The Washington Redskins went to Minnesota to play the Vikings this past Sunday and they did what they do best: they lost. The final score was 29 to 26.
Redskins quarterback Robert Griffin III made his triumphant return in the losing effort and played fairly well, considering the amount of rust he has acquired sitting on the bench, eating Subway sandwiches, and recuperating the his various injuries. What was even more remarkable than RGIII playing in an actual NFL game, were the thousands of people protesting outside the stadium against the Washington Redskins.
Some claim the team’s name is a racial slur against Native Americans and should be changed to something else. Many of the protesters on Sunday were reportedly of Native American descent. Some were protesting against the name, while others were protesting against the team’s mascot.
The mascot? What’s wrong with the mascot?
Although I understand how some can argue that the name is a racial slur – I don’t agree with them, but I see how they can come to that conclusion – I don’t understand how anyone can argue the mascot is disrespectful or insulting. The Redskins’ mascot is one of the more nicer looking mascots in the NFL.
The Redskins’ porous defense is insulting, not the mascot.
The ironic thing about the Redskins’ mascot is that it’s very similar to the Vikings’ mascot. The Redskins’s mascot is a man of Native American ancestry. The Vikings mascot is a cartoonish man of white European ancestry with an overgrown 1970’s porn mustache. Of the two mascots, the Redskins’ mascot is much more respectful, mostly because it doesn’t include a stupid looking mustache.
My advice to anyone who doesn’t like the Washington Redskins’ name or mascot, is to pick another team to support. There are 32 teams in the NFL. Chances are, there’s at least one or two other teams in the league with names or mascots that you won’t find offensive or insulting to your delicate sensibilities.
Photo: by Jeff Wheeler / StarTribune