Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor
It's a terrible argument, but it doesn't undo the good arguments already made.
If, as the Linguistic professor's essay already showed, "Redskin" was a direct translation of what American Indians called themselves (which would also account for why, when Indians learned English, they referred to Europeans as "White Man") AND the story of "redskin" origin being for bloody scalps is a lie, then there is actually no grounds to take offense to the name other than that you are just a miserable person looking to dump on other people's fun. To which I would suggest finding some other hobby.
|
The origin of the word is not necessarily where it is now. The N word was originally a neutral word that originated because of the area around the river in the Africa.
As I said earlier, both sides of the argument have their points with the word "Redskin"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)
Quote:
"Redskin" is a racial descriptor for the indigenous peoples of the Americas and one of the color metaphors for race used in North America and Europe since European colonization of the Western Hemisphere.
"Red" as a color metaphor for indigenous people in the Americas is also without being compounded with "skins", as in the "Red Power" movement in the US in the 1960s and 70s or the 1970 "Red Paper" on Indian policy published by the Indian Chiefs of Alberta in Canada their leader Harold Cardinal.
The term is controversial as it is considered by some to be extremely offensive (an r-word for Native Americans equivalent to the n-word for African-Americans)[1], but neutral by others.[2] The consensus based upon a comparison of current dictionary definitions is that the term has negative or disparaging connotations.[3]
|