It’s all over the South. Georgia, Tennessee, Florida, etc. And it’s not unknown in other parts of the country. Want to know what explains it? Pure and simple racism that is no different now than it was in the past.
I think you may have misunderstood me. The “word” in “let’s start with a word” is not a hypothetical word, it is the word “Redskins,” or a similarly racially charged word.
I am saying that the thought process is backwards. You don’t name the team something offensive and then ask the minority if they’re cool with it. If you really want to honor the wishes of the minority in question, you would ask them to name the team in the first place. I’m willing to bet they wouldn’t have picked “Redskins.”
Honestly, “the (blacks, Indians, gays, etc.) don’t mind at all” is one of the oldest bigoted arguments in the book.
As far as who “us” refers to, it refers to Americans. By definition a minority of people have little power to create real change. It is absolutely appropriate that non-minority people join their struggle to help that change happen. This is not an “Indian” problem, it is an American problem, and I am an American.
It reminds me of people who think of MLK as only a black hero, rather than an American hero. As has been pointed out, hundreds of native groups have for years complained about the name of the team. It is ridiculous to treat the name of a sports team as something that must be protected unless you can prove that “enough” people, or enough of a particular group of people, find it offensive.
It’s a racial slur. We can change it.
In what sense is it a slur? Why would a team name themselves a slur? It makes no sense.
WTF? You don’t think “redskin” is a slur? Just to get an idea of where you’re coming from, how about “darkie”?
You’re fighting the hypothetical. the OP presented us with a scenario, and you’re changing that scenario in ways that, while realistic, fundamentally alter the argument being made. Redskins is offensive, we all* know it, it’s been argued by native Americans for years that it’s offensive, and I have no interest in defending the name.
However, I’m playing along with the hypothetical (I’m bored, sue me) and if there was a name that was valued and cherished by the minority, a name that made them feel good about themselves and their association with this team, it’s not my job to tell them that it’s actually a slur and it needs to go.
*ok, maybe not all
Jesus, I didn’t even realize the OP was presenting a hypothetical. A really dumb hypothetical.
So I guess we have no argument, but holy shit, what a dumb hypothetical.
Welcome back! Now show your work.
White people have named many things after racial slurs. There are still place names that feature the N word.
OK OK, actually, one example comes to mind. Jap Road in Texas:
I don’t consider this a slam dunk by any means and I’m glad the name was changed, but it is relevant to the OP’s hypothetical.
Redskin is what many American Indians used to call themselves. The first written evidence goes back to 1769 where the Planskashaw sachem, Mosquito, is quoted as saying it to the French. The popularization of the name came from an 1815 speech by the Meskwaki chief Black Thunder. He said
“I turn to all, red skins and white skins, and challenge an accusation against me.” This was noticed by James Fennimore Cooper and he incorporated into his novels about Indians. There are still several high schools on Indian reservations that use the name Redskins for a mascot. The state name Oklahoma means land of the red people and was suggested by a Choctaw chief. Why would Indians so often refer to themselves as Redskins if it was a slur?
Ah – the old “Black people say the N word so how can it be racist” defense. Haven’t seen that one in a while!
First of all, usage changes over time. In case you’re not familiar with the concept of time, here’s a link. For example, it used to be fine to call black people “colored”, as in the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, but if you called a black kid a “colored boy”, people would look at you askance. Do you think the Washington Coloreds would work?
Second, how people in the in-group refer to themselves doesn’t necessarily change whether or not it’s a slur when used by others. For example, black people often refer to themselves and their friends as “niggers” and gay people may refer to themselves and their friends as “faggots” or “fags”. Do you think the Washington Niggers or Washington Fags would be acceptable?
Congratulations, puddleglum. You were so obtuse I thought this would do better in the Pit.
Enjoy.
… you racist piece of shit.
Now that we’re in the pit, this post was disingenuous bullshit. You couldn’t possibly be arguing that sincerely.
Maybe try harder not to be a racist, disingenuous asshole.
Thanks! I tried really hard to respond without making some accusation of arguing in bad faith or lying (you can’t be serious, you can’t possibly be this obtuse, there’s no way you think this is in good faith, etc.).
Pretty much describes puddleglum.
Well, I probably should have included “dismissive and nasty”, because many of his posts are like that as well.
Woot! Woot!
Good, it was a dumb OP anyway.