Suppose you have inherited a southern style restaurant that has been in your family for over eighty years called "Rebel's Restaurant and Grill". And now, you are forced to change the name and logo of the business because recently a few individuals are offended by the name. This change will impact the history of your family and the business that has been ran so well for all these years. Are you ok with that? Would you be fine with changing what your family has built and worked their whole lives for? 

Until in the recent years, this would have never been a problem. This situation can be compared to the debate of the name of the Washington Redskins. It seems as though just recently, when some are offended by something it has to be changed. The political correctness phase of society has gone too far and the Redskins are feeling the wrath of it all. There is no way to please everyone in society; there are simply too many things that offend people. The Redskins should not be forced to change their name due to the rich eighty-four years of history the franchise has had. 

Why the Redskins?

It seems as though the Redskins are the only sports organization that are experiencing heat from Native Americans. While the Redskins are getting bullied by the media and many others including President Obama, there are many other team names/mascots that can be deemed offensive to Native Americans. In an article written by Justen Charters comparing the Redskins name debate to twenty other team names that can be deemed offensive to people, I saw many others that people may find derogatory. But these teams are not facing nearly the degree of criticism that the Redskins have. Two teams that stand out are the Cleveland Indians and Chicago Blackhawks. The Cleveland Indians' mascot could be deemed racist due to the red face. For those who think the Redskins logo is offensive as well, look at the logo of the Chicago Blackhawks. The two logos are incredibly similar but the Blackhawks aren't getting attacked for it. Another team I noticed was the Minnesota Vikings. Vikings were notorious for raping women and pillaging towns. Charters says, "It would be a whole different story if: Vikings were alive today still pillaging towns, the U.S. government and Native Americans were still at war ... But the thing is  --  they aren't. Instead, we should be recognizing that names like the Redskins and Patriots are ways to honor the legacy of our ancestors, not defile them" (Charters). 

In an article written by Dave Zirin, a sports editor for The Nation who has written eight books on the politics of sports, he expresses that if you think the Redskins are offensive you need to take a look at the Florida State Seminoles. Zirin accounts that at the Florida State football games, "thousands of overwhelmingly Caucasian fans with feathers in their hair, doing the Tomahawk chop and whooping war chants on national television" (Zirin). Now at the Washington Redskins football games, I can tell you nothing like that happens. Zirin says, "I've been to dozens of Redskins games and have never seen anything close to this kind of mass interactive minstrelsy. Yet there are no protests against this spectacle, no angry editorials and no politicians jumping on the issue" (Zirin). I agree with this, why are the Redskins receiving all this criticism and the Seminoles are not? I'll tell you from experience that at Redskins games nothing like that happens with the fans. If Redskins fans were to act like this, this situation would be worse than it already is. 

History of the Washington Redskins Name

The team originated as the Boston Braves in 1932 and played at Fenway Park in Boston, Massachusetts. Owner George Preston Marshall decided to change the name from Braves to Redskins in 1933 in order to avoid confusion from the baseball franchise. But that was not the only reason to change the name; the name was changed to honor coach Lone Star Dietz who was an American Sioux. President Obama had said in an interview "If I were the owner of the team and I knew that ... had a storied history that offended a sizeable group of people, I'd think about changing it" (Obama). Glenn Beck dove into the question of the name origin in a video analyzing the controversy and the truth behind the name. He says "Ninety percent of Native Americans feel that the name isn't offensive and shouldn't be changed ... the name was changed to 'Redskins' to honor then-coach Lone Star Dietz, an American Sioux.  So the name actually pays tribute to a great people" (Beck). Beck also goes on to show that many Native American high schools use the name "Redskins" as their mascots and wear it proud. They are afraid that they may be forced to change the name even though they wear it proud, "At Kingston Oklahoma high school, which is 58 percent Native American, the name 'Redskins' has been worn by its students for 104 years.  In fact, 'Redskins' was a name first used by Native Americans" (Beck). 

Opinions Many Native Americans Have

In an article written by Laura Stampler, it shows a video released by "Redskins Facts" that interviews Native Americans around the country about their feelings on the name. Stampler says, "The video, released by the "Redskins Facts" campaign reportedly funded by the team, features Native Americans from across the country arguing that the moniker is 'a powerful name  --  it's a warrior's name'" (Stampler). This video counters an ad made by California tribe Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation called "Proud to Be" that aired during the 2014 NBA finals. The ad can be found on a site called changethemascot.org, which is a campaign to end the Redskins team name. The ad says, "Native Americans call themselves many things. The one thing they don't ... " (changethemascot.org). The video then ends with an image of the Redskins helmet. But in fact many Native Americans are fine with the name and as mentioned previously, the name redskins was first used by Native Americans to describe themselves therefore, this description is not racist. In the video by Redskins Facts, some also go on to say that the Native American community is more concerned with bigger issues they are facing. The issues that are shown are: healthcare, crime, alcoholism, drug use, and unemployment. One Native American in the video also says that the ones behind a name change never seem to ask Native Americans how they feel, and it is always someone else speaking for them. He finds this insulting to their community and culture. This shows that many Native Americans want to be independent and not have others think and speak out for them. 

