...the NFL franchise that represents the nation's capital has maintained its name. But think for a moment about the term “Redskins,” and how it truly differs from all the others. Ask yourself what the equivalent would be, if directed toward African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, or members of any other ethnic group.
Costas made his editorial plea on television during an NFL halftime game.
But is Costas “thinking for a moment”? Would he have brought up the issue if others hadn’t thought about it before him and have made it the fashionable politically correct trend of the year? Costas is jumping onto the moral bandwagon because he sees that it’s going places and he doesn’t want to be left behind with the racists.
So let’s take his advise and think. Let’s ask ourselves if the name were directed towards African-Americans, Hispanics and Asians. Well, isn’t it? Look at a job application, are you “Black, Brown, Yellow or White” that is to say, is your skin any of these colors?
In reality black people are not really black at all, Hispanics are somewhat brown and whites are not as white as Bob Costas hair before he dyes it brown. Asians are not yellow. And you know what, Native Americans are not red.
But the name is demeaning says Costas:
There is no reason to believe that owner Daniel Snyder, or any official or player from his team, harbors animus toward Native Americans or wishes to disrespect them. This is undoubtedly also true of the vast majority of those who don't think twice about the longstanding moniker. And in fact, as best can be determined, even a majority of Native Americans say they are not offended.
So what’s the problem? Offense isn’t meant or taken. Shouldn’t that end it all? No says White-Hair Costas:
“Redskins” can't possibly honor a heritage, or noble character trait, nor can it possibly be considered a neutral term.
It would be insult to think that the color of someone’s skin is a signature of heritage or character, hadn’t Dr. King established that in his Dream speech?
...It’s an insult, a slur, no matter how benign the present-day intent. It is fair to say that for a long time now, and certainly in 2013, no offense has been intended. But, if you take a step back, isn't it clear to see how offense “might” legitimately be taken
Why? Let’s establish that if we call a person “white” or “black” it has nothing to do with character or heritage. If it did then we would cross the line into prejudice. Okay. Shouldn’t that apply to Native-Amercans as well?
To Costas, it doesn’t. If Native-Americans are “red” it’s an insult unlike if any other person is “white” or “black”. Are Native-Americans made of lesser stuff? Is their skin also thin the way it isn’t red? What’s Whte-Hair trying to say in all his moralism? Is there something particular about a person if they're red that we should all be aware of only to ignore it out of politeness?
So when he posses the question “might” the name legitimately be taken as offensive, he’s telling us that skin color is a character trait for good or ill but only with Native-Americans. In this Costas then shows us his true colors. Hey Bob, how about if you think for moment.