I listened to an item on the BBC Today programme this morning (around6.45am) concerning the fact that Obama himself has weighed in on the all important matter… of the naming of the Washington Redskins. It seems that the Great one has been able to take time out from less weighty matters such as the collapse of his “signature” Obamacare programme to suggest that the use of the term “Redskin” causes offence and perhaps the owner of the club should do something about it. Native Americans are unhappy it seems and every good liberal shares their pain. The BBC reporter was entirely on the side of those seeking to see Washington scalped off the Redskin name but conceded at the very end of the item that the Billionaire owner of the Redskins has utterly rejected the idea. He added that it still might come eventually. Totally one sided piece.
COWBOYS AND INDIANS…
Bookmark the permalink.
I find the word ‘cowboy’ offensive: mostly they were grown men and most of the beef that formed the droves were steers.
I find the word ‘Braves’ offensive; surely some were cowardly murderers?
I find the word dolphin offensive when relating to human sports payers: the marvelous intelligent sentient marine mammal should not be insulted by having an american football team named after it: what about the Miami Sea Pigs? Or the Miami Wombs?
And I think Winnie the Pooh should change his name as being offensive to crap.
and to the memory of a great Prime Minister
i think the BBC should change its name, its offensive to Britons
‘Today’ right on the ball (arf!) as usual: this little number was resurrected Stateside more than a month ago, but I’m guessing The Hive need to broadcast something ‘positive’ about their man-crush since they’ve finally had to start admitting that Obamacare is not, in fact, functioning very smartly. #tinyviolin.
Good point, Buggy. The BBC is rather late to the game on this one (no pun intended). It’s hardly a slow news day, so it make this desperate distraction even more obvious.
I actually favor changing the name. “Redskin” is really outmoded and not a respectful or even neutral term. I do not, however, think there’s a problem with team names like Chicago Blackhawks or Florida Seminoles. Chiefs and Braves are a grey area, can’t decide.
But hell, the Connecticut women’s pro basketball team is named after the casino owned by the tribe which owns them, and nobody complains about that, so what do I know?
Not really that late:
Sep 2013:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24027457
Jan 2002:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1753321.stm
Its that Obama has joined the debate that seems to be the ‘hook’ here, in a long running story.
The top article includes lists of other teams which have changed their names, and a list of newspapers which don’t use it. You’ll know more about the politics of these papers, but are they all hand wringing liberals?!
For what its worth, I think changing the name would be political correctness gone mad! Mad I tell you.
I did read a piece somewhere – perhaps jokingly – that removing the word Washingrton was more desirable, given the political reputation of the capital.
Another example of how people are being coerced into feeling ashamed of their own identity and differences.
From what I’ve seen from the TV coverage here, it seems that most people really don’t care one way or the other what the Washington Redskins are called and a poll amongst Indians found that less than 10% had been whipped up to make a noise about it. The minority of 90% didn’t give a 4X about it.
Apparently in the US they must be referred to as ‘Native Americans’, but of course that leaves aside Kennewick Man and the abundance of evidence that shows early migration from Northern Europe across the ice bridge during the last ice age.
Here in Canada we have to call them ‘First Nations’ and they are a benefit industry unto themselves, consuming nearly $13 billion in federal aid each year. And that’s on top of all the lucrative mining, logging and pipeline revenues they accrue. Where does all the money go you ask. Well it’s certainly a question the BBC would never pose
Since when were the opinions of the actual minority group of any value? The white Progressive elite care on their behalf, which is all that matters.
And the mixed race progressive elite. AKA Obama.
Did you see Rahm Emanuel’s brother, Ezekiel loose it completely on Fox News the other night when they ‘cruelly’ exposed the massive flaws in the Affordable Care Act. His conclusions are that it’s all Fox News fault that the programme is underfunded!!
I have seen a couple of segments with Emanuel major, yes. Another technocrat who believes he has the divine right to rule us. If you listen to the few coherent sentences he manages to get out, it’s clear that he believes in the ultimate Progressive dream, and these are just minor bumps in the road (not enough hundreds of millions of dollars were thrown at it!) to paradise. He’s mostly pissed off because he really wants socialist nationalized health care (the true purpose behind ObamaCare), just like the BBC does, and feels this is too long a road towards that.
I’m surprised he hasn’t been defending the plan on Today or similar. I rarely get a chance to catch BBC World Propaganda America, so don’t know if he’s been given a free platform there yet.