In a Fox News segment hosted by Megyn Kelly, she brings in a few special guests and discusses the name debate including Ben Shapiro. When Shapiro coined in on the argument he made the same point that there are some very big issues facing the Native American community. He says how 49% of Native American kids aren't graduating high school and those that go on to college only 10% will stay and graduate in four years according to 2010 statistics (Kelly). These numbers are actually staggering. As a society we need to focus on real issues such as education before we make a huge deal about a name. We should be spending time and money to improve these statistics. 

Honoring Native Americans

Despite all the talk of the Redskins offending Native Americans, the Redskins honor Native Americans at games. In an article written by Nate Rawlings, he expresses the fact the Redskins honor Native American war veterans. Rawlings states, "Four representatives from the Navajo Code Talkers Association stood in the end zone of the Redskins home turf, FedEx Field, during a ceremony to honor their service in World War II. They donned Redskins jackets along with their military hats ... " (Rawlings). 

In an article by Mike Wilkening, he writes about Dan Snyder's new campaign to give back to the Native American community. In a letter sent out to fans in 2014 Dan Snyder, owner of the Redskins, announced that he launched "The Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation" which aims to "provide meaningful and measurable resources that provide genuine opportunities for Tribal communities" (Snyder). Snyder made trips to 26 tribal reservations over a four-month period and talked face to face with Native American leaders and community members. Snyder said, "I wanted and needed to hear firsthand what Native Americans truly thought of our name, our logo, and whether we were, in fact, upholding the principle of respect in regard to the Native American community" (Snyder).  He concluded that the Native Americans are plagued by many challenges such as the education problem mentioned before and we need to take action, not words. He also came to the conclusion that thousands believe the name of the team and the tradition should stay and that the majority views the name to be rooted in pride for our shared heritage and values. The organization distributed more than 3,000 coats that winter and has more than 40 other projects in the making. 

Who is Offended?

In an article written by Maya Rhodan, she writes about an American-Indian school's disapproval of the name. The Red Cloud Indian School expresses their opposition to the Redskins name after Dan Snyder sent a letter to fans stating that the name will stay. They criticize Snyder by making saying the name is a derogatory term. In the letter, "Snyder said former Redskins coach George Allen consulted with the Red Cloud Athletic Fund on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota over the design of the team's emblem. Later, Snyder wrote, Red Cloud honored the team with a plaque that still hangs on the wall at the team's offices" (Rhodan). The school disputed that statement saying that many members of their staff and extended family find the name racially offensive. They called on Snyder and members of Redskins management to change the name for good. 

In a CNN article written by Michael Martinez, Martinez writes about both sides of the argument. He quotes the leader of Oneida Indian Nation and CEO of Oneida Enterprises, Ray Halbritter, who is strongly against the name. He backs the campaign "Change the Mascot" that his tribe has created. When talking about the name, he refers to it as the "R-word" rather than explicitly say it. He argues that the word is a dictionary defined racial slur and says, "Let's be clear. The name, the R word, is defined in the dictionary as an offensive term. It's a racial epithet. It's a racial slur. I think there is a broader discussion to be had about using mascots generally and the damage it does to people and their self-identity. But certainly there's no gray area on this issue" (Halbritter). Halbritter clearly has a very strong opinion on this topic. When he uses the short sentences ("It's a racial epithet. It's a racial slur.") in his quote it shows he is upset and has a high sense of urgency. 

What Should We Do?

As a society we need to get our priorities straight and focus on the numerous major issues that we have today. The Redskins name debate is one of the many topics the media exaggerates as part of the political correctness phase we have going on. Every day it seems we are getting flooded by topics like this from the news, social media, on campus, etc. There is simply no solution to make everyone happy. Society is getting to the point where you have to watch carefully what you say and how you act to make sure that people aren't offended. With the case of the Redskins, people need to realize the history of the franchise and what it means to fans. It is not and was never meant to belittle and disparage a population of people. After all, we honor Native Americans at games many times when we sing the Redskins fight song. The infamous fight song dates back to 1938 and starts off saying, "Hail to the Redskins! Hail victory! Braves on the warpath! Fight for old D.C.!" Every time thousands of fans sing it during the game, we are hailing the Redskins and describing them as brave on the warpath. In a democratic society where freedom rings, we are being held back by the political correctness phase. Ex quarterback Robert Griffin III said it very well in a tweet, "In a land of freedom we are held hostage by the tyranny of political correctness" (Haq).

