Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 24 of 24

Thread: Official Resignation of "RIVERS OF STEEL" and revocation of REDSKINS TRADE MARK

          
   
   
    Bookmark and Share
  1. #21
    Assistant Coach
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Palm Harbor, Fl
    Posts
    4,703
    Quote Originally Posted by TarlsQtr View Post
    As usual, you try to avoid the point. You stated that this has been "an issue for decades." The truth is that it really has not, except by a few who take offense as their vocation. Please show me all of the polls and news articles that show this has been an issue with a significant portion of the Native American people "for decades."
    I see that you are willing to hang the entirety of your argument on that poll.

    The reality, is that like the "N" word, and its association with an era of slavery, this label is associated with an era of genocide.



    BS. Problems of self-reporting are only known by people with experience in such things. People with experience in such things also know that credible pollsters account for this problem in its methodology (which is why there is a MOE for every poll conducted). For instance, I can equally make the opposite claim that the number should be larger because it is common knowledge that people who are angry (in this case, those who oppose the name) are more likely to reply than one who is not.
    It's an issue of sample.

    Nope. No internet there! lol I mean, all surveys are now irrelevant too, because homeless people and those without home phones (many use cell exclusively, like me) do not get polled! The horror!
    When the target population is both under sampled by 50%, and unreachable in a ridiculous out of norm manner... then you have a problem. But hey, the poll tells the story you want to hear, so why dig into the details.


    You tell me. It is a good question, because it is about the time they became the redskins. Again, your logic dictates that the owner meant to label his team with racist/negative characteristics. No other team in history, to my knowledge, has done so but you know seem to know better.
    This line of thinking demonstrates a comic level of unawareness...
    the original Owner (George Preston Marshall) was an admitted racist.... he worked his *** off to keep african americans out of the game. He openly courted the southern market (that lacked an NFL team) with a openly racist agenda.

    anyways, having racist characteristics didn't matter back then...




    None. It is irrelevant because it has never had a positive connotation, like "redskin" has.
    It's origin is completely without prejudice. It means "little circle", which is what the Jews signed at Ellis Island instead of the Christian cross looking "x".... they signed "o"....But it's meaning changed with it's use didn't it....


    Quit the yoga. That is ridiculous. Oklahoma, like a million other words from foreign languages, is an adaptation due to the Choctaw not historically having a written language. People also have difficulty pronouncing foreign languages and they then spell how they pronounce. Hence, "Okla Humma" became "Oklahoma."
    yes it did...
    and Redskin became derogatory


    Nonsense. It can be traced back. Smithsonian Institution senior linguist Ives Goddard did just that. The WaPo has an entire fairly written article on it.
    I've read it. I don't dispute that much of its early history and origin was not racist....
    Return of the Banana

  2. #22
    Veteran TarlsQtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    2,844
    My Mood
    Ratbirds
    Quote Originally Posted by NeilPatrickBanana View Post
    I see that you are willing to hang the entirety of your argument on that poll.
    Not at all. It is evidence to a claim, something you are incapable of doing. You claim it has been a legitimate problem for decades but have absolutely refused to provide any evidence to support your assertion that a significant portion of NA society has had an issue with the name for "decades." You have absolutely no capability to admit you are wrong even when you cede the field.

    The reality, is that like the "N" word, and its association with an era of slavery, this label is associated with an era of genocide.
    Evidence.

    It's an issue of sample.
    People who have no knowledge of how polling works should not talk about it.

    When the target population is both under sampled by 50%, and unreachable in a ridiculous out of norm manner... then you have a problem. But hey, the poll tells the story you want to hear, so why dig into the details.
    See above. So please, in some detail, please tell us how the poll SHOULD have been done and your credentials for for knowing better than a premier academic survey. BTW, a poll/survey considered GROSSLY in error would be wrong by say 10 percent. That would still leave 81 percent not bothered by the name...

    This line of thinking demonstrates a comic level of unawareness...
    Not really, but what you post below does...

    the original Owner (George Preston Marshall) was an admitted racist.... he worked his *** off to keep african americans out of the game. He openly courted the southern market (that lacked an NFL team) with a openly racist agenda.
    Marshall was a racist, yep. Hated blacks but you are too near-sighted to see that you make my point. Did he call them the Washington "ni66ers?" Why not? Stalin hated Poles too but it does not mean he hated Argentinians.

    anyways, having racist characteristics didn't matter back then...
    Stay on topic.

    It's origin is completely without prejudice. It means "little circle", which is what the Jews signed at Ellis Island instead of the Christian cross looking "x".... they signed "o"....But it's meaning changed with it's use didn't it....
    Not really. The Jews made a kikel and WE (meaning Americans on Ellis) changed it to "Kike." At the very least, it was universally seen as a slur VERY early in its usage. Although redskin was eventually used as a slur by some, it was not universally seen that way by Americans or NAs (at least there is no evidence of it). Just as the word "Jew" is dependent on how it is used, so was redskin.

    yes it did...
    And theatre became theater and we are supposed to believe they are different. It only became "Oklahoma" as an Americanization. It means the same thing. You would rather look dumb than admit you are wrong. Amazing.

