Of all of the Native American Mascots, "Redskins" is the one that I believe you actually can make the case is inherently racist; after all, it refers directly to skin color. In 2013, would you call a Native American "Redskin" to their face? I'm guessing not. So, given that other mascots that I don't consider remotely offensive have been targeted, I have been amazed at how the Washington Redskins remained unscathed in this debate. Until now.
And this is one issue that cuts across party lines:
In January, Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) told Roll Call that the team should find a new name.
Cole, a member of the Chickasaw Nation, said at the time, “It’s not a term of respect and it’s needlessly offensive to a large part of our population.”
Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), another CBC member, said last week he isn’t bothered by the Redskins name.
“It’s not offensive to me,” Rush said, adding that his focus right now is on the sequester.
When might this happen? D.C. delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton:
Asked if she thinks the Redskins will eventually change, Norton responded, “I certainly do. But nothing happens without pushing and shoving ... I am a fan of the Redskins. I’m just not a fan of their name.”
I think this will take a lot of pushing and shoving.