A YouGov poll found that 61 percent of Americans don’t find the Washington Redskins’ name offensive, which is around the same number of people who don’t like ObamaCare.
Women are less inclined to say the team should change its name than men, and famously liberal younger voters are less eager to see it happen than their elders. Is there an obvious explanation for those stereotype-defying quirks that I’m missing? I’d never have guessed.
In an interview, Amanda Lickers picked a pork chop from between her teeth and said,
The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.
Okay, that was actually Judith Butler.
White liberals who have heard somewhere that their great-great grandmothers had ancestors from Oklahoma will no doubt be horrified by this, and at some point an Ethnic Studies professor somewhere will write another moronic essay linking the Redskins to September 11. Outside of that, Redskins fans will continue to be disappointed and normal people, including most Indians, won’t really care.