Lurker > crucial2099

California and New York are way more densely populated than Texas.

an etymologist already uncovered the origins of the term red skin and found that it was a native american creation.

Who is this guy anyway? Is this the "I have a black friend, so I can say x" argument? The polls are dated. That is a fact.

Never seen him pop up until this topic, and no I don't care if you know who I am, but geez.

He clearly is not capable of that because earlier in the topic he said he could find many polls about Native Americans not being offended but every article he linked talked about the same poll, except for one which did not include any polling

then he will also cry about anecdotal evidence then turn around and fall back on anecdotal evidence

First of all, telling a Native American to learn his own history is mind bendingly racist. You should be ashamed of yourself. Second of all, did you even read this article that you're citing?

"With the conflicts between white Americans and American Indians dropping off - as a result of their near extermination - after the early 20th century, the usage of redskin to describe anyone other than Washington, DCs football team, declined steeply in the 1950s. And, in a certain irony, an accurate descriptivist account would again register that shift. The word redskin went from a self-description of American Indian people (contrasted with the new immigrants), to a pejorative description of the American Indian people (by the new immigrants), to a description of a football team and its players. Any prescriptivist account, that the word only means one of those things, misses the mark and the complexity of its history. One particularly sticky element of the word redskin, however, is the direct link between its connotations and the complexion of its utterer.
It would be tone deaf, and oblivious to history, for white Americans, and white Redskins fans to fail to recognize that, for many American Indians, white people calling them redskins is synonymous with this countrys attempt to exterminate them. That is certainly not the way I believe most Washington Redskins fans use the word, but it is important recognize why some see it as malignant. However weve also seen that the meanings of words can (and do) change."

That's a quote from the article disproving the very point you're so condescendingly trying to make. You've outed and embarrassed yourself in this topic.

Im not biased

>posts an article from a Foreskins page to defend their name choice

ok pal

I was right. You aren't even worth engaging with.

Redskin Was an American Indian Creation
The gold-standard work on the etymology of red skin was conducted by Smithsonian Senior Linguist, Ives Goddard, in 2005. I am a Red-skin: Adoption of a Native American Expression (1769-1826), goes into painstaking detail exploring the first appearance of the term redskin in the Americas and concludes the following:

The word redskin reflects a genuine Native American idiom that was used in several languages, where it grew out of an earlier established and more widespread use of red and white as racial labels. This terminology was developed by Native Americans to label new categories of the new ethnic and political reality that they confronted with the coming of the Europeans.

In the early 1800s, the term red-skin was used by American Indian leaders to create a sense of supra-tribal identity when negotiating with the US Federal Government. It was intended to reference American Indian solidarity and unity, and to contrast these collected individuals with their whiteskin negotiating partners (e.g., the French, British, and former American colonists).

This is exactly why I don't bother posting a lot in topics like these. Some people's heads are made of fucking granite. Can't get through to them no matter what.

Just stop guy. You don't have any business speaking for an entire group of people, especially one you are not a part of, especially one so large and diverse. I'm Native. I live on a reservation. That team name is something my tribe, and other tribes in the area, are very much against. I have friends and family from other tribes around the country, and up into Canada. I don't know a single one who is for the name.

Sure that name, that slur, has lost most of its bite over the years. Hell, if someone called me a redskin I would probably laugh. Shit, I've been called much worse for absolutely no reason other than the color of my skin. NBD. Older generations would definitely have a much stronger reaction. But it's still a slur, it's marginalizing, and it needs to go. No other group of people would have to deal with this. It wouldn't even be perpetuated, but here we are. Keep the colors and the best looking uniforms in football, just change the fucking name.

You don't understand the dynamics of being Native American. Shame and self-hate, beaten into us during colonization and the decades long boarding school era, play a big role in why some Natives are ok with that name. There are many of who would rather not make a fuss, would much rather go with flow, go against their best interests even, in the hopes that society won't notice they are Native. And then there of us, like myself, who are concentrating on solving issues and breaking negative cycles in their own community to really devote too much time to the name change, who are ok with the name if only because it's not even on their radar. Trust me, that has a big impact on the favorable polls you cherry-picked.

And I've just written a long ass post on fucking GameFAQS, trying to explain things to people who don't really give a shit.

you have no facts, only sample data.

Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

Way to post a study from 2016 to push your false narrative. There is one from this year that tells a different story.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/feb/4/redskins-name-offensive-plurality-native-americans/

They do though and it's been a source of contention for the Native American community for years.

I'd immediately give 5mil to my close friends and to charities, etc.

Then I'd buy a house and chill.

how did we dodge a bullet lol. More like we jumped in front of it with a blind fold

Reminder that the climate crisis is likely to bring with it all sorts of fun diseases.

lmfao pass

also the part you quoted says almost the exact opposite of what you were asserting, that cut men "need" to masturbate and have oral sex more than uncut men to get pleasure, not that they masturbate less because they've been cut, as you said in your post above that

lmao you're deluded if you actually believe this, any of this

A group of doctors headed by Dr. John R. Taylor at the University of Manitoba discovered that the small sheath of foreskin tissue removed during circumcision is filled with extremely sensitive nerve endings and mucus membrane cells. The head of the penis itself is extremely insensitive to light touch, although it can be stimulated by heavy touch, they found. That lack of sensitivity in the head of the penis may well account for an increased need by circumcised men for the more intense stimulation that masturbation and oral sex can provide, according to Dr. Robert Van Howe...

Calling it mutilation is fairly silly.

So someone here tried to get circumcised and was refused?

Yet another alt intentionally missing the point or otherwise entirely illiterate.

You don't have to like Trump (I definitely don't), but he is allowed to express himself