In a legal battle that has stretched two decades, the worm is starting to turn in the battle between Native Americans and the Washington NFL franchise.
It always has been puzzling how this group or that organization claims discrimination when, in truth, the American Indians have arguably the biggest beef walking in today's society.
Redskins. That's historically as detrimental and derogatory as almost any other slur tossed around, and still that's not the flash point of discussion when speaking of equality.
But only now is the focus intensifying on the debate.
The reason is simple. There are more white people wearing their social-outrage merit badges who are offended by the term than American Indians. It's an issue that has become part rallying cry and part rationalization for the socially hard-charging brigade.
Think of it this way: With the increased demonstrations and deafening cries of discrimination from every other group, there can be no social rock unturned. So it goes.
And so the self-induced hand-wringing continues.
Hey, if there were hundreds of Native Americans protesting outside Redskins games, we'd understand the complaints. But truth be told, there are more white Americans offended by the term than Indians because more and more we as a culture have to have something to bellyache about or bemoan.
So this will be next, and to think it will ease by unnoticed is like picturing a fat man walking through a Dunkin' Donuts quietly.
It's simply not happening, not when we are plugging our ears as the background noise becomes headline news and the discourse whether the "Dukes of Hazzard" should be on Nick at Nite is at a fevered pitch.
In truth, if television is going to be our anti-racism filter, why are we not lobbying against Archie Bunker or "Hogan's Heroes"? Confront racism by showing a caricature of racism or a byproduct of bigotry; the Duke boys were Robin Hoods more than hood wearers. (Plus, if we're really going to start picking and choosing what TV shows we're going to attack, there's a multitude of shows showing rape and murder at 7 p.m. that are much more offensive than some Georgia country boys driving an orange Dodge with a Confederate flag on the roof.)
But back to the Redskins and the fight facing that organization that is somewhere in importance between a rock-paper-scissors game and the battle against cancer.
The team will appeal the ruling, but quite simply we all know this is the first step in the process that eventually will end the use of Redskins as the team name for the NFL franchise in Washington.
The legal ruling means that the Redskins no longer have the trademark on their merchandise, and that is a bigger deal than any commercial from a protest group or a senator calling for a hearing. Without the patent and the trademark, anyone can make and/or sell the logo and gear. That means a potential loss of tens of millions of dollars a year in licensing fees for the Washington Redskins and owner Daniel Snyder.
Plus, since all the NFL franchises other than the Dallas Cowboys share revenue from merchandise sales, this will mean for the first time there will be a fair amount of internal pressure from the other owners, since they stand to lose money.
You would almost have to be Rip Van Winkle napping under a rock on the third moon of Saturn to not be aware of the avalanche of social protest happening around us.
Now to pretend that the Redskins have any chance of retaining their name in the overly political correct culture is folly. And it may not be a hot-button issue for the anti-Confederate flag folks, but it's soon to be next on the list.
So let the games begin as the social-media target moves to the Beltway and an NFL team.
In fact, Snyder and Co. should start trying to figure out the next name of his team.
But you best be careful, because almost every option other than Tigers or Bulldogs will offend someone - and even then, PETA may have something to say.
Here's an idea: Let's call them the Washington Potato Skins.
That's relatively innocuous and retains at least the "'Skins" part of the tradition.
Oh, wait, that may be offensive to fat people in this country. Or is the proper term "metabolism challenged" these days?
Contact Jay Greeson at jgreeson@timesfreepress.com or 423-757-6343. Follow him on Twitter at jgreeson@timesfreepress.com. Read his online column "The 5-at-10" weekdays starting at 10 a.m. at timesfreepress.com.