By Eric Schmidt

I am not a fan of the Washington Redskins or owner Daniel Snyder, but I have to applaud his resolve. For several years now, the Redskins franchise has been under attack by groups demanding that the club change the team name. It now appears that the politically correct police have come back for another round while assailing Snyder and forcing him to change the name of the team, he purchased and he owns. Read that back to me, HE PURCHASED and HE OWNS.

Politico.com this afternoon, reported that three former higher-ups with the FCC suggest that the use of the word Redskins could be considered a violation of the indecency law and that networks could be fined for using the name. Seriously.

The article on Politico.com copies a portion of the letter that was sent to Mr. Snyder, copied below-

“It is impermissible under law that the FCC would condone, or that broadcasters would use, obscene pornographic language on live television,” they write. “This medium uses government owned airwaves in exchange for an understanding that it will promote the public interest. Similarly, it is inappropriate for broadcasters to use racial epithets as part of normal, everyday reporting.” 

Never using the team’s name, they chastise broadcasters for using a name that is equivalent to the “n-word.

This politically correct BS needs to stop. The comment section is wide open for you wingnuts to leave your messages calling me an idiot, a dinosaur, a relic and add in racist just for the fun of it.

Mr. Snyder purchased the Redskins franchise in 1999. He has not been a successful owner, but it was his money which purchased the franchise and he has finally decided to remove himself from the day-to-day operations, something Jerry Jones has yet to realize. Personal success continues to be under attack in the country as those that have wealth are continually in the crosshairs, regardless of how they made their money. Well, unless they made their money while supporting left wing agendas, then everything is okay and never receive any scouting by the so-call main stream media. George Soros is an American hero?

The Redskins are his team, a team founded in 1932 with a very rich history in football lore. He paid the money to purchase his team. Where does this politically correct BS end? Are the Dallas Cowboys next since cowboys killed indians? Houston Texans since there was an incident at the Alamo? Aren’t the New Orleans Saints religiously offensive? The Kansas City Chiefs aren’t far behind on this debate. I suppose that every team should be named after some sort of animal, and everyone will be just fine. Just fine until PETA gets involved.

Then this afternoon, I see that former attorney and liberal NBC employee Mike Florio has decided to weigh in on this issue as well from his corporate owned NBC website Profootballtalk.com. Florio, has managed to use his platform this offseason, to editorialize on the Redskins name change and gay players in the NFL, NBC textbook stuff.

There are a handful of activists that are interested in forcing the Redskins to change their name. There is not a national outrage. As I’ve followed this debate over the last five years, there seems to be as many people in support of the name as opposed to it. In my life experiences, you can always motivate people to be opposed to something. This movement is just another 12-year project to try to re-shape things under an unending agenda. Leave it alone and worry about some serious issues.

People need to wake up and realize there are some very serious issues facing this nation. A potentially explosive conflict seems to be opening up surrounding North Korea. Reports this afternoon suggest that 90 million people are not in the labor force, the lowest since 1979. And the biggest problem is the name of a privately owned NFL franchise? Get over it folks. Let the hatred begin.

 

 

Share

Comments

comments

Filed under: NFC, NFL, Washington Redskins

Tagged with:


Readers Comments (4)

  1. avatar BrentD774

    This is what you have when you elect and allow government to grow bigger and more powerful than the people.

    As for the people who think the name should be changed, get over yourself. If you don’t like the name, don’t root for the team or buy any of its merchandise. But the groups who want them to change the name are very small, both in the Indian community and out. The majority of Native Americans either don’t see it as offensive, or don’t care.

    Let’s put our energy and efforts into something more important then a team name, like bringing control of this country back to the people.

     
  2. avatar MSE

    Hey Eric. No “hatred” from me, but I have some thoughts. Your article does not even suggest an opposing points, most of what you offer as arguments are not actually arguments, and the few statements you make that qualify as arguments are embarrassingly weak. I usually like your writing and I suspect that we are closer akin on politics than it may appear from my following comments, but this article was tough to read. Your position on whether the Redskins should continue to use a racial slur as a name is that:

    1) “HE [Dan Snyder] PURCHASED and HE OWNS [the team].” That’s not really an argument and it’s an absurd over-simplification. NFL franchises are subject to elaborate rules. The NFL itself is subject to many rules from public entities. Stadiums are largely publicly-funded. This list of important factors can go on and on. But it’s even simpler than that. Your proposition is that since Snyder owns the team, he can or should be able to do whatever he wants with it. Maybe he “should,” but as to “can,” we both know that’s not true. Snyder owns his shoes and can do as he pleases with them. He is also the owner of an NFL franchise, but what he can do with that is subject to elaborate limitations. To the extent that it is an argument that Snyder has a right to do whatever he wants with his NFL franchise, it is an argument based on a seemingly willful misunderstanding of franchise operation and and how major sports leagues are run.

