fansince62
Guest
You're building a straw man.
I lean towards changing the name because I wish to be on the right side of history.
There's no denying that the word 'Redskin' has been used as a racial descriptor.
I believe we're moving to a time where racial descriptors of any kind will make everyone uncomfortable. That there will be some throw-back idea of a 'purity' of the races...you know, dangerous stuff.
I've been all over this country, and what I notice most is the racial homogeneity that's taking over. It's a result of folks liking to have sex with others regardless of color or creed.
Clinging to the team name is a losing proposition. Folks don't need to be happy about that, but the name change is coming sooner or later.
you missed the point altogether then. while your Freudian interpretation of racial harmony is..shall we say...a left field idea...the conclusion you draw is..perhaps...not the only one in play. I have many friends from inter-racial marriages.....what you claim is simply false. There is no consistent pattern in how these people end up thinking about racial categories (i.e., in my experience, you are wrong if you believe this somehow drives all parties to some higher standard of tolerance...in many instances...I have seen just the opposite...often one spouse identifies with the political goals and rhetoric of the other spouse...a certain President's mother comes to mind!). truth be told, in my experience, I have found it more common that individuals with differing racial indentities get along as a unit more so in two circumstances: for survival (e.g., the military which demands/requires the individual sublimate personal goals for the group) or shared economic objectives.
the point I have focused on is that in these cases of language control ...there are no standards. the folks pushing hardest for it can not define one either. they can't define what core principles should be and what actions flow from violations of these principles. inevitably they have to rely on legislative fiat or random judges to force their ideas.....or destroying the people they see as villains.
I debated bringing this up since it has highly volatile connotations - I will just say that this notion of "historical inevitability"? it has been used in other contexts. millions have lost their lives dislodging the people whose ideologies embracing this concept temporarily rose to power and control over the lives of all.
Last edited by a moderator:






