Quote:
Originally Posted by NC_Skins
Why is that historical? Because of his religion? That's the problem with us today. We put to much emphasis on "first black president" or "first asian _____" or "first latin ____". Really, who gives a shit whether or president is black or our NFL owner is Jewish. I could give a rats ass what color our owner is or what false god he worships. What I do care about is how our team is represented, by him, both on and off the field. Period.
Good article.
I don't think it's so much he cares about the name as much as he's pointing out Dan's hypocrisy in crying over a "racist image" when he himself has images and names that other have deemed "racist." He's right.
Well played. 9.9/10
|
It's historically significant because such things are milestones. These are things that couldn't happen under the rules just 40 -50 years ago. So anytime something happens that wasn't allowed under previous law, it is historically significant. I'm certainly not saying it should be dwelled upon as much as it is in some cases, but is is unavoidable to a degree, e.g. Obama will always carry the distinction & burden. Due to our history, Americans may put too much emphasis on such milestones, but it's also a sign of social progress that many are proud of.
In Snyder's case, its largely gone unoticed, but now for many fans his only public association w/his religion is a negative one, as he is playing the anti-semite card.