Quote:
Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins
You are also operating on the assumption that only Native Americans are offended by the name redskins when that is not the case. For instance, I think most Americans would be offended if they heard the word "chink" used derogatorly towards Chinese and Chinese Americans. Just because they represent a minority of the population doesn't mean we should accept it as tolerable. For better or worse what is considered socially acceptable evolves.
|
Except chink wasnt used by the Chinese themselves to describe themselves with it before the racists got a hold of it. Can chink be used against a Chinese person and it not be derogatory? Any time the intent is negative, its derogatory. Calling someone a dog is derogatory, but do we accept murdering puppies due to that? Are we lobbying congress to make all dog names not allowed?
Look at it this way. It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Indians themselves used the term Redskin to describe themselves. Indians against the term Redskins have a choice to make. Side with their own ancestors, or side with the racists. They choose to side with the racists over their own forefathers. Which is one of the biggest problems I have with this whole debate. Why would they do that?
As far as socially acceptable. If this country wants to honor Indians. The VERY FIRST thing we should do is redo the $20 bill. It has a picture of Andrew Jackson on it. The president that pushed for the Indian Relocation Act and is responsible for the trail of tears. Yet very few, if any, asks for that. Have you ever heard of anyone raging against the term Redskins calling for the $20 bill to be redesigned? Lets also not forget that some Indians flat out call the term Native American racist. Does anyone care? Certainly not the people calling Redskins racist. They are inconsistent in their views.
As for what is socially accepted evolving. Then we need to get rid of the Green Bay Packers name as well. That is a derogatory term for a gay man. It started as fudge packer but has been shortened to packer. Do you honestly believe that someone talking about a packer today is talking about a meat packer? It is the word replacing "faggot" in todays society. I have heard it a fair amount of times when someone was talking about gay men, and it was clear it was meant in a derogatory way. I have heard an openly gay man say he cant stand the term. It is meant in a derogatory way. So why no outrage over the Packers name (other than PETA who do mean it as a meat packer)?
Its all selective outrage, and here in lies the problem with the white/black people feigning outrage over Redskins. They arent consistent with their views of morally acceptable. They are happy to have a stack of Andrew Jacksons in their wallets while referring to them as Native Americans. If they did just a bit of research, they would realize that some Indians call that racist... But do they care? Not at all...