Quote:
Originally Posted by Trumbull
The name Indians is now racist? Haha. Wow.
|
Yes. They are not Indians. That is not where they come from or where they reside. People who are from and live in India are Indians. I agree racism is in the intent, so maybe labeling the name Indian's as racist is incorrect (depending on the context) but a) why leave that up to interpretation? and b) It's just flat out wrong, so why are people still using it?
Quote:
|
In my short time living in the US I got a little primer on how they think concerning individual rights, as well as interpretations of language. And honestly I like their way of thinking better. A logo is not racist, racism is racist. Racism is an intent, and I've yet to see any racist intent from this team's name, logo, or anything. Only around the time the Redskins were making it to the Super Bowl did suddenly anyone take issue with it, since then there's been overwhelming American support to keep the name as is, I've never once heard the word Redskin used in a pejorative sense while in the states, versus the n-word and other things I'm seeing it compared to, where I have quite often.
|
The word was conceived as racist and is still racist. And as said above, if you're using the US as your standard for racism, you are already very far behind.
Quote:
|
Here in Canada we're leaps and bounds more sensitive to the issue of natives, while this being a good thing here, discounts the issue south in the US.
|
No it doesn't. Racism is universal and global and not subject to a specific country's opinions on it. Redskin is a derogatory term for all Native people, whether they live in the States or know what football even is makes no difference.