It never ends: Thought police say Apache, Chinook helicopters just as bad as NFL’s Redskins

apache-boeing

You can not be surprised when sharks come after dropping chum in the water and you can not be surprised when the world’s perpetually-offended pundit class screeches louder after each time society acquiesces to its demands. Now that they know the federal government will use its limited time, money, and resources to go after NFL football teams (yes, that’s right, a sports organization), professional whiners see an opportunity to get rid of another great “injustice” — the Apache helicopter and every other military vehicle with a Native American name.

Simon Waxman writes in his Washington Post op-ed:

Even if the NFL and Redskins brass come to their senses and rename the team, a greater symbolic injustice would continue to afflict Indians — an injustice perpetuated not by a football club but by our federal government. …

In the United States today, the names Apache, Comanche, Chinook, Lakota, Cheyenne and Kiowa apply not only to Indian tribes but also to military helicopters. …

Why do we name our battles and weapons after people we have vanquished? For the same reason the Washington team is the Redskins and my hometown Red Sox go to Cleveland to play the Indians and to Atlanta to play the Braves: because the myth of the worthy native adversary is more palatable than the reality — the conquered tribes of this land were not rivals but victims, cheated and impossibly outgunned. …

If the native tribes did not stand a chance, this does not imply lack of resistance or of courage; regardless, it doesn’t much matter in this context. Whatever courage they had, the U.S. military is not heir to it. If honor matters to the members of our armed forces, they will agree.

It’s hard to know where to begin with such a convoluted mess. Were the Hopi and Pueblo Indians “victims” who were “cheated” and possibly “out-gunned” by the Apache and the Comanche? Were the Sioux the “victims” of the Cheyenne? What about the Indian tribes that fell victim to the Aztecs and the Incas? Say what you want about those European “cheaters,” but they didn’t offer their victims up for human sacrifice and eat them with a chimichurri sauce like the Aztecs. Or was it a molé sauce because they were in Mexico?

Why was it perfectly okay for the Indians to slaughter each other and take away land by force, but when Europeans came along and did the same thing it was somehow deemed “cheating”? Instead of looking at history as it really is — bloody — Mr. Waxman pretends that all Native Americans did was gather nuts and berries and live happily ever after until those evil Europeans came along and wrecked the good thing they had going. That story is so much more comforting than the tale of the temple priest who passes out from exhaustion after stabbing his human victims for hours on end, so Waxman goes with what makes him feel good at night.

What truly makes the piece classic is Mr. Waxman’s emotional appeal — if honor matters to the members of our armed forces they’ll agree with him. Obviously they don’t, so we must conclude that Mr. Waxman does not believe members of our armed forces have any honor. What can be more hilarious than a Noam Chomsky-loving academic telling soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that they don’t have honor? Not much.

TWT Apache
My piece for The Washington Times.

With that said, we must pause to note what he’s doing because it speaks to a telling difference between a conservative and a liberal. A conservative thinks Mr. Waxman is just incredibly naive while the liberal thinks that if you disagree with him you have no honor. You are a bad person. You are History’s giver of great symbolic injustices and must be personally and professionally destroyed.

I covered this in my post “How to deal with liberal trolls who hate our military and use gay slurs as personal attacks,” but I’ll say it again: the far left does not like U.S. military personnel. Whenever I say that critics complain, “You’re generalizing!”, to which I say, “That’s because it’s generally true.”

Whether it’s the liberal troll who calls himself “Doug’s Dick Vacuum” (whatever the heck that means) while sharing articles titled “Thanks, I won’t support the troops,” or guys like Mr. Waxman, the truth is self-evident — generally, leftists do not like our military men and women but they were forced to put on a charade after the whole “let’s spit on veterans” thing blew up in their faces after Vietnam. Mr. Waxman can’t spit on veterans these days without getting his teeth knocked out, but he can write Washington Post op-eds that charge the vast majority of the military with having no honor.

As the Redskins name controversy takes twists and turns in the months and years ahead, just remember that it will not end with the Washington Redskins. For the thought police, there is an infinite amount of ideas to control.

Drudge hit for my piece for The Washington Times.
Drudge hits are always nice. Here’s my piece for The Washington Times.

 

 

Bob Costas takes all sides of Redskins controversy to hear himself talk, ultimately says nothing

Bob Costas Redskins controversy

What can be worse than watching the Dallas Cowboys win? Watching Bob Costas ramble during half-time of a football game, only to realize upon his concluding remarks that he has essentially said nothing. While it’s nice to see that Mr. Costas has graduated from haranguing viewers about gun control during a football game to actually covering a topic related to the sport, he still has a problem with talking in circles.

