By Donna Cole
The Washington Post editorial board sends we peasants a message from their perch on the heights of moral superiority. An editorial characterizing their unhappiness with the name of the local D.C. professional football team, the Washington Redskins. Like Iron Eyes Cody crying in a 1970s anti-littering public service announcement, they are despondent that team owner Dan Snyder has said as long as he owns the team the name Redskins will remain, and the ultimate decision is his and his alone.
The Post board are happy N.F.L. commissioner Roger Goodell has changed his tune on the name of the football team. It is clear the P.C. nanny squad has gotten to Goodell who last June wrote with regard to the Redskins, "the name is a unifying force that stands for strength, courage, pride and respect". Now, just a few months later, Goodell, in what The Post calls a "nuanced pivot" says, "if we are offending one person, we need to be listening and making sure that we’re doing the right things to try to address that."
Ah yes, the 'ole if just one person is offended to hell with want the rest of you think contrivance. I understand that it is wrong for white people, but not blacks, to use the "N" word, and if a white person does then it is a real problem. But these things also must be taken in full context. I am not hearing about all these problems with white people running around calling indigenous Americans redskins. I grew up a Redskins football fan, I never thought of the name being a slur, if anything, I thought it was an honor to the first inhabitants of this great land. Is the name dated ? Yes, but it has a long football history that is part of it too. And I do not put the word redskins on the same level with the "N" word, as far as racial slurs go, they are on totally different planes.
I am sure the liberal crowd will say because I am white, besides inheriting some mysterious privilege that I've yet to be able to tap into, I certainly didn't have affirmative action to get me into Harvard or anything like that, I am born a racist simply because of the color of my skin, and thus I cannot ever fathom how offensive these things supposedly are. To me, that thinking is far more racist than the name of the Washington football team, and just a cheap liberal trick to dismiss dissenting opinions and will of the majority. I will also remind you that while we hear all this talk of human equality and a colorless society from the left, it is in fact they who always bring up race as a measure of a person and use it to pummel their political opponents with false accusations of racism.
The most perplexing thing of all is that white liberals tell me I am a racist because I am white, and even though we share the same skin color they are not. They say they are not racist because somehow they, and only they, have achieved some enlightened state of post-racial consciousness. How they made this transition from the racist Siddhartha to the all loving Buddha has never been explained to me. Like faith in a higher power, which most liberals reject, we are expected to just take their word for it.
Putting all that behind, these two sentences are what bothered me the most from The Post's editorial; "We understand that changing the name is not a trifling matter. There is a cost (estimated by some to be as high as $20 million), but surely the owner of the NFL’s third-most valuable franchise can afford it."
Now I see where the board members coming from. Dan Snyder is made of money, he cannot use the cost as an excuse. He can afford $20 million bucks to change a name he does not want to change. Why that is mere chicken scratch for a man who owns a football team, he probably has the cash in his desk drawer. So, what's the big deal here ? Cough up the cash, change the name, and we will quit dragging your name through the mud on the pages of our newspaper.
The pompous arrogance of The Post's editorial board on the money issue is more nauseating than their stance on changing the name. Obviously, they are so disconnected from reality up in their ivory tower they do not understand a football team is a business, and businesses do not make $20 million expenditures without good reason. Just because The Post, along with a few A.C.L.U. liberal types and the Indian tribes they ginned up, claim they are offended by the name is not a good enough reason to change it.
I hope Mr. Snyder has the fortitude to remain strong in the face of these politically correct nagging ninnies and not cave on the name Redskins, but I fear in the end he will. Perhaps changing the team's name to the "Washington Honky Crackers" will appease The Post and calm their delicate sensibilities.