Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
DOJ Was Right to End the Battle Against the Redskins
Great news for football fans, free speech warriors, and 90 percent of Native Americans: Due to a recent Supreme Court ruling, the Trump administration has ended Obama’s silly attack on the Washington Redskins.
The Justice Department sent a letter to a federal appeals court Wednesday afternoon conceding that a Supreme Court decision last week in favor of an Asian-American band calling itself “The Slants” means that the NFL’s Redskins will prevail in the battle over efforts to cancel the team’s trademarks on the grounds that the name is disparaging to Native Americans.
“The Supreme Court’s decision in Matal v. Tam [the Slants’ case] controls the disposition of this case,” Justice Department Civil Division attorney Mark Freeman wrote in the letter to the Richmond-based 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. “Consistent with Tam, the Court should reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the case with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Pro-Football.”
The Supreme Court and the DOJ made the correct decision here. The Obama administration was using the courts to shut down free speech under the pretext of political correctness. While a few native groups opposed the team’s name, the vast majority were fine with it. The Washington Post conducted a poll of Native Americans in 2016 and nine in 10 declared that the name wasn’t offensive. When the Post first did the survey in 2004, the results were the same.
Last year, the very white Washington Post asked Chippewa and Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation resident Barbara Bruce to explain her thoughtcrime. “I’m proud of being Native American and of the Redskins,” she said. “I’m not ashamed of that at all. I like that name.”
Gabriel Nez, a 29-year-old Navajo who recently left the Navajo Nation for school in New Mexico, agreed. “I really don’t mind it. I like it,” he said. “We call other natives ‘skins,’ too.”
These opinions prevail in Indian communities across the country. For instance, the mascot for Red Mesa High School, located in the Four Corners area of the Navajo Nation, is, you guessed it, the Redskins. There’s also the Browning High School Indians, located on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation; the Mescalero Apache High/Middle School Chiefs in New Mexico; and the Marty Indian High School Braves in South Dakota. There are many, many more where those mascots came from.
Even though a mere 9 percent of Native Americans want Washington’s NFL team to change its name, 28 percent of Washington-area residents do. These readers have decided to be offended on behalf of other people, even as the people they are “protecting” are saying to knock it off. The vast majority of Native Americans understand that the team’s logo stands for bravery, honor, and strength, so they laugh off the white elites’ calls for outrage.
The Washington Post wasted a decade trying to make “Redskins” a hate crime. Thankfully for the NFL team — and the proud high schoolers in Red Mesa, AZ — common sense and the First Amendment triumphed.
Published in Law
Excellent point, but the numbers do show that the people doing this are clueless busybody scolds who know nothing about the people they are “helping.”
Well, they did have the Washington Bullets. That name was way too appropriate so they had to change it.
Are you sure? The bullets rarely hit a shot. It might be insulting to ammo.
Count me among those who find the name Washington Redskins offensive and would like to see it changed — not the Redskins part, however, the Washington part.
Fair enough. But I suspect the satisfaction you find in such games of “gotcha” is greater than their political utility.
And every Mexican restaurant in my town (suburban Nashville) has a lunch plate called the Speedy Gonzalez.
Snyder did stick to his guns in this case but by any objective standard, this court case is the only significant victory in his 18 year tenure.
Again, I’m glad he won this case, but there’s a lot of personal dislike for Dan Snyder because the franchise is a mess and he takes responsibility for his actions like Hillary Clinton: it’s always someone else’s fault. There’s a clear record of his leadership of the Redskins: 18 years. 2 – 5 playoff record. 8 head coaches.
By contrast, just up the road. The Ravens: 21 years: 15-8 playoff record. 3 head coaches. 2 Super Bowls.
Now someone is going to jump in here and make me feel small because they’re going to mention the Patriots. Yeah, I get it. I guess I deserve it, but a man’s got to have pride in his team, right? Right?
Happy 4th Ricochet folks. mal
Good News on the Redskins. NOW! Can we please have the University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux back? They wouldn’t allow a pole to be taken on the Reservations up here because they new the Indians would tell all the PC people to Go Fly Kites! But the NCAA had to prove they had the bigger hammer. I wish UND had told them to go pound sand even if the Hockey team had to sit it out for a year or two.
Just because the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has to grant trademarks again doesn’t mean the NCAA has to allow it. I would be pleasantly surprised if the NCAA decided to reverse itself.
I imagine this would be offensive to much of the Vampire-American community who would resent being called “bureaucrats “.
I disagree. People who already respect free speech would never agitate for the name change in the first place or agree with it. That’s why though yours are sound rational arguments, they are terrible persuasion. For those who are less sure on the free-speech issue you need a different approach. Showing that there is no aggrieved party may be persuasive for them. As a bonus, the stats show that the SJWs are just virtue-signalling jerks rather than being concerned with actual harm, thereby undermining their credibility. Ridicule and pointing out hypocrisy are good persuasion methods to use on third parties, i.e., the observers of the controversy.
Remember, your audience for persuasion is the people on the fence, not the ideologues.
“Guess we need to change the name of Oklahoma as well.”
I didn’t know that was the meaning of Oklahoma. Neat! I’ll start using that in retorts if this all comes up in conversation.
(Or how about changing the name of the Redskins to “Oklahomans”?)
Because comparing anybody to Oklahomans is offensive. ;)
@kelsurprise gonna kick yer butt.