Social justice advocates have been making a lot of noise recently about the Washington Redskins. Many believe that the term “Redskins” is offensive to Native Americans and that it should be changed to something more politically correct. Despite all the outrage, the owner of the team, Dan Snyder, adamantly refused to give up the name, saying, “We will never change the name of the team. As a lifelong Redskins fan, I think that the Redskins fans understand the great tradition and what it’s all about and what it means”. Amidst growing outrage, the US Patent Office voted 2-1 to cancel the trademark last week, meaning that the Washington Redskins logo is now unprotected by unauthorized duplication. Even though Snyder plans to appeal the ruling, the social justice crowd is already calling this a landmark decision.
While I can understand how Native
Americans might find the name Redskins
offensive, I do not believe it is the role of government to cancel patents
solely on that basis. What someone finds offensive is entirely subjective. A
term that has the potential to make some individuals wince in disgust might be
completely innocuous to others. This entails that no objective standards of
political correctness could reasonably be enforced since they cannot even be agreed
upon. Thus, when the Patent Office cancels the trademark of an organization
just because it is offensive to some people, this sets a disturbing precedent about
the role of government. If any group of concerted individuals can whine and
complain about anything they deem repugnant and get the Patent Office to comply
with their demands, what good is the patent system to begin with? Ownership of
property is an unalienable right in an open society. The name and trademark of
the Washington Redskins are the property of Dan Snyder, and as such, he has
sole authority to change, dispose, or keep the team name if he wants to. Regardless
of whether the team name is offensive or not, it is immoral for a government to
compel Washington to change it. In his HBO special, It’s Bad For Ya, George Carlin spoke some words of wisdom that
certainly have relevancy here. He said, “Rights aren’t rights if someone can
take them away. They’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country
is a bill of temporary privileges; and if you read the news, even badly, you
know the list gets shorter, and shorter, and shorter.” The Cancellation of the
Redskins patent only goes to show prospective social justice warriors that if
an organization’s name offends their sensibilities, they can clamour to the
government and get their patent revoked.
Some people may argue that changing
the team name is not that big of a deal, and any costs it does entail would be
a small price to pay to ensure nobody is being offended. Anybody who makes such
an argument is ignoring the value of many sports franchises. The name and logo
of any sports team, especially one that has such a long and successful history
as the Redskins, carries value. The Washington Redskins are a name that people
recognize and if the team completely rebrands itself, then that recognition
would be lost. Forbes has listed the Redskins as the eighth most valuable franchise in the league at 1.7 Billion dollars, and much of that value comes from the name
itself. To many fans, their team names are important and symbolize the
tradition and history of their achievements. Rebranding the team would not only
affect the fanbase, but it would also incur a tremendous financial burden on
the team’s owners. Changing the Redskins name means hiring patent and trademark
attorneys, graphic designers, as well as purchasing new jerseys, merchandise, and
equipment, which costs millions of dollars. It’s not as simple as changing a
few light bulbs. Even political correctness comes at a price.
Those who are most adamant about
changing the team name should reconsider their priorities. If one’s goal is to
impose political-correctness onto the world, they should begin by dismantling
the thousands of actual hate groups throughout North America that actively work
to promote racism, hate and discrimination instead of attacking the name of some
innocuous sports team. Many other sports teams have names that are arguably
more offensive than the Redskins, such as the Notre Dame Fighting Irish, The
Cleveland Indians, and The Edmonton Eskimos. The fact that social justice
warriors are up in arms about The Redskins, but haven’t uttered a peep about The
Eskimos (a de facto racial slur) demonstrates the confirmation bias so often
conveyed by these people. If one is intent on abolishing bigotry in major
league sports logos, then they should be decrying all offensive logos, not Just
the Washington Redskins. There’s no reason to just pick on Washington, considering Native Americans are not even
unanimously offended by the team’s name. Several polls taken throughout the
past decade have consistently shown that most Native Americans don’t find the
name Redskins to be that odious. The poll taken in 2004 shows that only nine percent of Native Americans had an
objection to the term and another poll taken as recently as 2013 shows that
nearly eighty percent oppose the team name change. It appears to me that the
noisiest voices against the Redskins are well-meaning, but ultimately misguided
white folks who feel they are doing the world a favour by imposing their
opinions on others. Everybody has different values, preferences, and beliefs,
and thus anybody could conceivably be offended by anything. Just because you
have the right to find a given book, television show, political party, or football
logo offensive, does not entail you should censor or banish them. Otherwise, we
would inhabit a world where everything was censored and everything was banned.
All that being said, I can empathize
with any Native Americans who are truly offended by the team name. However, just
because a name is offensive to some people, doesn’t mean it necessarily should
be changed. If so, who is to determine what is objectively offensive and what
isn’t? The fact that the Patent Office
cancelled the trademark solely for that reason clearly shows that the
government feels it is the arbiter in this respect. If a group of people find
an organization objectionable, the most productive and mature way of voicing
their distaste is by voting with their
wallets. Just like with any product or service that does not meet your
standards, you have the right not to support it financially. If you don’t like
the Redskins, don’t buy their merchandise, don’t go to the games, don’t follow
the team, and don’t give them exposure. It’s that simple. When you have to go
crying to Big Daddy Government about your fragile sensibilities, then maybe it’s
not the world that should conform to your standards, but the other way around.
