The Redskins have been undergoing quite a bit of pressure lately, and not just regarding their dismal 1-3 record thus far in the season. No, the pressure has been coming from the Native American and Native American Rights Activists regarding a name they have sported since 1932.

Many Native American groups have been protesting the “offensive nature” of the name and the controversy has brought the attention of sports columnist Rick Reilly. Reilly shared his opinion on the subject in a sarcastic, eye opening, and biting column titled “Have the people spoken?”

Reilly brings up a variety of intriguing points on the matter, and by the end of the article the reader is able to conclude that Reilly believes the Redskins should not have to change their name. According to Reilly, there are many high schools with the Redskins as their mascot and not only that, but the majority of the school’s population is Native American. After interviewing several students and administrative members, Reilly said he discovered the students wore the name with pride and honor, and did not understand how the name could be offensive. Reilly also makes the argument that just because one person gets their feelings hurt over the name, doesn’t mean the whole enterprise needs to change.. Reilly states that the controversy is mostly fueled from white media stars who have decided that, since Native Americans won’t be offended, they will be offended for them.

The war over the use of Indian names as mascots has been waging for years, and currently after decades of decline from over 3,000, less than 1,000 teams remain that continue to use Native American mascots. Using an Indian mascot that embodies the winning attributes that sports fans value is a positive thing. Many regions, states, cities and historical sites are named after Native Americans in honor of the original inhabitants. There is nothing wrong with continuing a tradition that those original inhabitants do not consider to be offensive.

However, there is a small difference between names like “The Warriors”, “The Braves”,  and “The Hawks”, and “The Redskins”. The connotation is completely different. By dictionary definition, the term redskin is described as disparaging and offensive slang for a North American Indian. The term came about when the US government was offering money to anyone who could kill an Indian. Instead of returning with the body to prove their murder, people would take the bloody scalps of said Native American as proof. While some Native Americans do not care and feel as if the word represents their culture, others disagree. For many Native Americans, the word serves as a cruel reminder to their not so pleasant past of cruel name-calling and discrimination.

I totally get it where these Native Americans are coming from, and I agree that the name is pretty awful.

But speaking of discrimination, you can’t pull the race card and then discriminate other mascots too. Isn’t there a mascot called the Fighting Irish depicted by what looks like a tiny leprechaun waving his fists angrily? You don’t see any Irishmen getting worked up about it. How about a mascot like the Vikings? I don’t see any Norwegians huddling in protest groups outside those facilities. How about teams like the LA Angels or the Saints? I haven’t heard about any atheists attacking those organizations because of their mascots.

No matter your point of view, I think most of us can agree that we need to respect the wishes of the remaining tribes in the US. However, this is difficult to do since it appears many natives are split on their viewpoints. There isn’t a way to make everyone happy. The NCAA made a small step toward progress on this controversy in 2005 when they initiated a new rule that required any schools with mascots deemed hostile or abusive to change.

In my opinion, as long as local tribes or reservations are OK with the use of the mascot, and the fans using the mascot understand and respect the culture it comes from… there shouldn’t be a problem. Banning a mascot for its offensive nature needs to be something that is the same across the board, not handled on an individual basis or on an individual race.