The Washington Redskins are in the news over their name again. The word on the social media street is that there is pressure to change it because of embarrassment over the term ‘Washington,’ hahajklol;). The manufactured outrage is actually over the term ‘Redskin’ as it is perceived as disparaging toward Native Americans and psoriasis sufferers by implying that they are competitive and fierce.
Other teams are under the tomahawk over this, including the Atlanta Braves, the Cleveland Indians, the Kansas City Chiefs, the Florida State Seminoles, the Chicago Blackhawks, the Cincinnati Reds, and the Birmingham Whites Only. Teams also off the reservation who are bound to eventually be scalded by the sensitivity heat include the Boston Celtics, the Notre Dame Fighting Irish, the Minnesota Vikings, the San Diego State Aztecs, the Montreal Canadiens, and the Cleveland Browns.
I will say this: it does appear that Native Americans are overly represented under the team mascot tepee. Why is that? The term ‘Redskin’ seems especially derogatory because much like a rant by Al Sharpton, it seems entirely focused on the color of one’s skin. Which begs the question: why can’t we just use more pleasing and less controversial team names like Manhattan Transfer or London Broil? Of course, racial tension in sports is nothing new. I’m just relieved that the Jets and the Sharks are in different sports or every year there would be uncontrollable music riots with lots of snapping and dance-fighting.
Unlike the local Republicans however, it seems that Washington Redskins’ owner Daniel Snyder possesses some sort of backbone. He has repeatedly stated publicly that he will never change the name for the simple reason that he is stubborn—even though creative and legitimate alternatives to ‘Redskin’ have been presented such as ‘Washington Tax Exemptions’ or ‘Washington Casino Magnates.’ These ideas were scalped however, due to the fear of offending strippers with augmented breasts and mob bosses, respectively. Snyder also doesn’t like these ideas because they aren’t intimidating mascots that strike terror into the hearts of their opponents like, say, the Saints or the 49ers.
Because that’s the point of a mascot, isn’t it? To intimidate the other team into submission by their menacing monikers? This is perhaps why the Cubs are perennial losers and why my (very racist) high-school mascot, the Dutch, were 2-42 during my mulletted, swatch-wearing tenure. Good luck Golden Gophers.
And speaking of the 49ers, I would just like to say that as someone rapidly approaching 49, I find offense in such a mocking mascot that obviously pokes fun of us middle-agers between the age of 48 and 50. Just because we are a minority does not mean you should find us threatening and cross the street to avoid us.
I don’t like the Bears’ mascot either. There’s not enough violence in football that we have to add nudity as well? And I’m sure there are a number of follicly-challenged out there who take exception to the Los Angeles Clippers.
Not only should mascots be inoffensive, I think they should reflect the characteristics of the town in which they are located. Houston Texans makes sense; New York Islanders, yes. But Utah Jazz? When I think of rollicking jazz tunes, Salt Lake City isn’t even in the top 40. And just how many lakes are there in Los Angeles? I have personally breathed the air in LA and they should totally switch names with the Browns.
This is the main reason that rather than just coming up with a new name, I think the Washington Redskins should trade names with the Lions. Of course, they’d have to change the spelling to