, , ,

squaw The Redskins were formed in 1932 as the Boston Braves, and a year later changed their name to the Boston Redskins. The team relocated to Washington, D.C. in 1937 and they’ve been the Washington Redskins ever since.

With the dull predictability of a woman’s period, liberals challenge the team’s name as racist, and last Thursday a group of Injuns set the fire-water down long enough to take their case in front of a trademark judge.

The crux of their argument is you can’t trademark a name that is disparaging, scandalous, contemptuous or disreputable, and this is the second time they’ve tried this underhanded route. They’ve decided they can’t win their case in the court of public opinion, so they’re going to use a legal court to enforce their views on everyone.

Their crass attempt to strip the Skins of trademark protection was nearly successful in 1999, but the case was overturned a few years later when it was determined the plaintiffs should have either filed their complaint shortly after the trademark was registered in 1967, or at the first available opportunity when they became adults.

Now, the same pain-in-the-ass activists who led the original campaign have created a new group of straw-men who were 18-24 years of age when the case was filed to act as fake plaintiffs.

My beef with this issue is the same one I have with any group trying to use the legal system to force others to think like them. For issues as diverse as gay marriage, abortion, gun rights and team logos, I feel everyone should make their own personal choice in matters of conscience, and so long as no one is physically harmed, there shouldn’t be any legal interference.

Then again, if someone just so happened to give these guys a blanket covered with smallpox, I’d probably be okay with that, too.