The term ‘redskins’ is viewed as a racial slur in the USA… by the self-celebrating “politically correct”. Bob Burns, a Black Foot Elder, says: “…”redskins” not okay with me. It’s never going to be okay with me. It’s inappropriate, damaging and racist. In the memory of our Blackfeet relatives, it’s time to change the name.” “Redskins” is the name of an American “football” team in Washington.
Contrarily to what its name indicates, American Football is also played with hands; steroid laden monsters clutch to their chest a squashed ball, running all out, until they bang into each other, thus demonstrating that brain concussion, and men running into men in tights, and manhandling them, is where it’s at.
[What’s next? Plucking the feathers too?]
If “Redskins” should not (?) exist, semantically speaking, why should a game played by hand with a non-ball, be called “football”? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR-tbOxlhvE&feature=player_embedded
Provocateurs often adopt the very values they condemn, be it only by contradicting them. In general, when one does not like some idea, there are three avenues to do away with it:
- Showing it leads to some blatant contradiction (mathematicians love that one).
- Showing it’s contradicted by fact(s), evidence (as lawyers call it).
- Showing its context is hare brained (the royal road to deep thinking).
An example of 1), 2) and 3) combined was the assault of G. W. Bush and its idiotic followers, against Iraq. Saddam Hussein, long the West’s attack poodle, and who had passed lots of Western-like laws, was the best the West could hope for in Iraq (thus a contradiction, and an hare brained context). That Rumsfeld who used to shake Saddam’s hand, wanted him suddenly killed was even troubling (what did Hussein know that one did not want him to say?).
Iraq, of course had no weapons of mass destruction (thus making Bush’s main loud arguments contradictory to facts). The chemical mass murders during the Iraq-Iran war were something the West was involved with in more ways than one.
Another example of 3), according to me, is that the (Standard) Big Bang leads to the Multiverse, something obviously hare brained (how many angels on a pinhead being the most ridiculous aspect of the Middle Ages that the Multiverse brings back, just worse!)
I more than see the point of talking about the holocaust of Native Americans, all the more as the mood that presided to it, is still in power. I have written literally hundreds of ferocious pages about it.
However, not to mention Red Skins ever again, is the best way to achieve a philosophical holocaust. In France, a country present in North America about a century before the English arrived, and much more respectful of “Indians”, the term “peaux rouges” is not derogatory. Some of the Plains Natives used an early combination of sun screen and bug repellent, giving them a red appearance. Naturally, they decided that it described them proudly (contrarily to what the video above suggests).
The worst thing is not insulting, but ignoring to the point of dehumanizing.
American semantics has a similar problem with “black” and “niger” (the Latin word for “black”). Senghor (Senegal-France) and Césaire (Martinique-France), both “black”, made a point that black was proud.
Making a big deal about appearances, behaving as if they were everything, is precisely what leads to holocausts.
“Red Skin”, a self-identifier, if nothing else, celebrates early Native American, ecologically correct technology, let’s celebrate it, by keeping on mentioning it.
By refusing to even mention “Red Skins” anymore, we play into the ultimate act of annihilation. It’s a case of victims, embracing their exterminators’ cause.
Ironically, the name “Redskins” for the Washington football team was supposed to have a positive connotation, when it was chosen. A century ago, the team’s coach, “Lone Star” Dietz, a Native American, had brought to the team several other proud and authentic Red Skins.
And what of Iraq? Jihadists are taking over, Washington is talking of going bombing again.
Well, the USA is getting what it deserves in Iraq. Mr. Obama did not want to intervene in Syria against a clear war criminal (Assad). The Jihadists in Iraq are clearly a reaction to the annihilation by the USA of Saddam Hussein’s regime, and the various institutions of the Iraqi state.
Iraq is a case for the United Nations. All the more as the case of 3,000 year old Kurdistan is tied to it. I am all for the independence of Kurdistan, and carving it out of Syria, Iran and Turkey. Not just Iraq.