 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 dont 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 dont 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 dont 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 Kings 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 wouldnt say: Well, to start with, there are 44 Negroes. If youd 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 heres 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 wouldnt 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 wouldnt say: And by my count, there are two redskins. Its 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 arent bothered by the word. But thats 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 wouldnt use it.Why? Simple decency. I wouldnt want to use a word that defines a people living or dead, offended or not in a most demeaning way. Its 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 its a social fact. Unless youre looking to give gratuitous offense, you dont call someone retarded.Lets 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 lets turn down the temperature. Whats 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 lets go easy on the other side. Were not talking Brown v. Board of Education here. Theres no demand that Native Americans man the teams offensive line. This is a matter of usage and usage changes. If you shot a remake of 1934s The Gay Divorcee, youd have to change that title too. 