As
a Native American descendant, I admit that I am not in the least
offended by the term "Redskin". I am certainly more related to the
Native Asians that crossed the Siberian-Alaskan land bridge more than
10,000 years ago than Senator Elizabeth Warren. However, progressives
are more likely to question my lineage than hers. Redskin is more
aligned with the translations of early European discoverers than it is a
derogatory slang. Yet, many would have you believe it an attempt to
deride a proud and glorious people. The gatekeepers of racial
polarization and censored speech clearly do not want you to confuse
legacy with hyperbole. Nor do they seek to illuminate the masses with
facts when fiction attracts a more enraged protester. In the matter of
whether the Washington franchise in the National Football League should
maintain the name "Redskins", a federal agency, the Trademark Trial and
Appeal Board, canceled their trademark on the grounds that its
nomenclature is offensive to a specific group of people. Their decision
is not intended to take away the name but merely, diminish the team's
ability to protect its trademark and thus, unilaterally profit. Yes,
take away their right to legally defend their property. That'll teach
them to be more compassionate and choose a nickname like the
"Pelicans".
Maybe
if Daniel Snyder had won at least two Super Bowls we would not be
questioning the veracity of our team's name. Let's give the benefit of
the doubt. Maybe there is more to this. Let's find out what
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton might say on MSNBC:
“I
don’t know what Snyder is standing on, what the principle is,” Norton
said. “We understand what the principle is on the part of Native
Americans. I’m not surprised that most Americans don’t see any harm in the word.
Most of us have had to be educated by Native Americans, who after all,
are only less than two percent of the population. They don’t exactly
have a microphone every day. If it were African Americans, you’d know
all about it.”
Congresswoman
Holmes is right. As a African-American, Native American, I have a
microphone and do know. The term "Redskin" pre-dates the first slave
owner in the United States. Anthony Johnson, a black man, in 1654,
enslaved African John Casor. In 1661, Virginia made the practice legal for any free white, black or Indian to own slaves. The
term "Redskin" was first used by Europeans to describe the skin tone
of Indians or as progressives would say, Natives. It is derived from
the term "red man" which was used during the 1590's. What is really interesting is that in 1933, according to the Bill Poser of the University of Pennsylvania Language Log, "George Preston Marshall, the owner of the team, which was then located in Boston, renamed it the Boston Redskins in honor of the head coach, William "Lone Star" Dietz, an American Indian. When the team moved to Washington in 1937, it was renamed the Washington Redskins.
George Marshall clearly did not consider the name disparaging." If it
were not offensive to William Dietz then, what is this all about? This
has more to do with the narrative that America is an unfair, racist
nation whose Constitution needs to be "fundamentally changed" to
overcome our segregated origins. White America must pay the price for
the Nation's "Jim Crow" and Slave past. No matter the cost, Dan Snyder
must pay.
What
perplexes me more is the sincere effort by the narrative's movement to
chastise Dan Snyder using federal resources rather than calling upon
federal resources to remove President Andrew Jackson, the father of the
Democrat Party,
from the twenty dollar bill. Jackson demanded slave loyalty and beat
them to be more productive. His negotiated treaty with the Five
Civilized Tribes led to the infamous "Trail of Tears" which witnessed
the deaths of up to 6,000 Cherokee. What better way to address the
legacy of the Democrat Party than to remove Jackson. By the way, he did
not support a federal reserve of the printing of money. It would be
his honor and certainly more honorable than cursing Snyder. I would
even recommend a President to replace him--Ronald Reagan. I leave it the Progressives to build new talking points against. Racial polarization is never true justice. Redskins is fine with me.
No comments:
Post a Comment