SEATTLE NEWS ARCHIVES & FEATURES
My take on the Redskins name controversy
Jun 19, 2014, 7:40 AM | Updated: 7:46 am
The Washington Redskins name is displayed on a building at their training facility. The U.S. Patent Office ruled Wednesday, June 18, 2014, that the Washington Redskins nickname is "disparaging of Native Americans" and that the team's federal trademarks for the name must be canceled. The ruling comes after a campaign to change the name has gained momentum over the past year. (AP Photo/Nick Wass)
(AP Photo/Nick Wass)
Somehow, this has become the hottest issue in America this week.
Not the surge of Islamic terrorism around the globe… not the collapse of Iraq…not the IRS “losing” e-mails that may prove how the agency was used as a political weapon…
No…the hottest issue in the country apparently is the nickname of the DC NFL team.
I truly understand the argument against “Redskins” – many believe it’s anachronistic and offensive. I also understand the defenders who point out that the team was named after one of its first coaches who was an Indian. And that most people have never used that word as a slur and have only used it when talking football.
Wednesday, the US Patent Office stripped the Redskins trademark protection. Meaning that any bootlegger can use the Redskins logo and image on caps, t-shirts, sweatshirts, etc. That strips hundreds of millions of dollars of value from the team owner. Simply because the U.S. government has arbitrarily decided that nickname is no longer acceptable. Do we really want government making that decision about our words and thoughts?
Shouldn’t our government offer equal protection for all? But our federal government now says it will offer legal protection for 31 NFL owners – including the owners of the “Chiefs” – but no protection for one – because the government has decided it doesn’t like the one guy’s team nickname. What a frightening road we are on!
Wednesday night, The Seattle Times announced it will no longer allow Redskins in its sports coverage.
Isn’t it the job of a newspaper to cover the news? Not to decide what is morally acceptable?
My take on how this should play out: Redskins owner Daniel Snyder should be free to call his team whatever he wants. The protesters should be free to protest all they want – to try to inspire boycotts by fans or sponsors. Eventually the free market would shape how this controversy unfolds.
I would be much more comfortable with that path to the eventual outcome than with grandstanding media, politicians, and federal government determining what our words and thoughts must be.
