Quote:
Originally Posted by djnemo65
It clearly is the the most offensive moniker out there, so if in keeping with the zeitgeist they decide to go a more politically correct route, why is that such a tragedy? The Wizards name change was much worse - because the original name was not offensive and the new name and colors were so ridiculously stupid - and we all got over that pretty quickly.
To people who say I dont see what the big deal is with the name, isn't the inverse true as well? That its not that big a deal to change it?
|
In your opinion it's offensive. In my opinion it's not. I always heard it referred to the face paint Indians used to apply before going into battle. I am aware that the phrase 'red skin' was at one time used as a derogatory term, but there could be two different meanings.
But here's the key -- why should one party who claims to be offended always be in the position to dictate over the offending party and force them to change or cease what they were doing based solely on the perception of the one who was offended?
It's the principle that would get people upset if the offended parties got their way and succeeded in forcing the Redskins to change their name and logo.
Can we all get together as Redskins fans and suddenly become offended at the name "Cowboys" and blue star logos? What would prevent the Cowboys from being obligated to conceed to our demands?