I caught the end of "Outside The Lines" this afternoon on ESPN, and the topic of discussion for the day was the nickname of an NFL team that plays its games in Washington, D.C. The Washington Redskins won the NFC East this past season, and were led by one of the most dynamic young stars in the league, Robert Griffin III. Was the discussion about how the team might improve this offseason and whether or not they could make a deeper run in the 2013-2014 season? No. The topic of the conversation was the origin of the "Redskins" name, and whether or not such a name was acceptable for a professional sports franchise.
Professional sports nicknames are in many cases the equivalent of religion for some people. While there are some generic nicknames that are shared by many franchises and/or universities (Tigers, Giants, Bears), there are some nicknames that are very unique, and unquestionably identify one franchise. The Packers. The Lakers. The Maple Leafs. Any casual sports fan instantly knows the sport and the city being talked about when those nicknames are mentioned. Green Bay, Los Angeles, and Toronto cling to their unique nicknames and dearly love their teams. The Redskins are another franchise that holds a place in the class of unique and distinctive nicknames. Why the Redskins' name is unique just depends on how you view the situation.
Despite what many people might think (myself included), sports is not a way of life. Sports always has been, and always will be, entertainment. It is closer to reality than the movie business or the music business, but it is still more entertainment than reality. Even though many people might invest more time and money into following sports, the fact is, if the NFL ceased to exist, the world would still go on (as tough as that might be for me to swallow). It is because of this, that we have to realize there is a line between entertainment and reality that will never be blurred. Sports only exists as a close facsimile of reality because we, as consumers, demand for it to be that way.
If no one wanted to buy tickets to NFL games or watch them on TV, football would disappear. However, if no one wanted to vote in elections or watch CNN, we would still have a government. This is why I cannot stand when people over analyze each and every iota of the sports world as if it were the most important part of American culture. Could the term "redskin" be interpreted in a racist way? Sure. But, when it's 3rd & 10 in the fourth quarter of a tie game, are fans at FedEx Field thinking about that? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
This topic only seems to come up when games are not being played, and there is a reason for that. In the midst of Washington's run to the postseason in 2012, no one ever thought to mention whether or not the nickname of the team was in any way offensive or inappropriate, and there is a reason for that. The name simply ISN'T offensive or inappropriate in the eyes of about 99% of people out there. Does the city of Washington, D.C. have a history of challenging the nickname of its NFL team? No. It has a history of hailing players like Sonny Jurgensen and Art Monk and Robert Griffin III. The city and its fans aren't doing that to spite Native Americans who might be offended by the nickname of the team, and if anyone thinks differently, then they have no clue what they are talking about.
The city of Washington, D.C. loves its Redskins for what they do on the field. I have yet to find anyone who claims to be a Redskins fan simply because they despise Native Americans, and cheer for the team because of a "racist" nickname. Are the 2013 Redskins a team with a lot of young talent that is ready to take the next step toward Super Bowl contention? Or are they a franchise making money off of racism with a black quarterback and white coach who will never be able to co-exist because of the color of their skin and the deep-seeded racism that has been embedded within their franchise for decades?
Come on, people. Is that really a question? Stop being offended at the drop of a hat, and realize that the Redskins are a team on the rise, and they are not a franchise in need of a serious look in the mirror.
Daily Rangers Update: A shootout loss last night in Ottawa was not exactly fun to watch. Right now, the Rangers are sitting on the brink of playoff elimination, and the season has not gone nearly as well as I had anticipated. There is still plenty of time left, but I have been greatly disappointed by the play of the team thus far.
Daily Nets Update: Back-to-back wins against the Bucks got the second half of the year off to a great start, and the Nets are only one game out of the second spot in the Eastern Conference. The Rockets come to Brooklyn tonight in an interesting matchup featuring two very good teams that don't see each other very often. The Heat seem to clearly be the best team in the East, but by the end of the season, the Nets might have a chance to be the second best team in the conference.
Daily Giants Update: The combine is underway, and that means the draft is not far behind. There is still a whole lot to be done between now and the beginning of Training Camp, but Jerry Reese has earned my respect and loyalty, so I expect the right moves to be made. In Jerry We Trust.
Daily Diamondbacks Update: Spring training games? Yes! They are just about to begin. Tyler Skaggs will take the mound tomorrow, and the battle for the final spots in our rotation will begin right away. I am super excited about the start of the baseball season (for many reasons), so there will be plenty of baseball posts in the weeks to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment