Chopping is Racist
The World Series is back and this season the Houston Astros will take on the Atlanta Braves, but more importantly, the woke scolds are taking on America’s pastime in an ongoing effort to ruin everything. Yesterday, the former sports magazine, Sports Illustrated, produced a video explaining to everyone why the “Chop”, performed by Braves fans—is racist.
The same magazine that publishes swimsuit issues with dudes dressed like girls and women battling Type 2 diabetes in it,
now wants to lecture you about how racist it is to make a chopping motion with your hands.
To the absolute surprise of nobody, leading the charge in this fight against racism is a rich and privileged white woman.
Senior Writer Stephanie Apstien knows all about what is racist. After all, Stephanie was introduced to racism at an early age when she attended the prestigious Dana Hall School. An all-girl boarding school whose tuition currently stands at $65,850 a year. If that wasn’t bad enough, Stephanie then had the serious misfortune of attending Trinity College, at which point she studied abroad in Paris, followed by completing her Masters at the Columbia School of Journalism. Clearly, her views on racism were formed through a lived experience at the hands of an oppressive country that looks down upon people such as herself. Thankfully, Native Americans and baseball fans everywhere have this white woman standing up and protecting them from the racism that is the “Chop”.
Stephanie Apstein is a part of the new breed of journalists produced by our Marxist collegiate institutions. She is no longer bound to the shackles of truth-seeking and objectivity, both hallmarks of White Supremacy, rather, she manufactures controversy where none exist. She creates divisiveness and sows discord in her own pursuit of moral superiority. She wishes for words like “Chop” and “Braves” to be relegated to the same nether realm as the word “Redskin" and “Indian”.
Similar to the Atlanta Braves, The Washington Redskins were forced to replace their name and logo with The Washington Football Team after a decades-long battle with politicians and media activists who tried to convince everyone that the logo and name were deeply offensive to Native Americans. As then-President Obama opined in 2013:
If I were the owner of the team and I knew that there was a name of my team — even if it had a storied history — that was offending a sizeable group of people, I’d think about changing it
A pew research poll that same year showed that 76 media outlets had publicly stated their opposition to the team name. Nevertheless, other polls continuously showed that the American public and Native Americans weren’t offended by the name. The controversy was merely a product of woke activists inside the media ginning up a problem where none existed. It didn’t matter that fans weren’t offended, it only mattered that a certain subset of white-enlightened Ivey League elites was. Thus, the slow march to change an intuition, a strategy that worked so well in Colleges, began.
Chris Collinsworth tried to soft-pedal support for changing the name not because it was born from racism, but because the word had become racsit.
However, the ACLU was more direct:
“Redskin" is a vile name. It's a name that people who hate American Indians often call them. Every dictionary defines "Redskins" as being offensive, derogatory and a racial epithet. Even with the best intentions, naming a sports team the New York Kikes, the Seattle Slant Eyes, the Atlanta Niggers, or the Washington Redskins will likely offend the very group you want to honor. And they're the ones who should know if the name is an honor or not.
The first claim is that the dictionary defines the term Redskins as racist and offensive. Which begs the question: Has it always been racist and offensive like the word “Nigger” or was it changed to be offensive recently?
the 1952 edition of the Universal Dictionary of the English Language, described “redskin” as a “Native American Indian, a Red Man” (p. 981), but makes no reference to the word being offensive. The American College Dictionary (1956 ed., p. 1016); The Grosset Webster Dictionary (1957 ed., p. 1016); and Webster’s New International Dictionary, Unabridged 2nd Edition (1957 ed., p. 2088) all define “redskin” as a “North American Indian,” again, with no indication that the term was considered offensive. In The American Heritage Dictionary of the American Language (1969 ed., p. 1092), produced more than a decade later, the same definition is given, but with the qualification that the term is “informal” (which may be a recognition that “redskin” was passing out of everyday usage by the end of the 1960’s).
In fact, it was not until the 1983 editions of Webster’s Third International Dictionary and Collegiate Dictionary, 9th Edition that the Miriam Webster Company, the country’s leading publisher of “serious” dictionaries, added the cautionary phrase “usually taken to be offensive,” to its previous definition of “redskin,” which was simply “A North American Indian.” In contrast, the same dictionaries from the 1950’s and 1960’s clearly indicate that the word “nigger” is understood to be offensive and derogatory.
The reality isn’t that the word “Redskin” was offensive. Instead, it was made to be offensive by those looking to gain power through victimhood; a common tactic among left-leaning actors. The truth is that George Preston Marshall, the founder of The Washington Redskins, wanted to market the team as playing “Indian football” because, in the early 20th century, Native Americans were believed to be especially talented at football. As evidenced by early stars such as Jim Thorpe. Marshall believed “Indian football” would make the game more enticing to fans because of its forward passing and trick plays. Therefore, Marshall's vision for his team’s brand would be synonymous with that style of play. There is absolutely no evidence that the brand was born out of any sort of bigotry.
The ACLU’s second claim is that only the group with the proper skin color gets to say if something is offensive. Well, why the hell are people like Stephanie Apstein writing articles telling everyone else what is racist? Why weren’t polls, which consistently said that Native Americans, by and large, don’t care—the standard?
The fact is, not many Americans are coming into this World Series thinking about the “Chop” or if it hurts people's feelings. It‘s only an issue because woke-white idiots like Stephanie Apstien are trying to make it one. For the moment, I imagine, MLB will tell her and cohort to take a hike because the incentive to piss off its fan base just isn’t there. Unfortunately, this will only last until the next racial reckoning where some drug addict passing off counterfeit bills, while high as a kite gets killed by the cops. Then the Braves and the “Chop” will be sacrificed by MLB to appease the mob and we will move one step closer to the utopia where rich white women get to tell everyone else how awful they are.