Monday, May 23, 2016

WaPo: Injuns Are Too Stupid To Know That "Redskins" Is Insulting

by JASmius

What should we all have learned from the whole leftwingnut obsession with the nickname of Washington, D.C.'s NFL franchise?  (1) That what is "offensive" is in the ear of the be-hearer; (2) that, as the WaPo itself polled and reported last week, much to their evident consternation, ninety percent - or as close to "ALL" as any poll ever gets - of Original Americans either have no problem with the nickname "Redskins" or Washington, D.C.'s NFL franchise using it, and many of them actually like it and find it flattering because it denotes badassery - which is usually construed as a good thing in professional football; and (3) liberals are condescending, authoritarian racists who force their preferences on everybody else, including demographics on whose unwanted behalf they purport to be arguing.

Which leads to condescending, authoritarian, racist op-eds like this one:

But a couple of other aspects of the poll struck us as noteworthy. One was that more than half of respondents had heard little or nothing about this controversy.

Which ought to be revelatory of how NOT a "controversy" this contrived teapot tempest really is.

The other was that 21% said they found the word disrespectful, even if they weren’t personally bothered by the team’s use of the name, with another 6% declining to express a view.

i.e. The wouldn't walk up to an Original American on the street and call him/her a "redskin" - just for the record, I wouldn't, either - but consider it no big deal, and kinda cool, as a football team's mascot - as I do.  And I appear to have a whole lot more company on my island than that WaPo has on their sciff of busybodying buttinskyism.

Where does that leave us? We’ve always made clear that we think fans who embrace the name do so without racist feeling or intent.

How generous of them.

But we also are clear that the term originates in an era when Indians were considered less than human and were often treated accordingly. References to scalping, war whoops and tomahawk chops hark back to that era and perpetuate stereotypes that can be hurtful, especially to [Original] American children.

Evidently not, unless they're raised to be professional offense-takers like the WaPo editorial board.

Nine out of every ten North American Indians do not consider the term "redskin" to be offensive.  That ought to count for something, even in a "sit down and shut up" sense.  The feathered man does not need the Left's unsolicited succor.

One WaPo writer actually now gets it, mostly likely to the detriment of his career path:

Still, non-Indian critics like me can’t ignore the poll results or pretend they make no difference. Those who have opposed the team name include more than a quarter of Washington-area residents, along with [Barack] Obama, Mayor Muriel E. Bowser and fifty Democrat U.S. senators.

Or, in other words, all the people who DON'T matter and whose opinions are the least relevant.

Many of us thought we were defending a group that needed support.

But never asked for it.

But it feels presumptuous for us to say we know Indians’ interests better than they do. We can’t credibly claim that nine out of ten Indians somehow just don’t realize they’re being insulted.

Indeed.  Which is precisely why Redskins owner Daniel Snyder hasn't buckled to the obnoxious pressure and bullying tactics of all those people who don't matter and whose opinions are irrelevant.  The other reason is because it's not their damn team, and they are not the market his organization is serving.

Time to (heh) move on, libs, and take solace in the fact that the 'Skins are usually among the worst franchises in the National Football League.  If they continue to suck long and badly enough, the market may yet give the WaPo editorial board what they want.

Hope does spring eternal, after all.

No comments: