There’s No Good Argument for Keeping Racist NFL Team Names

There’s No Good Argument for Holding Racist NFL Crew Names

Our product picks are editor-tested, expert-approved. We could earn a fee by way of hyperlinks on our website.

 football player illustration


The next excerpt seems in tv author and producer Michael Schur’s new e book, How To Be Excellent: The Right Reply to Each Ethical Query, out now. The e book is a hilarious and considerate information for find out how to stay a extra moral life.

DANIEL SNYDER BOUGHT the NFL franchise that’s now often known as the Washington Commanders in 1999, they usually have largely stunk, due largely to the truth that Snyder is—and I don’t use this time period calmly—a doofus. However past the on-field failures which have instantly resulted from his doofusness, and persevering with allegations of outrageous office misconduct, the defining problem of his tenure has been the way in which during which he has fought, tooth and nail, towards altering the staff’s plainly racist nickname. In 2013, after yet one more extraordinarily cheap name from Native teams to acknowledge the nickname as offensive, Snyder stated this:

We’ll by no means change the title of the staff. As a lifelong Redskins fan, and [sic] I believe that the Redskins followers perceive the nice custom and what it’s all about and what it means, so we really feel fairly lucky to be simply engaged on subsequent season. We’ll by no means change the title. It’s that easy. NEVER—you should use caps.

A number of elements of this assertion are offensive to me. A few of them contain his horrible grammar and syntax, however the extra necessary ones relate to his apologia, which quantities to: It’s custom! It’s the way in which it’s at all times been executed, so we will’t change it. The period of time one thing has been executed will not be, by itself, a great purpose to maintain doing it. Taking that stance means flipping the center finger to the very concept of progress or discovering methods to be higher individuals. It means we’re actively not making an attempt to be higher, and worse, we’re seeing the not-trying as a advantage. This advantages nobody.



Snyder may change his views, after all; he simply didn’t wanna. Now, if he weren’t highly effective and influential, that wouldn’t actually matter, as a result of he’d simply be a crotchety dork in his lounge barking at his TV. However since he is highly effective and influential, he grew to become a bottleneck for many who discovered the nickname problematic; his stance created anguish for any Washington followers in favor of a reputation change, who then had to determine what they have been presupposed to do concerning the rigidity between their fandom and their perception system.

They love this factor—this staff, this uniform, this franchise—and in lots of circumstances they love what it represents: bonds between dad and mom and children, nice recollections with buddies. And but, for some, the nickname itself additionally clashes with their understanding of a simply and virtuous world, and Snyder is the one man who could make issues higher. When he defiantly introduced he would by no means change—as a result of This Is the Approach It’s At all times Been Achieved—his downside grew to become their downside. I discovered a fantastic rationalization for why individuals take this stance from the author Jordan Okay. Ngubane, writer of An African Explains Apartheid (1963). Right here’s what Ngubane writes concerning the causes an Afrikaner nationalist may perpetuate Apartheid, even within the face of its inherent ethical rot:

He sees it as a lifestyle, a world outlook by which to create for himself the social order after his design. Historical past to him is a frequently unfolding expertise whose actual validity lies not a lot in its being a information to the longer term as in being a justification. When pressed to change it, he’s bewildered. In his view, all that is tantamount to saying he ought to surrender the world he has created for himself.

Saying “this world is problematic” quantities to saying “I, who’ve helped construct this world, am problematic.” For individuals deeply invested in the way in which issues are, any change would imply confronting choices they’ve made that created or sustained the troubling actuality.

However what does such a stance imply for the remainder of us? We don’t should be Washington soccer followers to know the issue right here, as a result of once more, chances are high all of us love one thing that may be simpler to like if it will simply . . . change, just a little. Get with the occasions. Adapt.

 the amount of time something has
 been done is not, by itself, a good 
reason to keep doing it

It is perhaps an older actor whose interviews contain a cringey, retrogressive angle towards his feminine costars, or a college that also has a statue of a slave-owning Accomplice basic in its courtyard, or your aunt Connie, who’s actually candy and sends you a birthday card yearly but in addition has some troubling ideas about Mexicans that she loudly shares with you each Thanksgiving. Once we understand the leopards that trigger our ethical anguish received’t change their spots, we then should make our personal choice: Will we preserve supporting them, or can we lower our emotional and monetary ties?

