After the regime issued its latest diktat Wednesday via a three-judge panel at the Patent and Trademark Office, which ruled 2-1 to withdraw trademark protection for the Washington Redskins, Rush Limbaugh was pretty much spot-on when he noted, “This is Barack Obama.”
Actually, this goes beyond Obama (as the Patent and Trademark Office has tried this before). This is liberalism. This is what happens when liberals have power. Take note of those who cheered the decision: “The writing is on the wall,” said a jubilant Harry Reid. He notably added that, “The name will change and justice will be done…”
Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell said, “We're so excited to know that finally people are recognizing that this issue can no longer be a business case for the NFL to use this patent.” What the Democrats should be excited about is that, for however brief a period of time, they don’t have to answer questions about
IRS, an illegal immigrant invasion, and the like.
When it comes to public opinion on this issue, virtually every poll ever taken shows overwhelming support for the Redskins name. Even in the most liberal place in the country,
—which happens to be the home
city for the team—two-thirds
polled say the team’s name should not change. Washington
What’s more, Native Americans in general support the name. Late last year, CBS Sports in D.C. reported on a poll that revealed 90% support for the Redskins name among Native Americans. In addition, dozens of American high schools use “Redskins” as their mascot. Most telling is the fact that, in almost all of these high schools, the majority of the students are Native American.
High School in Oklahoma—where about 58% of the student body
is Native American—has used the Redskins name for over a century. Speaking of Oklahoma, the word
itself is derived from
Choctaw words that translate “red people.”
Yet liberals, as they so often do, insist that this is a shameless act of racism by one of the most prominent sports teams in the
U.S. As is
typical with so many things liberal, the cries of “racism” defy common sense.
What racist (or supposed racist) would want to use a derisive term of a people
they despise as their mascot or symbol for something in which they take great
pride? Eighty years ago can you imagine the KKK organizing a softball team and
using the n-word for their team name?
As the Wall Street Journal smartly pointed out, “If names were meant to convey dislike—of, say, Vikings, Yankees or the Irish—then Redskins owner Dan Snyder would have converted to the Washington Harry Reids years ago.”
My high school alma mater uses “Warriors” as our mascot. I have more than a few yearbooks that are adorned with a handsome and regal Native American “Warrior.” My 27-year-old letterman’s jacket has the following patch on the shoulder of the right sleeve:
For years I wore it proudly, never imagining that the Warrior stood for anything other than something mighty, fierce, and brave. I suppose I must now pay reparations for the harm that my faux leather sleeves have inflicted on our culture.
The most telling thing about this brazen act of authoritarianism is that liberals actually perceive this as a moral issue. USA Today reported on the patent ruling and made reference to the Mid-Atlantic Church of Christ’s decision to boycott the Redskins as a “moral issue.” After the ruling, the “Change the Mascot” campaign issued a statement saying “If the most basic sense of morality, decency and civility has not yet convinced the Washington team and the NFL to stop using this hateful slur, then hopefully today’s patent ruling will…”
Earlier this year Think Progress, a liberal blog, reported on a poll by Public Policy Polling, a liberal polling organization, which revealed that 71% of Americans don’t want the Redskins to change their name. Unable to argue with such support, Think Progress decided to lecture its readers rhetorically, asking, “Does it really matter that a majority of Americans don’t consider the name offensive? Given our country’s history, is public opinion really the way we want to settle questions of offense or injustice on racial and ethnic grounds?”
In April of this year, Harry Reid took to the Senate floor and told Redskins owner Daniel Snyder that he should “do what is morally right” and change the name. All of a sudden the Democrats actually want to appeal to justice and a moral standard on an issue rather than public opinion, or the courts, or a board of liberal lackeys.
All one needs to know is that the moral code employed by liberals in this matter is the same one that has allowed for the slaughter of tens-of-millions of Americans in their mothers’ wombs, that tells us that homosexual sex is good and right, that a redefinition of the sacred institution of marriage is necessary and just, that it is immoral to refer to someone born with testicles as a man, that guns are immoral, and that it is “compassionate” to confiscate forcibly the wealth of one and give it to another. So yes, please, let us actually debate the morality and the justness of “Redskins” and all of these matters. Let us each clearly cast our moral standards before the American people, the courts, and most importantly, the Creator and see where we stand.
(See this column on American Thinker.)
(See this column on American Thinker.)
Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World