|
Honestly, I don't understand what all the outrage in this thread is about.
I'm politically moderate and don't have strong feelings one way or the other about the Redskins' name, but I really don't think that Costas said anything that unreasonable.
He mentioned that the majority of Native American-themed mascots are positive references to the culture. He acknowledged the fact that most people (Native Americans included) don't really take offense to the name "Redskins".
The main point he made was that Chief Wahoo and the Redskins are anachronisms, and I think he's right. Despite the innocent origins of the teams decades ago, there's no way that a new team in this day and age would adopt a name like the Redskins or a mascot like Chief Wahoo.
Essentially, he poses the open question: if the only reason to keep the name/mascot around is tradition (when clearly the name/mascot is asynchronous with modern society), is that reason enough?
If nothing else, it's a notion worth considering.
|