It isn't, dunderhead.
I've already linked in this very thread to both the older study that failed to identify who was using the word and came away with the ten percent and a recent academic study done by a major university that bothered with that and discovered a very different picture in relation to those outside of the race using the term.
Not if you own a good dictionary.
It isn't about who created a word (the English language uses any number of words created by foreigners
) but what the word carries with it.Not even a little. It's no insult to me. What I am is amused to find people like you outraged in response to something as simple and obvious as the proposition that if you don't mean to offend and find yourself doing that, even without the honoring business, you should stop doing that.
You seem terribly interested and invested in a thread about something you keep calling stupid.
American is the derivative and that applies to everyone, is a thing without any particular history or intent to marginalize and offend. Native American was coined by Americans, not Italians. It wasn't popularly used much until around the same time as the civil rights movements.
Where I'd say I think that the Apache and Hopi can speak for themselves, but that there's nothing inherently derogatory about the term and inarguably that can't be said for the word under consideration here.
I agree.
Wouldn't you agree that the logo for the Cleveland Indians is much more disrespectful to Native Americans than the Washington Redskins logo?
Same thing I told the last guy, I already linked to it. Look back over my posts in this thread. I just don't declare a thing.
:dizzy: Would you demand Huck Finn :sozo2: be changed or burned? :smokie: Ac 17:26
:sozo2:
They've got tougher, redder skin than Graniteheart--hence the name. :dizzy: Ac 17:26
The red man needs to put down that bottle (Eph 5:18).
Many black people defend the use of the n-bomb, but what you find if you look at that study I linked to is that a strong majority of Native Americans object to the term being used outside of their people, which is much like black people and that aforementioned bomb.Many American Indians have defended the name on talk radio.
"N-bomb"?
You can't use the word ni66er?
:dizzy: Try common sense over studies.
:yawn: Bandwagon
Black men (aka negros, ni66ers, colored men, African American) play for the team. They don't have a problem with it. Why do you? Why are you preoccupied with skin color? It's not a bomb. :listen: It's a word and you need not be afraid of it.
It isn't about can't, but about won't. I grew up around many of the sort who were easy with the term, saw the twisted malice that bred it. No, I was brought up by good people and taught the difference between what one might do and what one should do."N-bomb"?
No, I'll take hard facts over people trying to twist some subjective magic to their own purposes.
Said the only one who appears to be...else, I'm citing the response of the people actually noted and offended by the use. Whether anyone else is offended or not isn't germane.
Offensive yes. I don't recall "tad" being a part of the response to it. But then, it's really just a foreshadow of your apparent larger point, one that comes to a head by the end of this.
I don't think it could be provided the Nation gave permission. The Florida State Seminoles have a great relation with the Native American population, by way of.
A Native American name isn't inherently offensive and was never coined or used to offend. Doesn't have the same track record and isn't on par.
People are free to rename their towns whatever the voters/citizenry want.
This and what follows completely misses the point in what seems a cobbled attempt to soften the actually offensive usage under discussion, which is a term with a derogatory history, as set out in Court documents sustained by review and applied to a people by a conqueror, not generated by them to describe themselves.
