Look at it this way, or at least try:
This entire Washington “Redskins” debate could provide the opportunity for a magnificent, magnanimous result — one that would allow even the most inflexible, hardheaded and obdurate the realization that at heart and head, they agree with their opposition!
Not to get kumbaya on ya, but most of us, on both sides of this issue, have been blessed with a generosity of spirit that, if given perfect-storm circumstances, would surface in a flash.
But in order to reach such a happy and even beautiful “It’s A Wonderful Life” ending — and I think I can hypothetically prove, below, that it’s there for the taking — people on both sides have to look at it as a practical social matter, not one of politics or over-officious, meddlesome law.
To put it plainly, and practically, I doubt there are many among the pro-Redskins nickname ranks who would approach a Native American and address him or her as “Redskin.”
Why? Because people know they would run the risk of needlessly, senselessly and cruelly insulting someone. Even the mere chance the Native American would perceive “Redskin” to be a slur would be enough to prevent pro-Washington Redskin advocates from calling an American Indian “Redskin.”
Thus, I submit, and with great confidence, that neither NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell nor Washington franchise owner Daniel Snyder — both publicly strident in sustaining “Redskins” — ever would publicly refer to a specific Indian as a “Redskin” or to a tribe of Indians as “a group of Redskins.”
Why? Again, because they would know that to be wrong, not merely impolitic, but impolite and insulting — and to no good end.
On the flip side — not that anyone’s opinion should be shaped by opinion polls — those polls that show up to 80 percent of American Indians do not find “Redskins” insulting, aren’t asked if they would favor the perpetuation of “Redskin” and “Redskins” as an acceptable, civil name for Native Americans.
In other words, I would suggest more than 80 percent of Indians would consider that being identified as a “Redskin” or addressed as a “Redskin” would find, “Hey, Redskin, your cheeseburger’s ready!” something they would not gladly indulge or even mildly suffer.
Now, here’s the beautiful part:
If, say, three or four pro-Washington Redskins-nickname guys were seated in that same burger joint, and heard the counterman call that Native American customer “Redskin,” all three or four likely would be shocked, angry — they might even tell-off the counter guy for needlessly and gratuitously insulting an American Indian. Might even threaten to punch out his lights.
So there’s evidence and perhaps proof, in hypothetical form, that even pro-NFL Redskins fans can recognize a slur when they hear one! And, as a matter of context, there is no acceptable context. It’s either a bad expression that should go far away, or it’s a good one that should be maintained and sustained.
All the polls, rationalizations and federal trademark legal actions are meaningless and counterproductive — they even serve to steel defiance — when the practical, one-to-one human approach to this issue might have — and still could have — people think both harder and softer.
And I still suggest the best new and improved nickname for Washington’s NFL team would be the Potomacs, a tribute to the tribe that inhabited the DC area long before Errol Flynn was cast as a US Cavalry officer assigned to rid the Plains of, ugh, redskins.
Rout of Brazil doesn’t reach ‘appalling’ level
ESPN’s Ian Darke and Tommy Smyth mostly did well, calling Germany’s unfathomable 7-1 win over Brazil.
At 6-0, Smyth: “I give a lot of credit to the Brazil fans they’re still here! …”
Darke: “Well, I think it’s a sort of morbid fascination.”
Smyth: “I don’t think they’ll be watching the replay when they get home.”
Yet, as Germany increased its lead, both used a disturbing word to describe the score — they kept calling it “appalling.”
“Appalling” seems to serve the life-and-death, riots-in-the-street madness of soccer, and its very worst, ahem, fans.
“Appalling,” applied to the score of a soccer match, doesn’t seem right. “Appalling” seems best saved for criminality or extreme cases of misconduct. Biting an opponent is appalling; losing 7-1 is astonishing.
Among TV’s bad-faith regularities is being told that we see or just saw something that we didn’t see — too often because it never happened.
Monday on SNY, bottom of the ninth of Braves-Mets, 3-3, Mets on first and second, two out. Pitcher Shae Simmons goes into the stretch, twice shakes off the catcher, steps off.
“Almost a balk,” Keith Hernandez said. A replay next appeared. No balk seen, just two shake-offs then a step-off.
Cohen: “Oooo, that is a balk. He flinched.”
Hernandez: “Yeah, saw it.”
They did? Where? When? Show us with the telestrator.
Watched the replay, again, extra hard. There was no flinch. Simmons set at the belt, gave two shake-offs then stepped off.
♦ What if Alfonso Soriano had played hard, hustled, made sure that no matter his batting average, he never would jog to first if there was a chance he would be safe or even make it to second? Think the Yankees would’ve had a tougher time shipping him out? Or is it that such stuff no longer counts?
♦ Reader John Atorino: “I just saw two guys [Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer in the Wimbledon men’s finals] kill themselves for four hours, five grueling sets. The day before, neither woman [Petra Kvitova, a two sets finals winner over Eugenie Bouchard] worked up a sweat in 55 minutes. But each winner got $3 million.”
♦ On one hand (and leg), we have MLB’s new rules designed to prevent wipeout collisions between base runner and catcher at home plate. On the other, MLB’s new TV replay rule further endangers second basemen and shortstops who now have to clearly stay on the bag while taking force-out throws — and spikes-up slides — at second.
♦ What more do we need to know about ESPN than two events it treats with great regard and video reverence — while granting them significant historical stature — are the NBA Slam Dunk contest and the MLB Home Run Derby?