Every week during halftime of Sunday Night Football, Bob Costas gets to recite a personal essay about whatever hot topic strikes his fancy. This Sunday he chose the Redskins name, and spent a few minutes offering his commentary on the subject. Here is his statement in full.RELATED: Bob Costas Huffs at Halftime on NBC: 'Redskins Can’t Possibly Honor a Heritage...It's An Insult, A Slur'
With Washington playing Dallas here tonight, it seems like an appropriate time to acknowledge the ongoing controversy about the name, “Redskins.” Let’s start here: there’s no reason to believe that owner Daniel Snyder, or any official or player from his team, harbors animus towards Native Americans, or chooses to disrespect them. This is undoubtedly also true of the vast majority of those who don’t think twice about the longstanding moniker. And in fact, as best could be determined, even a majority of Native Americans say they are not offended.
But, having stipulated that, there’s still a distinction to be made. Objections to names like Braves, Chiefs, Warriors and the like, strike many of us as political correctness run amok. These nicknames honor, rather than demean. They’re pretty much the same as Vikings, Patriots, or even Cowboys. And names like Blackhawks, Seminoles and Chippewas, while potentially problematic, can still be okay provided the symbols are appropriately respectful. Which is where the Cleveland Indians, with the combination of their name and Chief Wahoo logo, have sometimes run into trouble.
A number of teams, mostly in the college ranks, have changed their names in response to objections. The Stanford Cardinal and the Dartmouth Big Green were each once the Indians. The St. Johns Redmen are now the Red Storm. And the Miami of Ohio Redskins, that’s right Redskins, are now the RedHawks. Still, the NFL franchise that represents the nation’s capital, has maintained its name.
But think for a moment about the term “Redskins,” and how it truly differs from all the others. Ask yourself what the equivalent would be if directed towards African Americans, Hispanics, Asians or any other ethnic group. When considered that way, “Redskins” can’t possibly honor a heritage or noble character trait, nor can it possibly be considered a neutral term. It’s an insult, a slur, no matter how benign the present day intent.
It’s fair to say that for a long time now, and certainly in 2013, no offense has been intended. But if you take a step back, isn’t it clear to see how offense might legitimately be taken?
If you made it through all of those words, reward yourself with a cookie.
Costas went on to offer the URL for NBCSports’ dedicated “Redskins nickname” page, because of course they have that.
Monday, October 14, 2013
noise being made about the Washington Redskins changing their name, because it's supposedly denigrating to Native Americans, is that 80% of people polled do not agree that the Redskins should ever change their name and that the people applying pressure to owner Daniel Snyder to change his team's moniker are almost all Godless, white, liberals suffering from major white guilt, a PC complex and major ego issues: