, , , , , , ,

The Washington Redskins mascot has been scrutinized for years, but it seems that the Redskins controversy has risen to a whole new level lately ever since Bob Costas verbalized his views on national television.  

I can understand the viewpoint of those in favor of a name change.  It could be insensitive to some.  It could even be offensive.  But what I don’t understand is why the Redskins seem to be the only team in the crosshairs of the public’s eye.  Most of the mascots in the National Football League could be deemed as offensive, if not now, certainly in the future. 

Here’s a list:

New York Jets:  September 11, 2001 will always be a day that weighs heavy on the minds of Americans.  However, the country will always be reminded of the projectiles used to carry out so much devastation due to a mascot that is certain to bring nightmares to those directly affected by the tragedy.  Ironically, this event took place in the very city that the Jets represent.

New York Giants:  Mayor Bloomberg should find this one offensive.  He is outspoken about his goal to curb obesity, but fails to recognize that the Giants nickname could be offensive to the morbidly obese.

Green Bay Packers:  how has the LGBT community not attacked this one yet?  While “Packers” is derived from a completely different source, meat packing and fudge packing has a completely different connotation nowadays.

Kansas City Chiefs:  the mascot may not be offensive, but isn’t the color scheme for the team a representation of what the Oneida tribe finds offensive with the Redskin mascot?

Arizona Cardinals:  with all the corruption within the Catholic Church, especially amongst its leaders with the way young boys are treated, I am really surprised that victims of child molestation haven’t looked to the Arizona Cardinals as an opportunity for making a quick and easy dollar.

Carolina Panthers:  the fact that the Panther on the side of the helmet is black speaks volumes.  The Black Panthers were an extremely racially charged group.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers:  the NFL is going to extreme measures to clean up criminal activity off the field by those who represent the NFL community.  Having a mascot that represents criminal behavior seems quite counterintuitive.  

Oakland Raiders: see above.  Except, in this case, the mascot gives the city an accurate depiction.

San Diego Chargers:  how are the Christians not offended by this one?  John the Baptist’s head was carried on a charger.  Therefore, a charger could be a representation of Christian persecution.

New England Patriots:  the Patriot Act has really been a sore spot in conservative circles.  Since the revelation from Eric Snowden about the NSA, the conservatives have felt betrayed by their former president,  George W.  The Patriot Act sure seems like a bad idea now, at least poorly thought out.

Buffalo Bills:  Buffalo Bill Cody got his nickname from a buffalo killing contest with William Comstock.  The winner would be able to claim the “Buffalo Bill” nickname.  Cody killed 68 buffalo to Comstock’s 48.  How has PETA and anyone else concerned about the buffalo population not offended by this mindless and unnecessary slaughter of buffalo?

Baltimore Ravens:  the Ravens mascot is named from a poem written by Edgar Allen Poe.  Any association with Poe should be deemed offensive.

Dallas Cowboys:  who killed the Redskins?

My point is that no matter the team nickname or mascot, people can find something offensive about it, if not now, soon.  If this wacky society continues to fail to look past petty differences, or develop thick skins, the only real solution would be to get rid of mascots and nicknames altogether and refer to the teams simply by the city.