Mascot Issue (AGAIN)

I know, I know, we've covered this a million times. However, tonight the Illinois Illini intend to retire their mascot, Chief Illiniwek (a chief in stereotypical Native American garb). At one point do the Redskins have to seriously consider dropping the moniker? I have always been very much against the idea because I grew up on the Skins, however, it seems like, more and more, teams around the country are becoming much more PC when it comes to the naming of their mascots and teams. The NCAA has forced a purge of Native American names.

Kornheiser and Wilbon have agreed that "Redskins" is absolutely the worst offense. They said Braves and Chiefs were borderline, Indians is really touchy and Redskins is clearly the worst. At this point it seems like only a matter of time before the Skins consider dropping the name. Not sure exactly how I feel about that. What about you all?

nope dont change it, who gives a rats ass. People need to chill out on the political correctness. Whats more offensive putting native americans on tiny reservations of the worst land the government could find and continues to put a completley blind eye to or a sports team that mainly white americans find offensive, as there are tribes that do say that the name envokes "a sense of pride." I mean the majority of people headwaying this kind of PC have nothing to do with it in the first place, instead of trying to change the name of a football team why dont you take some time and really try to help the native americans. Some freakishly scary number like, 70% of native americans become full blown alcoholics in adulthood, but hey, lets not try to fix a real problem lets make sure noone will be offended by a sports teams name or logo. I swear to god this country is getting dumber by the second.

How about all those groups that voted that it was not offensive? I think that carries the biggest voice here.

I vote no. I don't care.

isn't there some high school mascot that is offensive to Irish people? that is government run and nobody seems to care about it

I'm sure if people dig enough, they can find offense in everything on this planet.

Don't you think "Crusaders" might be offensive to Muslims?

How about "Cardinals" to folks whose male offspring may have been improperly touched by members of the clergy?

How about "Jets" to people who lost relatives in the attacks on the World Trade Towers on 9/11?

How about ... I can give you another half dozen examples. Finding a reason that someone MIGHT be offended is not difficult by any stretch of the imagination.

There is no genius in being able to "be offended" by a nickname or mascot. Anyone can do it. Listen to the arguments for and against any change and do so after you have stripped away all the emotional/rhetorical bullsh*t. Then, make up your mind...

Here's the question: Should anyone who claims to be offended for any reason automatically hold the position of superiority over the offender?

Should the offender be forced to acquiesce to the demands of the offended party?

See how far this can get? If I am offended by people who wear blue shirts, am I entitled to force someone into action simply by virtue of my being offended?

The name "Redskins" means a lot to me, as does the logo. The name and logo symbolize men like Sammy Baugh, Joe Gibbs, Charlie Taylor, John Riggins, et al. I've always thought that the logo was respectful towards Native Americans and simply cool.

Nevertheless, I would still love the team if they changed their name and logo. I don't think a name change would somehow cast off my memories or the team's affiliation with so many great games and great men.

Moreover, I do understand how people would be offended by the name. Surely a lot of people would be upset if a team was called the "Blackskins" and featured a Zulu warrior on the logo. I don't get particularly emotional about the issue because I think the people that attribute racist attitudes towards the logo and name are few in number and do not know much about the team. That said, I'm not Native American.

In any event, it's going to come down to money. If I recall correctly, according to federal law, trademarks that are racially derogatory are not subject to Intellectual Property Protections. If a U.S. Court determines that the "Redskins" name/logo are racially derogatory, the Redskins franchise will lose the exclusive right to license etc. its name/logo. That means that the team would lose a major source of revenue and, perhaps, be forced to re-name the team. However, I could honestly see Dan Snyder keep the name/logo and lose money just because he loves the team so much.

Sheriff:

When much of this controversy started about 8-10 years ago, I suggested to some colleagues that there was a simple solution to the problem:


Keep the name Redskins.

Change the logo on the helmet to a potato.


No one liked the idea then; I doubt lots of folks would like it now. But it might stop the focus on the team name and allow people to focus on the team performance - - which is a lot more important to me. :soapbox:

yeah it has been Redskins since 1937 so i dont think that name is going anywhere