Krauthammer: Redskins and reason | The Salt Lake TribuneKrauthammer: Redskins and reason By Charles Krauthammer The Washington Post Published October 18, 2013 10:44 amWASHINGTON  In the matter of the (Washington) Redskins.I don&apos;t like being lectured by sportscasters about ethnic sensitivity. Or advised by the president of the United States about changing team names. Or blackmailed by tribal leaders playing the race card.I don&apos;t like the language police ensuring that no one anywhere gives offense to anyone about anything. And I fully credit the claim of Redskins owner Dan Snyder and many passionate fans that they intend no malice or prejudice and that "Redskins" has a proud 80-year history they wish to maintain.The fact is, however, that words don&apos;t stand still. They evolve.Fifty years ago the preferred, most respectful term for African-Americans was Negro. The word appears 15 times in Martin Luther King&apos;s "I have a dream" speech. Negro replaced a long list of insulting words in common use during decades of public and legal discrimination.If you were detailing the ethnic composition of Congress, you wouldn&apos;t say: "Well, to start with, there are 44 Negroes." If you&apos;d been asleep for 50 years, you might. But upon being informed how the word had changed in nuance, you would stop using it and choose another.And here&apos;s the key point: You would stop not because of the language police. Not because you might incur a Bob Costas harangue. Not because the president would wag a finger. But simply because the word was tainted, freighted with negative connotations with which you would not want to be associated.Proof? You wouldn&apos;t even use the word in private, where being harassed for political incorrectness is not an issue.Similarly, regarding the further ethnic breakdown of Congress, you wouldn&apos;t say: "And by my count, there are two redskins." It&apos;s inconceivable, because no matter how the word was used 80 years ago, it carries invidious connotations today.I know there are surveys that say that most Native Americans aren&apos;t bothered by the word. But that&apos;s not the point. My objection is not rooted in pressure from various minorities or fear of public polls or public scolds.Not because I took a poll of Roma to find out if they were offended. If some mysterious disease had carried away every gypsy on the planet, and there were none left to offend, I still wouldn&apos;t use it.Why? Simple decency. I wouldn&apos;t want to use a word that defines a people  living or dead, offended or not  in a most demeaning way. It&apos;s not a question of who or how many had their feelings hurt, but whether you want to associate yourself with a word that, for whatever historical reason having nothing to do with you, carries inherently derogatory connotations.Years ago, the word "retarded" emerged as the enlightened substitute for such cruel terms as "feeble-minded" or "mongoloid." Today, however, it is considered a form of denigration, having been replaced by the clumsy but now conventional "developmentally disabled." There is no particular logic to this evolution. But it&apos;s a social fact. Unless you&apos;re looking to give gratuitous offense, you don&apos;t call someone "retarded."Let&apos;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&apos;s turn down the temperature. What&apos;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.Choose whatever name you like. But let&apos;s go easy on the other side. We&apos;re not talking Brown v. Board of Education here. There&apos;s no demand that Native Americans man the team&apos;s offensive line. This is a matter of usage  and usage changes. If you shot a remake of 1934&apos;s "The Gay Divorcee," you&apos;d have to change that title too.
