I guess I don't understand why people are suddenly shocked about this. There have been Native Americans actually picketing Chiefs, Braves, Indians, and Redskins for
decades.
Yes. And for years the picketing was looked upon as ridiculous. A few people upset with a team's nickname. People who were not offended 10 years ago, now are outraged and call other people racists for not being as upset as they now are.
Here's the biggest takeaway: If more people are upset now than they were 20 years ago, we are going the wrong way. That means that we are teaching people that words that didn't use to have any negative meaning, now should be considered offensive. 20 years ago, people who cheered on the Redskins had no idea that it was offensive to a few people. But now, thousands of people now know a new offensive word. Is this progress? The word had lost almost ALL of it's negative connotation. But luckily, a few people who wouldn't let it die ensured that a whole new generation of people would now know that a word is offensive.
Brilliant. In 40 years, maybe Indians would have looked back upon the Redskins the same way people look at the name the Yankees or the Fighting Irish. They could have used it as a way to remember their past and take pride in their heritage. But instead they chose to not let it die. Who's fault is that? It's not mine, I'll tell you that. Never in my life have I ever said Redskins and meant it as offensive. In fact, up until a few years ago, the only meaning I knew of for Redskins was one of great pride in our early American history. And now that's gone. Again. Who's fault is that?
This is the first thing you've posted in here that's been sensible in a while. Hard to believe it came from the same guy who made silly analogies to "Cowboys" and awful slippery slope arguments.
I disagree, of course- I consider the movement progress and awareness, not regression. The problem isn't the word in a vacuum, but the notion of treating a race of people as a caricature of sub-human savages, a concern exacerbated by the way they've been treated historically by those in power. Those problems don't apply to nicknames like Yankees or Fighting Irish. There is no way that 40 years from now Native Americans would look back on the Redskins name with a sense of pride.
And I don't think you're right that it had lost all of its negative connotation. It had been muted because many of the things that the team used to do were so obviously offensive that they were phased out (the almost-naked mascot dancing around and hooting and hollering, the use of "scalping" in the song, other savage type imagery). But it was still negative. At least as I see it. I also think it's kind of paternalistic for a bunch of white people to tell Native Americans that if they just stop complaining for 40 years everything will be OK. Again, especially considering the history.
But hey, those are reasonable disagreements. Arguing that it's the same as Cowboys, not so much.
as I was laying it on pretty thick but somehow you missed that.
