“'To say that the use of the term ‘Redskins’ is well-intentioned or that it is not meant to be objectionable sidesteps the real issue. This is not a term fashioned by American Indians. The nickname was assigned to them, just as the pejorative designation ‘darkies’ was once imposed on African American slaves. That was wrong then; this is wrong now. That the usage is common and innocently repeated out of habit makes it no less of an insensitive or insulting remark to those who are on the receiving end. We can do better.'
That is what we wrote in March 1992 when we endorsed an effort by the D.C. Council to convince Washington’s football franchise to change its name. [snip]
Now, finally, belatedly, there are grounds for wary optimism that we all may soon be able to call the team by its name — a new one that is devoid of hurt and insult, that all Washingtonians will be able to proudly embrace. [Team owner] Mr. Snyder announced on Friday that the team will undertake a 'thorough review' of the team’s name. [snip]
Sports have a wonderful capacity to bring people and communities together. A change in the name of the Washington football team offers exciting new opportunities. As we wrote back in 1992, 'We can do better.'” -- Editorial in the Washington Post.
Despite pressure from major corporations like FedEx and Nike to change the team's name, we're skeptical that the intransigent owner Dan "Little Danny" Snyder will go with a change this year. That said, he dreams of building a new stadium in Washington, DC, but has been told that unless the team's name changes, that's a show stopper. Time will tell.
(photo: Indigenous Americans protest Washington team's name. Flickr)
