It’s hard to stay neutral on Redskins name controversy

redskins_scriptrI’ve gone back and forth on the Redskins name controversy, wavering from the position that the name issue isn’t the biggest deal in the world to agreeing that, yeah, the name is racist, needs to go, and that of course it eventually will go, the only question being how long eventually will end up being.

Back and forth wavering as I am, I have to say that one thing pushing me off the fence is the nonsense being spewed by the team’s defenders.

This has only become a situation because of a bunch of liberals that one don’t like football and another don’t have a life.

This from a series of comments on a Sports Illustrated website story on news that the FCC will consider a request to fine broadcasters who use the name Redskins over the air.

Hard for me to argue that the FCC wouldn’t be overstepping its bounds if it were to go to that extreme, but then I’m a liberal, supposedly, though I, one, like football, and two, have a life.

Liking football and having a life, though, I also have discomfort over the use of the name. Not enough yet to disavow a team that I’ve followed as a fan for more than 30 years, but still. I don’t think you have to be a raging liberal to concede that the name is racist, and if you do, I feel for those who aren’t raging liberals, and their kids.

How about the Kansas City Chiefs and their war song and hacking motion on the arms.  Maybe we should ban that.

This isn’t much of a defense, honestly. OK, so the Chiefs name is offensive; why isn’t there any outcry there? And the Cleveland Indians and Atlanta Braves. Florida State Seminoles is another one. What sets Redskins apart?

I’ll bite. Yeah, they’re all racist, so ban all of them. How does that sound?

Now let’s make the Giants change their name, as it might be offensive to Little People, and the Saints because it certainly offends Atheists, and the Browns because African Americans might be offended, and of course the Bills, because we don’t want to offend collection agencies.

Moral equivalency to a racist name and other names that aren’t racist. Hey, if you think about it, every name is offensive, so leave the poor ol’ Redskins alone.

Polls keep showing that the public, football players and Native Americans do not care but that doesn’t stop politicians and the media wrapping themselves in a useless cause.

Polls keep showing … whatever the NFL says they show. The 90 percent of Native Americans don’t think the Redskins name is offensive line that we hear the Keepers of the Shield spout with regularity comes from a 10-year-old poll that was discredited when it was released.

More recent surveys show a supermajority of Native Americans think the name is offensive. Greater proportions of non-Natives disagree; what the hell it matters what the players think is for whoever thinks that is important to consider.

Not sure that politicians, you know, the liberals pushing their socialist agenda down the throats of unsuspecting patriots, have to gain. Native Americans make up more than 2 percent of the voting population in just eight of the 50 states, and just one of those, Alaska, has a competitive Senate race in the 2014 midterms.

For what it’s worth, of course the media is wrapping itself in this useless cause, but not as Tea Party patriots suspect because they’re pushing their own liberal agenda. Media types crave eyeballs, and this story continues to draw eyeballs.

I vote all white people start boycotting and protesting Keebler and Nabisco for their use of the “C” word.  I find the term “crackers” very offensive and should be changed immediately. Who’s with me?

I give up. Starting today, all references to the Washington NFL team in this space will omit the racist name.

I’m not going to be lumped in as being one of these blithering idiots.

– Column by Chris Graham