Is this picture derogatory to Native Americans?  (John McDonnell/The Washington Post)
Is this picture derogatory to Native Americans?  (John McDonnell/The Washington Post)

Hello! Time to talk about DEAR GOD ANYTHING BUT THE RIDICULOUSNESS OF THE LAST THREE WEEKS. Charles Krauthammer has obliged by writing his column about reasons to oppose the continued use of the name “The Washington Redskins,” other than a politically correct desire not to offend, of which he clearly disapproves. Krauthammer observes that it’s a term nobody uses anymore except in connection with the team, even in impolite company, but certainly not in any official capacity. It’s a pointless insult. It would be, says Krauthammer, like calling black people “Negroes.” Once, even MLK did this, but terms evolve.

Dr. K is lending his conservative credentials to this argument, in order to establish that advocating a name change doesn’t necessarily make someone a liberal, or an Obama fan, or a politically correct scold. That this argument need not be waged on partisan grounds.

Welcome to the comments section, Dr. Krauthammer. Partisan battling is what we do …

troydickerson

Remember that no matter what the name is, liberals will find fault. Just their nature.

… so be it.

Actually, we do have some partisan mix-and-match of argument and conclusion:

TheHillman tries to argue the “liberal” side with a conservative argument from capitalism:

[Renaming the team] The Warriors would make a ton of money on new merchandising. And isn’t that what’s important in American football? The money?

And 4blazek argues that the change-the-name crowd is just after some sweet capitalism for themselves — so DON’T change the name:

This is about some folks in the “grievance industry” look for $$$.

But the most fun thing was to find other organization names that are or would be just as offensive as Redskins.

Mateo in Diego

The Redskins should change their name no sooner than the NAACP renames themselves away from “colored people.” And while you’re at it, they shouldn’t consider it until Notre Dame removes the drunk pugilistic leprechaun from its logo. Anything else is just hypocrisy.

It’s pretty interesting to PostScript how the more-inclusive term “people of color” has evolved, in light of “colored people” having once been okay and isn’t anymore. It’s a strange dance. Anyhoo!

pan-zagloba

Searching for a new term for vandalism. Sure The Vandals are all dead, but do we have to keep piling on?

Hahaha.

Some identify potential racism in Krauthammer’s own column:

jimp2

Check the etymology of the word “denigration.”

PostScript just did! It’s from Latin, “to blacken.” So!

Some identify potential racism IN KRAUTHAMMER’S VERY IDENTITY!

MarkEMcDonald

Charles, let’s change your name. “Kraut” is derogatory to Germans.

Which makes some get hungry:

Bora Bora

Couple of ‘wurst, sauerkraut, boiled redskins… yum.

And some just really want to get back to the ridiculousness. Sigh.

theWordGuru

Many do not like Obamacare and feel it extremely offensive, but will Obama and the liberals recognize that minority that is far larger than the Native Americans? Hell will freeze over first. That proves the disingenuous nature of this bogus “hurt feelings” campaign.

So what’s the new name? PostScript can only second Gene Weingarten, who’s suggested on his Twitter The Department of Football Services.