Bob Costas put his serious face on during halftime of the Redskin/Cowboys match-up on Sunday, took a deep breath, hoped no one noticed the bad dye job his hairstylist gave him, and said the following:

There is no reason to believe that owner Daniel Snider or any official or player from his team harbors animus towards Native Americans or wishes to disrespect them. This is undoubtedly also true of the vast majority of those that don’t think twice about the long-standing moniker.  And, in fact, as best can be determined, even a majority of Native Americans say they are not offended.

But, having stipulated that, there’s still a distinction to be made. Objections to names like Braves, Chiefs, Warriors and the like strike many of us as political correctness run amok.  These names honor, rather than demean. They’re pretty much the same as Vikings, Patriots or even Cowboys. And names like Blackhawks, Seminoles and Chippewas — while potentially more problematic — can still be okay, provided the symbols are appropriately respectful, which is where the Cleveland Indians (with the combination of their name and Chief Wahoo logo) have sometimes run into trouble.

A number of teams, mostly in the college ranks, have changed their names in response to objections. The Stanford Cardinal and the Dartmouth Big Green were each once the Indians. The Saint Johns ‘Redmen’ have become the Red Storm. And the Miami of Ohio ‘Redskins’ — that’s right, redskins — are now the Red Hawks. Still, 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 towards African Americans, Hispanics, Asians or members of any other ethnic group. When considered that way, Redskins can’t possibly honor a heritage or a noble character trait. Nor can it possibly be considered a neutral term. It’s an insult, a slur, no matter how benign the present day intend. It’s fair to say 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?

For more on this topic, including Daniel Snyder’s take, you can go to nbcsport.com/nickname.

Does Bob Costas realize that history is filled with terms that were once insults that have been re-appropriated by the targets of disdain? “Yankees” comes to mind, although I suppose in certain parts of the country ‘Yankee’ is still a slur… Black people have done the same, most notably by turning ‘nigger’ into ‘nigga.’ Turn on MTV or BET and see how many times the word is used over the course of 24 hours. If you still count on your fingers and toes you’ll need to borrow a few relatives to keep track.

These sorts of things cause many headaches among politically correct guys like Mr. Costas, but the point remains: words are like vases that are always filled with the meaning we give them. Over time, the meaning of words change (e.g., ‘literally’ no long means literally, which is actually rather sad), and some words disappear all together. If the majority of Native Americans don’t have an issue with the Redskins name, and fans of the team are singing “Hail to the Redskins,” then why should the owner do away with it over the howls of (overwhelmingly) politically correct white people?

Regardless, Dan Snyder weighed in on the issue in a letter he wrote to the fans. Here’s an excerpt:

Our past isn’t just where we came from — it’s who we are.

As some of you may know, our began team 81 years ago — in 1932 — with the name “Boston Braves.” The following year, the franchise name was changed to the “Boston Redskins.” On our inaugural team, four players and our Head Coach were Native Americans. The name was never a label. It was, and continues to be, a badge of honor.

In 1971, or legendary head coach, the late George Allen, consulted with the Red Cloud Athletic Fund, located on the Pine Ridge Indians Reservation in South Dakota and designed our emblems on the Redskins helmets. Several years later, Coach Allen was honored by the Red Cloud Athletic Fund. On the wall of our Ashburn, Virginia, offices is the plaque given to Coach Allen — a source of pride for all of us. “Washington Redskins” is more than a name we have called ourselves for over eight decades. It is a symbol of everything we stand for: strength, courage pride and respect — the same values we know guide Native Americans and which are embedded throughout their rich history as the original Americans.

Consider the facts concerning the “Washington Redskins” name:

The highly respected Annenberg Public Policy Center polled nearly 1,000 self-identified Native Americans from across the continental U.S. and found that 90% of Native Americans did not find the team name “Washington Redskins” to be offensive.

In April 2013, Associated Press survey, 70% of respondents stated the Washington Redskins should not change their name, while only 11% said the team name should change.

Read the entire letter. It’s worth it. And, unlike Bob Costas, Dan Snyder takes a firm position that can be held up to scrutiny. Particularly interesting is the response by a retired Chief of Virginia’s Patowomeck Tribe, who says:

“Frankly, the members of my tribe — the vast majority — don’t find it offensive. I’ve been a Redskins fan for years. And to be honest with you, I would be offended if they did change [the name, Redskins … This is] an attempt by somebody … to completely remove the Indian identity from anything and pretty soon … you have a wipe out in society of any reference to Indian people… You can’t rewrite history — yes, there were some awful bad things to our people over time, but naming the Washington football team the Redskins, we don’t consider to be one of those bad things,” (Robert Green).

