Photo Credit: Keith Allison (Creative Commons)

The radical left relies on hyperbole and fabricated causes in its desperate mission to remain relevant. Instead, these ideologues are often exposed as the partisan rabble-rousers they truly are.

Among the latest invented scandals involves the name of Washington, D.C.’s professional football team. While the Redskins have played for decades with a moniker to which the vast majority of Americans never gave a second thought, it has become a cause celebre among today’s perpetually indignant leftists.

Advertisement-content continues below

While many prominent figures – including Barack Obama – have jumped on the bandwagon by insinuating that the team’s name is racist and offensive, there have been some interesting voices of opposition. Roy Hawthorne, for instance, recently expressed his belief that the name invokes many positive traits and does not demean Native Americans.

Hawthorne, who serves as the Navajo Code Talkers Association’s vice president, should be considered a reliable source on the matter. As one of four men honored during a game earlier this week, he offered some enlightening views.

“My opinion is that’s a name that not only the team should keep,” he said, “but that’s a name that’s American.”

Advertisement-content continues below

Even as active protesters rallied at the stadium, Hawthorne and three other code talkers were honored for their bravery. These Native Americans from various tribes served during both World Wars by using a form of their native language to foil Japanese espionage efforts.

While some saw the ceremony as a publicity ploy, Redskins Senior Vice President Tony Wyllie denied the accusation, confirming that the “American heroes … deserved recognition.”

Dan Snyder, the team’s owner, has consistently defended the Redskins name, most recently by referring to it and the affiliated mascot as a “badge of honor.”

As in countless cases before, leftists have attached themselves to this particular cause without all of the facts. These activists use definitive rhetoric, leaving no room for dissent by claiming the conversation is already over.

Among Native American communities supposedly injured by the name, however, there is no such consensus.

–B. Christopher Agee

Have an idea for a story? Email us at

Photo Credit: Keith Allison (Creative Commons)