ALiveH said:
I'll play devil's advocate...
Actually, just the other day I was talking with some friends about how most of the words that are now seen as derogatory epithets were originally merely descriptive and then over time they came be seen as derogatory by the PC movement who had to invent a new much longer tongue-twister. Sometimes this process goes through multiple iterations.
From the 16th century through till the early 20th century, "redskins" or "red people" or "red Indians" or "red men" or simply "reds", was not an epithet at all. It was simply a descriptive word for the indigenous inhabitants of the Americas because of the reddish hue of their skin, and the custom of certain tribes of painting themselves red. I'm not sure when it started being seen as a pejorative term and by who, but it would be interesting to see the when and how. Here's a fairly long paper on the etymology of redskins if anyone wants more info on the subject:
http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf
My other question is who feels more uncomfortable by "redskins" native americans or other americans? This poll for example says that only 9% of native americans find the Washington Redskins to be an inappropriate name.
http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/downloads/political_communication/naes/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr.pdf
A poll recently in the news shows that about 20% of all Americans finds the name inappropriate.
I will say this. English in not my first language and despite the prevalence of American culture throughout the world, there are certain corners of it that are somewhat esoteric only to Americans.
I am saying that because I don't understand how redskin is seen as pejorative along with a slew of other words. Like cunt for example. I cannot comprehend why it carries such a heavy weight. I know it does, but the shocking, visceral, emotional reaction it provokes is alien to me and not just because I am not a woman.
In regards to redskins, this discussion reminded me of the western comics translated into Greek i used to come across as a child. I now realize that redskins was translated into Greek literally and not metaphorically in order to describe the native american heroes of those comics. It didn't have any pejorative hue, at least the way I read it. What was pejorative was mostly how Indians were portrayed, but then again, this may be all the old westerns from the 30s to the 60s that spring to my memory.
What I do remember from those comics though which is somewhat interesting IMO is that indians addressed white people in those comics as Pale Face ( I am translating from Greek here, perhaps the term is different in English). As in, "Why would you think that, Pale Face?" "Or the ways of the Manitou are strange to us Pale Face". Again, I don't think this was pejorative. On the contrary, the juxtaposition between redskin and pale face served to offer balance and illustrate the subjective and opposing way one set of people viewed another set of people. Which, when you think about it, it's the way people who first come across each other would conceive of each other.
Would white people be insulted if someone referred to them as pale faces? I think I wouldn't, though I am not the best person to ask for this. Being mediterranean, I ve got a more olive hue of white which really isn't pale. That's in contrast with people who come from Ireland and Scotland. That hue of white is indeed disgustingly pale, save for the fortunate black Irish. In an irony of ironies I hear that prolonged exposure to the sun makes pale people's necks red. *
Anywho, it's nice and dandy to talk today about african americans and asian americans and caucasians, because they are neutral terms which denote geographical location, but in truth I think all of us translate those terms into the ones we re trying not to use. When someone says african american, I am thinking of a black person; I wouldn't for example call Charlise Theron African American although she literally is an America who came from Africa. I would think of her as white and call her caucasian.
Conversely and to bring aliveh's point, it's not the term that's offensive, it's the meaning we gradually insert into the term that's the problem. Often times, that meaning isn't even explicitly articulated. Say the word redskin with your mouth dripping condescension enough times and it becomes an offensive term. The same with the word retarded. Retarded - if I am not mistaken- was introduced in order to replace another word that had become toxic. Soon, it itself became toxic and now people are trying to introduce a new word to replace it. Apparently, often times, in social situations, people want to impugn or underline a healthy person's intelligence and/or good sense and/or damn acts, so they resort to exaggeration by calling them retarded. That in itself isn't wrong in my view, but the unfortunate byproduct is that it hurts people who are actually mentally handicapped, an act which I don't think many people would do so on purpose and in good consciousness.
There's also the converse phenomenon happening too. The other day I was watching a TED talk on how the position of US President came to be called a President. Apparently, since this was the first democratically elected office holder at the time, Congress straggled long and hard in finding a name that wouldn't ascribe to him the kind of imperiousness and grandeur that royalties enjoyed. So they ended up choosing the word President in an attempt to demean and belittle the office. I mean what does a President do? He just Presides. He doesn't command. He's not majestic or higher than the rest of the board. And yet, gradually the immense power of the office came to color the word itself and make it synonymous with grandeur and potency.
I guess that one part of me feels sympathy for the aggrieved parties.Another part of says that what we end up merely changing one word after another when what we should be is stopping the underlying offense. Another part of me reminds me that, when a player of my favorite soccer team gave the Nazi salute in order to celebrate a goal, a fact which made me livid in anger, I did not buy for a second the -historically accurate- idea that the Nazi salute existed well before the nazis and didn't have the meaning we ascribe to it today. Who cares? What matter is how people commonly understand the salute today.
Another part feels that we are becoming too sensitive and hyperbolic. That part may be fueled by the other part which feels I am getting old and the world I grew up is changing and that even if the new world is for the better, it scares me because I fear I won't be able to keep up or stay relevant or recognize the world I grew up in.
Anyway, I am meandering and I don't have a coherent point to make. I guess I thought that the controversy over redskins became irrelevant once, in a stroke of fate and poetic harmony, we elected orange-skinned American John Boehner as the Speaker of the House.**
* That's an attempt at humor. I apologize if I offended anyone.
** Also an attempt at humor. I apologize if I offended anyone.