The Redskins name controversy will continue to go on, and there is no easy answer. I have mixed feelings on the subject. However, hearing this commentary makes me more confident than ever that it’s a matter that should be settled between Redskins ownership and the fans — free from the halftime temper tantrums of men like Costas.

RG3 isn’t a ‘cornball brother’ — but Rob Parker is a cornhole loser

When sane people look at Redskins quarterback RG3 on the field their mind turns to his athletic prowess. When ESPN analysts (of all people) look at RG3, they analyze how authentically black (whatever that means) he is. Sad.
When most Americans look at Redskins quarterback RG3 on the field their minds turn to his athletic prowess. When liberal ESPN analysts look at RG3 they analyze how authentically black (whatever that means) he is. Sad. (Image: AP)

When I look at RG3 I see an American. I see a very talented American. And that’s how every other sane American sees him. Unfortunately, we have liberal writers and analysts with megaphones who are race-obsessed losers who can’t seem grasp the fact that men like Robert Griffin III might want to be defined as an individual instead of a color.

On [ESPN’s] First Take show this morning, [Rob] Parker said, “my question, which is just a straight honest question, is [Griffin] a brother, or is he a cornball brother?”

Parker, a columnist at a handful of outlets over the years, has a history of stirring the pot when it comes to race issues in sports. He teeters back and forth between evaluating how “black” Griffin is – “kind of black,” “not really down with the cause” or “not one of us,” but it’s the evidence that prompted his hand wringing that’s so disturbing. “We all know he has a white fiancé. There was all this talk about he’s a Republican, which, there’s no information [about that] at all. I’m just trying to dig deeper as to why he has an issue.”

For Parker, having a white fiancé and potentially being a Republican is “an issue.”

RG3 doesn’t have “an issue” — Rob Parker does. He has the same problem that Al Sharpton and Chris Matthews have, in that they when they think about race they get that same creepy look in their eyes that you’d expect to see from balding overweight slouches who go to strip clubs alone because they have serious emotional problems.

I was talking to a Hispanic friend of mine today who brought the story to my attention and said: “When I was a kid I wanted to be the best student in the class. I wanted to be the best athlete on the team. I didn’t want to be the best Hispanic. I never thought like that!” My reply: “That’s because you’re normal.”

I told my friend that it was hilarious that conservatives have to hear about racist “dog whistles” from men like Rob Parker, when the fact is liberals say outright racist things in front of everyone and nobody blinks. Can you imagine if Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin were talking about a white athlete and said: “He’s not one of us”?  What if they called a black athlete a “cornball brother”? There would be hell to pay. It would make it into 2016 presidential ads. MSNBC heads would melt down on air and reporters would ask RG3 if Rush should be fired. The president would be asked to weigh in, and Bob Costas would make a special announcement about race-relations in the United States on “Sunday Night Football.”

The funny thing about ESPN is that its management always talks about how it doesn’t want to wade into politics, but it seems as though the definition of what is and isn’t permissible on air all depends on what side of the ideological fence you sit. Until conservatives get online and start calling out the media for its double-standards on the latest and most popular social media platforms, jerks like Rob Parker will, more often than not, get away with such nonsense.

What is “the cause,” Rob Parker? The last time I checked, it was supposed to be about creating a world where people are judged by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin. Apparently not. In Rob Parker’s world, having a wife of a different race still raises eyebrows. But yet we’re supposed to believe conservatives are the ones who are looking to recreate the worst aspects of our past? Excuse me while I laugh.

The other night I was talking to my wife and I told her that sometimes I can’t help myself when I’m in a debate and a liberal who knows nothing about my personal life goes to the “you hate women and minorities” schtick. I tell them them that “my wife is going to be really surprised when she finds out.” This led to a discussion about whether or not it was appropriate to use her race as a hidden intellectual switchblade of sorts. My conclusion: Yes. Sparingly.

If lowlifes like Rob Parker out there are going to use RG3’s white fiancee as a litmus test for whether or not someone is “down with the cause,” and if his ideological allies want to accuse conservatives like me of being racist (a charge that is almost impossible to defend against), then I reserve the right to expose their stupidity and bigotry by smacking them over the head with my mixed-race marriage.

Up until this point in his career, RG3 seems to have carried himself with dignity and poise. I firmly believe that he will respond to this current mess with the utmost class, even though Rob Parker is beneath him. Regardless, I will say what RG3 is probably thinking: Rob Parker, we are all dumber for having listened to you. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.