Questions of intent

Two national "sports" stories caught my attention this past week. The first was news that 10 members of Congress have urged the Washington Redskins to change their name. The second was a minor Internet and national news-dust up taking offense at Mets broadcaster Ketih Hernandez referring to a broken bat by the common cliche, "dead soldier" - on Memorial Day no less.

In a letter to Redskins owner Daniel Snyder members of the Congressional Native American Caucus stated, "Native Americans thoughout the country consider the 'R-word' a racial, derogetory slur akin to the 'N-word' among African Americans or the 'W-word' among Latino's."

A copy of the letter was sent to the 31 other NFL franchises, NFL Commissioner Roger Godell and Federal Express, the Redskins' primary sponsor.

This issue is not new to us. The issue has come up many times before. The issue has arisen with the Atlanta Braves and Florida Seminoles. Not just with their nicknames but also with their tomahawk chops. It has shown itself in Cleveland with the Indians and Chicago with the Blackhawks and countless other professional and college sports towns that use Native-American logos, nicknames and mascot's.

I was born in Manhasset, NY - one of countless town names on Long Island and elsewhere named after Native American tribes or phrases. Manhasset, by the way, means "the island neighborhood." Manhasset High School's nickname is the Indians. "Nebraska," by the way, is based on an Otos Indian word meaning "flat river."

I have always thought the issue silly before. I like tradition and history and would consider the loss of the Redskins name to be akin to the loss of some part of tradition.

The Redskins to me don't mean anything derogatory to the sports fan. It means Sammy Baugh, Billy Kilmer, Larry Brown and George Allen. I remember the Washington Redskins as the last hurdle of the undefeated 1972 Miami Dolphins. But I'm not Native American. I'm not black and I'm not Hispanic.

I once tried to link the Redskins name controversies with the Boston Pilgrims - The name the Red Sox were supposedly known as when they won the first world series in 1903.

My mother's American heritage goes back to 1620 and my father's to 1649. And more recent immigrant strains have entered the family tree many times since. As a mutt of some sorts with a direct line to Pilgrims, I've never been offended by the nickmane Pilgrims - or any of the other strains that have entered the family bloodstream.

But here's the rub. My heritage has never been discriminated against in my home country. I'm not offended by Pilgrims because no one has ever called me "Pilgrim" with the malice of ignorant racism. John Wayne is the only one I remeber even calling someone "Pilgrim." I'm always annoyed by political correctness. It too often gets in the way of truth.

I'm not sure whether or not native Americans are offended by the term Redskins to the point a black man is offended by the N-word. I, and most of us, don't use the N-word. It offends even most white people to the point where we don't say it or write it. If it's necessary for context, we say "N-word." Nobody I know has any trouble writing or saying "Redskins." Is that wrong? Is it time to change? Are people really deeply hurt by "Redskins?"

If native Americans are truley offended by "Redskins" to the point of the N-word, OK--I accept its abolishment. I'm even for it. It won't erase my childhood memories of Sonny Jurgensen.

But I hope the Congressional Native American Caucus knows who it represents and is honest about those they represent. I hope there is not some other unknown or hidden agenda about all this. I don't know. I don't trust politicians. Politics is a business. Any means are acceptable in their business to reach an end - whatever that end may be.

As for Hernandez. After the Mets' Daniel Murphy broke his bat in the first inning in a game against the Yankees on Memorial Day, Hernandez chirped "That is a dead soldier right there folks laying on that infield dirt. That's what we call getting sawed off."

There was minor Internet banter and national news picked up his statement. He made the remark on a local New York broadcast, but it was mentioned nationally by the MLB Network. Much was made about his timing and even that his comment was "inexcusable."

I've heard the dead soldier, or more often "dead sailor," comment before. I watched many a baseball game with my father. Many a Mets game in fact. My Dad was a veteran of World War II. He was a young naval officer who spent his 26th birthday in the waters off the Phillipines in late October, 1944 at the Battle of Leyte Gulf - the largest naval battle of the war.

I'm sure the dead soldier comment came up from time-to-time as we watched Mets or other baseball games. It's a fairly common cliche. I don't ever remember him ever having had an objection.

But, to be honest, I could see how he might have been rubbed the wrong way by such a comment. And I don't want to say that since I don't ever recall my father objecting, that it's OK by me or would have been by him. I don't know. He's not around to speak for himself anymore.

Perhaps as a non veteran myself I'm injecting my veteran father to add cover to my own opinion--which is, I think we make far too much of nothing. Maybe it's a dopey thing to say any day of the year let alone Memorial Day. But offended?

Nobody could argue, and nobody has to my knowledge, that Hernandez had any ill intent or any disrespect for soldiers who have not made it home. That being the case, it's a non story. Let's stop being constantly offended by inartful statements made without malice - especially by ex jocks.