As it's been noted every time this sort of reply is given on the topic, none of the nicknames you describe are racial slurs, not even "fighting Irish".

Just out of curiosity...

This is a slur


This isnt?


The earliest known use is 1699 where it is used as a descriptor, not a slur.
"Ye firste Meetinge House was solid mayde to withstande ye wicked onsaults of ye Red Skins."
See... The Delaware Indians used Vermillion face and body paint.

Point being that if it has somehow evolved into a term that a minority of the living Indians finds offensive, it could possibly evolve back into being just a description with a fair amount of honesty and education.

It could, like many words have...

But let's put it in a way Danny Snyder can understand.
What's the origin of the word "kike"? Whether you think it originated as a sort of nickname for Jews since many Jewish last names end in "ki" or in Ellis Island because illiterate Jewish immigrants signed with an O instead of an X, do you think The Danny would have cheered for a team called the Washington Kikes? What about the Washington Treblinkers? Obviously, we know such names for a team would've never made it past 1948, and very few places in the world would allow such names to be used.

Or how about the "n-word"? Where does it come from? There are a number of theories as to where it came from; to me the most obvious is the good ol' boy pronunciation of "negro" (like fellow/feller, or yellow/yeller), which is Latin for "black", and "black" being a logical description of a pale European first laying eyes to someone from Sub-Saharan Africa, just like the 1699 European who first laid eyes on the American natives. It used to be that "Negroid" was the anthropological name for the race of people who originated from Sub-Saharan Africa, now it is Congoid because the word Negroid is considered racist.

So regardless of the origin, those 2 words went from description to bona fide racial slurs, and we (meaning society in general) recognize them as such, and therefore avoid their usage (if we are not part of said ethnic groups).

Unless you are around 70 years old, you and I were born in an era in which both words are defined as racial slurs. But think about why we define those terms as racial slurs today. I am not going to type a long manifesto, but the gist of it is, neither the Jewish people or Congoids were isolated in reservations and forgotten after what happened to them as races, nor vilified them in countless movies and TV shows.

Now, for the record, I am a person who thinks racial slurs are laughable, as you don't get to define what you are, only who you are. Yet, I can understand why such words would stir certain feelings in different people, and as such, I think we should give Native Americans the same courtesy as we give to any other ethnic group. Simple as that.

And a quick edit to add: both of those images I'd consider slurs. I don't get the fascination with using such names either.

Why does a side need to be taken? I agree that slurs are laughable and insignificant, if you feel that way, then why take a stand?

As a society we preach the need to evolve to a utopian standard so we may all live in harmony, but fall prey to basic human emotion. . Part of that is being able to look into someones eyes and say "it really doesn't affect you or matter, get passed it"

Apologies for the snip. I do agree with the general sentiment of what you are saying. I just wanted to touch on those two points.

Why take a stand? Equality. Why afford protection to certain ethnic groups but not others? Double standards are never conducive to utopian societies.

Agreed.. I didn't interpret any snip at all, and hope you are not detecting any as well.

Equality however does not extend to only those who have endured hardships or mistreatment. When the "=" sign is used it means exactly that. If you are going to be mindful enough to not offend any one group then the same should apply to all groups. Even those that a person doesn't care for.

The underlined is precisely my point. If you start removing each and every item to make each and every group happy you will inevitably end up with nothing on your plate.

Take an ordinary meal for example:
Vegans want the meat out
Diabetics want the carbs and sugars out
Elderly cant handle the spices
Children do not want the vegetables
You can see where I am going with this....

At some point you have to look at all of the above groups and say "if you do not like it, do not eat it". Left to my wife she would cook 3 separate meals, when I intervene things just get pushed to the side of the plate. Humans are amazingly adept to dealing with adversity as long as they do not start relying on someone to do it for them.

The only true equality is when no one is catered to and everyone must deal with how they feel about each others expressions on their own. But this all boils down to the misinterpretation of the First Amendment doesn't it? The First Amendment prevents prosecution for expression but protects persecution because persecution is speech and a form of expression.

A person can not be jailed for saying negative things about the Government and the person that will inevitably call him an idiot is protected as well... Its a beautiful thing.

Poor form has never been illegal.

And I agree with you. Yet, why not extend the same courtesy to Native Americans we extend Jewish and African Americans? Because the other alternative, the "unslurring" of such words as kike, ******, chink, spic, etc. that's not going to happen any time soon. Either all or none the asterisks