pickles & redskins & a little bit more

Not too long ago, an un-intending server failed to omit the pickles on my sandwich. As my deep loathing of the brine-infused condiment has long been known to Intramuralist readers, one can imagine my reaction. Better yet, picture taking that first bite. Yes, it is true. I hate pickles. While one of my desires is to only hate what God hates, I must admit, I still hate pickles. And to actually leave them on my sandwich? Oh, no… there are few words. To say I was offended is satirically close to true.

I’m wondering this day on a bit of a broader scale; what do we do when we’re offended? Is my offense enough? I mean… is it enough that the offense is mine? … or does it need to be shared? I can’t stand those slimy green things, but in all honesty, that’s between me and my pickle. Is it important to ensure a majority of others agree with me? — that they should be offended, too?

Last weekend The Washington Post released some polling data that seemed to fly semi-below the radar (… perhaps because the polls seem sadly inundated with everything Clinton and Trump). A brief, edited summary is as follows:

“Nine in 10 Native Americans say they are not offended by the Washington Redskins name, according to a new Washington Post poll that shows how few ordinary Indians have been persuaded by a national movement to change the football team’s moniker.

… Responses to The Post’s questions about the issue were broadly consistent regardless of age, income, education, political party or proximity to reservations.

Among the Native Americans reached over a five-month period ending in April, more than 7 in 10 said they did not feel the word ‘Redskin’ was disrespectful to Indians. An even higher number — 8 in 10 — said they would not be offended if a non-native called them that name.”

In other words, a majority of the persons most affected by the use of the word “Redskin” are not offended by the reference.

Yet three years ago, we witnessed a rather significant, stentorian bandwagon — the “national movement” as identified by The Post. There began a barrage of pointed, public criticism…

• 50 U.S. senators signed a letter asking the NFL team to change their name.
• The New York Daily News, San Francisco Chronicle, Slate, and Post editorial board among with multiple other news outlets, each discontinued using the nickname. So did several prominent broadcasters, including Bob Costas and Phil Simms.
• A board within the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office ruled that the use of “Redskins” violated federal trademark law.
• The U.S. Justice Dept. intervened to defend the Patent & Trademark Office.
• A smaller group of senators then introduced legislation aimed at revoking the NFL’s tax-exempt status — that was, if the league failed to force the Washington owner to stop using the term “Redskins.”

Friends, this is a healthy debate and one that should be had. Is the use of the word “Redskins” a derogatory term? To some people, it definitely is. To others — and potentially to a majority of those who most identify with the term — at least according to The Washington Post — it is not. So how do we honor all people? And how do we refrain from projecting our offense onto another?

Almost as if on some sort of expected cue, no less, in this increasingly contentious society we seem to live in, several immediately, emphatically rejected the results of The Post’s poll. Some simply declared the results to be untrue.

I get it. It’s tough. And when we’re offended, it’s hard to comprehend how others are not.

I just wish we were better about not projecting our offense upon a majority of others.

(Otherwise — with a little bit of tongue in my cheek — a lot more people need to start hating pickles.)

Respectfully…
AR