You can not be surprised when sharks come after dropping chum in the water and you can not be surprised when the world’s perpetually-offended pundit class screeches louder after each time society acquiesces to its demands. Now that they know the federal government will use its limited time, money, and resources to go after NFL football teams (yes, that’s right, a sports organization), professional whiners see an opportunity to get rid of another great “injustice” — the Apache helicopter and every other military vehicle with a Native American name.

Simon Waxman writes in his Washington Post op-ed:

Even if the NFL and Redskins brass come to their senses and rename the team, a greater symbolic injustice would continue to afflict Indians — an injustice perpetuated not by a football club but by our federal government. …

In the United States today, the names Apache, Comanche, Chinook, Lakota, Cheyenne and Kiowa apply not only to Indian tribes but also to military helicopters. …

Why do we name our battles and weapons after people we have vanquished? For the same reason the Washington team is the Redskins and my hometown Red Sox go to Cleveland to play the Indians and to Atlanta to play the Braves: because the myth of the worthy native adversary is more palatable than the reality — the conquered tribes of this land were not rivals but victims, cheated and impossibly outgunned. …

If the native tribes did not stand a chance, this does not imply lack of resistance or of courage; regardless, it doesn’t much matter in this context. Whatever courage they had, the U.S. military is not heir to it. If honor matters to the members of our armed forces, they will agree.

It’s hard to know where to begin with such a convoluted mess. Were the Hopi and Pueblo Indians “victims” who were “cheated” and possibly “out-gunned” by the Apache and the Comanche? Were the Sioux the “victims” of the Cheyenne? What about the Indian tribes that fell victim to the Aztecs and the Incas? Say what you want about those European “cheaters,” but they didn’t offer their victims up for human sacrifice and eat them with a chimichurri sauce like the Aztecs. Or was it a molé sauce because they were in Mexico?

Why was it perfectly okay for the Indians to slaughter each other and take away land by force, but when Europeans came along and did the same thing it was somehow deemed “cheating”? Instead of looking at history as it really is — bloody — Mr. Waxman pretends that all Native Americans did was gather nuts and berries and live happily ever after until those evil Europeans came along and wrecked the good thing they had going. That story is so much more comforting than the tale of the temple priest who passes out from exhaustion after stabbing his human victims for hours on end, so Waxman goes with what makes him feel good at night.

What truly makes the piece classic is Mr. Waxman’s emotional appeal — if honor matters to the members of our armed forces they’ll agree with him. Obviously they don’t, so we must conclude that Mr. Waxman does not believe members of our armed forces have any honor. What can be more hilarious than a Noam Chomsky-loving academic telling soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that they don’t have honor? Not much.

TWT Apache
My piece for The Washington Times.

With that said, we must pause to note what he’s doing because it speaks to a telling difference between a conservative and a liberal. A conservative thinks Mr. Waxman is just incredibly naive while the liberal thinks that if you disagree with him you have no honor. You are a bad person. You are History’s giver of great symbolic injustices and must be personally and professionally destroyed.

I covered this in my post “How to deal with liberal trolls who hate our military and use gay slurs as personal attacks,” but I’ll say it again: the far left does not like U.S. military personnel. Whenever I say that critics complain, “You’re generalizing!”, to which I say, “That’s because it’s generally true.”

Whether it’s the liberal troll who calls himself “Doug’s Dick Vacuum” (whatever the heck that means) while sharing articles titled “Thanks, I won’t support the troops,” or guys like Mr. Waxman, the truth is self-evident — generally, leftists do not like our military men and women but they were forced to put on a charade after the whole “let’s spit on veterans” thing blew up in their faces after Vietnam. Mr. Waxman can’t spit on veterans these days without getting his teeth knocked out, but he can write Washington Post op-eds that charge the vast majority of the military with having no honor.

As the Redskins name controversy takes twists and turns in the months and years ahead, just remember that it will not end with the Washington Redskins. For the thought police, there is an infinite amount of ideas to control.

Drudge hit for my piece for The Washington Times.
Drudge hits are always nice. Here’s my piece for The Washington Times.




  1. Wow, even the helicoptors are offensive now?!? I did most of my growing up in Illinois, I suppose we should change the name of that state too.

    Interestingly with the Redskins, when this issue made national headlines in the late 80s/early 90s, a vast majority of non-native and Native Americans were not offended. The “thought police” must be doing their job, as the percentage of those offended are climbing. A friend was telling me that he was listening to a conservative radio show, and a Native American called to say he was much more offended by being associated with Washington DC- and the politicians that inhabit it- than he was about “Redskins”….the caller suggested a name change to the Alexandria Redskins. 🙂

    While “redskin” can be used as a derogatory name, the helicopter names are the names of the tribes. I think the “thought police” are doing a big disservice to the tribes by stamping out every reference they can find completely out of our language. The liberals that Doug mentions are the ones infatuated with race and bigotry, which is ironic because if they had their way, any term relating to Native Americans will only be seen on a reservation, museum, or maybe a history book…a pretty bleak way to celebrate Native American culture, in my opinion.

    1. The liberals that Doug mentions are the ones infatuated with race and bigotry, which is ironic because if they had their way, any term relating to Native Americans will only be seen on a reservation, museum, or maybe a history book…a pretty bleak way to celebrate Native American culture, in my opinion.

      I’ve thought this for a long time. I’m not sure how you would “honor” Native Americans by having them only exist as pathetic victims in books written by Noam Chomsky. I’d have to formulate my thoughts on it, but it seems like it’s not the Indian names they want sucked out of the national consciousness, but ideals like honor, courage and bravery. Perhaps Mr. Waxman talks about honor while surreptitiously trying to destroy it…

      Anything that stirs passions in people seems to be a target for liberals to control or extinguish. They appear to want people existing in a vegetative state, which makes sense if you want to control others.

  2. Maybe they need to conduct a new study to see if views change. Granted I agree that the whole pc attack on the Redskins is silly but a new study may help them get the support they need to defend the name. I am offended by the name Harry Reid. Can we make him change his name? 🙂

    1. @Big Swede

      That reminds me of an old vid by Bill Whittle that touches upon that few of the ‘peaceful savage.’

    2. I like the shout-out to Thomas Sowell’s ‘A Conflict of Visions.’ I read that when I was 21 or 22 and it had quite a lasting effect on me…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: