Washington Redskins. There, I wrote it.

You won’t find this columnist hopping on the “I won’t use the name ‘Redskins’” bandwagon other journalists have eagerly jumped on lately.

Does that make me insensitive to the plight of Native Americans? I’d stack my sensitivity about the racism and genocide Native Americans have endured up against that of any of those who refuse to use the name “Redskins.”

And I’d probably come out ahead.

No, I just don’t believe in cravenly caving in to political correctness. In fact, I’m what might be called avidly anti-political correctness.

When I ordered Lawrence Hill’s novel "The Book of Negroes" from amazon.com, I deliberately chose the politically incorrect title.

I could have gone with the politically correct title of the book that’s used here in the United States: "Somebody Knows My Name". But marching to the politically-correct drumbeat isn’t what I do.

And that’s what we have here in the controversy about the name “Redskins”: a group of people trying to browbeat the rest of us into marching to their politically-correct drumbeat.

A bunch of activists – and activists, in my experience, never represent a majority of the group they claim they’re advocating for – decide that the name “Redskins” is racist.

So they demand that the Washington Redskins drop the name and come up with one more to their liking. Don’t be surprised if said “activists” demand to have final approval of whatever name current Redskins owner Dan Snyder chooses, should he decide to change it.

This controversy didn’t start with the recent game between the Green Bay Packers and the Redskins, but with the activists on hand, it certainly got ratcheted up more than a smidgen.

According to a Sept. 16 story in the Green Bay Press-Gazette, one of the “activists” who protested the Redskins name at Lambeau Field was named Ana Ramirez.

“It’s a race-based stereotype that promotes violence,” the story quotes Ramirez as saying.

See what I mean about “activists”? Some of them simply have no sense of proportion.

Making the claim that the term “Redskin” is a “race-based stereotype” is one thing. When you try to claim that the term “promotes violence,” then you’d better be prepared to back that up with plenty of cold, hard facts.

And read what Ramirez had to say about other racially or ethnically offensive terms, according to the story.

“(Ramirez noted) people….would never consider using other racial slurs or names (and) should understand the name Redskins is also a slur.”

Once again, we see how the mind of the hardcore activist works. Or, in this case, doesn’t. Ramirez is clearly living in an alternate universe of her own creation, and has spent way too much time there.

“People would never consider using other racial slurs or names”? Where has Ramirez been?

Rappers have been wearing out the dreaded N-word for decades. They continue to do so.

These same journalists so self-righteously and piously proclaiming that they won’t use the name “Redskins” have, for the most part, neither said nor written so much as a syllable about black rappers abusing and misusing the N-word.

No, it’s easier – and more in line with the current political zeitgeist – to bust Snyder’s hump. He is, after all, a white guy.

So activists – and their new media allies – have decided to bust the white guy’s hump while leaving black rappers free to shout the N-word at the tops of their lungs.

We all know the term for this, don’t we? It’s called a “double standard.” When activists start applying their standards equally, maybe, just maybe, more people will listen to them.

Gregory Kane, a Washington Examiner columnist, is a Pulitzer Prize-nominated news and opinion journalist who has covered people and politics from Baltimore to the Sudan.