Redskins no more: it's time for a change in D.C.

Howard Smith/USA Today

Should the Redskins change their name? The answer should be a resounding yes.

What do you think when you hear the name Washington Redskins? Perhaps, legendary football teams and players that have donned the burgundy and gold? Perhaps, a catchy name that is a racial epithet, indirectly aimed at demeaning an already severely undervalued group of Native Americans?

If you want to steer clear of the controversial nature of this conversation, I strongly encourage you to read on. The great controversy of one of the NFL’s most popular teams continues to brew in the realm of morality and it's not going to change.

At least, not until Redskins general manager Bruce Allen put his business-driven pride to the side and does the right thing.

It's been over 40 years since the Redskins were, officially, the Redskins. Registered in 1967, the name has no real source of origin, except for the possibility that it may have been created in 1933 to honor former head coach Lone Star Dietz, who claimed to be of Sioux heritage. His actual heritage, however, was never confirmed.

The name, to some, is a blatant example of the marginalization of a race that has been disregarded and pushed to the side from the very moment they encountered foreign settlers. Some feel the name is an "honor" — a dedication of sorts. Owner Daniel Snyder, Allen and the Washington Redskin's brain trust fall into this category. This honor could stand for the bravery and resilience Native Americans have displayed when facing racial hardships since, well, forever.

Patrick McDermott

"Chief Zee," an African American Redskins super fan, served
as inspiration for the Redskins infamous logo.

But if the name is indeed such an honor, why not go ahead and consider these nicknames for other teams around the country?

The Colorado Crackers.

The New York Negroes.

Hypothetical and highly offensive names these surely are, but what’s the difference? Why are these viewed as degrading, racist and inappropriate, while an equally disparaging term like "redskins" is conveniently justified as an ovation to Native American honor and bravery?

It's a double standard, that's why.

What's considered to be taboo and totally racist for one group, is somehow totally acceptable for another.

I'm sorry, but what's wrong is wrong. The Colorado Crackers aren't cool. The New York Negroes aren't cool. The Washington Redskins aren't cool.

Andre Holland, an African American Redskins fan, would seem to agree. Upon sitting in on a Smithsonian symposium regarding the Redskins name, Holland concluded that it was racist and no longer worthy of his support.

"I really don't feel right wearing this stuff now," Holland said. "And now I can't even say 'HTTR' -- which is `Hail to the Redskins' -- because that's chanting something racist. I'm going to be a fan of Washington -- a 'Washington football team.' Not the 'Washington Redskins."'

It’s unbelievable that a team, which resides in the capital of a great nation that proudly elected an African American President twice, is still touting a nickname as a sign of honor and bravery, instead of calling it exactly what it is — a racial epithet. Schools and teams across the country have changed their nickname, some of them voluntarily, because of the racist, negative representation of Native Americans, but the professional football team that hails from our capital goes untouched.

"Touchdown Redskins!"

"The Washington Redskins select Robert Griffin III with the second pick in the 2012 NFL Draft."

Redskins, Redskins, Redskins. There's nothing like being reminded of your skin color to instill honor and respect, huh?

The Miami (OH) Redskins? They changed their name and logo in 1996 to the Redhawks — a name that is both appropriate and very cool.

Geoff Burke

Redskins general manager Bruce Allen says the
team is not "trying to upset anybody."

For fans, changing the name is a question of football identity, football greatness. Who wants to look at their throwback Joe Theismann jersey as offensive or inappropriate because of a silly, little name? He won a friggin' Super Bowl!

For Allen, it's a question of business. If you were running a billion dollar organization, would you want to change your world famous name to please a select group of people that have absolutely no legal momentum? Why change it if you don’t have to, right? I mean, it's not like you want to offend anyone. It just, uhm, kind of happens.

Wrong. Washington is much better than that. The fans are much better than that.

We all fall guilty of being desensitized to the offensive nature of the name. It's become an iconic fixture in our culture, and it's as common as "Colts" or "Cowboys." But that doesn't mean we should continue to overlook what it actually represents. In fact, if it's not being changed due to business apprehension, here's a business favorable way to look at a name change: new merchandise. With new merchandise, comes many new purchases.

Fans are fans. They will still support their team with that feverish and fanatical pride that every sports fan can relate to. Just like Andre Holland, they will still love their Washington "Enter Name Here." They'll buy new jerseys. They'll buy new hats. They'll buy season tickets. It's football — one of the most lucrative sports in the world. The money train will undoubtedly keep chugging along and we can stop offending a group of humans that should always be recognized as an important part of our culture.

It's a win-win. Change the name and move on.