jnday
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 14,292
- Reaction score
- 11,422
Considering the history of the term , the origins and the polls conducted, I am curious to who is this large part of the population that finds the term offensive? Ten percent of the Native Americans? I always thought of a very proud and noble people when I heard the term being used. For some reason , somebody decided that the term no longer had that meaning. My father and many more people from the older generation still considers the term to have a positive meaning. This outrage that has popped up over the last few years is just another example of the PC movement that so many has embraced that seems to make them feel good about themselves. I don't understand how so few has changed the definition of so many words. It is time to draw the line and stop the foolishness.I have never seen Celtic or Viking defined as an offensive term. However, Redsk*n is defined that way. I don't agree with changing Braves or Warriors or even Indians. I have nothing against Seminoles, Aztecs, Chiefs, or Blackhawks. But those words are not defined as pejoratives. Redsk*ns simply is, and that is what makes it wrong. Again, if they were being organized today, in the Nation's capital, do you think that mascot name would fly? If not, then it can't be okay just because it is tradition. Washington is a town that changed a mascot name from Bullets to Wizards. Bullets is certainly less offensive in nature.
Oh, and for the record, I have not added the * to the word.