Team name hypocrisy

As the controversy rocks on over whether the Washington Redskins should change their name, I was prepared to let it go with no comment. I don't endorse keeping the name. But who wants to read a blog that just repeats points that have been made many times elsewhere?

However, this morning, I had a sudden epiphany that it's unjust to be silent on this issue in light of the renaming of other sports teams, which had far less offensive names. I can think of at least 2 occasions in recent memory in which teams that were part of a major North American pro sports league changed their "offensive" name even though hardly anyone was offended by the old name - unlike the Redskins. I didn't know about either name change until long after it had taken place. Both of these changes were met with complete silence by most of those who now defend the Washington NFL team's name.

In 1997, the NBA's Washington Bullets became the Washington Wizards because the team's owner thought the old name condoned gun violence. This argument was patently ridiculous. Nobody is going to go out and shoot someone just because a basketball team is called the Bullets.

Then, in 2007 - yes, 2007 - Major League Baseball's Tampa Bay Devil Rays were renamed to simply the Rays because religious fanatics complained about the old name.

These changes elicited no criticism in the press. In fact, there wasn't even any serious controversy building up before these changes. These teams changed their names without any widespread movement urging them to do so.

But if you dare suggest changing the name of Washington's football team, you get shouted down by many of the same individuals who accepted or even supported these other name changes. Football is a game of many traditions - but I'm uneasy about keeping a name like the Redskins that's so widely seen as offensive. A disparaging term like that is far more offensive than something like the Bullets or Devil Rays. I know that even the blandest team name could offend someone, but why all the criticism of a proposed name change, after other name changes were accepted? It's hypocritical to keep the Redskins' name after encouraging the Devil Rays and Bullets to change.

As is the policy of many newspapers, I haven't completely avoided the Washington football team's name in this entry - because that would only sweep the issue under the rug. That's more than can be said of media treatment of replacing stadium names with the name of a corporation that buys naming "rights." Once a big corporation puts its name on a sports facility, the old name is considered gone - forgotten. The Media flushes it down the memory hole, and it's never mentioned again. Everyone smirks and grins as they refer to the stadium by its corporate name - without even questioning it.

Why do we allow fine old sports venues to be renamed for corporations, but we can't change a disparaging team name? This is the worst hypocrisy of all.

I've said for years that sports leagues should disallow venues from being named for corporations.

If Washington's football team changes its moniker, I would suggest changing it to the Bullets or the Devil Rays. That's the only way I can think of to rectify the unfettered silliness that surrounded 2 earlier name changes.