Since when does the right thing to do depend on the person wronged feeling wronged?
Well, let's look at that study.
Yup, a survey of nearly 800 people! In which, they actually targeted some 65,000 adults! Ha! If the goal was to survey Native American views of the offensive nature of the name Redskin, I imagine there are more credible methods of obtaining such information.Quote:
This report deals with interviewing conducted from Oct. 7, 2003, through September 20, 2004. In that
period 65,047 adults were interviewed, of whom 768 identified themselves as Indians or Native Americans.
In my experience, the people actually living on reservations throughout the country are pretty offended by all kinds of names referring to their people--whether it's Indian, Native American, American Indian, or Redskin--so many find any catch all term other than their tribal name totally offensive. As if the Dine' people of Arizona (what we call the Spanish term Navajo) are really much like the Ojibwe people of the midwest (which are often referred to the anglicized chippewa).
I'd bet that the people contending that so few are offended have done little to no research (much less thorough reading) to defend their beliefs.
I apologize if this is too unrelated to Minnesota for this site but I've seen a lot reported recently on whether or not to change the name of the Washington Redskins due to the derogatory origins of the word and I wanted to state where I stand, and also see what other people thought in what I consider a safer environment than the nfl.com forum.
I will carefully state that I do not think the name should be taken offensively and therefore does not need to be changed. There is a common theme amongst NFL teams that their name is always taken from something that is meant to be powerful or ferocious (i.e. Bears, Lions, Vikings, Jets, Chargers, Broncos), or important (Packers, Patriots, Steelers). Knowing this, I can't imagine a name being chosen with cruel or mocking intentions and thus have to derive that Native Americans could fit in either category of naming and that "redskins" was a product of the periods common terminology. Yes the word had negative connotation at the time but I will take a page from South Park to illustrate my feelings on the word today.
South Park addressed an issue that I struggle with frequently in how the meaning of words can change. South Park uses a different term as illustration but my feelings towards the term "redskin" are similar. I can't visualize anybody using the term "redskin" as a racial slur. In my mind, redskin applies to the color of their uniforms. That might sound silly but when somebody says "redskin" I don't think of an actual person, I think of a football teams maroon jersey.
That's my piece and I'd like to know how others feel.
There is a whole thread telling you how people feel, many of those posts quite effectively derail the ideas you posted.
In short, you can't use yourself as a template for what other people should find offensive.
That the term was at any time a slur that dehumanized a group of people should compel our better selves to make a change. It's only the senseless, yet traditional, fear of change that motivates those who rally against it.
C l e v e l a n d - p h a s i n g - o u t - t h e i r - m a s c o t
I have placed the link as inconveniently as I could, with a few moments' effort.
No one's hiding from the term. But to use it as mascot for a team as nationally prominent as Washington and the NFL are spotlights and celebrates the slur.
And if you can't see the difference between that and the Washington Redskins, well, so be it... But it seems so painfully obvious that I don't know how anyone makes that analogy without feeling dirty afterward.