My comment became one of the NY Times Picks: The relative symbolism of a name or image is directly related to its place in history. Swastikas were a benign symbol of good luck in many Eastern cultures through the ages. The Nazis co-opted it and now its an icon of evil. The same could be said of the battle flag of the Confederacy: a symbol of states pride in its day; then co-opted by the Ku Klux Klan and now its a symbol of prejudice and racial divisiveness. Can we go back, reclaim their original symbolism, and ignore what they represent today? I dont think so. Now we consider the Redskins. Originally a slur which referred to American Indians, it now represents a proud group of football players. We live in a day when nobody refers to American Indians as Red Skins. I have NEVER heard it used outside of the occasion movie when I was a kid, which was a long time ago. The current crop of Redskins includes not a single American Indian. The term refers to a group of professional football players of arguable skill... but thats all to which it refers. You cant have it both ways, folks. Leave the NFL alone on this. You are opening a can of worms and to what end? I would suggest the rewards are miniscule yet the costs (literally) will be great. This is a fight that isnt worth fighting. Dont you have anything important to do?
Posted on: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 19:40:50 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015