By Katherine Revello

Time to throw a flag on the field — the frenzy surrounding the name of the Washington Redskins has reached ridiculous levels of irrationality.

The president is apparently more concerned with shaming the nation over a sports team’s use of a slur that no one finds offensive, despite not having an issue branding his opponents by the slur “Teabaggers” than actually dealing with the fiscal nightmare he, by not presenting a budget, and his party leaders, by stalling bills in the Senate, helped create.

But let’s take politics out of the equation for a moment and point out something really important — this is a completely faux controversy.

Aside from the Oneida Nation, few Native Americans are actually offended by the term. And why would they be? Oklahoma is Choctaw for “red-people.” Across the nation, many predominately Native American schools have Redskins as their mascot. Yet, there is no national outcry over these instances.

Why? Because the term is not a slur. Historically, Native Americans described themselves as red as a matter of pride and to distinguish themselves from the “pale-faces” who they increasingly came into interaction with.

This is not to say that the term has not been an ugly racial epithet in some instances; obviously it has. But not in the case of the football team. The Redskins name was bestowed as an honor to then-head coach Lone Star Dietz, an American Sioux.

Why is it collectivism is decried as being ultimately bad when it comes to judgments, yet in speech there are no reservations about doing so?

In a court of law, intent is an important factor when it comes to adjudicating, and rightly so. So let’s apply the same principle to speech and condemn sentiment on a case-by-case basis depending upon the individual’s intent.

We can already see the result of the opposite — national, frenzied malice directed against a term that is generally considered to be inoffensive.

And really, shouldn’t any point that is prefaced by, “I know the facts don’t support my argument, but…” be branded irrational and swept from the stage of public debate?

Besides, names don’t change the nature of things. Truth is not somehow created by the clever twisting of words; it transcends language, as any honest broker can determine for themselves.

That’s the beauty of language. And even when some appellation is uttered with bombastic vehemence and venom, it is only truly derogatory to the extent that the person lets it be. Clearly, the Native American community at large has not chosen to be offended. So why are we?

Let the free market sort it out. Because the free market responds to what the greatest set of consumers deems most meritorious. And if a majority of factually ignorant but well-intentioned individuals decide they don’t like the name of the team, they’ll stop patronizing the franchise and self-interest will force them to change.

It’s almost guaranteed that someone, somewhere is offended by or can find contention with pretty much anything that’s said. There’s only one way to fix that — unbroken silence until the end of time. And that’s not a strawman. Because any time words or terms are banned, speech is silenced.

Yes, maybe that makes a few people feel better about themselves. But pushing speech into the shadows has serious repercussions, namely masking true antagonism. It might be messier, but surely exposing bias and hatred to the light of day, where it can be seen, understood and avoided, is a much more wholesome alternative.