To Say Redskins or Not Say Redskins ... That Is the Question.

The controversy surrounding the Washington Redskins team nickname is the sports controversy that just won’t die and with good reason. The name is offensive. There’s no denying it. If you deny it I have to question your intentions. There’s no denying it because the term “Redskin” by definition is a racial slur.

Go on, look it up in the dictionary, both dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster.com have the word defined as “offensive” and “disparaging.” The same words you’ll see if you also look up the word “nigger” in the same dictionaries.

Nobody in their right mind would defend a team nicknamed the N-words, so why do so many attempt to defend the Redskins nickname?

Some are taking a stand against the offensive team nickname. In an Associated Press article on Monday (August 18), CBS NFL analyst Phil Simms, who will cover almost twice as many NFL broadcasts as the next guy this season thanks to CBS’ partnership with the NFL Network on Thursday Night Football, and NBC’s NFL commentator Tony Dungy both said that they were certainly leaning toward not using the nickname on telecasts this season due to its offensiveness.

Simms and Dungy would join a growing list of media opting not to use the Washington nickname. Among others refusing to use it are ESPN’s Keith Olbermann (who’s gone on many a crusade against the name on his ESPN2 show), Bill Simmons, Tony Kornheiser, NBC’s Bob Costas and Cris Collinsworth, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and MMQB.com’s Peter King. Entire media publications like Slate.com, San Francisco Chronicle and Kansas City Star have banned the nickname, as well.

Then there are those journalists like Simms’ CBS broadcasting partner Jim Nantz, Fox’s Troy Aikman and CBS’ Solomon Wilcots who will continue to refer to the team as the Redskins because it’s the team’s name and it’s not their business to take a stance on. Nantz was quoted directly as saying “it’s not my job to take a stance.”

I understand the stances of both sides here.

In fact, the decision to use the word “Redskins” in both print and on my sports podcast, Basement Sports, is one that I’ve thought of a few times recently, even though like Simms who was quoted as saying, “I never really thought about it, and then it came up and it made me think about it. There are a lot of things that can come up in a broadcast, and I am sensitive to this” it’s something until recently I hadn’t put too much thought into either.

I believe the word “Redskins” is offensive. As I said earlier, you really can’t deny this by its very definition. So, this makes me want to side with Simms, Olbermann, Costas and others.

But, I also see Nantz’s point when he says it’s not his job as an objective and unbiased broadcaster to take a stance on the team’s name.

It’s probably something I’m going to have to take a little longer to think about before making a decision on the Washington team name for myself, but I will say that’s with each and every passing day I’m leaning toward a boycott of the team name, despite the fact that it inserts my opinion on the name into whatever it is I’m doing.

I think the Redskins nickname is one that is probably eventually going to change, but I don’t believe it’s going to be anytime soon. Change is a slow movement, and for some reason it always seems just a little slower when it involves the NFL.