Hail to the Racial Slur

Joe Gibbs abruptly resigned today, ending his second stint with Washington's football team on significantly less successful terms than the first. In posting the story on SportsFilter and the Drudge Retort, I made the conscious decision to avoid referring to the team's racist mascot name.

Original lyrics to Washington's team song:

Hail to the Redskins
Hail Vic-tor-y
Braves on the Warpath
Fight for old Dixie

Scalp 'em, swamp 'em -- We will take 'em big score
Read 'em, weep 'em, touchdown -- we want heap more
Fight on, Fight on -- 'Till you have won
Sons of Wash-ing-ton. Rah!, Rah!, Rah!

It feels awkward to refer to them simply as "Washington," but it's not that uncommon outside the U.S. where sport franchises aren't so focused on mascots. In the other football, for instance, you'll find pro teams known by their city and the designation F.C. (for Football Club), which is attractive for its plainness. I recently bought a share of AFC Wimbledon, a publicly traded soccer team that began play when its original team moved to another town.

Wandering back to my main point, I'm joining the minority of sports fans who won't play along any more with Washington's use of a contemptible racial slur. I grew up in Dallas as a Cowboys fan, so I'm sure that will be pegged as my motivation, but I'd feel the same way if the ball was on the other foot. Why does the media, so primed for racial slight that an offensive Don Imus rant got his entire show canned, continue to ignore the enthusiastic commercial use of a slur as a trademark in the nation's capitol?

Sports · Politics · 2008/01/08 · 8 COMMENTS · Link

Comments

Hey, it makes Chief Wahoo laugh.

#1 · Tom Clancy · 2008/01/08

So the Washington Nappy Headed Hos, then?

#2 · Uncle Mikey · 2008/01/09

The Greeks noticed that government repeated itself in three endless cycles: anarchy, tyranny and democracy. They thought that turn of events to be inevitable and due to the inherent failings of humanity.

When democracy controlled the state, cupidity would force the government to redistribute more and more funds. Then, when the funds ran out, anarchy gained control and the mob settled all debts; while they starved. Tyranny would then establish order and dictate the economy, using force.

I think one of the subtle indications of a transitional period between democracy and anarchy is the institution and use of "Political Correctness".

As fundamental "democracy" becomes more and more influential, efforts are made to dictate social behavior by governmental "rules and laws" rather than the moral discipline of church and family; e.g., in this case, defining certain words and phrases as "hate speech" and, or "racial slurs".

Democracy dilutes faith, and just as it dilutes intelligence, knowledge, experience and initiative, and while reinforcing sloth, envy, anger, avarice, sadness, gluttony, and lust. To combat the obvious need for a disciplined society, and in the face of increasing control exerted by "democracy", Political Correctness takes the field ... a preview of the tyranny to come, but an exercise of, and an example of the democratic mob "rule".

How ridiculous to ban and exile mere words to correct social discipline, when faith and belief have been so easily aBANdoned/diluted in, or by adopting progressive democracy?

The democratic and politically correct mob won't have guns; because they will have made sure they can't own them, out of their fear and loathing; they will be decimated by the neo-Tyranny to come. Their demands for political correctness and governmental control of speech will end their freedom and liberty.

But, that's what progressive prigs do ... undermine freedom and liberty with their petty prudishness ... and guarantee that even with the longest lasting democracy in the history of mankind, it will inevitably lead to tyranny ... and which, by the way, is the "revolution" which Jefferson talked about - If our form of constitutional democracy is that which the "tyrant" enforces on the mob ...

#3 · tadowe · 2008/01/10

Only you could turn a personal choice to stop using a racial slur into a descent to tyranny.

#4 · Rogers Cadenhead · 2008/01/10

Rogers gets hyperbolic, "Only you could turn a personal choice to stop using a racial slur into a descent to tyranny."

And, only a trained journalist would think to dumb-down the mob, further. Your effort is to encourage others to adopt your "personal stance", in democratic agreement to limit our speech; even our thought(s). My effort is to notice that such practices to control the tools used to think, plan and manipulate our reality is limiting and counter productive, and also historically recorded as a failure (over-and-over).

I suppose, if your efforts were original, that I would be a bit more understanding of the angst, which seemingly forces you into this self-limiting position, but it isn't. It is a repeat of the effort to banish all such uses of words you, among the others of the mob, deem "hateful", and which is a practice promoted by those who would otherwise be considered "liberals", an oxymoron when considering word bans.

Where to stop? After all, the word "Red" has such hateful connotations, doesn't it? Might as well ban that adjective, along with all the other combinations and modifiers ..., then you can start on all the other "hateful" colors, and also all other words that annoy your concerted and collective sensibilities.

We can only think using words ... might as well make it as easy as possible on the old brain cells and ban 90% of adjectives ... and do it NOW! Too much thinking going on in the American public, and despite all the efforts to ban, restrict and deny a plethora of words and terms.

Help the mob dumb-down and forget you've ever heard the word "Redskin" ... that's the ticket!

#5 · tadowe · 2008/01/10

The premise that the term "Redskins" represents some form of valuable speech that must be preserved is absurd. It's a racial slur adopted for commercial use by a sports franchise, created at a time when Native Americans were routinely disparaged for public amusement.

Redface caricatures like Chief Wahoo of the Cleveland Indians and the mascot Redskins ought to be as unwelcome today as blackface entertainment.

#6 · Rogers Cadenhead · 2008/01/10

"The premise that the term "Redskins" represents some form of valuable speech that must be preserved is absurd. It's a racial slur adopted for commercial use by a sports franchise, created at a time when Native Americans were routinely disparaged for public amusement."

It isn't about "speech", and since it is about the words we use to think. Limit vocabulary, limit intelligence. It is all just that simple.

You want to dictate, or limit "speech", and not the words we may have in our vocabulary(s). However, I wonder that people actually grow up in the United States of America ... and still want to restrict speech!?! I never could quite get my mind around that particular brand of un-Americanism; bipartisanly demonstrated in whatever party.

"Redface caricatures like Chief Wahoo of the Cleveland Indians and the mascot Redskins ought to be as unwelcome today as blackface entertainment."

Same motive here, and in no way different than wanting to ban other iconic speech, for example flag burning. Indeed, as you mentioned, calling the Dallas football team the "Cowboys" is a racial slur and, or demeaning to workers in the cattle industry. And, how about that other Washington team: the Senators? Downright dehumanizing to call sports personalities Senators, or the other way around for those who love Congress.

However, militating to boycott Dallas and Washington, or however you plan to restrict their use of words and symbols may end the use of those terms by those teams, but it also has the effect of denying speech, in general, and sets the precedent (slippery slope) to deny other speech, in future. Big Brotherism on the slide to a regressive style of "1984" ...

#7 · tadowe · 2008/01/11

"Then, when the funds ran out, anarchy gained control "

Funds don't "run out"; they either get concentrated to the top few, or are exported by some (Coroporations?) to other countries. Kinda what is going on now with this Neo-Conservative ethic we have. So you may be right anyway, we are heading toward anarchy.

#8 · Rick M. · 2008/02/04