Skip to content
Link copied to clipboard

What's in a name?

More than you'd thought. So why not do the kind thing, and change it?

IT'S NOT AGAINST the law to be unimaginative or uncaring. So I won't join others in calling for the head of Daniel Snyder, billionaire owner of the Washington Redskins, for refusing to change the team's name to something racially inoffensive.

If the man hasn't the capacity to imagine or care that the Redskins name might be hurtful to Native Americans, well, so be it. Besides, he's a rich Jew and that's just what those people do, right? Use their fast hands to take what they want, with no thought for who gets knocked down in the grab?

But what do I know? I'm a genetically ridiculous mongrel mix - part dumb Polack and vodka-swilling Slav, part drunken mick and, from a few generations back, a smidgen of penny-pinching Hymie. You'd think that last bit would've made me savvy about money, but my retirement account is a laugh.

Thanks for nothing, great-great-grandpa Kushner.

Obviously, I'm using shocking language and despicable stereotypes to make the point that one man's R-word is another's H-word. Just in case there's someone out there who still doesn't recognize the hypocrisy of caring about ethnic slurs only when they apply to you personally.

For leaders of the Oneida Indian Nation, enough is enough. They've gone public in a big way with the announcement that it hurts them to hear the word "Redskins" just as much as it hurts other ethnic groups to hear derogatory nicknames about themselves.

Hence the Oneida Nation's "Change the Mascot" ad campaign, which aims to enlighten Snyder and those who cheered when he told USA Today, "We'll never change the name. It's that simple. NEVER - you can use caps."

In ads that are airing on Philly's 94WIP this weekend to coincide with Sunday's Eagles-Redskins game, a narrator ticks off the names of the growing list of heavy hitters who disagree with Snyder. Like legendary coach Marv Levy, former Raiders president Amy Trask, sportscaster Bob Costas and NBA Commissioner David Stern.

President Obama, too, has weighed in, saying that, if he owned the Redskins, he'd think about a name change.

"I don't know whether our attachment to a particular name should override the real, legitimate concerns that people have about these things," Obama told the Associated Press in October.

This week, Oneida representative Ray Halbritter claimed that Obama, during a meeting of Indian tribes at the White House to discuss other matters, said he actually supported a name change. Since the meeting was closed to reporters, we'll have to take Halbritter's word for it.

In a perfect world, Snyder wouldn't need a high-profile finger-shake from the leader of the free world to hear the pain he has unwittingly caused. He'd just do a head-smack and change the Redskins' name. Not out of fear of appearing politically incorrect but out of enlightenment he never knew he needed until it was pointed out to him.

He would do it to be kind. He would do it to show the world that wealth and power shouldn't trump decency. He would do it to set an example to his kids. He would do it to assure Redskins fans that their beloved team is big and strong enough to bend with grace and kick NFL butt at the same time.

After all, it's not like Snyder is immune to the pain of feeling mischaracterized. Two years ago, he sued the Washington City Paper for using "lies, half-truths, innuendo and anti-Semitic imagery to smear, malign, defame and slander" him in a profile written by the paper's sports columnist.

The "anti-Semitic" image? The City Paper had scribbled a goatee and horns on a stock photo of Snyder.

"The image of Snyder doesn't look like an 'anti-Semitic caricature,' " wrote the paper's managing editor in a post on the paper's website. "It looks like the devil."

For this and other transgressions, Snyder's suit - which he later dropped - sought at least $1 million plus punitive damages.

That's a world of hurt - the kind that the Oneida's Halbritter described eloquently in an op-ed in U.S. News and World Report.

"If you are not the target of a racial slur, it is easy to wonder why that slur is a problem," he wrote. "In fact, because you, your children and your community don't have to deal with the consequences of the slur, it is easy to claim that those who don't want to be targeted are just interested in 'political correctness.' It is also easy to believe that a call to end the use of a derogatory epithet is somehow an unacceptable affront to you, rather than what it really is: a heartfelt request to stop the destructive hate that causes so much pain."

Halbritter shared his anguish in an op-ed. Snyder shared his in a lawsuit. For some, the latter might prompt nasty slurs about the litigious tendencies of certain ethnic groups.

Those slurs are hateful and despicable. They all are. No matter which tribe you hail from.

Phone: 215-854-2217

On Twitter: @RonniePhilly

Blog: ph.ly/RonnieBlog