Quote:
Originally Posted by Trumbull
Let's keep it in context, Redskin has hardly been used by Americans, especially in the last century or longer. That's why 70-85% of Americans oppose changing the name. It's not because Americans love racial slurs for team names or love offending people. I've never even heard of an American calling natives "Redskins", so the comparison to the n-word (which has long been used, and in the South, in a virtually every-day basis) is an overreaction, which coincidentally, accurately describes this movement to forcefully change the Washington Redskins' name. One huge overreaction. It's an attempt, mainly by the politically correct left, to see how far it can go in trying to institutionalize political correctness (it's clear there's no social support to have it changed, therefore use government to do it). I hope the team keeps the name for the foreseeable future.
|
So Redskin is ok, but N*gger is not.
What about K*ke? Ch*nk? Are they fine?
What standard do we decide when a racial slur is no longer a racial slur? Wouldn't it be if the race that the slur is derogatory against believes the slur is derogatory it is?
So yes, the comparison is apt as Native Americans are speaking out how offensive the term is, just as African Americans speak out how offensive the term N*gger is.
Lastly, if you're going to argue Redskins is an acceptable name, please answer the questions as enumerated above.