Throwing Around The Ol' Redskin

Football is becoming increasingly....well, difficult. Fun to watch, but there are so many stories that get on one's nerves. Take the "new" controversy over the Washington Redskins.

No doubt you've heard a little about this already. For at least the second or third time, some people with nothing better to do have observed that "Redskin" is (or was) slang for Indian, and apparently this is a bad thing. So for the past few weeks, there's been a handful of very noisy activists trying to put pressure on the organization to change its name. To what, I don't know. A few years ago, a fan from West Virginia suggested they should end the controversy by re-naming themselves the Washington Rednecks, but I sense that's not in the cards. Anyway, now President Obama, whose many roles apparently include Spokesman For Any And All Even Theoretically Oppressed Minorities, has weighed in and said that if it were up to him, he would of course consider changing the name. And some sportscasters have announced that they will no longer refer to the team as the Redskins, but simply as Washington.

So far, the team's owner, Dan Snyder, has pretty much told these activists and sundry concerned people that they can suck it, noting in a letter the other day that the team has had this name for eighty years--and it was the "Braves" before that--that it's not meant to be offensive to Native Americans but rather to celebrate them, and finally, that they've gone this long without changing it and they're certainly not going to now. A handful of people in the media have declared that this position is so offensive it will inevitably trigger a backlash and a boycott, but let's face it--as long as Snyder is the owner and his determination holds up, they won't ever put the team under enough pressure to change its name.

More to the point, though--I always shake my head at stories like this, probably because it's so blasted familiar. Having spent years in the wacky circles of academia, I should point out that to the Left, it means nothing if you say your mascot is meant to invoke themes of bravery, ferocity, being a great warrior--which the Redskin mascot is obviously intended to do. To them, any representation of Indians or other minorities doesn't give them their due as individuals and Noble Oppressed People, so trying to stress their positive qualities is still an insult somehow. So, in a nutshell, that's their thinking here.

Not that it makes any more sense, of course. Because I haven't heard any of these people complaining about the name of the Minnesota Vikings. The old Scandinavian seafarers are also being stereotyped by the sports mascot, reducing them to ferocious warriors; why isn't anyone speaking on their behalf?

I'm being facetious, of course. We all know why. The Vikings are (were) white--not just white, but pure Nordic white. Therefore, they can't really be oppressed. Besides, they can't be made into objects of sympathy by activists the way Indian tribes can.

And anyway, it's not like there's an overwhelming feeling of offense from Native Americans today about the name. What polls there have been on reservations about the issue show that while a significant minority would prefer a name change, a majority are either fine with it or don't care. Some pointed out that they have bigger things to worry about, like their job, or paying their bills. Not that it would really matter if there was more negative opinion, because look--the Redskins are a private organization, and unless there's actual discrimination going on by that organization against Native Americans, there's nothing here. End of story.

Though, as someone mentioned on Twitter, a different kind of change might be in order. Perhaps Snyder should consider renaming the team the "Maryland Redskins." Now that would be much less offensive.