As the mouthpiece for those who yearn for the good old days when minorities knew their place, it isn't surprising that "political correctness" is an ongoing subject of derision on Fox & Friends which sees "PC" as an infringement on free speech rather than a way to show sensitivity to race and gender issues. The curvy couch cretins actually agreed that things were so much better when people laughed at racial slurs. During the same segment, Brian "all terrorists are Muslims" Kilmeade lamented that women no longer appreciate being called "sweet broads." So it isn't surprising that Kilmeade, in keeping with Fox friend Tucker Carlson who says that the Redskins controversy is silly "PC," doesn't understand what the big deal is. In discussing this issue, on yesterday's Fox & Friends, Kilmeade, once again, demonstrated his cluelessness!
The show opened with Elisabeth Hasselbeck's report on the recent decision, by the US Trademark Office, to cancel the Washington Redskins' trademark because it is disparaging to Native-Americans. They were joined by former Washington Redskins team member and "good friend to the show," Joe Theismann. Kilmeade flippantly asked: "Is it time for Dan Snyder to give in and just become the Washington Reds?"
Theismann responded that the decision is up to the team's owner. He spoke of how, when he played, he represented the "fans, the city, the organization, and the Native-Americans of this country" and, as such, wore the uniform with pride. He noted that the trademark case will be tied up in court. After some discussion about the trademark, Theismann claimed that he has spoken to "at least 15 or 20 Native Americans" who came up to him during the New Mexico Bowl and said "please don't change the name." Kilmeade interjected "exactly." Theismann added that when he won the Super Bowl, he received a chief's headdress. In continuing his defense of the derogatory name, he asserted that "it's been around for 80 years and that's another element that you have to take into consideration." He informed us that he will "always be a Washington Redskin." Nobody mentioned that a group of Native-Americans have been objecting to the team's name since 1970
Kilmeade said that the original team's owner thought the name "meant bravery and valor and your beliefs." He asked, "doesn't that play a role in this?" Theismann, again, referenced how the players wear the uniform with pride and that "when you hear the name Redskin, the thing you think about is the football team." (Uh, not to Native-Americans!) According to Theismann, when he's with past and present team members, "the conversation doesn't come up."
Over at the idiot cam, Kilmeade quipped "exactly, the Indians, the Seminoles, all these names are going to be up for debate. Next thing you know, we're going to be, we'll just be named to a color." Hasselbeck clarified (?) his incoherency: "Just the team." Kilmeade's pearls of wisdom continued: "What about the NY Giants, that could be insulting to tall people. Should we change that?" Hasselbeck giggled. A laughing Theismann: "I'm not going where the Giants go,Brian...I've had my relationships with the Giants, I guess you could say it's been broken." Hasselbeck followed up with "I've had relationships with both Giants and Redskins." (That, of course, is a reference to the teams her husband played for; but it sounded like something else if ya know what I'm saying...)
Disgusting as it may seem, I really hope that Kilmeade was joking when he talked about the names that will be "up for debate," because if he's serious, it means that he thinks that "Redskins" is in the same category as Seminole and Indian which are not ethnic slurs. Nobody could be that stupid, could they?
Hey Brian - I double dog dare ya to go into a Native American bar and call somebody a "redskin." Even with Theismann as your wingman, it might not end well....
Found a wikipedia article that seems to be pretty even-handed.
The word “redskin” was NEVER used in any historic setting in anything other than a disparaging context (or, at the very best, it was used in a patronizing fashion, much like “darkie” when talking about Blacks). There was NEVER any “affectionate” use of the term—it was meant to be a slur.
It’s easy to understand how conservatives can ignore ethnic slurs (since they use them all the time and so few are members of the ethnic communities being slurred) but the simple fact is that “redskin” was NEVER
Why do right-wingers act as if numbers matter when the numbers validate their POV but then ignore numbers when they don’t validate that POV? Oh. That’s right. Right-wing SOP.