Joel wrote:The Bart wrote:It's ridiculous in any era, but especially today that a pro or amateur sport have a mascot name that is racially insensitive and downright offensive.
But apparently the NFL continues to find it acceptable to continue the name "Redskins" as one of their league's mascot names. It's absolutely ridiculous. I know that there is going to be a big protest this weekend at the game. How about changing that name to the "Generals" or the "Presidents?" George was both.
There is absolutely no reason to continue using "Redskins" as a mascot name.
Change that name.
What about the Cleveland Indians? The Atlanta Braves? Where does the madness end?
Except none of those names have a derogatory connotation like the word "Redskin." (Granted the Cleveland Indians have an offending looking logo). If Washington wants to put a potato logo on their helmet or a peanut logo on their helmet and call themselves the Redskins, so be it. But I understand their logo is a Native American symbol.
Using the term "Redskin" is as deragatory as calling me a "WOP." Would I and most of the Italian Americans be offended if a team called themselves the New York Wops and had a logo of Marlon Brando in Don Coreleone make up on the side of their helmets? Yes most of us would be offended. "WOP" only means "Without Passport." It was three letters W.O.P. written on a card, attached to Italian immigrants clothing, (like my grandparents) as they entered Ellis Island. They didn't have passports. Nothing deragatory about that at the time, but the word WOP became very deragatory word to the Italian community. The word "Redskin" is no different to many in the Native American community.