    2) “Personal success continues to be under attack in the country as those that have wealth are continually in the crosshairs.” Are Americans culturally inclined to attack the successful? Yeah, probably. However, it’s not relevant to whether a racial slur should be used as a mascot. C’mon Eric.

    3) “… a team founded in 1932 with a very rich history in football lore.” Should our decisions regarding issues of race and ethnicity be based on historical beliefs? I’ll be generous and pretend that you were not implicitly offering that as an argument.

    4) “Are the Dallas Cowboys next since cowboys killed indians? [etc.]” You have to be careful about using the parade-of-the-horribles rhetorical device. It’s a fallacy if: a) there is no causal relationship between the first act and the imagined consequences; or if b) the horribles cited are not actually horrible. When it is not a fallacy, it is a list of hypotheticals that are only as effective as they are hyperbolic. It’s also really transparent. In this case, the first issue is whether it is horrible if people consider changing the names of other teams. As that is not horrible to most people, one of your premises is arguable at best. Next, is it possible to change the name of the Redskins without changing another team’s name? Yes, so the statement is a fallacy. You can chance upon a correct conclusion relying on a fallacy, but that does not make the fallacy a valid argument. Lastly, we know “People for Badgers” are not going to demand a name change at UW. The parade of horribles device relies on the unconsidered acceptance of hyperbolic suppositions. If the hypotheticals posed are absurd, the device backfires.

    5) “I see that former attorney and liberal NBC employee Mike Florio…” [is talking about] “the Redskins name change and gay players in the NFL.” This logical fallacy is called an ad hominem attack and it is also not an argument. Let’s accept that Florio is liberal, that he works at NBC, that he was once an attorney, and that he supports gay rights. Is he therefore wrong about the Redskins? What was his argument? Can you answer his argument? Republican Senator Coles of Oklahoma said of the name Redskins that: “this is the 21st century. This is the capital of political correctness on the planet. It is very, very, very offensive. This isn’t like warriors or chiefs. It’s not a term of respect, and it’s needlessly offensive to a large part of our population. They just don’t happen to live around Washington, D.C.” Is this Republican Senator from Oklahoma too liberal to have a valid opinion? Even if you thought so, calling him a left-wing nut-job does not invalidate his arguments. Also, did you did see how he bolstered his opinion with actual arguments? That is part of what is missing from this unfortunate article.

    6) “This movement is just another 12-year project to try to re-shape things under an unending agenda.” Is it really a conspiracy? Publicly expressing the viewpoint that using a racial slur as a team name is part of what conspiracy exactly? You have to try to reign this stuff in Eric, you marginalize yourself with these off-the-cuff statements. Even those inclined to side with you start to wonder if you wearing a tinfoil hat.

    7) “There is not a national outrage.” We should make decisions about race or ethnicity only when there is national outrage. Is that not what you meant? What do you mean? How many people have to object before you would permit a discussion? Are there any arguments in here?

    8) “People need to wake up and realize there are some very serious issues facing this nation” [said Eric Schmidt, a writer for a website largely dedicated to fantasy football news, apparently unfamiliar with the concept of irony]. People can be interested in topics that are less significant than “a potentially explosive conflict … surrounding North Korea.” We both know that it is not wrong for you to write about football, even when the world faces dire challenges. We both know this because your “argument” is nonsense.

    To your credit, I see that you did resist explicitly relying on those outdated and suspect polls that found people were fine with the term. This was especially astute since more recent efforts are coming to contrary findings. Obviously, if the popular tide is turning against an opinion, arguing that we should rely on public opinion is not a great idea. Kudos for avoiding that pitfall.

    Eric, I’m a fairly conservative guy. But accept my comments as a gentle and constructive criticism. When you clearly identify yourself as conservative and then you espouse such poorly conceived opinions it makes us look bad. We can’t keep digging in on the wrong side of history. It’s time for racial slurs to come off of the DC uniforms. Whether you feel that it is important or not, it’s true. No one will trust us if they keep seeing us as wrong on the small things.

    No hard feelings I hope. Let me also say I generally enjoy your writing. Your articles are informed, concise, and insightful – - I’ll keep reading you even if we do disagree on some issues.

     

Sorry, comments are closed on this post.