To reply that, we will apply our colleges of moral thought to Snyder’s actions—to see if he has a leg to face on—and likewise to our personal actions, to see if our help of his staff is morally defensible. (For simplicity’s sake, we’ll use Washington’s soccer staff to face in for all of those “problematic issues we love, which have the power to alter.”)

simon & schuster

Easy methods to Be Excellent: The Right Reply to Each Ethical Query

We start through the use of a contractualist argument—we’ll see if Snyder’s stance is one which we may moderately reject if we have been all arising with guidelines for a brand new society. May we moderately reject a precept that permits racist characterizations of persecuted individuals for use as staff mascots? In fact. In actual fact, if Snyder prompt that rule throughout considered one of our contractualist rule-pitching classes, he’d be roundly laughed at—particularly since his protection quantities to: “I’ve been a fan of this staff since I used to be younger, and now I personal them, so I can do what I would like.”

Immanuel Kant and Deontology received’t be any extra lenient with him. Snyder’s arguing that he may will into existence a world the place as soon as anybody will get sufficient cash or achieves sufficient affect, he can cease contemplating the sentiments or wants of these much less lucky. That’s the world the pigs create in Animal Farm, and I don’t suppose George Orwell wrote Animal Farm as like a “find out how to” information for operating a society.

If we apply Aristotle’s advantage ethics: we’re basically asking how compassionate we must be relating to points that trigger individuals anguish or ache. Being excessively compassionate may result in lack of integrity, or spine, or one thing—practically all the things within the tradition is some type of iffy, however on condition that the title of his staff creates such excessive and pointless anguish, and might be modified so simply, I consider Snyder is poor in consideration for others.

 chances are we all love something that would be 
easier to love if it would just    change, a little 
get with the times adapt

Utilitarianism—which goals merely to maximise pleasure and happiness, and decrease ache—is just a little trickier. When Snyder declines to entertain a reputation change, he may have a consequentialist leg to face on. It’s, I suppose, attainable that if he modified the title, the overall ache felt by Washington followers who don’t need it to alter can be better than that felt by Indigenous individuals if he selected to retain it. However are these two pains comparable? Bear in mind, it’s not strictly the quantity of people that really feel ache in every of the 2 completely different outcomes—it’s the complete quantity of ache felt, and the depth of that ache, and its period, amongst different issues. For the utilitarian, it’s higher to have 100 individuals get paper cuts than one individual take a baseball bat to the knee, so there is perhaps considerably extra complete ache if Snyder retains the title the identical.

 washington commanders logo


However what concerning the utilitarian argument relating to us, and our fandom? How a lot “unhealthy” does us persevering with to root for the staff actually create? A few of that depends upon what “supporting the staff” actually means. Will we spend cash on tickets and merchandise? Will we publicly tweet or publish movies, spreading the racist brand on-line? Will we put on a hat or jersey out in public the place others will see it? It’s doubtless that if our fandom is comparatively personal, we’re not creating that a lot consequentialist “hurt.” Both approach, we must also simply do a intestine examine right here, and ask ourselves if we are okay with supporting a staff, in any approach, that has a racist nickname.

And look: we is perhaps.

We would mull over all of our choices and once we contemplate the totality of what issues to us, we could get to some extent the place we can not think about life with out Washington soccer fandom. What the hell can we do then? (Creator’s observe: You’ll should learn the remainder of the e book to search out out.)

 of all the ways we can become better people, 
“dragged kicking and screaming” isn’t ideal, 
but it hammers home the importance
 of simply trying

There’s a postscript to this dialogue, after all: the R*dskins did lastly change their title. In the summertime of 2020, as the whole nation wrestled with police brutality and the Black Lives Matter motion put racial injustice entrance and middle, Snyder lastly determined to hitch the remainder of us right here within the twenty-first century and agreed the nickname was not acceptable. Of all of the methods we will develop into higher individuals, “dragged kicking and screaming” isn’t ideally suited, but it surely hammers residence the significance of merely making an attempt. Snyder shouted, only some years in the past, that he would NEVER change the title of his staff. However a bunch of individuals stored making an attempt. They stored lobbying, and calmly shaming him, and making their case. And little by little, the Overton window shifted. Different groups modified their names. Social justice crept ahead. And at last, the window’s vary included one thing that was as soon as unthinkable.

This story is being printed completely on Males’s Well being by permission of Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Michael Schur is an award-winning tv author and producer who’s finest often known as the creator of The Good Place and co-creator of Rutherford Falls, Brooklyn 99, and Parks and Recreation.

This content material is created and maintained by a 3rd get together, and imported onto this web page to assist customers present their e-mail addresses. You might be able to discover extra details about this and comparable content material at

Learn Extra

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.