Simply put, it's meaningless to use a completely different word, with completely different history as a reason to dismiss the obvious truth that "redskin" has never been an offensive word. The "N word" has a long history rooted in racism, "redskin" does not. Fine, be disturbed. Dictonary definitons based off what? Where did they get their information from? Has that information been verified? Why is it that if the word is so offensive, we can't find any instance where it was used in an offensive manner? If the word is so offensive, why are the people who should be offended, not offended? Even the language used in your dictionary suggest they have no evidence backing their definition. Not only have I brought evidence of it's origin (which you conveniently dismiss), I've linked a video of a current Native American Chief who stated the word isn't offensive to Native Americans at all(which you ignore). To claim I am "blindly" backing my argument is to claim I have no basis for my reasoning. To claim I have no basis for my reasoning considering everything provided, is simply stupid. What is actually disturbing to me, is how you can ignore a mountain of evidence and personal testimony from the actual people who should be offended, and believe a simple dictionary definition with no point of reference. Ridiculous.