Pressure Mounts on the Redskins

I wrote about the Redskins "offensive" name a couple of weeks ago*. But since then, depending on who you talk to, things have gotten even more serious or ridiculous. For example, there's a newspaper in Virginia (Richmond Daily News) that has announced that they will not be using the word Redskins in any of it's pages. The newspaper says the word is insulting to Native Americans, racist and divisive.

Another Richmond based newspaper, the Richmond Free Press, is dropping the Redskins name from it's pages because it calls the name racist. The publication, which targets Richmond's black community, has called the word "Redskins" divisive and insulting to Native Americans.

The Virginia newspaper isn't the only one that has chimed in on the subject. a New York paper recently published a political graphic (shown below) which comperes the Redskins logo to the swastika and confederate flag. The flags are described as "Archaic Symbols of Pride and Heritage". Are you kidding me? The swastika, I agree, is a deplorable symbol of hate. Although the confederate flag is certainly part of American history, it has been abused by white supremacist groups, so I can understand why some people might be offended by it. However, I don't see how the Redskins logo represents hate of any kind. In fact, I think it portrays the American Indian as proud and brave. What's so offensive about that?



And the controversy has moved beyond the media outlets. In Washington DC, several schools are pushing for a ban on Redskins jerseys in the classroom. I guess the ban on education wasn't enough?

Even on last week's Sunday Night Football game, announcer Bob Costas took an opportunity to get up on his politically-correct soapbox and chime in on the Redskins controversy by saying, "It's an insult, a slur, no matter how benign the present day intent." Remember when Costas lectured us on gun control during a game last year? I wish he would just stick to calling the game and leave the politics to the assholes in Washington.

And speaking of Washington, there is actually a bill in Congress to strip Dan Snyder's football team of it's trademark protection of the Redskins name. Snyder, however, has vowed that no matter how much pressure comes his way, he will not change the team's name.

There were also suggestions from a few commentators for a more "appropriate" name. For instance, columnist Charles Krauthammer suggested shortening the name to the Skins. Since most fans refer to the team by this term anyway, it seems like a logical choice. But perhaps the most interesting suggestion came from Fox News host, Bill O'Reilly. During a recent interview with David Letterman, O'Reilly said that he would like the team's name changed to the Washington Chaos. With everything the craziness that's going on in DC today, O'Reilly's idea sure seems fitting.

And no fabricated, racial-charged controversy would be complete without the race-hustling Grand Poohbah, Jesse Jackson chiming in. Super Jesse, through his twitter account said, "The name of the NFL's Washington Redskins must be changed."

Ok, for arguments sake, let's say that the Redskins do indeed changed their name. Do you think it's going to stop there? After all, there are several other high-profile sports teams with "Native American" names. A few that come to mind are the Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, Kansas City Chiefs, Florida State Seminoles, Golden State Warriors and Chicago Blackhawks. Are any of these team names any less offensive than the "R" word?

As I mentioned in my previous blog*, the majority of Native Americans (aka Indians) have no problem with the Redskins or any other name connected to the "indigenous" people of America. So, what's the big deal?

I'm a Ravens fan at heart. But I have to admit, after hearing all of this bullshit, I find myself saying, "Hail to the Redskins!"

kw

* http://www.kensmouthpiece.blogspot.com/2013/10/are-redskins-offensive.html