In reality, 'Redskins' uncontroversial

House Editorial

A new rumor floating around says JMU may change its mascot’s name, "Duke," because a few middle-class students are offended that they are represented by royalty.

Just kidding.

But some folks are making similar claims toward the Washington Redskins, saying that the name is offensive. The term "redskin" is seen as derogatory toward American Indians and, therefore, the franchise should alter its name — which has seen nearly 80 years of football — to be politically correct.

If every controversial name in the sports world was changed to meet the standards of P.C.-obsessed individuals, the Atlanta Braves could be the Atlanta Pride, the Kansas City Chiefs could be the Kansas City Joyfuls and the Chicago Blackhawks could be the Chicago Cheer.

Admittedly, the term "redskin" carries a more racial overtone, but in the public eye and according to most American Indians, it does not strike them as being "offensive."

That’s right, even American Indians — the peoples whom the Washington Redskins essentially are named after — don’t mind the NFL team’s identity. A poll released three days ago by the University of Pennsylvania’s National Annenberg Election Survey found that 90 percent of American Indians don’t find the name "offensive," according to the Associated Press. Annenberg spent the past year polling 768 American Indians in the lower 48 states.

Then again, the poll may come out differently after this football season, seeing as how many people have high hopes for Joe Gibbs and his coaching leadership. Nobody wants a losing team named after them.

It is silly to take "redskin" out of context and make a big fuss out of something that isn’t as important as the team itself. Even California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has more sense than that. Last week, he vetoed a bill that would have banned California schools from using "Redskins" in their team names.

Savvy politicians will find just about anything to fight for or against — that’s the nature of the business.
Looking back at the naming of the Washington Redskins, the name was in fact meant to praise the American Indian — in history’s case, to honor head coach William "Lone Star" Deitz back in 1932.

Why change a name when it comprises such an honorable and positive connotation? Again, think of the context.

A team’s name is part tradition, part identity and part heritage. It is unfair to not only the players, but the society in which it represents, to alter that name for the sake of a few overzealous individuals.