It’s a safe assumption that “Redskin” is not a word used in most households in our readership area.

Yet, the Post-Bulletin finds itself addressing this issue for the third time in less than a year, even though just 0.3 percent of Rochester’s and Olmsted County’s population is of Native American descent. Despite Minnesota’s history being intertwined with the indigenous people, just 1.3 percent of the state’s residents today are Native American.

An objective reader will ask why bother with a topic that affects such a small minority. If something is wrong, even if it doesn’t offend a majority of our readers, it’s still wrong. Besides, any student of democracy should be aware that a long list of philosophers, extending from Plato to James Madison to John Stuart Mill, all warned against the oppression of minorities by the tyranny of the majority.

The origin of the word is unclear, with some scholars arguing Native Americans called themselves “Redskins” early in their relationships with white settlers. However, most historians say the word lost its innocuous connotation generations ago and became the racial slur it is today.

While a recent poll conducted by Langer Research for ESPN’s “Outside the Lines” shows 68 percent of people asked said the nickname is not disrespectful of Native Americans, 23 percent said the name should be changed, a 9-percentage-point jump from last year. The same poll showed 19 percent of those surveyed said the name shows “some” disrespect, and 9 percent said it is “a lot” disrespectful.

The Post-Bulletin Editorial Board sees the gradual shift in opinion as a positive sign. Every defense of the name falls short, leaving us to conclude “Redskin” is a slur, no matter how you try to justify its continued use.

From this day forward, the term “Redskin” will not appear in our editorials. You will continue to see the word used in Post-Bulletin sports and news coverage. Our colleagues at the Post-Bulletin must hold a mirror to the world and cover it as it exists. Our reporters on the news and sports pages don’t have the privilege of writing about society as they wish it should be. We also will not impose that standard on our readers if they choose to write about the team name.

The momentum is shifting toward an inevitable change. The Pew Research Center says more than 75 sports outlets and journalists have announced they no longer will use the “Redskin” name, including notable personalities such as Chris Collinsworth, Bob Costas, Tony Dungy, Peter King, Tony Kornheiser, Keith Olbermann, Bill Simmons and Phil Simms.

We’re also struck by others who have called for a name change, including conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, who a year ago wrote that “Redskin” should stop being used for the same linguistic reasons many other slurs have fallen out of favor.

“I wouldn’t want to use a word that defines a people — living or dead, offended or not — in a most demeaning way,” Krauthammer wrote. “It’s not a question not of who or how many had their feelings hurt, but of whether you want to associate yourself with a word that, for whatever historical reason having nothing to do with you, carries inherently derogatory connotations.”

More recently, Jordan Wright, granddaughter of George Preston Marshall, who owned the team from 1932 until his death in 1969, spoke out against continued use of the “Redskins” name.

“If even one person tells you that name, that word you used, offends them, then that’s enough,” Wright said during an interview in July.

Choosing the “Redskins” mascot was wrong when Marshall renamed his team in 1933. It will continue to be wrong until the day current owner Dan Snyder relents and finally changes it.

— Rochester Post-Bulletin, Sept. 3