Tuesday, October 21, 2014

"Who's 'we,' white man?"

Image credit:  Mother Jones Magazine

So Matthew McConaughey, alleged hearthrob and celebrity flake extraordinaire, doesn't want the Washington R[acists] NFL team to have to change its name.
It’s not going to hurt me. It’s just….I love the emblem. I dig it. It gives me a little fire and some oomph. But now that it’s in the court of public opinion, it’s going to change. I wish it wouldn’t, but it will.
"Fire," huh?  And "oomph?"  What, exactly, is that, Matt?  Hey, I can call you Matt, right?  Even though I've never once seen you use it yourself, it's all good, right, because lots of guys named Matthew have let people call them that since, oh, at least the last 2,000 or so years, probably, and besides, I'm doing it to honor you.  Really.

Gah.

It gets better. And by "better," I mean ridiculous, natch:
Man, it’s twofold. What interests me is how quickly it got pushed into the social consciousness. We were all fine with it since the 1930s, and all of a sudden we go, “No, gotta change it”? It seems like when the first levee breaks, everybody gets on board. I know a lot of Native Americans don’t have a problem with it, but they’re not going to say, “No, we really want the name.” That’s not how they’re going to use their pulpit. It’s like my feeling about gun control: “I get it. You have the right to have guns. But look, let’s forget that right. Let’s forget the pleasure you get safely on your range, because it’s in the wrong hands in other places [emphasis added].
"WE were all fine with it?" Who's "WE," white man? 

Yeah, no. You're reading from a seriously wrong script, dude.

1 comment:

  1. Ugh. Of course, because something's been around since the 1930s means it shouldn't be changed, right? Guess we should go back to only being in the kitchen, and who needs civil rights and LGBT equality anyway, right? *sigh*

    ReplyDelete