WASHINGTON (CBSDC) – As Jay Gruden steadily assembles his Redskins coaching staff, the focus seems to have reverted, if only temporary, back to the team’s controversial name.
Although the issue seemed to have died down, almost in direct correlation with the team’s 2013 season taking a nosedive, the conversation gained a sudden spark on Thursday, after corner DeAngelo Hall became the first current member of the team to take a public stand against the name.
Without delay, the Oneida Indian Nation issued a press release praising Hall for his comments.
“With his comments today, DeAngelo Hall has become the first current Washington player to state the obvious,” said Oneida representative Ray Halbritter. “Which is that the team should change its name and mascot to something other than a dictionary-defined racial slur that denigrates Native Americans.”
As a point of transparency, this, in essence, is exactly how the conversation picked up steam in 2012 – with each individual action typically prompting a separate story to be written, strictly due to the amount of time that passed between each occurrence.
A player would be requested to give comment.
The player’s response, either for or against the name, would then elicit a response from an Oneida Indian Nation representative.
People on both sides of the debate got angry.
People on both sides of the debate got angrier.
Media responds again.
And strictly in the interest of keeping with the facts, Hall’s comments were actually made on Wednesday, not “today” (Thursday), as Halbritter inaccurately stated.
Hall’s comments were a topic of conversation Thursday on 106.7 The Fan’s LaVar and Dukes.
“As a media member, I would say if there is a population of people that matter – that matter. They matter, right? – if they are offended and it is racially offensive, you have to address the issue,” he said. “You’re no different than anybody else, you’re no different than St. John’s, you’re no different than some of these other teams that have had to change their names. You’re no different. If there are people that are offended, you must address the issue. That’s my firm stance on it.
“I don’t think there’s any way around it. You’re in the business of being a supplier of a product, and if that product is offensive, I certainly would be offended if there were a racial slur that represented me in particular, and someone was benefiting and making money off of it, which people do.
“People do. But it’s in different ways. Some ways that racism is used to benefit, could be considered blatant, but this is certainly one of those examples of blatant. It should be considered to be blatant racism.”