What's in a Name?

The Washington Redskins name and trademark are once again under attack. A group of Native American activists filed a petition with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office yesterday challenging the legitimacy of the franchise's name under a "1964 federal law prohibiting the government from registering a trademark that disparages any race, religion or other group." Despite losing such battles in the past, I sincerely hope that these individuals are successful in their quest to rid the team of what I consider to be one of the most offensive possible names for a football team.

Advocates of keeping the name typically make several laughable claims whenever the subject comes up. The first of these is that "Redskins" isn't really that offensive of a term. That line of thinking is nothing more than desperate denial, and the "level" of offensiveness really isn't even the point. The term Redskin may not be on the level of the N-word, as some claim, but there is no question that it was, at its origin, a pejorative for Native Americans. At the time the term was coined, the Native Americans were being systematically driven off their lands, cheated by the United States government, and subjected to wide-scale genocide. These are historical facts. Regardless of "how offensive" one finds the term to be, it is wholly inappropriate for us to parade around in uniforms and gear featuring the likeness of a people who were nearly exterminated by our ancestors.

This leads to the second foolish claim of Redskins proponents, that the term somehow "honors" Native Americans. If I killed your family, then put a picture of them on a t-shirt, would you feel honored? In 1999, when the term was last challenged in the courts, the team argued that "the beloved hometown team has changed the connotation so the team's name is now 'powerfully positive.'" This line of thinking illustrates how the denial has led to the pervasive adoption of false logic. The "beloved hometown team" is popular because it has had a long and storied history in D.C.. The name of that team has very little to do with the team's popularity. Let's face it, if Dan Snyder changed the name tomorrow, would you stop showing up at FedEx field? Didn't think so.

When these two head-in-the-sand claims are exhausted, proponents of the term fall back on sheer desperation. Many claim that since the team has been called "Redskins" for so long, that it somehow can't or shouldn't be changed today. The fallacy of this claim is obvious. The historical existence of a thing does not provide validation for its continued existence. Slavery had been in effect for hundreds of years before 1863, but we still struggled for its abolition. Women could not vote since the founding of the United States until we came to our senses in 1920. It's always a good time to right a wrong.

What does Dan Snyder have to lose by changing the name? He'd put an end to the parade of legal challenges thrown his way each year and possibly score some additional goodwill among non-fans. I know that I've been slow to adopt the team myself because I'm not entirely comfortable with the name and logo. And there is no question that the NFL's richest team would grow even richer with the immediate surge in merchandise sales in the wake of a name change. We'd all have to run out and buy new hats and jerseys and the like. Heck, the team should keep the burgundy and gold but just lose the term and the logo. Change is a good thing, especially when it's the right thing to do.