    I've read it. I don't dispute that much of its early history and origin was not racist....
    You see what happens when you contort? Earlier today you were unsure whether the origin was racist and now you move the goal posts to look like you do/did not dispute that. When you debate honestly you do not have to shift the sands.






    I've read it. I don't dispute that much of its early history and origin was not racist....
    "If I could start my life all over again, I would be a professional football player, and you damn well better believe I would be a Pittsburgh Steeler." -Jack Lambert

  3. #23
    Veteran TarlsQtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    2,844
    My Mood
    Ratbirds

    Official Resignation of "RIVERS OF STEEL" and revocation of REDSKINS TRADE MARK

    BTW, I would love for you, after you picked yourself back up and reset your nose, to tell a Mohawk woman that "squaw" is OK because it is not the same as the word it came from, "ojiskwaa."
    "If I could start my life all over again, I would be a professional football player, and you damn well better believe I would be a Pittsburgh Steeler." -Jack Lambert

  4. #24
    Assistant Coach
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Palm Harbor, Fl
    Posts
    4,703
    Quote Originally Posted by TarlsQtr View Post
    Not at all. It is evidence to a claim, something you are incapable of doing. You claim it has been a legitimate problem for decades but have absolutely refused to provide any evidence to support your assertion that a significant portion of NA society has had an issue with the name for "decades." You have absolutely no capability to admit you are wrong even when you cede the field.
    i stated that its been viewed as a derogatory term for decades, and cited a representative organization's history, which you simply dismissed as "political" because it doesn't fit with your narrative.

    Of course, the very political group who you dismissed was the same one the Redskins went to seeking approval for their logo...
    Evidence.
    50-60 years ago, the common preferred term for african american, was negro. today, that term is largely offensive, because it is associated with a period of time from slavery through jim crow

    similarly, redskin may have had benign origins, but today it is associated with the white man scalping the native american, and largely wiping out their population.

    People who have no knowledge of how polling works should not talk about it.

    See above. So please, in some detail, please tell us how the poll SHOULD have been done and your credentials for for knowing better than a premier academic survey. BTW, a poll/survey considered GROSSLY in error would be wrong by say 10 percent. That would still leave 81 percent not bothered by the name...
    768 is not a representative sample
    where are the results from the other 65,000 people who were polled
    using landlines only, skews conservative
    1/6 of native americans have no land line
    using the word "offensive" in the question is misleading
    excluding alaska, 13% native = 2-3% of all natives
    excluding hawaii, excludes one of the most liberal populaces
    asking people to self identify (see the history on this as it pertains to native americans
    terribly worded question: "As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn’t it bother you?" - those aren't symmetrical choices
    misleading headline : " Most Indians find "Redskins" acceptable" - That's not what was asked...

    Just another something for you to dismiss entirely because it doesn't fit... but Adam Clymer, the guy who conducted that Annenberg poll... laughed out loud when informed it was being used by your side of the argument... oh, and he acknowledges the Self Identification flaw

    Not really, but what you post below does...

    Marshall was a racist, yep. Hated blacks but you are too near-sighted to see that you make my point. Did he call them the Washington "ni66ers?" Why not? Stalin hated Poles too but it does not mean he hated Argentinians.
    are you trying to set a record for straw man distractions?

    You introduced a line of reasoning that an owner would never use something that had "negative characteristics". The counter is that a racist doesn't view racism as a negative characteristic.

    NEWSFLASH... he hated ALL non white races. He was essentially a high society KKK member

    It's also completely lost on you that after buying the team (Boston Braves), he changed the name to Redskins... (dont be fooled by the debunked indian coach story)

    He was so racist against all non whites, that in the massive endowment he left for underprivelaged children in washington, he stipulated that none be for any minorities
    Stay on topic.
    it was very on topic... in the time period we are discussing, certain behavior wasn't viewed as "negative". Did the owner who put that sign in his window intend it to be negative? nope


    Not really. The Jews made a kikel and WE (meaning Americans on Ellis) changed it to "Kike." At the very least, it was universally seen as a slur VERY early in its usage. Although redskin was eventually used as a slur by some, it was not universally seen that way by Americans or NAs (at least there is no evidence of it). Just as the word "Jew" is dependent on how it is used, so was redskin.
    it was a universal labeling term in its origin, just like Redskin...

    And theatre became theater and we are supposed to believe they are different. It only became "Oklahoma" as an Americanization. It means the same thing. You would rather look dumb than admit you are wrong. Amazing.
    Oklahoma is a name/noun
    the word(s) it is derived from is not the same as its definition or meaning... :facepalm:

    You see what happens when you contort? Earlier today you were unsure whether the origin was racist and now you move the goal posts to look like you do/did not dispute that. When you debate honestly you do not have to shift the sands.
    "you can't question the one and only poll"
    "who cares about political organizations"

    debate honestly? lol good one
    Return of the Banana

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. '76 Steelers Defense "The Steel Curtain"
    By Deb in forum Steelers Pictures, Videos, & Songs
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-28-2008, 01:37 PM
  2. "Durbar steel" & "football plays" brushes for Photoshop?
    By TX Steel in forum Steelers Media - Graphics, Vids, & Pics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-12-2007, 07:47 AM
  3. The official "Is Bill Cowher retiring thread"
    By PITT23 in forum Steelers Talk
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 12-30-2006, 06:18 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •