Skip to main content

To some, Obama can't do anything right

On Facebook last night, someone I know posted the following status:

"So there is this president from Chicago who has beef with the name 'Washington Redskins' because it is derogatory to Native Americans.....meanwhile, the same president has nothing to say about his hometown NHL hockey team that is titled the 'Blackhawks'....and their logo is a Native American. Kettle...meet pot. Pot-Kettle"

I was reluctant on joining the discussion at first, until this morning, when I read through 15-20 Obama-bashing comments. These ranged from: "You've got more important things to be worried about!" to "He is the most bass ackwards person in this country!"

Then when the poster of the status said the term "Redskins" "could" be seen as derogatory, I finally decided enough was enough and made the following comment:

"I wasn't going to chime in here, but this is getting ridiculous. The guy was asked a question in an interview with the AP about the Washington 'Redskins.' How was he supposed to answer it? 

'Well, I can understand how that name could be taken as derogatory, but allow me to not answer your question by talking about the Chicago Blackhawks instead.'?

His actual quote was: 'If I were the owner of the team and I knew that there was a name of my team–even if it had a storied history–that was offending a sizable group of people, I’d think about changing it.'

That's a very general, politically-safe statement, which is in response to a question pertaining to the 'Redskins,' but doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't feel similarly about other such names which offend certain groups of people.

Like it or not, the Washington 'Redskins' is the big story with regard to controversial team names, so sports-writers are talking about it, politicians are being asked about it, etc. While there are other such Native American-affiliated names, the one causing the big stir at the moment is the Washington 'Redskins,' which is why the president was asked about them in the interview and not any other team. 

Obama spent 10 seconds responding to this question. It's not like he's fighting for a name-change. He simply responded a question in an interview.

Also, there's no 'could' about the name 'Redskins' being derogatory. It is. It's history. It doesn't matter if some people don't think of it as such. Some people don't believe man landed on the moon. That doesn't mean the event didn't occur. 

NPR's Lakshmi Gandhi wrote a recent article, entitled, 'Are You Ready For Some Controversy? The History Of 'Redskin,'' where he said the following:

'Decades later, the word 'redskin' began to take on a negative, increasingly violent connotation. Author L. Frank Baum, best known for his classic The Wizard of Oz, celebrated the death of Sitting Bull and the massacre at Wounded Knee with a pair of editorials calling for the extermination of all remaining Native Americans. In one of the December 1890 pieces, Baum wrote, 'With his fall the nobility of the Redskin is extinguished and what few are left are a pack of whining curs who lick the hand that smites them.''

and

'In 1915, the poet Earl Emmons released Redskin Rimes, a book so offensive I had to double-check to make sure it wasn't a parody of the racism of that era.'

and

'Emmons' book was emblematic of the usage of the word 'redskins' in the late 1800s and early 1900s, as the word went from being an identifying term to a derogatory slur.'

and

'And when the Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian hosted a symposium on Indian mascots in February, museum director Kevin Gover, himself a Native American, said the word was 'equivalent of the N-word.''

President Obama took 10 seconds of his life to provide a relatively general, safe answer in response to a question posed by the Associated Press and receives harsh criticism from some for it? Like I said with the title of this post, to some, Obama just can't do anything right.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/10/07/obama-weighs-in-on-redskins-name-controversy/

http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/09/09/220654611/are-you-ready-for-some-controversy-the-history-of-redskin

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"