Ameritrade (fka AMTD)

[mokew]

Of hypocrisy, NFL, nicknames and Limbaugh

BY SAM DONNELLON
Knight Ridder Newspapers

PHILADELPHIA - (KRT) - Let me see if I have this straight: The same day ESPN accepts Rush Limbaugh's resignation because of bigoted comments about black coaches and quarterbacks, a federal judge overturns a decision that would have denied the Washington Redskins trademark protection because of their racially insensitive nickname.

Let me see if I have this straight: The NFL considers Limbaugh's comments insensitive to minorities, yet all but six NFL teams feature blatant T&A shows on their sideline and many, like the Eagles, sell lingerie or bikini calendars featuring these women with their buttocks fully exposed, with nothing but arms and elbows covering their breasts.

To me the message is as clear as it is hypocritical:

Some minorities you can degrade; some you can't.

If you are bugged that would-be actress Lisa Guerrero is on ABC "Monday Night Football" mostly because of her looks, the message is, tough. Women might compose more than 30 percent of that audience, there might be people who really want something of note reported down there, but, well, tough.

Eye candy rules.

If you are having a tough go explaining the necessity of NFL cheerleaders or their calendars to your CEO-aspiring teenage daughter, well, Eagles CEO Jeffrey Lurie is here to help.

Thursday, amid a news conference in which he blasted ESPN for hiring Limbaugh, Lurie addressed the issue of the NFL's backing alcohol commercials.

"I think drinking moderate amounts of alcohol and showcasing cheerleaders are part of Americana and part of life," he said. "It is when you differentiate between people and create a racial or ethnic hierarchy, that is really doing some damage."

Jeffrey's team will host the Redskins on Sunday. No differentiation there. No racial or ethnic hierarchy, right?

If you are an offended, American Indians, too bad. Braves fans still are going to do their tomahawk chop, the Cleveland Indians still are going to flaunt their mascot and cap, the Chiefs still are going to call themselves the Chiefs. But, lest anyone get confused and condemn them, be assured their mascot is an American Indian chief and not an African one.

And before any of the 10,127 Democratic presidential candidates considers drafting a letter of protest, rest assured the Redskins are a moniker for another group of displaced and persecuted natives. Stephen A. Smith was right in Thursday's Philadelphia Inquirer when he said it's taken us too long to get our antennae up about African-American stereotypes. But why aren't we - blacks and whites - even a bit uneasy in this day of purported enlightenment watching athletes - black and white - running onto the field with feather-headed caricatures painted on their helmets? Why aren't we wincing and wailing at those women jiggling in their Vera Wangs every Sunday? Are there really that many missing links at the Linc to warrant them?

How obvious do things have to be?

Not obvious enough for U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who said the 1999 decision by a panel of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to remove protection of the Redskins' trademark relied on flawed or incomplete data.

She wrote, "There is no evidence in the record that addresses whether the use of the term "redskin(s)" in the context of a football team and related entertainment services would be viewed by a substantial composite of American Indians, in the relevant time frame, as disparaging."

She also said the activists waited too long to make their claims. The Redskins' trademark has been registered for 25 years.

"In 1967, the NFL was still a nascent industry," Kollar-Kotelly wrote. "Had this suit been brought at that point, Pro-Football may have acquiesced and changed the name. The 25-year delay, where Pro-Football has invested so heavily in the marks, has clearly resulted in economic prejudice."

Now here's an important point. Rush Limbaugh is paid to have loopy views. That's what attracted ESPN to him in the first place. But this person has risen to her position as a U.S. district judge, presumably, on merit.

It's hard to believe that the Patent office would even have to supply evidence that "Redskin" was considered disparaging by a substantial composite of American Indians. It should be considered disparaging by all of us.

Equally ludicrous is the premise that they waited too long. By that logic, American Indians would be compelled to return all the land returned to them over the past three decades.

Sorry, gang, you should have filed for it immediately after Wounded Knee.

For the record, and in the interest of fairness, the franchise was renamed in 1933 in honor of William "Lone Star" Dietz, the team's coach, who was Sioux. Previously, the team had been called the Braves. Some honor.

But back in 1933, when African-American was not a part of our lexicon, when women did not work and did not run for office, and the use of "negro" or "colored" was considered appropriate, our sensitivities were as unenlightened as Limbaugh's daily rhetoric.

It's different now, of course. Or is it?

Michael Lindsay, a lawyer for the American Indians who sought to remove the trademark, said his clients would consider an appeal.

"We are disappointed in the ruling, and the struggle continues," he said.

Yes, it does. So get ready for those feather-headed helmets and another day of T&A at the Linc.