Posted on 10/14/2013 8:51:48 AM PDT by Kaslin
The current politically correct imbroglio over the Washington Redskins and owner Daniel Snyder’s stout refusal to appease the bloodhounds on his trail by surrendering will probably soon pass, regardless of the eventual outcome. The demands of the modern 24-hour news cycle guarantee that this will not last too long. This mini-controversy does, however, serve to illustrate the nature of the manufacturing of public opinion by the standard bearers of cultural liberalism and their allies in the mass media, circa 2013. Simply put, the Left decides that something is “offensive” and uses its media access to declare this object impermissible, or “out of bounds” to use a gridiron term. The media then goes to work and, through relentless pressure, convinces huge numbers of people that the media view is the only legitimate vision, thereby silencing opposition.
Consider the current controversy over the Washington Redskins. The political correctness police have been on this so-called issue for a number of years. Those readers with long memories can return to those thrilling days of yesteryear, namely the early 1990s. The Left raised a ruckus in those years over the Kansas City Chiefs, the Florida State Seminoles and the Atlanta Braves, respectively. Most Americans, with the exception of certain craven university administrators, dismissed this tempest as a classic example of self-conscious political correctness, complete with the requisite dollop of preening moral superiority that characterizes these exercises. The matter then rested, albeit uneasily, for roughly twenty years.
Now interested people can sense an indecisive NFL commissioner who is susceptible to pressure, and might cave on the issue. President Obama got into the act last week and suggested that the Redskins should change their nickname because, “…it offends a sizable group of people.” Since the Left now has the official sanction of their leader this becomes a crusade. The mass media will take up the issue, framing it as a morality play with those who insist on the Redskins changing their nickname cast as the heroes, and the die-hards who cling to tradition characterized as the villains. The media echo chamber will attempt to quell dissenters by hurling invective and abuse in their direction, thereby intimidating most people into silence. The Left will deal with the last holdouts by isolating them and letting them no that they are no longer invited to the party.
This treatment falls short of the totalitarian notion of the Big Lie, being the idea that a falsehood repeated often enough takes on truth in the minds of those who are forced to listen. It is more of a modern variation of the idea popularized by Saul Alinsky, that the best way to discredit one’s enemies is to subject them to constant mockery and ridicule, and to plant the idea in the minds of the larger public that the targeted group is truly beyond the bounds of permissible discourse. This tactic has worked well, when adopted by the Left and the media in the recent past. Since the 1970s we have seen major societal shifts in civic attitudes toward public smoking, the consumption of liquor, eating meat, and wearing fur. Those are largely matters of individual preference but we have seen media directed campaigns considering obscenity standards on television, and most consequentially on gays in the military and, now, gay marriage. The Left and their media allies have been able to draw the lines of argument and permissible dissent in these public brawls and that is why they have triumphed, usually in the face of significant initial opposition.
The Left had grown very sure of their control of mass media until about 1995. Now, however, the Left has lost some of their former ability to slam their opponents with the development of 1990s phenomena like talk radio, the internet and Fox News and more recently through the employment of social media like weblogs, Facebook and Twitter. Conservative websites like this one have broken the liberal “news” monopoly, and provide a resistance point for those unwilling to accept the liberal formulation on most important sociocultural issues. The fact that these new media outlets have become quite important can be measured in the rage that the Left directs at them, especially Fox News. If an opponent is really no more than a mere annoyance one would waste no time with criticizing them, but the liberals unrestrained fury at Fox News shows that they have struck many nerves.
No one yet knows how the Redskins battle will play itself out. Dan Snyder seems resolute in his stand, but his fellow owners could bring a lot of pressure to bear. Roger Goodell, the NFL Commissioner, could conceivably order Snyder to change the team name. The National Football League has proven itself controversy-averse in the past (the league essentially vetoed the prospect of Rush Limbaugh as a part owner of the St. Louis Rams during the last decade) and might well decide to avoid difficulties by “encouraging” Snyder to change the nickname or sell the team. What the casual observer can see here is, once again, the ability of the Left and their media allies to create a crisis where none exists, and to relentlessly push their agenda by any means at their disposal. The world, of course, has greater problems than the nickname of an American football team, but the cultural implications of this type of bullying and censorship are very troubling, indeed.
Hail to the Redskins & the team owners RIGHT to the name!
I demand a law to prohibit the use of “pigskin” in reference to the football because it is highly offensive to feminists.
Redskins ought to have their name changed to the Washington BloodSuckers.
Very well said.
I guess they’re going to change the name of Oklahoma next. Oklahoma is based on Choctaw Indian words which translate as “red people.”
The Indian name issue is a racket. It is a cheap way to make lots of tax free money through donations.
What’s going to happen when someone decides animals should be offended by the use of their names for athletic teams???
It’s time to drop Fox News from the list of conservative sources. IMO continuing to name them only serves the Left’s purposes. Back in the day, Fox was a breath of fresh air, but they really are no longer a conservative outlet. A GOP-e outlet perhaps, but not conservative.
No, it's worse. It's stuck on malicious.
He who hath ears, let him hear. Like NRO/National Review, former conservative rocks are now trophies in the pockets of the Me-Too'ers, and slaves to the Me Too agenda.
“President Obama got into the act last week and suggested that the Redskins should change their nickname because, “…it offends a sizable group of people.”
“President Divisive” on the job again.
The Washington Scalpers?
Thanks.
I read your “about” page. Very good examples of true heroes. Thanks for that too.
Exactly. Liberals redefine our values, our laws, mores, ethic, morality, and religion. Our culture is being destroyed by “language games.”
No one’s fault but our own for putting up with it.
