Just looking that headline in the link above seems to pretty strongly suggest that "Indian" is okay by now. (Which was a surprise to me actually.)
http://www.buzzfeed.com/joelanderson...-anti-redskins
Quote:
|
National Congress of American Indians Releases Anti-Redskins Ad
|
Other than that, I'll paraphrase myself from an earlier post in this thread. It's just a couple of pages back, but then again it was months ago.
I don't like decisions that are based on someone being offended.
Someone is always offended. Many sports fans are propably offended by the idea that their team would need to change it's name against it's will. How do you compare offense A vs. offense B fairly? Does being native American give your personal feelings more weight? I don't see that it does.
But.
If you put the question in a more precise way, I think it makes it clear that these two are actually not at all equal positions. The Native American position is not simply about offense, it's about something more. It's about pejorative mystification of native American culture and them as an ethnic group, which serves to marginalize them in modern America. In short, it's actually very probably somewhat harmful to some people.
A sports fan might be offended because a team changes it's name, but
he is not harmed. Native Americans are clearly harmed by harmful stereotypes and the use of pejorative language and imagery. This is why people defending the name "Redskins" IMO should just stop whining and suck it up, because
catering to the personal sensitivities of sports fans is not worth harming people.
Redskins should change their name and imagery. The fact that it's a classic name mostly just underlines that this is not discussion we should be having today, it should have been done a long time ago.