Millionaire and Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder is a very, very lucky man. And for all the wrong reasons.
Amidst all of the controversy surrounding the 2014-2015 NFL season, which featured prominent players such as Adrian Peterson and Ray Rice receiving suspensions, Snyder has had issues of his own.
Snyder’s Washington Redskins have been under close scrutiny lately, which has to do in part with Native American groups finding the name of the team, the Redskins, offensive and racist.
First off, let me say that these groups have every right to be offended.
The history and meaning of the term “redskin” has been greatly exaggerated, especially by Snyder and the NFL.
The term itself is regarded as a racist and derogatory term towards those of Native American heritage, which should rival the meaning of the n-word, and most other racist phrases, if not all.
However, to this date, Snyder still vehemently insists that the term “redskin” is used in the highest regard, and with, in Snyder’s terms, honor and respect.
But, before we go any further, here’s some history behind the name.
Way back in 1933, before being the Redskins, Washington used to be known as the Boston Braves.
However, the baseball team in Boston at that time was also known as the Braves.
In order to avoid confusion, then owner George Preston Marshall changed the name to Redskins supposedly to honor the coach of the Braves at that time, William Henry Dietz, who claimed to be part Sioux.
The name has since stuck for more than 80 years, but not without embroilment, with some of the most notable protests beginning in 1988 after Washington’s victory in Super Bowl XXII.
While there have been protests of the name since, it wasn’t until 2013 when the arguments were revived, this time gaining major traction.
In April 2014, the Navajo Nation Council voted on the topic of opposing the name “redskins,” and the council voted 9-2 to dispute the name.
Even more so, there have been statements from government officials, including President Barack Obama himself, supporting a name change.
However, these arguments haven’t gone without a response.
On Aug. 6, Snyder interviewed with ESPN show “Outside The Lines,” and stated that his team’s nickname meant only honor and respect.
Also, when Snyder was asked what the word “redskin” meant, the owner responded by saying, “A Redskin is a football player. A Redskin is our fans. The Washington Redskins fan base represents honor, represents respect, represents pride.”
We can trust Snyder’s definition, because a middle-aged white male knows what racism is, and what it isn’t.
Although this issue caught the attention of many higher powers, even the president couldn’t prevent it from taking a back seat to the Peterson and Rice cases.
What could be the reason for this? One could be that Washington’s team name has no bearing on the team’s play on the field. The cases of Peterson and Rice do, which makes fans and the NFL care more.
We live in a sporting world where white NFL owners can get away with blatant racism, deny it’s glaring meaning and still receive approval from the public opinion.
Further more, these owners take this racism and call it “honor,” while disregarding those who identify themselves as Native Americans.
If the NFL had any honor itself, it would do away with the name “redskin.”
But, until it does away with the “redskin” name, it can add the title “racist,” instead of “honorable,” on top of the many other issues it has.
