Quote:
Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan
Although the name Redskins is closely associated with the tradition of NFL football in D.C., I'm disturbed by the idea that in today's society we need to preserve a highly recognizable and well-publicized team name and logo that refers to the color of a racial group's skin.
I have no idea of how many people are offended by the team name and perhaps the team logo but there must be some way to resolve this as an issue. I don't have the answer but, as an example, wouldn't a name like The Burgundy & Gold preserve team tradition without the possibility of offending anyone? The team logo could include a landmark that is synonymous with Washington, D.C., such as the Capitol Dome.
I don't understand why so many people, including Dan Snyder, are so intractable about a name change. It's not that big of a deal to me. Just do it, get over it, and move on.
Also, as famous and worthy of being honored as the Tuskeegee Airmen were, the name Red Tails would be no more representative of the Washington, D.C. area than the name Redskins.
|
While I don't say anyone should go out and purposefully offend someone, it is a ridiculous thought to say that in a society of 300+million, we must try not to offend anyone. The name Redskins has a positive meaning for generations of people, and the level of offense within even the Native American/Indian population is questionable at best based on most surveys.
If the Redskins choose to change their name that's fine, but the notion that for the offense of an extreme minority opinion the government has the right to step in, even though there is no threat of physical harm to the minority, is a ludicrous spin on the role of government.