On the Redskins name controversy
It's noteworthy because of the writer:
Ms. Thompson is a copy editor by trade currently residing in Tennessee.
Here are excerpts from her column with my responses:
Okay, you're a "native American." That uncapitalized phrase applies to any individual born here. The capitalized version, "Native American," is a proper noun that applies to a whole group of people. Including their ancestors. As a group, these people--also known as Indians--are native to the Americas no matter where they were born individually.
Get it? The phrase "native American" is a generic term that's different from "Native American." Similarly, anyone who herds cows can call himself a cowboy, but only a member of the Dallas football team is a Cowboy. Capitalization give the term a specialized meaning.
If you want to argue that Indians came from somewhere else, okay. Their ancestors came here 20,000 years ago while your ancestors came here 200 years ago. They've lived here literally a hundred times longer than you have.
True, they may not be natives, technically speaking. So their claim to the land isn't infinitely better than yours; it's "only" a hundred times better. They're a hundred times more native than you are.
When you acknowledge that, we can think about taking the rest of your column seriously. Until then, your pretense that everyone is equally "native" is stupid beyond belief.
Thompson justifies genocide
I guess she supported Al Qaeda's attack on 9/11, since that was basically the same thing. The terrorists were trying to exert their strength just like the European colonists did.
Guess what would happen if you robbed someone of 98% of his possessions and let him keep 2%? You wouldn't be rewarded for your compassion. You'd be jailed for your crimes.
Racists should be free?
That said, the term took on a derogatory nature sometime during the 19th Century, according to the article.
You gotta love how a black woman uses
How about an alternate frame? Snyder is trying to dictate how Americans perceive Indians--as primitive savages aka "redskins." And activists are exercising their First Amendment right to challenge him.
Yes, racists hate it when we "infringe" on their freedom to be racist. Too bad, racists. If you don't like people pointing out your racism, stop being racist.
Quit bawling like babies because someone's asking you to stop acting like the center of the universe. Grow up and learn to respect other people's feelings.
You think any flesh-and-blood Native warriors prefer the term "redskin"? Try calling a roomful of Native soldiers that and see how they react.
Just to be sure, add a few terms of endearment such as "Chief," "Tonto," and "Geronimo." Veterans love to be compared to these symbols of Native masculinity.
Offensive but ignore it?
So your contradictory arguments are 1) "Redskins" isn't offensive and 2) "Redskins" is offensive but I don't care? Why don't you pick one argument and stick with it, okay?
Somehow, the sports field magically makes "niggers," "kikes," "wetbacks," "chinks," and "redskins" okay. Oops, I meant only "redskins." The offensive terms for other ethnic groups are still taboo.
And who says a majority has to be offended before something is wrong? If a solid minority is offended, that's arguably enough to instigate a change.
Since the name affects Indians, including Indian children who can't "ignore" it, they should be the primary judges. Not fans who have a vested interested in retaining an ethnic slur and telling themselves they're not racists.
So "not a slur" vs. "a slur." Great anecdote except for comparing something with its opposite. In other words, not a great anecdote.
Publicity isn't worth it?
As for whether it's worth the effort--again, that's for the protesters to decide. Since this conflict is generating a huge amount of publicity about the ongoing stereotyping of Indians, I'd say it's more than worth it. I expect the effort to succeed, but even if it fails, it will have succeeded in exposing America's racism.
Indeed, my case is fairly typical. Indians have been protesting mascots on for something like 40 years. I joined in something like 15-20 years ago. The agenda is theirs, not mine.
To sum it up, your arguments are stupid and contradictory. "Redskins" isn't offensive because it denotes "masculine bravery," a definition found nowhere except in sports. Or it is offensive but Indians were conquered so get used to being called dirty savages. It's hard to say which "argument" is more asinine.