Quote:As to point one, you're typically one of the most well-spoken, thoughtful debaters on here, even if we disagree more often than we agree. That said, "tomahawk" being a stereotype because not all Native American tribes used them is kind of ridiculous. It's the type of thing I'd expect from another poster who frequents the same topics you and I do, but not from you.

 

As to point two, I'm not personally offended by the word "Redskin". I'm not personally offended by any other symbols that have been prevalent on here lately either, but if a word or symbol is hurtful or derogatory to a large group of people, then it's right to consider changing it.

 

The "Redskins" situation will end predictably: one or more NFL broadcast partners will issue a decree saying that the word is not to be used on their network, and the others will follow suit. The team will start fishing for public money to replace FedEx Field, and no one will be willing to give it to them as long as the team is called the "Redskins". I believe DC has already hinted that they won't allow the team to build a new stadium within city limits as long as the name remains. Congress will probably get involved, because it's something they so dearly love to do with minor things so that bigger things go unnoticed, and there will be extreme public pressure on both the club and the NFL to change the name. Finally, we'll hit critical mass, and the team will give in and partner with advocacy groups to choose a new name.

 

Do I think there are far more important things we should be talking about? Hell yes, but I'm not going to completely discount a group of people who claim that the word "Redskin" is no better than dropping an n-bomb.

 

First of all, thank you for the kind words.  I really mean that.

 

Second, regarding the above in bold.  I said what I said exactly for the reason that you stated.  It's ludicrous to think that the word "tomahawk" could be "offensive" to anyone, and I was attempting to illustrate how "political correctness" is out of control.  When does it end?  A flag is deemed "offensive" to some (a minority of the population by the way) so it has to be brought down.  A monument (The Ten Commandments) bought with private funding and maintained with private funding must be brought down because it's "offensive" to some people (a minority).  Should someone hypothetically from an Indian Tribe be offended by the use of the term "tomahawk" be "offended" does that mean that we need to change the name of that particular missile?  Who exactly is so "offended" by the name of an NFL team that has been in existence for over 80 years?

 

Liberals will show one or two Native Americans that are so "offended" by the name, and will continue to push the agenda of it being "offensive".  Much like a flag or a monument, the name of an NFL franchise hurts no one, but they will be forced to change it and comply.

 

That doesn't sound much like freedom to me.  It's actually pretty chilling when you think about it, but that's where we are.

---