- Joined
- Feb 20, 2012
- Messages
- 104,071
- Reaction score
- 84,041
- Location
- Biden's 'Murica
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
And you do know why psychology is not accepted by many in the fields of medicine and biology as a natural science?
Because sampling opinions out of human resources is so unpredictably subject to change that studies are inconclusive.
Oops, sorry. I barely even look to the left to see who posted when I respond…. please forgive me.
Either you understand how polling works, or you do not. It appears you merely want to ignore it.
Teachers unions 'represent' 'all' teachers as well, right? Yet they continually use dues for political things that not all of their members support… So just pointing out that even an organization does not always reflect the beliefs of all the people it represents.
We will all take note that you will never, ever, use a poll to support any of your positions. Thanks.
So no poll is good enough. Got it.
I guess we'll never know how many Native Americans objected to the name then, since only 5 brought suit, and it doesn't sound like you're personally ready to ask them all. Nothing to debate here then.
No.
Polls can be used for various things, but not as 100% conclusive evidence.
They show notions which would have to be further researched by widening the source pool and efforts of research.
Yes you could.
By asking all 6 000 000.
Or putting trust into their representatives believing that they o their best in honestly representing their peoples concerns.
So go ahead and ask all 6 million and let us know what they say.
Thanks for your contribution to the thread.
I find politicians offensive. Can we ban them?
I cant.
Are you trying to be childish now?
Then if you can't, you have no idea how many Native Americans are offended by the term. If you refuse to accept the poll, then the reality is we are aware of only 5.
Not true.
Because I can rely on their representatives to be ernest and sincere.
We shouldn't need a poll to take into consideration others opinions.
I have absolutely no skin in the game...and I will defer to those that it does offend. If someone is not offended that's fine.
I don't use terms like "whitey", "blackie", slope, kike, beaner, or squaw because those that do use 'them' do so in disparaging ways. I don't need a poll to tell me that.
...and I would venture to guess those that don't have a problem with "redskin" don't have a problem throwing the occasional 'nigger' out there.
One guy on a different thread posted a poll in which the majority of 800 asked native Americans do not oppose the name.
Thing is, there are 6 000 000 native Americans.
I don't know that defining the color of someone else's skin is a slur. Obama is referred to as a black man, is he not? The "N" word was used in the 1700s and 1800s to diminish the black slaves. It was derogatory. Noting the color of someone's skin to be isn't necessarily derogatory. And in all my years, I never knew any use of "redskin" beyind the football team and F-Troop.
There were massacres, murders and battles in the early days of this country, but they were on both sides. The Indians massacred Anne Hutchinson and her children, and they massacred the residents of Deerfield MA. These are just a few examples. They didn't, I think, commit those acts out of racism towards the white people. They did it out of defense. The white people did the same thing to them, but not because of racism; they wanted the land and they felt they were inferior not because they were red skinned, but because they called them "heathens" (non Christians). Just like all of the Indians who died from disease, which I think was most of them, weren't intentionally killed. The English didn't plan that. Granted they didn't care that it happened, but it wasn't intentional.
The Trail of Tears was a terrible thing to do, but I again think that was motivated by a desire for their land, not out of racism. It was also in the 1830s so this was a nation already, unlike in the 1600s when it wasn't. They allowed the ones who wanted to stay behind to do so, with the proviso that they fully assimilated. If I remember right, they even granted citizenship to those who stayed behind. That again all smacks of "our land, our country, if you want to be here, be one of us". If they were truly racist, they wouldn't have allowed the ones who wanted to stay to remain behind, and they certainly wouldn't have granted citizenship.
Of course, I'm neither 400 years old nor 200 years old so I don't know for sure, just know what I learned.
I'm curious what percentage of people think Redskin is a slur separate from whether or not the team's name should be changed.
Their 5 "representatives"? And you know that these 5 people were tasked with representing all Native Americans....how exactly?
You do understand how scientific polling works, right? You don't ask 100% of an entire population. You follow certain procedures and guidelines to get a sample size that gives you a representation of the populatoin as a whole within a certain level of certainty. Whether or not it's about "health care", if someone feels a teams name should be changed, or what their favorite mobile operating system is doesn't really matter.
I wasn't aware of the part about citizenship; could you provide a link for that? I was also under the impression that the tribes moved by the Trail of Tears had already converted to Christianity.
Not talking about congressmen and women.
First, most definitions actually acknowledge it is not always offensive in nature. Second, native Americans used the word originally to refer to themselves and some do still use it today, though it's largely out of active use in modern times.
Neither was I.
What representatives are you talking about when you said this:
Not true.
Because I can rely on their representatives to be ernest and sincere.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?