Should Washington DC be re-named because George Washington owned slaves? Should Leesburg be re-named because Robert E. Lee fought for slavery? Can we forget and wish to change everything and every situation that has made this country what it is? Or what it was thirty years ago, anyway.
Last Edit: Jul 25, 2014 2:00:56 GMT -5 by Sirewolf
I agree, that's one part of my argument, as well. How far back in history do you go to try to right wrongs. Although, my primary premise is that the name has nothing to do with the past wrong doings against native Americans. It's a general symbol of a proud and strong native american 'warrior' (father, brother, son) from 200-300 years ago - something that really doesn't exist today. Meaning, the current decedents do not necessarily represent that anymore. Similar to a team called the Vikings or Saxons - the depictions of teams with these names could be perceived as derogatory - real vikings likely looked nothing like the mascot for the vikings. It's just the meaning individuals choose to put into the word Redskin and the degree of offense they choose to have to that meaning that is at issue.