"Respectfully, I just don't see how the opinion of Robert Green, or Native Americans polled in 2004, or D.C.-area residents polled in 2013 matters at all with regard to whether the [Washington Redskins] name should be changed," writes ESPN's Dan Graziano today on the polarizing nickname controversy.
"On an issue like this, public opinion is just a distraction," Graziano continues. "The reason the Redskins should change their name has nothing to do with what anyone thinks now, in the second decade of the 21st century. The reason the Redskins should change their name is the same reason they should have changed it decades ago -- the same reason they never should have picked the name in the first place. The word Redskin has a well-established history as a racist epithet, and such words have no business being sung and chanted in support of a professional sports team. Simple as that, and it has nothing to do with tradition or fan pride or whether anyone's still offended by the name today."
Public opinion may be just a distraction, but the opinion of the team owner is ultimately what matters. "I like the name and it's not a derogatory name," then-Washington team owner Jack Kent Cooke said in 1988. He also promised, "There's not a single, solitary jot, tittle, whit chance in the world," that the team would adopt a new nickname.
Now, in 2013, current owner Dan Snyder promises that the team will "NEVER" change the name. Why not? It's the money, stupid. So unless Congress or federal trademark legal action can compel Snyder to change the name, why would he? Share your thoughts with ICTMN by commenting below. And to read Graziano's entire column, click here.