Let's recognize that there are many people of good will for whom "Washington Redskins" contains sentimental and historical attachment — and not an ounce of intended animus. So let's turn down the temperature. What's at issue is not high principle but adaptation to a change in linguistic nuance. A close call, though I personally would err on the side of not using the word if others are available.
How about Skins, a contraction already applied to the Washington football team? And that carries a sports connotation, as in skins vs. shirts in pickup basketball.
Choose whatever name you like. But let's go easy on the other side. We're not talking Brown v. Board of Education here. There's no demand that Native Americans man the team's offensive line. This is a matter of usage — and usage changes. If you shot a remake of 1934's "The Gay Divorcee," you'd have to change that title too.
Not because the lady changed, but because the word did.
Charles Krauthammer's email address is email@example.com.
- Which states are best for tax payers?
- In our opinion: Utah is not a swing state and...
- Michael Gerson: Why the theological...
- M. Zuhdi Jasser: The fifth commandment is...
- Jay Evensen: In predicting the future, we...
- Letter: Plenty of danger in e-cigarettes
- In our opinion: Western land standoff aside,...
- Letter: Right and wrong
- Letter: Right and wrong 97
- My view: Anti-science ruins the climate... 69
- Robert Bennett: Immigration reform... 64
- Letter: Science consensus is slow,... 54
- In our opinion: Confronted by power,... 40
- In our opinion: Western land standoff... 38
- Michael Gerson: Why the theological... 31
- John Hoffmire: Why shouldn’t... 29