Insults do not violate  rights. There is no “Right not to be insulted”.

“The noble savage might be admired for certain rude virtues, and the ignoble savage deplored as brutal and bloody-minded, but the fate of each was identical. In time, both would vanish from the face of the earth as civilization, in accordance with the universal law of progress, displaced savagery. The ending of Dances with Wolves echoes this sentiment as an admirable culture, unaware of inexorable fate, is about to be swept away by a more progressive but less admirable one.” [1] This is quoted from Professor Brian W. Dippie,  Department of History, University of Victoria, British Columbia. More on that distorted view later.

A word ban is an abridgment of free speech but in typical Liberal Word Police Wag The Dog fashion the Courier spit in the face of the American idea of free speech and banned Redskin because in their little minds it offends some people. Here’s a flash banning Redskin offends more people even more. 

The Courier has banned loads of words over the years so banning Redskin is noting new for the dopey Culture Police editors who think they can remove a word from the English language without consequences.  Indians, including Indian children fought against settlers and tortured, maimed and killed them. From Wikipedia: “Common torture techniques included burning the captive- which was done one hot coal at a time, rather than the Hollywood-style pile of firewood around the captive – cuts from knives, beatings with switches and jabs from sharp sticks. Prisoners’ fingernails were ripped out. Their fingers were broken, then twisted and yanked by children. Captives were made to eat pieces of their own flesh, and were scalped alive. To make the torture last longer, the Native Americans would revive captives with rest periods during which time they were given food and water. Tortures would begin with the lower limbs, then gradually spread to the arms, then the torso. The Native Americans spoke of “caressing” the prisoners gently at first, which meant that the initial tortures were designed to cause pain, but only minimal bodily harm. By these means, the execution of a captive, especially an adult male, could take several days and nights.” These brutal savage people by their torture techniques alone should be called ferocious beasts. Calling the Indians Redskins is too kind as well as racially accurate.

If the Word Banning editors at the Courier would do 15 seconds of research on the internet it would find Redskin applies to some really savage people.  

ELIMINATING RACISM

The French Assembly approved a bill to completely remove the word “Race” from the country’s law books. Opponents point out they are trying to claim there is only one race so there is no need to use the term “Race”. But there are many races so banning the word will not ban the different races. If they would think a moment they would realize they are taking away the ability of some races to punish hate crimes. If the word race is banned what would be the basis of “Diversity”?  How would people get thru stereotype banning sensitivity training if there is no difference in people about which to be hateful? People who claim race does not exist often complain about “white privilege”.

People have a right to believe whatever stories, myths, nonsense, and evil they choose to believe.  But they have no right to act on any religious or secular  dogmas calling for the violation of rights. Specifically, there is no right to ban words because people are offended. that kind of action should be eliminated as children become adults. The people who would ban “Redskin should be investigated to identify the basis of their animus against the people who are offended by the elimination of a word.

[1] http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/nattrans/ntecoindian/essays/indimage.htm

Hits: 80