Yet no problem when it comes to the Chicago Blackhawks. All you get is “crickets”.
Obama offends a large group of people...when does he resign?
You are most welcome.
It is prejudicial against Chicagoans who hate hockey, African American, hawks of all varieties, and Native Americans.
They could name them the Chicago Egg Noodles, but somehow that would offend Chicagoans who hate hockey, people who eat eggs, chickens, chicks, poultry producers, noodle producers and consumers, not to mention asians to whom noodles are a large part of their diet.
“Can’t we all just get along?”
Snyder’s open letter to Redskins fans:
October 9, 2013
To Everyone in our Washington Redskins Nation:
As loyal fans, you deserve to know that everyone in the Washington Redskins organization – our players, coaches and staff – are truly privileged to represent this team and everything it stands for. We are relentlessly committed to our fans and to the sustained long-term success of this franchise.
That’s why I want to reach out to you – our fans – about a topic I wish to address directly: the team name, “Washington Redskins.” While our focus is firmly on the playing field, it is important that you hear straight from me on this issue. As the owner of the Redskins and a lifelong fan of the team, here is what I believe … and why I believe it.
Like so many of you, I was born a fan of the Washington Redskins. I still remember my first Redskins game. Most people do. I was only six, but I remember coming through the tunnel into the stands at RFK with my father, and immediately being struck by the enormity of the stadium and the passion of the fans all around me.
I remember how quiet it got when the Redskins had the ball, and then how deafening it was when we scored. The ground beneath me seemed to move and shake, and I reached up to grab my father’s hand. The smile on his face as he sang that song … he’s been gone for 10 years now, but that smile, and his pride, are still with me every day.
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.
Our past isn’t just where we came from—it’s who we are.
As some of you may know, our team began 81 years ago – in 1932 – with the name “Boston Braves.” The following year, the franchise name was changed to the “Boston Redskins.” On that inaugural Redskins team, four players and our Head Coach were Native Americans. The name was never a label. It was, and continues to be, a badge of honor.
In 1971, our legendary coach, the late George Allen, consulted with the Red Cloud Athletic Fund located on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota and designed our emblem on the Redskins helmets. Several years later, Coach Allen was honored by the Red Cloud Athletic Fund. On the wall at our Ashburn, Virginia, offices is the plaque given to Coach Allen – a source of pride for all of us. “Washington Redskins” is more than a name we have called our football team for over eight decades. It is a symbol of everything we stand for: strength, courage, pride, and respect – the same values we know guide Native Americans and which are embedded throughout their rich history as the original Americans.
I’ve listened carefully to the commentary and perspectives on all sides, and I respect the feelings of those who are offended by the team name. But I hope such individuals also try to respect what the name means, not only for all of us in the extended Washington Redskins family, but among Native Americans too.
Consider the following facts concerning the “Washington Redskins” name:
1) The highly respected Annenberg Public Policy Center polled nearly 1,000 self-identified Native Americans from across the continental U.S. and found that 90% of Native Americans did not find the team name “Washington Redskins” to be “offensive.”
2) In an April 2013 Associated Press survey, 79% of the respondents stated the Washington Redskins should not change their name, while only 11% believed the team’s name should change.
Paul Woody, a columnist for the Richmond Times Dispatch, interviewed three leaders of Virginia Native American tribes this May. They were all quoted by Mr. Woody as stating that the team name doesn’t offend them – and their comments strongly supported the name “Washington Redskins.” Also in May, SiriusXM NFL Radio hosted Robert Green, the longtime and recently retired Chief of the Fredericksburg-area Patawomeck Tribe, who said, among other things:
“Frankly, the members of my tribe - the vast majority - don’t find it offensive. I’ve been a Redskins fan for years. And to be honest with you, I would be offended if they did change [the name, Redskins….This is] an attempt by somebody…to completely remove the Indian identity from anything and pretty soon… you have a wipeout in society of any reference to Indian people….You can’t rewrite history – yes there were some awful bad things done to our people over time, but naming the Washington football team the Redskins, we don’t consider to be one of those bad things.”
Our franchise has a great history, tradition and legacy representing our proud alumni and literally tens of millions of loyal fans worldwide. We have participated in some of the greatest games in NFL history, and have won five World Championships. We are proud of our team and the passion of our loyal fans. Our fans sing “Hail to the Redskins” in celebration at every Redskins game. They speak proudly of “Redskins Nation” in honor of a sports team they love.
So when I consider the Washington Redskins name, I think of what it stands for. I think of the Washington Redskins traditions and pride I want to share with my three children, just as my father shared with me – and just as you have shared with your family and friends.
I respect the opinions of those who disagree. I want them to know that I do hear them, and I will continue to listen and learn. But we cannot ignore our 81 year history, or the strong feelings of most of our fans as well as Native Americans throughout the country. After 81 years, the team name “Redskins” continues to hold the memories and meaning of where we came from, who we are, and who we want to be in the years to come.
We are Redskins Nation ... and we owe it to our fans and coaches and players, past and present, to preserve that heritage.
With Respect and Appreciation,
Dan Snyder
PS. Wherever I go, I see Redskins bumper stickers, Redskins decals, Redskins t-shirts, Redskins … everything. I know how much this team means to you, and it means everything to me as well. Always has. I salute your passion and your pride for the Burgundy & Gold.
No. Charles Krauthammer thinks the Washington Redskins should change their name. Actually, he needs to change his name. Lots of Germans could be offended!
(He talked tonight about how words evolve and believes that people should be sensitive to that. That's how I know he's a liberal; he doesn't have much of a sense of humor.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.