The term redskin is because their skin was called red. Ergo, "redskins". Some say it came from the painting of their faces, often using red color. Either way, I say change the name. And the Cleveland Indians could become the Cleveland "Natives". The Atlanta Braves the Atlanta Cowards? No, not really. You're right, though. The names, logos, and "chop" should stop.
Cleveland has been under tons of fire for their red face logo. So has Atlanta.
Redskins however, is the most vile, because it's a racial slur. The term redskin was used by the US to denote the bounties paid on bloody scalps. $60 for a male. $30 for a female. $10 for children and infants. It has NEVER been used in any manor other than derogatory and is akin to calling someone a k*ke or n*gger or ch*nk.
NO one is getting a free pass. Not anymore. We aren't your mascots, logos, fashion statements or historical figments.
How about Washington Warriors? Name of "Redskins" don't bother me at all (they have won three Super Bowls)
It was pointed out to me that Redskins supposedly has something to do with scalping Indians. last i knew they were the one who scalped people but, hey, I really don't know.
Why is everyone piling on the Washington Redskins and ignoring other clubs with names or/or logos that could be considered just as offensive? The Atlanta Braves may not be as blatant in their disrespect for Native Americans, but how does one defend the ridiculous tomahawk chop their fans do at games? And their Indian head logo -- depicting a screaming savage -- seems to be disrespectful, as well.
And what about the image of Cleveland's Chief Wahoo? There certainly isn't anything flattering about it.
The Redskins logo is dignified and the name is offensive to some while not so to others. So why is one professional franchise being singled out while others get a free pass.
