Yes, let's not try to confuse you with any facts. And horrors, the polls were mentioned in an article by the NY Times (who didn't do the polls, they were conducted by Indian Country Today) so obviously they are as suspect as if they are appeared in Pravda.
And as has been noted before, the origin of the Redskins name (however well intended) is completely irrelevant to whether Native Americans find the name offensive today. The origin of Sambo's Restaurant chain was a mix of its two founders names, but that it did not make it any less offensive to African Americans. The fact there was no ill intent with the Redskins is similarly irrelevant.
No, it's not.
At some point Native Americans decided to become offended at something that they previously not only did not find offensive, but even embraced. I don't feel compelled to change my use of the language because someone else decides to become offended at something they previously didn't find offensive and that I clearly do not intend to use to offend.Why the change? Why did they decide they didn't like it? That matters.
If you are offended by something that someone else so clearly did not use with the intent to offend, then that's a "you" problem. You're choosing to be offended despite a lack of intent. Why is it important to bow down to that type of mindset?
Sorry, Native Americans as a group never embraced the term "Redskin" (and the flawed, discredited, decade old poll you point to as proof is considered an outlier and even then "not being bothered" by the term is hardly embracing it).It doesn't matter what the intent of the speaker is. If you call an African American a "Negro" he or she will probably find it offensive, irrespective of what your intent is (and at one point in time, the term "Negro" actually was the acceptable PC term for that minority). A majority of Native Americans now clearly find the term "Redskin" offensive and their wishes should be respected.
And just out of curiosity, are you one of those people who still refer to Asians as
Orientals? Or perhaps insist on using homosexual over the preferred term
gay.? Seems that you would since "I don't feel compelled to change my use of the language because someone else decides to become offended at something they previously didn't find offensive"
First, I'm not citing any poll. I'm referring to the historical use of the word. At some point people decided to become offended at its use.You say it doesn't matter why they did so, it only matters that they do. I'm saying it does matter. Now, at this point the debate may be no more "yes it does" and "no it doesn't". If that's all there is, there's no need to respond.
But in support of my position I'd offer that language is used to communicate ideas. And that's a two-way street, not a one-way street. But if we're going to choose which side wins, I'm going to say the hearer needs to consider the intent of the speaker. Am I trying to understand what someone means or am I trying to force my beliefs on them?
Why be offended when someone intends no offense? We see this evident in the use of the N-word. The word itself sometimes does or does not offend the hearer depending upon the context. So what happens is that the hearer is now deciding who they choose to be offended by. Once we accept the premise that the word may or may not be offensive depending upon usage, then it's hypocritical and foolish to disregard the intent of the speaker. And the irony is that this decision to be offended is largely determined by the race of the person speaking it, rather than the actual intent of the individual speaking it. So the whole thing is now turned on its head. It's now OK to use skin color to discriminate, by determining the offensiveness of the word by the skin color of the speaker, rather than the individual character of the person using the word. We've come so far, haven't we.
As for homosexual, I think it's fine. It's technically accurate and heterosexual seems to generate no complaints, so I fail to see a reason to not use it. As if someone can't say "gay" with an insulting sneer or can't say homosexual without one. It's ridiculous.
To pretend that homosexual is some derisive term but that gay is OK is about as silly as saying that there's something wrong with being homosexual but there's nothing wrong with being gay. They refer to the same thing and I think society would be better served if we were to strive for a bit more rationality and bit less emotionalism.
Again, how did these terms become offensive? Because someone with an axe to grind decided that symbolism was more important than substance and started telling someone that they should be insulted when they hear it. Well good for them, we love our propaganda, don't we. That's what it is. Emotional manipulation. Inciting people to react emotionally rather than intellectually to an issue.
I, for one, resist that trend. At the same, I acknowledge all the horrible, evil things done to minorities through the ages (in most cultures) and I lament that history. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to go along with nonsensical window dressing as a means of trying to look like I'm sensitive when it's so lacking in substance and does nothing more than bastardize the language and make the use of that language more convoluted and confusing than it needs to be.
Symbolism, not religion, is the opiate of the masses. The truism was coined too narrowly.