Question: If names like Washington Redskins, Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, etc. are a reflection of White racism and meant to mock and ridicule (in this case, Amerindians), then why aren’t there sports teams with names mocking groups also alleged to be victims of White racism?
Why no Atlanta Coons? Detroit Dindus? California Wetbacks? Seattle Gooks? New York Sheenies?
Is it possible that the Amerindian names reflect respect for the fighting skills and aggressiveness of Amerindian tribes, qualities that sports teams naturally want to represent?
The fallback view is that while the names are not intentionally racist, they are still unintentionally “insensitive” to the “feelings” of Amerindians, and as such need to be eliminated.
Well, I don’t know. We live in a society in which America’s leading newspaper, the New York Times, is an out-and-out hate organization, knowingly hiring a Korean racist with an established intentional pattern of spewing bigotry against White people. I would think that that intentional racism has priority over the unintentional, no?
As to the argument that anti-White racism is not a problem, or is “impossible to exist,” because “Whites have all the power,” I must say it is mighty strange. After all, the people who “have all the power” can be insulted, threatened, and humiliated with impunity, and those who are “powerless” are so sacrosanct that any joke (Barr) or even comments meant against bigotry (Papa John’s) causes a White (or even Jewish in the case of Barr) person to get canned.
It’s also strange that a people who have “all the power” are being subjected to state-sponsored genocide, and are discriminated against by law (in addition to by politically correct custom). It’s strange that James Watson was reduced to selling his Nobel Prize while Al Sharpton is a friend of Presidents, respected political commentator, and speaker at a major political convention.
All mighty strange, indeed.