Home Commentary Columns Politically Correct and Print Media Riding Side-Saddle on Redskins Name

Politically Correct and Print Media Riding Side-Saddle on Redskins Name


In an attempt to get the Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder to change the name of Redskins, the politically correct (PC) have called in the Calvary; charging with a guilt riddled flag to pressure Snyder.

The US Patent and Trademark Office determined the use of the name Redskins as “disparaging” to Native Americans in its ruling to deny the NFL team’s right, of legal federal protection on the name Washington Redskins.

Snyder should prevail on the appeal of what many already have viewed as beyond good intentions run amok, for the misuse of a federal government agency to re-write history.

We do not need to know how the first use of the term “red skin” came to be in order to refute what I would call a ridiculous claim, of offensive, by those hell bent on advancing more political correctness.

Frankly, I am insulted at the attempt by those behind this latest ploy suggesting the name redskins is derogatory when the claim does not even warrant myth status.

The first printed use of the term red skin goes back to the year 1800. However, imagine if you will Christopher Columbus seeing a native of this land for the very first time. In order to describe to his fellow Whites what he saw for the first time, Columbus would most likely describe what he saw by pointing out the most prominent feature; color, of what otherwise was also another human being. The same goes for the original natives in describing the White man treading on their great land.

Furthermore, it is known that the State of Oklahoma got its name from an Indian tribe whose name translated means, “Red people.” Therefore, if Indians were first to call themselves red people, commonsense says that they did it way before the White man stole…I mean step on this land.

However, I have no shame in juxtaposing the same PC argument of “offensive” in an attempt to focus attention on African oppression.

America can help bring much needed attention to the oppression in Africa if we in America stop using the term, “African American” to describe Blacks here as a protest and awareness campaign.

I am a Black man who happens to also be homosexual. I am offended by people who refer to me as “African American.” In my subjective view, the reference is condescending for the mere fact that on sight one could tell that I come from Africa. Furthermore, the term lacks understanding of what is going on in Africa today.

How many people know that most of Africa has laws against homosexuality? In February of 2013 Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni signed a harsh “Anti-gay” law where a homosexual can be sentenced to life in prison as a repeat offender. His reason, “There is no scientific proof yet that people are homosexuals by genetics.”

The U.S. government said “Ugandans involved in human rights abuses against gay people would be banned from entering the US.” However, the United Nation General Assembly just elected Sam Kutesa the foreign minister of Uganda as president of its 69th session. He alone with their president are outspoken in support of laws that condemn homosexuals.

In Nigeria two homosexuals were beaten to death simply for being homosexual at the same time another group in Nigeria Boko Haram, translated, “Western education is sinful” kidnapped close to 300 girls in one incident, twenty women in a subsequent incident and burned to death 59 boys in another incident.

While a growing number of American print media sit on a high horse and declare that they will no longer print the name Redskins in their paper, in Africa you will find a press boldly condemning homosexuals by publishing what it called the “200 top” homosexuals.

No self-respecting Black homosexual would want to be called African American knowing these atrocities are coming from an otherwise beautiful land. And no self-respecting Native American should be so willing to jump on an issue authored by the politically correct.

And if America is so easily hoodwinked into believing something that is not true, I doubt they would be willing to take the advice of Albert Einstein: “The only thing you need to know is how to get to a library.”

I am more willing to stand by a man like Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder, who I view otherwise as an arrogant NFL team owner than I would take a stand with a PC America, that in the words of Judge Judy, is so confused it does not know if its “on foot or horseback.”