Penalty: Sideline Infraction and the Left’s Redskins Debate

Caleb Bonham
|
Posted: Sep 06, 2014 12:01 AM
Penalty: Sideline Infraction and the Left’s Redskins Debate

NFL culture has finally pissed the American left off. No, feminist Democrats are not irate about superstars beating their girlfriends into unconsciousness and “equality” activists are not protesting the NFL’s lack of gender-neutral locker rooms.

Their ire is directed at the team name of the Washington franchise, the Redskins, and the left has its jockstrap all bunched up because owner Daniel Snyder is refusing to cower to their fad activism.

See, this whole feigned outrage is not about an offensive team name—it’s about control, it’s about liberal bullies not getting their way, and it is the epitome of fake courage.

Take ESPN commentator Tom Jackson. Upon learning that colleague Tony Dungy might not use the Redskin nickname on the air, Jackson boldly scratched a thin line in the sand and said he “might” follow Dungy’s lead and not use the term either. Apparently, Jackson cares so much for the Native American community that he may, or may not, choose to ‘insult’ them all season.

The Washington Posteditorial board also jumped on the self-congratulatory bandwagon by announcing the ‘slur’ would no longer be used by the publication. The board reminded readers of a concern it voiced back in 1992 when it stated the term was “offensive.” What the members of the editorial board failed to explain is why it took twenty-two years to finally take action on the strength on their conviction.

As Campus Reform reported, the University of Minnesota (U of M), whose TCF Bank Stadium is hosting the Minnesota Vikings for the next two seasons, revels in liberal hypocrisy as it tries to ban the Redskins’ name from being used in the stadium...while accepting $250,000 for hosting the game.

Is the revenue generated from the thousands of loyal Redskins fans flooding your arena worth compromising your deeply held convictions or not, U of M?

Liberals see themselves as crusaders for the weak when words are involved. Yet, when action is required, they scramble to the sidelines.

Professional activists and community organizers think they are fighting for Native Americans when they engage in this sort of trendy activism but they are oblivious to the real issues affecting the communities they claim to support.

Unemployment, crippling poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, and violence have devastated the 566 tribes recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. But Democrats and liberal (often paid) activists care about the name of a football team.

Why? Because elitist liberals think it should be changed and if you disagree then you are a bigot.

The anti-Redskin left are political geniuses but moral cowards. Since 1971, in typical controllist fashion, they have sent letters, protested Super Bowls, enlisted congress, all to force a private enterprise to conform to their demands. Their time would have been better spent finding ways to actually help the Native American community—but that is not as politically advantageous.

Progressives manufacture problems, use government power to shove change down throats, but when it’s time to be an active part of the uncomfortable solution, the left hides in the locker room showers.

So much for true courage.