Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada
Show me the facts. I already provided an article that was factual.
|
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwor...ly-word-151717
The trademark Redskins was declared harmful by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, Redskins is a pejorative term for Native Americans and is a registered trademark that disparages an entire group and perpetuates a centuries old stereotype. The logo and term Redskins should never have been registered as a federally protected trademark, according to the report.
http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/208...ngton-redskins
The current chairman and chief of the Penobscot Nation, Chief Kirk Francis, recently declared that “redskins” is “not just a racial slur or a derogatory term” but a painful “reminder of one of the most gruesome acts of ... ethnic cleansing ever committed against [our] people.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel...b_3210179.html
I mean, literally -- if you look up the word Redskin in
the dictionary, it's defined simply as, "Used as a disparaging term for a Native American." This isn't even really debatable, the name is offensive not because of any sort of allusion or interpretation -- it's defined as a racial slur.
http://deadspin.com/redskins-a-nativ...ous-1445909360
Whether or not the term "Redskin" is inherently racist is the wrong question. The more appropriate question is, "Would it be acceptable to name a professional sports team according to the color of someone else's skin?" Would it ever be cool to have a sports team called the Washington Blackskins? It seems appropriate; D.C. is Chocolate City. But, um, hell no. San Francisco Yellowskins? Naw, cousin. Won't work.