One more pale defense of “Redskins”

The obtuse Dennis Prager lends his voice to the coil over whether we should continue to refer to the Washington Redskins by that stupid, classless name. You will be stunned and surprised to see where he lands on the controversy. As you’ll surmise if you’re inclined to click through, and you should be less inclined to, by maybe 179 degrees or more, Dennis has perfected the subtle art of Acting A Moron.

“The word redskin has a relatively innocent history. As Smithsonian linguist Ives Goddard has shown, European settlers in the 18th century seem to have adopted the term from Native Americans, who used ‘red skin’ to describe themselves, and it was generally a descriptor, not an insult.”

So, then, what’s so bad about the name Redskins?

Imagine you started a football organization in the South during the Sixties. College, professional, whatever. Imagine you admired the courage black people demonstrated during the protests for civil rights. Would you then call your football team “The Negroes”? As in: The Fighting Negroes of Selma. Would that be alright?

Both the American Redskin and the Southern Negro routinely got his, or her, ass kicked by violent white folks. It’s hardly civilized for those same repressive people to turn around then and name an all-white sports team after the victims’ ethnicity. It’s tantamount to a gang of whites getting their drunk on, beating down a certain local neighborhood, then calling their softball team “The Ringleted Jews.” Just because someone puts up a good fight is no reason to appropriate their identity. What else were they gonna do — beg you to beat and kill them? And what an ugly name at that.