I may get shot in the quad today, but I'll go out on a limb at this Eagles, Redskins and Giants-centric school and admit that I am a Dallas Cowboys fan.
Nothing made me smile more than Steve Spurrier failing worse than the Rafael Palmiero A&E special. I laughed uproariously when they gave Deion Sanders $49 million more than he was worth, and high-fived my fellow Hog-haters when Gus Frerotte gave himself a concussion in the late 90's.
I never miss a chance to bash those 'Skins.
But, I've got to defend them against allegations that their name is offensive to Native Americans.
Monikers such as Braves, Redskins, and Seminoles are not only inoffensive, but are honorable and respectable.
They conjure images of bravery, heroes, leaders and honor, characteristics reminiscent of any successful franchise or institution, as well as Native American tribes.
Team names often epitomize their goals. Using names that represent historic figures and groups pays homage to the accomplishments or the team's predecessors.
Many Native Americans have acknowledged this respect and appreciate and root for the Washington footballers, the Atlanta hitters and the Florida State athletes.
I'm personally just disappointed that my favorite mascot in sports, Chief Wahoo of the Cleveland Indians, may be benched in favor of something more reminiscent of one of the other wonderful Cleveland names, the Cavaliers or the Browns. How creative.
Secondly, the names are representations of truth. Native Americans were Chiefs or Braves, some were part of the Seminole tribe, they were Brave, and accepted the English moniker of 'Indian.' So, in short, all the names are factual, and convey no negative connotation.
And if you're talking about potentially offensive names, you can't stop just at those in honor of Native Americans.
The Dallas Cowboys are representative of a certain demographic in their state, however, never face opposition to their name.
The Vancouver Canucks not only represent a certain demographic, but they represent a nickname of this demographic. Their name isn't even factual and yet, they are not vilified.
The Boston Celtics also refer to a slang term for a ethno-religious group that happens to have a large presence in the city. However, instead of getting mad, the Irish Catholics in Boston rally around their team, going so far as to support a movie made about some crazed fans of the squad.
If the Redskins changed their name to the Caucasians or the Hispanics, I bet the wrath would not be as excessive, but rather taken in stride and accepted.
While it pains me to defend them, Washingtonians should be yelling at its footballers to stop looking like a punt, pass and kick team and start playing like the Super Bowl champion of yesteryear.
Their faults lie not with their mascot, but with their old coach, shoddy play-calling, a lack of a legitimate quarterback, and an over-investment in a middle-of-the-road running back, Clinton Portis, who can't hold a candle to the division's best running back, the Cowboys' Julius Jones.
I stray though, from the point that there are some out there, trying to make a political statement, without consulting those who it affects. Many Native Americans are okay with the names. Their voices are being overshadowed by those who are relatively unaffected, but just want to make a statement and hear themselves talk.
American politics, anyone?.
But, while I like the name "Redskins," nothing would make me happier than rooting against the Washington Politicians or Washington Elephants, or something a lot less intimidating than the classy, successful connotation of the Washington Redskins.
Seems like the name is just about the only thing they got right. Go Cowboys!!!
