Quote:
Originally posted by sugar and spice
I think it's pretty stupid that just because you decide this race issue is important because it affects your heritage that other race issues are not "serious" just because they don't. But I'm hoping that stuff like this will open your eyes to some other things, at least. I can certainly think of many race issues that I think are more "serious" than sports team names that you would probably dismiss, but hey, to each his own.
I think that what she meant is that the Confederates have a reputation for unabashedly celebrating a culture that exploited another race, pretty much decimated parts of it, took them from their traditional lands, placed them into slavery, and stole and mocked their heritage . . . so should we really be encouraging that? Is it really all that different from having a mascot called The Guys Who Killed The Native Americans?
|
I said that this was a serious race issue, because you asked why i had to make everything a race issue. I don't make everything a race issue, but you have to admit, race is at the center of this issue.
Confederates did, yes. And i understand that's what she's referring to, and in that sense yes, Rebels is offensive. But, the name Rebels in itself holds no negative connotations. Rebel forces and armies are different the world around. You could go so far as to say that GW and the other patriots of the time were "Rebels" against Britan.
Yes, the stars and bars and Johnny Reb are offensive depictions and should not be used. But not all Rebels = Confederates.
Redskins however, refers to a specific group of people in a derrogatory manner and should not be used.
To me, the sports team name is indicitative of larger injustices suffered by the NA's in this country. They in a lot of cases lack the political clout enjoyed by other minorities in this country and are given "casinos" as a end-all, solve all solution.
I'm not saying that sports team names = slavery, but it is also a race issue that should be dealt with.
Kitso
KS 361
Threaded Mode