it to delete an entire entry save for the part you are addressing I did this when I replied to your post before and now. ...............In my original post (#11082) I did actually use only the sentence I was focusing on............ And all you've been doing is cherrypicking, just as most on your side have done throughout the entire debate due to having a very shaky position. If I have ignored most or part of a statement it is because either I agree with it, it's not relevant, or it's too pointless to merit a response. If I choose to "cherrypick" which points to address, it's because I think those points are important to the discussion. I am perfectly fine if you all disagree, as long as I'm not banned I'll continue the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salistala Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 That's an easy answer, it's in the definition... Any linguist would know. Otherwise, it's a neutral or positive word. Do you really understand what I said? Ives Goddard's "I AM A RED-SKIN" thesis investigating the origins of the word redskin is 16 pages of dense writing outlining the case for a benign origin. He provides a pretty convincing case that according to his research the word was benign in origin. After he has provided all this evidence, and after stating his conclusion, he ends the paper with this sentence, “The descent of this word into obloquy is a phenomenon of more recent times.” The descent of this word, from a benign descriptor, to obloquy. If you don't already know what obloquy means, look it up. But this has been said, "If you are on the receiving end of obloquy, then society has turned against you and you are in a state of disgrace..." Goddard is likely pretty strict in his use of language so I am pretty confident he meant what he said, and I'll paraphrase; before 1826 the word was benign, some time after that it came to describe shame and disgrace, the condition of someone who lost the respect of other people, abusive language aimed at a person or thing, especially by numerous persons or by the general public. So consider this my last argument outlining my position that the word is a slur. I understand there are posters that agree, but there are still some that don't. I think this is cut and dried. Actually,yes it was and is an offense in regards to the rule. There are other ways to accomplish what you were trying to do without violating it. Call that a "verbal" warning. Other than that,carry on. I understand and accept the warning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Do you really understand what I said? If you don't already know what obloquy means, look it up. But this has been said, "If you are on the receiving end of obloquy, then society has turned against you and you are in a state of disgrace..." 'This has been said'... That does not define obloquy. And yes, I do happen to know what it means. I like to fancy myself an amateur linguist. That sentence you seemingly pulled from parts unknown to me is not a definition, nor could you infer that it was Goddard's intent. That would be insulting to him and frankly ignorant to most of society's feeling to the contemporary word. (whether you agree or not, the word is not viewed by the majority as dispicable) Goddard's words are undoubtedly chosen with much thought, who else would use such a word. Another way of him saying it would be, the current dissent or criticism of the word is a recent phenomena not held by ALL in public. This would not change that it was always used as a neutral or positive reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Sal, You understand that various words can be slurs at times and not others. The definition is determined by its context. Why does this seem to apply to every word in the English language except redskin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salistala Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 That sentence you seemingly pulled from parts unknown to me is not a definition That was Hawthorne in the Scarlet Letter, but I found it at, http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/obloquy Or you could use this, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obloquy Or this one, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/obloquy Tell you what, I'm going to email Goddard and ask him to clarify because I think your explanation of what Goddard is saying is completely wrong. Maybe he's not too busy to answer a question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 And remember, WE decide the context of the word as football fans. Native Americans do not get a say in what we call them unless they can get a majority to tell us otherwise. That way we can keep the burden of proof on them for as long as we need to honor them with football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stugein Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 I don't know if it was a related or intentional move, but our stadium announcer for as long as I can remember, for years, on a first down has always exclaimed, "First down, Washingtoooooooon!" Yesterday he did this for the first couple drives, then notably changed the exclamation to, "First down, Redskiiiins!" and stuck with that for the rest of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 IMO Somebody above Kessler told him to make the change after 15 years. The old call flowed better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 And remember, WE decide the context of the word as football fans. Native Americans do not get a say in what we call them unless they can get a majority to tell us otherwise. That way we can keep the burden of proof on them for as long as we need to honor them with football. The definition is determined by context. If you want to believe otherwise, have at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 That was Hawthorne in the Scarlet Letter, but I found it at, http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/obloquy Or you could use this, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obloquy Or this one, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/obloquy Tell you what, I'm going to email Goddard and ask him to clarify because I think your explanation of what Goddard is saying is completely wrong. Maybe he's not too busy to answer a question. Yea... Glad we're saying the same thing. The word has had a recent 'PHENOMENOM' (something that is factual but hard to explain- BECAUSE ITS NOT A SLUR AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN NEUTRAL OR POSITIVE) where it has been viewed in derogatory fashion. I don't deny this phenomena, I disagree with those who feel its a slur. (For the record, amateur linguists are permitted to use all caps on the internet, I have links providing support for this rule if needed. Not just random sentences from books over 150 years old) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.