I Am On The Same Page As The Wash Post
In an editorial about what comes next for the city's damaged NFL franchise, The Washington Post concludes:
Why not make 2014 the year for a truly fresh start: a new coach, a healthy quarterback and a name that denigrates no one?
At the end of December, I put this up at Facebook:
Now my football weekend can get better if DC team owner Daniel Snyder fires Mike Shanahan for his misuse of the once-in-a-generation talent RG III. The rest of my football wish list includes Snyder selling the team to owners who would get rid of the slur that is its name, and reversing the regression over race-based team names taking place in Wisconsin.http://thepoliticalenvironment.blogspot.com/2013/12/on-retaining-race-based.html
The Political Environment: On Retaining Race-Based Mascots/Nicknames, Wisconsin Goes Backward
thepoliticalenvironment.blogspot.com
2 comments:
Whatever the original intent or the origins of the Redskins nickname, why would you not want to change it if indeed it found to be offensive today to the very people it is said to honor? I suppose the answer is that the Redskins name and logo are very lucrative, and greed trumps the desire to be kind and benevolent. Just stating the obvious, aren't I?
I very much agree. It doesn't matter whether folks should or should not be offended by the name - a large enough group IS offended and that should be enough to make a change. I recall when South Africa ended apartheid with a new constitution, flag and national anthem. A lot of interest and excitement was generated and their flag is now one of the most recognizable in the world. This is an opportunity to build support and excitement around the Washington team with a naming contest and a review of team history - surely there is something in the team's story that would form a basis for a rebranding. Uniting fans around a positive team image is certainly smarter than continued divisiveness that even has some media figures refusing to use the team's name.
Post a Comment