The State Legislature is going to go after the remaining 40 or so "race-based" school mascots. I was surprised to learn there are still several Native American based mascot names in Southwestern Wisconsin. Is "race-based" necessarily racist? Some I suppose are (interestingly, I think Redskin could be considered racist, yet the NFL franchise in Washington D.C. continues to use this mascot with virtually no controversy).

Is the mascot "Braves" inherently racist? Yes, it's race-based, but does that mean it is offensive to Native Americans, or anybody else? I think "Indians" is a misnomer because Columbus thought he was in India, and I always found it amusing that the name stuck. I don't know that it's offensive though. How is "Chiefs" offensive?" And consider this: should those of Norse heritage be offended by "Vikings?" If not, why not? Is it less offensive than "Chiefs?" In fact, would "Vikings" be endangered under this legislation? Several Wisconsin schools use that mascot.

What about "Pirates" and "Buccaneers?" Of what ethnicity were most pirates? Should their descendants be offended? Does the team name "Green Bay Packers" glorify the slaughtering of animals? I think it's interesting what mascot may be "offensive" to somebody. And I can't wait for the Freedom from Religion foundation to set its sights on the reigning NFL Champs...