- - Tuesday, July 1, 2014


The recent trademark ruling against the Washington Redskins may prove to be a tipping point. If the team is ultimately shamed into changing its name, however, I contend this would not represent a milestone in tolerance, but would instead signal continued immaturity in our definition of what tolerance really means.

In the late 1800s, a town in Colorado was given the name Cripple Creek. I use a wheelchair and find the word “cripple” cringeworthy. A municipality could never select such a name today, but I recognize the town chose the name in a different era, and I thus give it no mind. The same can be said of organizations such as the NAACP and the United Negro College Fund. Like the Redskins, these organizations were honorably named, just in a different age with different sensibilities. We have therefore implicitly granted them a measure of tolerance and ethical grandfathering regarding their names, which time has passed by.

The Redskins deserve the same consideration. The current debate over the name does indeed center on the issue of caricature, but I suggest that the most important caricature being tested is that of our society’s notion of what tolerance truly means. It appears we may fail this test, and that is too bad. Badgering the Redskins football team to change its name would represent not a milestone in tolerance, but one of maturity deferred.


Amman, Jordan

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide