In a perfect world, this debate about whether or not the Redskins name is offensive to Native Americans and should be changed would be settled by the pending trademark case, public opinion, and whether Dan Snyder and the NFL decide the potential money lost by having an allegedly racist name would be more than the money it would cost to rebrand one of the most valuable sports franchises in the world. And in this same perfect world, the media would simply do its job and report on news instead of trying to become the news by openly advocating for the team to change its name.

Sadly, we don’t live in that world.

For the most part, the only people who really seem to care about how offensive the Redskins name is or isn’t are decidedly non-Native American journalists. Mike Wise, Mike Florio, Peter King, Bill Simmons, Christine Brennan, and the editors of the Washington City Paper, DCist and Slate, among others. And that’s fine. White people are allowed to have opinions about non-white people issues.

But that swings both ways. The opinions of those listed above regarding whether the name needs to be changed are no more valid than those who disagree, but you wouldn’t get that impression to hear some of their rhetoric. No need to let facts get in the way, either. Someone on a recent Grantland podcast asked incredulously whether there’s anyone besides Dan Snyder who doesn’t find the name racist. Well, yeah, according to a recent Associated Press poll, roughly 80% of Americans. In Grantland, 20% constitutes a majority, I guess.

For the record, I don’t support the team name because I believe it represents “strength, courage, pride and respect,” as Roger Goodell put it, or think that any of Dan Snyder’s horrifically bad attempts at responding to critics have been convincing. I simply don’t think businesses should make decisions based on the demands of a small group of people. Not when parents groups tried to get Howard Stern off the air, not when religious groups threatened Disney with boycotts over Gay Day, and not in this case. And make no mistake, even if you count all these non-Native American journalists (not that you should), we are indeed talking about a small group of people here.

Ultimately, it comes down to how Native Americans feel. But here’s the thing: For the most part, they really don’t appear to give a damn.

Most seem to be completely indifferent, and occasionally, curious as to why people have so much passion regarding this issue, but not for the more serious problems their culture faces. Many Native Americans have expressed support for the name, but for some reason, no one seems interested in listening to those opinions. Imagine if our last presidential election had worked like that: A vote for Romney was a vote for Romney, but a vote for Obama was simply discarded. The idea of Romney winning in a landslide with 100% of votes counted works out really well if you’re a Romney supporter, but not so much if you’re the other side, and would have liked your opinion to matter.

So I was actually pleased when the Oneida Nation announced that they’d be protesting at the Redskins/Packers game in Green Bay last weekend. Finally, we’d get an idea about how much Native American support there was for the team changing its name. In a rare moment where Mike Wise and I found consensus on this topic, he was also clearly thrilled.

More than 200 American Indians? Wow! That would be a pretty substantial show of force. And as it turned out, since I was going to be in Green Bay for the game, I’d get to see it for myself.

So Sunday morning, a couple of hours before kickoff, I was outside the Oneida Nation Gate at Lambeau Field, where the media had announced the protest would be taking place. I was greeted by this sight.

I was not the only one expecting the protest to be held here. Both Redskins and Packers fans were overheard wondering where it was. A reporter from a local TV station had set up a camera nearby, before eventually giving up and leaving.

Either the location of the protest had been moved at some point or the media had gotten it wrong. I’d briefly looked for it around the stadium, but wasn’t able to find it before it was time to head inside. Possibly, I missed it because I was looking for a group of more than 200 people. Not…well, this.

(photo via @HomerMcFanboy)

This crowd seems to be somewhat fewer than 200 people. Approximately 190 fewer people, in fact. Later reports claimed that the crowd eventually grew to 24.

24, also, is much less than 200.

The spin began immediately. An organizer blamed the cold and rain for the lack of protesters. Someone else claimed that the fact that the Oneida were corporate partners with the Packers might have impacted the attendance.

The latter argument is almost too absurd to even consider, and actually kind of insulting to the Oneida. (“We don’t want to offend the Packers, because money and continued advertisements for our casino are more important than fighting racism!”) But as for the weather, let me get this straight: There’s this supposed horrendous civil rights outrage that, in the name of all that is just and righteous, demands the end of a billion dollar trademark and decades of tradition…but because it was 55 degrees and raining, the people who are supposedly negatively affected by this–people who live in freaking Wisconsin–decided to stay home?

Thank God there wasn’t bad weather during the March on Washington fifty years ago. Martin Luther King Jr. might well have looked out the window and decided that it wasn’t worth getting out of bed.

For what it’s worth, I saw dozens of Native Americans inside Lambeau before the game started. A couple were wearing RGIII jerseys. Most were Packers fans who just wanted to see the game. None appeared to care about the protest going on outside.

This low turnout supported the belief that those of us who defend the name have harbored all along, that this “controversy” is less of a Native American issue than a white journalist issue.

