Sunday, June 22, 2014

Rachel Maddow, As Do Many Others, Showcases Her Hypocrisy On the Redskins "Racial Slur" Issue

Right before last football season, Maddow wouldn't say the word "Redskins". On her TV show in April of this year, not only does she use "Redskins" 16 times, but also mentions the NAACP. Why is she using an acronym that includes the words "colored people"?

by Larry Simons
June 22, 2014

Let me just point out right off the bat that the entire issue of the Washington Redskins' nickname being "offensive" is one of the biggest fake controversies of my lifetime. Some Native American groups, as well as a plethora of celebrities and sports figures, "claim" to be offended. I can almost guarantee none of these people are really offended.

Why do I say this? Because every single one of these celebrities and sports figures has used the word "redskins" at some point in their lives. Am I saying that if a word is said at some point in time, it can never later on evolve into a racial slur? Not at all. The word "nigger" was not always a derogatory term, for it was used in such works as Joseph Conrad's The Nigger of Narcissus and Mark Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn without racist connotation. But over the years it became used in the pejorative sense and today it is a racial slur.

This is not the case with the term "redskins". Never have I heard this term used in a derogatory fashion. In fact, I have only heard it used in praise of Native Americans. The team song for example, "Hail to the Redskins!", is hardly pejorative. In addition, if a word is offensive, it is usually considered offensive by the vast majority of, if not all people. We now say "the N-word" in society because that word is so overwhelmingly offensive to all, the word is not even uttered unless the person is actually a racist.

I have not heard or heard of the word "redskins" ever being used in a derogatory fashion. Not once in my life have I heard someone walk down the street and say, "Hey, you stupid redskin, get out of here!" Unlike the "N-word", "redskins" never evolved into a derogatory term, and if it did, I totally missed it.

Many team names at Native American schools still use the nickname "redskins". In Anadarko, Oklahoma [where the Native American population is 41%], the local movie theater is called the Redskin Theater. In fact, the state name of Oklahoma in the Choctaw language means "Red People" ['okla' meaning 'people', and 'humma' meaning 'red']. Where are the calls to change the name of Oklahoma?

Redskin Theater in Anadarko, Oklahoma

In reality, the name "redskins" does not even have North American origins. From a 2009 article:
"The original name was a European one used to describe Algonquins who painted their face with bright red ocher and bloodroot, thereby making their face red with war paint. Only later on was it implied that the name was derived from a Native American's exposure to the sun or from the scalps of Indians that were paid to cowboys as bounties. Unfortunately, for some reason, perhaps because of our own ignorance, the name is believed to come from the human scalps of Native Americans. However, the original meaning comes from Europe and was used by the Europeans when they arrived in North America, hundreds of years before any reference to any other meaning was used. This is supported by Reader's Digest in its book "Americas Fascinating Indian Heritage" where it is quoted as stating the name Redskin was..
"'inspired not by their natural complexion but by their fondness for vermilion makeup, concocted from fat mixed with berry juice and minerals that provided the desired color. The men would streak their faces and bodies with bright red ocher and bloodroot.'"
Enter hypocrite Rachel Maddow, host of her own MSNBC show, who is one of the many progressives in the fake redskin name change controversy who claims the word "redskins" offends them. It doesn't. How do I know this? Easy. Her own words.

Last August, right before the start of the NFL football season, Maddow covered a story on how congressional delegate Eni Faleomavaega was now using the "R-word" to describe the Redskins and how others were following suit. In the segment, Maddow herself used the term "R-word" completely independently from her coverage of others using it.

Here is that clip:

This phony boycott didn't last long. This past April, Maddow flip-flopped and went back to using the "racist" term no less than 16 times during her April 28, 2014 telecast. Here is a segment of the transcript: [and audio]
"At the time the Redskins moved to Washington, that made them the southernmost team in the National Football League. Even though Washington, D.C., is not all that far South, the owner of the team made a strategic decision to try to market the Redskins as the team of the South, as the team of the old Confederacy. The band used to play "Dixie" before Redskins games.
And the Redskins owner, George Preston Marshall, he really did refuse to hire any black players for his team, 15 years after the rest of the league integrated. And he wasn`t embarrassed about it, he was proud about it. He said his team would, quote, "start signing Negroes when the Harlem Globetrotters start signing whites."
Question: If Maddow was so strong in her belief that the term "redskins" was racist on August 9, 2013, why did she then continue using the "racist" term on April 28, 2014? Answer: Because it's a fake controversy, and Maddow is not offended at all. She, like most of her ilk, pretend to be upset so they have a "cause" to defend and to give the appearance she cares about a controversy that progressives usually get involved in.

As if this wasn't hypocritical enough, during the exact same April 28, 2014 telecast, she makes a reference to the NAACP. Yes, that NAACP, which stands for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Yes, that's right. The same woman who claims to be upset over the word "redskins" because she feels it's a racial slur, has no problem whatsoever using the acronym for the words "colored people".

The hypocrisy doesn't end with the acronym usage folks. Maddow won an award at a 2012 Detroit NAACP Annual Freedom Fund Dinner. So, according to Maddow, it is A-OK to support an organization with the words "colored people" in its name, but using the word "redskins" is offensive.

Here are two videos of Maddow at that dinner

Maddow at the NAACP dinner, with the words "colored people" all over the wall behind
her. No objections from Maddow.

Amazingly, the term "colored people" is not even considered derogatory to the directors of the NAACP. There has been no movement or attempt to rename the NAACP to a more politically correct term.

In my opinion, "colored" is more offensive than "redskins", because who's to say which person is colored? To a white person, non-whites are considered "colored", but to non-whites, whites would be considered "colored", correct? Why would I have the right to call someone not like me "colored"? That implies the person whose skin color is different is abnormal. Where am I wrong? Was it not the term "colored" that was on bathroom doors and water fountains during the days of segregation in the 1960's? Why isn't that offensive for that reason alone?

Whether the NAACP changes their name is their issue and their business. Personally, I have no problem with what any organization wants to use as their name. Keep in mind, I'm not the one who gets involved in fake controversies. My point is, why isn't Maddow offended by this? Maybe it's because progressives usually only get involved when an issue has turned into a "controversy" and gains attention, then they hop aboard, acting like they "care".

But why does it have to be controversial and garner nationwide attention for a word or phrase to be deemed racist? If a term is racist, would it matter how much attention it is receiving? Would it matter how many are offended?

In my opinion, the team name "Redskins" is an honor to Native Americans. The team song says "Hail to" them. Most Native Americans support the usage of their images and references in sports names and mascots. What they generally get offended at is the usage of caricatures like The Cleveland Indians' Chief Wahoo logo and the Atlanta Braves' tomahawk. Most support the Redskins image because it is not a caricature.

If I were Dan Snyder [owner of the Redskins], I would agree to change the team name right after the Federal Government changes the name of the President's anthem "Hail to the Chief" [since that could conjure up images of Native Americans and could be offensive] to a more politically correct title that actually describes the President, like "Hail to the Corporate-Controlled Fascist Totalitarian".

1 comment:

Unknown said...

This dumb shit.Your logic is extremely flawed...esp. in regards to the NAACP. Do some research before you just get keyboard diarrhea, why don't you?