Washington Redskin Mascot Controversy By: TeErica McClain

 

                    “Racism is a refuge for the ignorant. It seeks to divide and to destroy. It is the enemy of freedom, and deserves to be met head-on stamped out.” (Pierre Berton) Nobody should ever feel like they are being discriminated against because everyone is equal, and if they believe something they should stand up for what they believe in. This is the case in the Washington Redskin Mascot Controversy.

      During the biggest game between the Redskin and the Cowboys, a lot of people were trying to figure out whether the term “Redskin” slurs Native Americans. Today, there is a loose campaign afoot pressuring the Washington Redskins into changing their name. Many Native Americans believe the term “Redskin” is offensive to them because this is not an Indian sport and this something not dealing with the Indian history. I agree with the Native Americans, the Washington mascot name is an ethnic slurs and is deeply offensive. I believe that anyone would have a problem if someone were to call them out of their name like “Cracker, Negro, and so on”. What the owner fail to realize is that what if he was on the other side of the fence and it was his race being discriminated against. He would be upset if the Washington football team were called the Washington Yids and he know he wouldn’t be worrying about the Washington team traditions.

       However, the NFL team and the owner totally disagree that the term is a racial slur. The team owner Dan Snyder, stepped up his game to defend his team the best way he can. He talks about traditions and how "after 81 years, the team name 'Redskins' continues to hold the memories and meaning of where we came from, who we are, and who we want to be in the years to come.” Which I totally understand “tradition cannot be a defense if the tradition is wrong.”  When someone make up a mascot name they don’t think about the how it can affect someone because situations like this can damage someone identity and how they view themselves. The whole mascot controversy has split the whole country into two different groups, they people who believe that the Washington Redskin should change their name and those who believe they shouldn’t. The people that think Washington should change their names believes that “the word was born out of hatred and often referred to the long, ugly history of the Native Americans” and how they were treated when they were first colonized by Columbus. Then, the people that thinks Washington shouldn’t change their names believes that the name is based on traditions and they sing "Hail to the Redskins" because "it's a song of honor and it's a song of tribute. 

     In my opinion, traditions sometimes need to be change especially if it is the solution to a big problem. I understand both sides of the argument, but I have to go on the side of the Redskins needing to change their names because it is offensive to a race and if this situation was to happen to me I would want that team to change their name to. However, the Redskins are not the only U.S. athletic team that has a Native American mascot as part of their names and so Washington shouldn’t be gained up on by everyone. But this is a way for Dan Snyder to stand up and show leadership so that other teams with racial mascot names can change their names to, and this can cause the United States to get back to being one.