With the news stories of the day being pretty much limited to the still unknown fate of MH370, to Hobby Lobby’s hoped-for love affair with SCOTUS, and of course to the remnants of the Chris Christie/GWBridgegate horse puckey, I thought maybe it was time for a break.
And up it popped: the Washington Redskins, and all the emergent fuss over the team’s insulting nickname. Now, as everyone who knows me is well aware, I have zero interest in professional sports no matter the genre. Be it football, basketball, baseball, soccer, hockey — name it — I don’t waste even a moment per decade on any of it. But, then once in awhile an aside of sorts pops up and . . . well, what the hell.
Here’s a brief summation courtesy of the Washington Post, where it’s noted that
In the past year [team owner Daniel] Snyder has faced stiff criticism over the team’s name, which some Native American tribes have called offensive. Several state and local officials have also spoken out against the name. Last season, the Redskins drew protests at many of their road games, with crowds of several hundred turning out to their matchups in Denver and Minnesota. Groups also have lobbied NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to take action.
Word on the street has it that Snyder’s ego won’t allow him to engage the potential humiliation implicit in knuckling under to popular opinion, to acknowledge the name “Redskins” is, more than anything else, a racial epithet that insults Native American Tribal entities all across the country. The owner of a professional football franchise valued at some $1.7 billion is, at least in Snyder’s own mind, far too important to pay attention to anything that non-billionaires might think. As the Washington Post puts it,
Snyder, who has owned the Redskins since 1999, maintains the team’s nickname represents the heritage of the 81-year-old franchise and is meant to honor Native Americans.
Right. I mean really, how better to honor Native Americans everywhere than via the well-worn epithet “Redskins”?
Well, anyway, I decided I would offer my services — at no charge, of course — by suggesting an appropriate alternative moniker for that 81-year-old Washington heritage, a nickname far more worthy of a $1.7 billion franchise than “Redskins.” Still, in keeping with the apparent thesis that a racist epithet is, to many, a somehow cool and honorable means of demeaning those of inferior blood, I’ve concluded that maybe both expanding that concept AND at the same time toning it down a bit might be something Snyder could live with, maybe even like?
OK. So. Rather than sticking with REDskins and insulting ONLY Native Americans, why not dig in and nail each and every skin color (other that white, of course) to that old familiar KKKross? Go for the Gold! as someone said once. Somewhere. I forget where. Anyway, there are, scattered across this land and around the globe, folks with RED skins, with BLACK skins, with YELLOW skins, and with BROWN skins. And true enough, it would only raise further ire amongst the masses if Snyder changed the name to accommodate any one of the others beyond RED. I mean think of it for a second: the Washington Blackskins? Yellowskins? Brownskins? Nah, no way. Gotta do better than any of THAT nonsense. So, it struck me all of a sudden. Why not combine those four possibilities into one, into one word that pays heed to each and all of our minority (so far at least) skin colors even as it celebrates the passions of bigots and billionaires everywhere? How about the WASHINGTON FOURSKINS!!
YEAH! And Yee Haw!