More Liberalism Gone Amok

Last year, I wrote about liberalism gone amok, how liberalism has gone from mainstream to being out of step with ordinary Americans. Thinking about this NCAA ruling, banning the use of Native American mascots and nicknames in post-season tournaments, I think this is another example.

Kevin B. Blackistone of the Dallas Morning News writes, "It was good to see the college sports' governing body finally make a move toward eliminating imagery that Native Americans find offensive." They go on to describe the Washington, DC NFL team's nickname (Redskins) as an "insult."

The author of this opinion is, safe to say, not an Indian. OK, so a non-Indian is offended by these nicknames, including that of the Redskins. Indian activists pursuing a political agenda and trying to get their names in the paper are offended. But what do ordinary Indians think? According to a Sports Illustrated poll, "The name 'Redskins' isn't especially controversial either; 69 percent of Native Americans don't object to it."

What's the message here, then, from liberals like Blackistone when those they are nominally standing up for don't agree with their message? The message is, "you should be offended, so we'll be offended for you." If they aren't offended, well just say they are because we know they should be.

Paternalism and condescension like this is part of the problem facing liberalism. It's all well and good to stand up for people. But when they don't want to be stood up for, don't force it down their throats.

Update: Protein Wisdom writes

“If not most”? Not surprisingly, Mashek doesn’t back up that assertion with any supporting evidence, preferring instead to suggest (without referencing the SI poll—or this far more damning Annenberg Poll) that the question is an open one—and that the NCAA’s decision, far from being a product of that “tired term political correctness,” is instead based on something far more noble, though one wonders how ignoring the will of over 80 percent of Native Americans is somehow considered more noble than taking seriously their ability to determine for themselves what is “hostile and offensive.” And really, what can be more PC than cowing to the will of a shrieking vocal minority, and in so doing, implying, self-righteously, that what you are really doing is attempting to protect the feelings of those whom you’ve essentially silenced?