Red­skins furor is a gov­ern­ment cre­ation

The Washington Times Weekly - - Letters To The Editor - LARRY HORIST Boca Ra­ton, Florida

The Red­skins name con­tro­versy is another ex­am­ple of po­lit­i­cal cor­rect­ness caus­ing divisiveness (“FCC will con­sider pe­ti­tion to ban ‘Red­skins,’” Web, Sept. 30). The gov­ern­ment is not ad­dress­ing racial ten­sion; it is cre­at­ing it.

I have rep­re­sented Amer­i­can In­dian clients and been awarded honorary Amer­i­can In­dian sta­tus. I have heard Amer­i­can In­di­ans use the word red­skin as a de­scrip­tive, not a pe­jo­ra­tive. There has been use of the word in tribal mot­tos and Amer­i­can In­dian en­ter­prises. It has ap­peared in movies and car­toon with­out any protest of which I am aware. I can­not re­call an in­stance where the word was used in pri­vate con­ver­sa­tions in a deroga­tory man­ner. His­tor­i­cally, there has been racist im­agery of Amer­i­can In­di­ans, but the words “In­dian” or “red­skin” were not racially charged names, no more so than “whites” and “blacks.”

New deroga­tory im­pli­ca­tions are the cre­ation of gov­ern­ment in the name of po­lit­i­cal cor­rect­ness. Once gov­ern­ment led the charge, the lib­eral syco­phants joined in. Amer­i­can In­dian groups, whose mem­bers never com­plained be­fore, sud­denly protested un­der gov­ern­ment en­cour­age­ment and spon­sor­ship — although oth­ers de­fended the name. The press, which used the word in­no­cently for gen­er­a­tions, jumped on the band­wagon in the spirit of pseudo-en­light­en­ment. Now the fed­eral gov­ern­ment again wants to take a bite out of the First Amend­ment and ban the word.

I say, “Go, Red­skins.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.