When confronted with indisputable photographic evidence of the small number of protesters, Mike “More than 200” Wise graciously admitted that maybe he’d overestimated how much support this thing had among Native Americans after all, and would rethink his position. Ha, no, of course he didn’t.

Uh-huh. Just for fun, imagine if someone organized a pro-Redskins name rally in Landover before a game, guaranteed a huge crowd, got a ton of media coverage promoting it, and only a handful of people came. Do you think maybe, possibly, Wise might have a bit of a field day with that? Is there any chance whatsoever that the resulting column wouldn’t have made fun of those who showed up, while gleefully proclaiming that since even Redskins fans clearly didn’t support the name, that was just more evidence that it needed to be changed? Unfortunately, using such logic is apparently off-limits to those of us on the other side of the issue.

For a long time, I’ve heard people wonder why we can’t even “have the conversation” about changing the Redskins name. Frankly, it always just seemed pointless to me. After all, it’s a zero sum game, with no apparent room for compromise. Either the name stays or it goes. As such, I don’t think either side would have much luck convincing the other that they’re right.

But fine, let’s have the conversation. But with the stipulation that it has to include a significant number of those who are affected by the name, not just those who claim to speak on their behalf.

People have asked how many Native Americans have to speak out against the Redskins name before it becomes enough. Honestly, I don’t have an answer for that. I guess it’s like how Potter Stewart described pornography: I’ll know it when I see it. I’m not insisting on a Million Native American March on D.C. or anything. But more than two dozen people in one of the most heavily-populated Native American communities in the country would have been a nice start.

Look, I’m not completely close-minded on this. I realize that as a straight white male, I’m on perilous ground when I start saying what is and isn’t offensive to other people. If I saw evidence that this was important to Native Americans on a large scale, if I thought that the name was really hurtful to them and needed to be changed, I’d support doing so. But changing the name of a billion dollar business is a significant decision and therefore warrants a significant number of people–the people primarily affected by it, not their self-appointed proxies–demanding it happen.

Mike Wise once claimed that if just one person was offended, that was enough. It’s a nice sound bite, but it’s not a good way for society to operate. Not unless you’re ready to apply that philosophy to every issue, not just the ones you happen to support.

A few more brief points:

1) Amanda Blackhorse, the lead plaintiff in Blackhorse et al v. Football, Inc., was interviewed by the Sports Junkies a few months back where she made it clear that she’s vehemently against all use of Native American names and iconography in sports. Chiefs? No. Blackhawks? No. Braves? No. Redskins? Obviously, no. When she was asked if changing the name of the team to the Washington Warriors would be an acceptable compromise, that, too, was a no.

So, I’m confused. If you’re Mike Wise or Bill Simmons or Peter King, and you’re rallying behind Blackhorse in her crusade against racism by refusing to refer to one team by its proper name, how can you disregard her feelings regarding those other teams? I get how they’re not as provocative as “Redskins,” but then, I’m not the one claiming to support the interests of Native Americans. Across-the-board consistency on this issue may be inconvenient for journalists, and Clark Hunt isn’t nearly as fun to pick on as Dan Snyder is, but I’d love to see someone explain why Blackhorse is right that Redskins is offensive, but wrong that Chiefs is. Isn’t making that sort of judgment exactly what the Mike Wises of the world are saying that non-Native Americans have no right to do in regards to the Redskins name?

2) If the name isn’t changed, if the courts uphold the team’s trademark and Dan Snyder and Roger Goodell don’t budge, and the vast majority of Americans go right on not caring about this topic, is the media really going to keep up the name blackout gimmick? Keith Olbermann and Jason Whitlock have predicted that the name will be changed within two or three years. What if we’re still right here in 2018? Or 2023? At some point, doesn’t this just become even more childish than it already is?

3) If the name is changed, it’ll be changed with Dan Snyder kicking and screaming, and being Dan Snyder, probably feeling more than a little vindictive. Anyone fantasizing about the team becoming the Washington Red Pandas or whatever, will likely be disappointed. Because while the word “Redskins” is arguably a slur, this is not:

Even without the name, that image is worth a fortune to Snyder. Sure, you can claim that a Native American shouldn’t be used as the logo of a sports team. But unlike, say, the Indians’ Chief Wahoo, the image is in no way offensive in and of itself. So if Snyder renames the team the Washington Warriors or the Washington Warpath or something else with a Native American theme, and keeps the Redskins logo, will that satisfy the media? Or, like Blackhorse, will they respond with, “No, not good enough!” and keep up the fight? And at that point, if you’re even a halfway-intellectually honest journalist, don’t you have to pull the Chiefs, Braves, etc. into the debate?

4) I was wrong, I did see one protester at Lambeau on Sunday.

This little guy was protesting against not being fucking adorable. Am I right?