banner
Joe Ovies

Daniel Snyder doth protest too much

Posted October 10, 2013

Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder wrote a letter addressed to season-ticket holders discussing the ongoing controversy over the organization's name. Of course, the letter was made available to everyone else because it's nothing more than another public relationships salvo against those who insist "Redskins" is offensive and should be changed.

Let's give Snyder some credit. At least the letter was more eloquent than the last time he spoke on the matter, where he proclaimed the name of his team would "NEVER" be changed. Yes, Snyder said to use all caps. And hey, it wasn't in comic sans font. 

But that's all the credit Snyder deserves. The rest of his letter recycles worn out talking points and takes a condescending tone when arguing the name Redskins should be considered a "badge of honor." Snyder also does his best to use the lovely haze of nostalgia to his advantage.

"That tradition -- the song, the cheer -- it mattered so much to me as a child, and I know it matters to every other Redskins fan in the D.C. area and across the nation," Snyder said. "Our past isn’t just where we came from -- it’s who we are."

Sorry, lost consciousness after laughing uncontrollably at Snyder's sappy attempt to sound relatable. 

For the record, I'm agnostic on the Washington Redskins name controversy. Whether Snyder puts a potato on the side of a helmet or leaves everything unchanged, I can't help but shrug my shoulders over the topic. I'm not here to tell you "Redskins" is offensive or argue the nickname is far removed from it's insensitive origins for it to even matter in 2013.

However, I am curious as to why the Washington Redskins are the center of this controversy while other franchises avoid scrutiny. There is no national discourse over the Cleveland Indians and their use of "Chief Wahoo" as a logo. The Atlanta Braves can chop to their heart's content. President Barack Obama isn't asked about the Chicago Blackhawks possibly being offensive, he's asked if the team can win another Stanley Cup.

So why is everyone picking on the Redskins? Why does NFL commissioner Roger Goodell have to meet with tribal leaders over a specific franchise while the Kansas City Chiefs are allowed to go about their business without much fuss? Why have a handful of media outlets proudly announced their refusal use the nickname when referring to the football team based in Washington?

Because none of the other franchises have Daniel Snyder as an owner.

 

7 Comments

This blogpost is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • BISHOP5 Oct 11, 10:28 p.m.

    ^^^^^

    Your last sentence cracked me up.

    I don't find the moniker "Redskins" offensive,... View More

    — Posted by GunnyGoesArrrgh

    According to surveys, most Native Americans don't find it offensive either. At this point, looks like a case of the tail wagging the dog.

  • GunnyGoesArrrgh Oct 11, 9:27 p.m.

    ^^^^^

    Your last sentence cracked me up.

    I don't find the moniker "Redskins" offensive, but I'm not of Native American descent. This country has become too PC IMHO.

  • bornbreddead Oct 11, 4:28 p.m.

    Joe you make good points - sounds a lot like the way the media handles things around here. It's not the events themselves that are the issue, it's the parties involved. Nobody cares about at NCSU running back beating up women or the Duke connection to Fats Thomas, or wolfpackers smoking weed, but PJ gets full out media blitz for a speeding ticket and a gun, something that is in every State fan's resume. Half the news writers probably took bong hits while writing their stories.

  • BISHOP5 Oct 11, 8:41 a.m.

    Upset, Ovies?

    HAIL TO THE REDSKINS!

  • LUKECAGE Oct 11, 8:08 a.m.

    What about the Blackhawks and the Indians; also, Cubs and Marlins are endangered species.

  • YouGotThatRight Oct 11, 12:16 a.m.

    I don't know why the cowboys mascot is not even more offensive than the Redskins. Cowboys had guns and easily picked off and stole all the land from the Indians. He doesn't protest any more than Benjamin Netanyahu, Lindsey Graham, or the Congressional Black Caucus. He's a brash, billionaire Jew. But the logic for this article is there seeing how the Securities Exchange Commission is prosecuting the Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban.

  • dmccall Oct 10, 9:03 p.m.

    When I was little we all held Indians in high regard. With great reverence, we followed the Indian Guides program, working our way up through the ranks based on tribal lore, for example. In my adolescent years, not once did any of my peers think "Redskin" was a derogatory term; quite the opposite.

    With the progressive removal of metaphors like these, children today respond to the vanishing "Indian" and "Native American" culture with..."Who?". Is extinction of a subculture from the American Experience better than living with a name that few choose to be offended by?

  • NFL: Minnesota at Green Bay

    Tomorrow at 8:25 pm on WRAL-TV

  • Football Friday with Tom Suiter

    Friday at 11:35 pm on WRAL-TV

  • ACC: Virginia Tech at UNC

    Saturday at 12:25 pm on WRAL-TV

  • SEC: Alabama at Ole Miss

    Saturday at 3:30 pm on WRAL-TV

  • MLB: San Francisco at Pittsburgh

    Tonight at 8:00 on 620am

  • Football Friday with Tom Suiter

    Friday at 11:35 pm

Scoreboard
Local
7:00pm Tonight
CLB
CAR
 
8:07pm Tonight
PIT
SFG
7:00pm Tonight
CLB
CAR
 
7:00pm Tonight
BUF
WAS
 
7:30pm Tonight
DET
PIT
 
8:30pm Tonight
CHI
MON
 
9:00pm Tonight
EDM
ARI