March 15, 2013

In his March 9 Free For All letter, “Publish more letters to the editor,” Joe Mistrett stated that the Washington football team name “may have some interest to a relatively small percentage of readers, [but] the amount of coverage it has received in the letters section is absurd.” Without apparently realizing it, he pointed to the reason why this particular racial slur is tolerated well into the 21st century.

According to the 2010 Census, people who describe themselves as “American Indian and Alaska Native alone” account for less than 1 percent of the population of the United States. Would using the skin color of any other race be accepted as a team’s name? I believe not, since the population of “White alone” is 72.4 percent, “black or African American alone” is 12.6 percent and “Asian alone” is 4.8 percent. Of course this “issue” of naming a team based on skin color should be of “interest” to all Americans.

As Edmund Burke observed, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” The good people of the United States should not find the “issue” or its coverage “absurd,” and they should do something.

Thomas S. Guisto,

Gaithersburg

I’m starting to believe that Robert McCartney, Courtland Milloy and Mike Wise have concerns about the name Washington Redskins. Either that, or The Post is choosing to publish the same columns over and over again.

Rehashing the same issue with no new or pertinent information is redundant at best and crazy at worst. Performing the same task again and again, expecting different results, is insanity. It’s also getting tiresome to read.

Phil Hicks, Centreville