Westside Steve Posted June 13, 2013 Report Share Posted June 13, 2013 Doh! D C.. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted June 13, 2013 Report Share Posted June 13, 2013 All kidding aside, I think the Native Americans have been shit on for decades. I've been to reservations in CA and AZ. Knew quite a few in the Navy also. Cool people. And not to stereotype, but if they get drunk, they do get crazy as hell, and that is no BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewy Posted June 14, 2013 Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 All kidding aside, I think the Native Americans have been shit on for decades. I've been to reservations in CA and AZ. Knew quite a few in the Navy also. Cool people. And not to stereotype, but if they get drunk, they do get crazy as hell, and that is no BS. I don't know if they're being shit on though. They are American citizens, afforded the same rights and liberties of all citizens. And like I said in an earlier post, most Indians don't live on reservations. Most have joined the rest of us...pehaps like the Navy guys you were talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewy Posted June 14, 2013 Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 Deacons ? We're getting close! I was waiting for someone to come up with the following lame often used reasoning... "where do we draw the line? Do we now change the name of the Lions because it offends cat lovers, and change Vikings because it offends Scandinavians, Padres because it offends religious people?" The answer is ridiculously easy. You draw the line where names don't include a race or the ethnicity of a people...Vikings, Cowboys, Saints, or Padres aren't a race or ethnicity of people. Cat, Eagle and Bear lovers aren't a race of people. You people so desperately try to create gray areas where there are none. You cry hypocrisy where there is none in order to validate your position. Its apples and oranges. I loathe liberal ideology because it is mired in so much hypocrisy....and the only thing hypocritical here is that Redskins and Chief Wahoo is cool, whereas Blackskins and Black Sambo is a no no...sorry folks, I can't deal with hypocrisy, I am a conservative. Hmm good thread topic... The hypocrisy that is Liberalism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted June 14, 2013 Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 So you haven't read cals posts then? He already used all that crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 14, 2013 Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 just a quick question, why would a picture of a Zulu warrior with a bone in his nose be any more offensive than a Seminole with a full feathered headdress? Those are both perfectly respectable ornamentations within that culture. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 14, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 Steve, I think this might be unintentionally hilarious because ...I don't think Zulus wore bones in their noses. Also because we're not saying that an Indian in a headdress is offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 14, 2013 Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 Well, we could be the Cleveland Caucasians That's not an offensive term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 14, 2013 Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 Sure I'm not positive that its the particulars Zulu tribe that adorns themselves in that fashion but it is some tribes and somebody did mention the bone in the nose. I didn't see the offense in the sombrero cartoon either. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 14, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 Perhaps by suggesting that "a picture of a Zulu warrior with a bone in his nose" is a "perfectly respectable ornamentation within that culture", you might have answered your own question here, bud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 14, 2013 Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 Sure I'm not positive that its the particulars Zulu tribe that adorns themselves in that fashion but it is some tribes and somebody did mention the bone in the nose. I didn't see the offense in the sombrero cartoon either. WSS Well I would guess its not entirely up to you to decide what a black person or Hispanic person finds offensive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 14, 2013 Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 gee whiz heck I don't know that it is not the Zulus either but okay let's call them the Africans. I don't know what difference that makes but...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 14, 2013 Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 Well I would guess its not entirely up to you to decide what a black person or Hispanic person finds offensive yes that's true. But as I think I've tried to point out anybody can feel offended by just about anything. And it's always good as an attention getter. Everybody loves attention. Its a question of whether or not every American has a right to not be offended. for instance if I claimed I was actually offended by the Notre Dame belligerent leprechaun. wouldn't you advise me to just get over it? Or would you join me in the fight to have that logo banned? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 14, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 I don't imagine you do. The answer to your question, had it been framed correctly, is that it wouldn't matter. If it was a proper representation, and not just a racist caricature, like "Africans all put bones in their noses" then it'd be fine. But again, no one here is claiming that an Indian in a headdress is offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 14, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 And this is not a question about "whether everyone has a right to not be offended." Or whether or not everyone "loves attention." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 14, 2013 Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 I don't imagine you do. The answer to your question, had it been framed correctly, is that it wouldn't matter. If it was a proper representation, and not just a racist caricature, like "Africans all put bones in their noses" then it'd be fine. But again, no one here is claiming that an Indian in a headdress is offensive. facial adornments are reasonably common amongst the tribes. Also no one is saying that all Indians wear head dresses. Probably very few, only chiefs and such. But no I'm not offended by the Notre Dame leprechaun and you would call me an idiot if I pretended I was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 14, 2013 Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 no justice no peace! WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 14, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 Retreat to arguments that don't work and aren't what we're talking about! Quick! Retreat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 14, 2013 Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 This has been 11 pages of how not to debate... my IQ might have dropped Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 14, 2013 Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 Retreat to arguments that don't work and aren't what we're talking about! Quick! Retreat! It's not even an argument. I've said what I meant to say and I don't believe it's wrong. You do. Or you don't but you can't resist being contrary. But I'll repeat it anyway. If its not meant as an insult, it isn't. Also if you switch the races and it sounds stupid, it is stupid. ( And woody, don't make it so easy...) WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 14, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 It ran its course a few pages ago. Now we're back to "Let's pretend we can't tell two unlike things apart." "They don't like "Wetback." Next thing they'll be telling us you can't say Latino either!" Eesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 14, 2013 Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 It ran its course a few pages ago. Now we're back to "Let's pretend we can't tell two unlike things apart." "They don't like "Wetback." Next thing they'll be telling us you can't say Latino either!" Eesh. http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=AwRP_QFoHsg&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DAwRP_QFoHsg Bigot. How dare you!!!!!????? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 14, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 But I'll repeat it anyway. If its not meant as an insult, it isn't. Even you can't believe that. So, let's go back to the "Houston Hooknoses" example. With the same logo of the Jew on the hat on page one. Good with you? As long it's not meant as an insult, right? We're just noting certain differences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 14, 2013 Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 14, 2013 Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 And to your silly example: Can you envision a situation in which the word hook nose was not meant in a derogatory manner? You seem to agree that Redskins could be used in a non derogatory manner as most people do. And is the term Jew offensive to you? People are referred to by skin color all the time. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 14, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 So you're saying reducing racial groups to their physical features is often offensive. Hmm. One could argue, as you do, that simply pointing out something about a group's physical features, like their skin color, is not offensive in and of itself. So, let's keep playing. You didn't like "hook nose." Let's try simply "Nose." The Nashville Noses. With that same hat from page one. There. I must have allayed your concerns, have I not? What's wrong? It's not like there aren't variations in the shape and size of noses that are particular to Jews. I'm simply pointing it out. I don't mean anything derogatory by it. And we're not even mentioning Jews. How about that one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 14, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 And to answer the question you asked, the term Jew can be used in a derogatory way, and can be used descriptively. It depends on the usage. Ex: You could say, "No event in the 20th century had a greater impact on Jews than the Holocaust." No one is going to have a problem with that usage. I don't suspect you're going to find anyone writing, "No event in the 15th century had a greater impact on Redskins than the arrival of Columbus.""Redskins" has no modern day usage beyond the slur and the football team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 14, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 Red Man tobacco is probably a tad out of date too. Jesus Christ man, didn't you see Dances with Wolves? They're people too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewy Posted June 14, 2013 Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 Trade you a N***** Boy for a wad of that Red Man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewy Posted June 15, 2013 Report Share Posted June 15, 2013 Chief Wahoo would work well as the Nashville Hook Noses logo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.