Skip to main content

Sorry, but "Redskins" isn't cool


While I'm no fan of political correctness- and an avid fan of the Chicago Blackhawks- I've always had a problem with the Washington NFL franchise being called the "Redskins."

"Redskins" is not "Indians," or "Braves," or "Warriors," or "Blackhawks." The problem is that "Redskins" is an ethnic slur. It seems to me that Dana Milbank the Washington Post has it exactly right (please excuse the hypothetical names compared to "Redskins"):

To see whether it’s right to use “Redskins” as a mascot, NFL owners gathering in Georgetown on Tuesday for their fall meeting should substitute some other common racial epithets and see how they would sound: The Washington Wetbacks? The Houston Hymies? The Chicago Chinks? Or perhaps the New York Niggers? That would be enough to send anybody to the shotgun formation.

The issue isn't whether Native Americans are cool with the name or not. The issue is that the rest of us shouldn't be. We just shouldn't use ethnic slurs as names for sports teams. In fact,  we just shouldn't use ethnic slurs, period. We all should be offended by "Redskins" for the same reason we're offended by the alternatives Milbank offers.

Yes, I know. The Washington Redskins are a storied franchise whose history is synonymous with that of the NFL. But maybe history is where their nickname belongs. We once saw nothing wrong as a society with ethnic slurs. I'd like to think we're better than that now.

Retire the name "Redskins" with honor. But retire it.

HT: Real Clear Politics

ADDENDUM: I see where some Native Americans are trying to include the Cleveland Indians in the offensive category. That would work- if Hibernians were upset about Notre Dame's team name, or Scandinavians were livid about the name of Minnesota's professional football team, or... well, you get the point. It's just not the same thing.

HT: Drudge

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Jan Chamberlain's rhetoric is too strong. But the stand she has taken is right.

I do not share the religion of Jan Chamberlain. I don't even pray to the same god. But I can't help but admire the integrity of the woman who quit the Mormon Tabernacle Choir rather than sing at Donald Trump's inauguration.

Ms. Chamberlain, like me, voted for Evan McMullin in November. Like me, she holds no brief for Hillary Clinton or her agenda. But she cannot, as she put it, "throw roses at Hitler."

As I've said before, comparing Trump to Hitler strikes me as harsh. I believe that Trump is a power-hungry narcissist who exhibits disturbing signs of psychopathy, like Hitler. Like Hitler, he has stigmatized  defenseless minorities- Muslims and undocumented aliens, rather than Jews- and made them scapegoats for the nation's troubles. Like Hitler, he has ridden a wave of irrational hatred and emotion to power. Like Hitler's, his agenda foreshadows disaster for the nation he has been chosen to lead.

But he's not going to set up death camps for Musli…

Neither Evan McMullin nor his movement are going away

Evan McMullin has devoted most of his post-college life- even to the point of foregoing marriage and a family- to fighting ISIS and al Qaeda and our nation's deadliest enemies as a clandestine officer for the CIA. He has done so at the risk of his life.

He has seen authoritarianism in action close-up. One of his main jobs overseas was to locate and facilitate the elimination of jihadist warlords. Evan McMullin knows authoritarians.

And when he looks at Donald Trump, what he sees is an authoritarian like the ones he fought overseas. He knows Donald Trump. After leaving the CIA he served as policy director for the Republican majority in the United States House of Representatives. He tells about his first encounter with The Donald in that role in this opinion piece he wrote for today's New York Times.

In fact, when Mitt Romney and Tom Coburn and all the others who were recruited to run as a conservative third-party candidate against Trump and Hillary Clinton backed out,  McMulli…

Huzzah! Once again, 45 does something majorly right!

First. he appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, and now 45 has- at long last- initiated a sensible space policy, with a plan to promote a "rapid and affordable" return to the moon carried out by private enterprise by 2020.  Afterward, it will be onward to Mars and beyond.

This is a great idea for three reasons. First, private enterprise is the future of space exploration, and as far as I know we will be the first spacefaring nation to put most of its eggs in that basket. Second, it's nice to have eggs! Since the Obama administration canceled the Constellation program to develop the Ares booster and the Orion crew vehicle (though it subsequently reinstated the Orion part of the program), the United States has been twiddling its thumbs while China has taken great leaps toward the moon and other countries- including Russia, India, and Japan- have to various degrees intensified their own space programs. It would be both tragic and foolhardy for the nation which first…