Depending where you look and who you listen to the name Redskins can mean quite a few different things.  Some will tell you it’s about being a warrior; others will tell you it’s to demean someone by their skin color.

Who is right? Who is wrong? That’s for the courts to decide.

While the Redskins fight this battle each year there are quite a few other teams whose names could also be taken as offensive and or racist depending on how you look at it, but unless the public decides to blow up these stories, such as the Washington Post does, you probably wouldn’t hear let alone think about it.

For instance the Buffalo Bills might be one of the more offensive type names in all the NFL as well, assuming you believe the Washington Redskins are.

Why might you ask? Buffalo Bill was a man who ran a buffalo slaughtering business which led to the decimation of the buffalo. The killings were more for show and sportsmanship than they were to actually use the animal for every way possible such as the Native Americans would have done by making clothes, tools, and other various things from the leftover furs and bones. Not to mention feeding off the animal for months.

In history one of the main reasons for the Native Americans demise happens to be with the loss of the buffalo. So what better way to slap Native Americans in the face than by naming a team after the man who helped contribute to killing them off, not to mention taking it a step further and placing the buffalo as the teams logo.

Do the Oakland Raiders and Tampa Bay Buccaneers now approve of killings, robberies and other various criminal activities because their mascots happen to be pirates? Are the Minnesota Vikings portraying all Scandinavians as people who wear horns and go around slaughtering people?

No matter how you look at something, whether it be big or small you can find something offensive in it. Does that mean it is? That will differ depending on who you speak with.

One problem with the Redskins name is the fact that not all Native Americans find it offensive (who should only have the deciding factor in this). In 2004 the University of Pennsylvania’s National Annenberg Election Survey asked 36,864 Native Americans if they found the name offensive and yet only 9% said they did.

So who are all these people that claim the name is racist? Perhaps it’s people like ESPN’s who feel the need to jump in and join the lynch mob to say they were a part of something.

Didn’t ESPN just have numerous problems with possible racism themselves? “A chink in the armor” when referring to Jeremy Lin? RGIII being referred to as a “cornball brotha.” What about the “What if Michael Vick was white” article? Was none of those just as offensive?

What about the multiple Native American high schools using the Redskins name? Certainly one could pick an argument with a non-Native school or business using the name, but what about when Natives themselves use it? Where has the constant ridicule and court battles been with them?

If the Redskins were truly as offensive as some say, shouldn’t more than 9% of the Native American community say so instead of the exact opposite? Let alone why in the world would they name their schools after the name?

Does “Hail to the Redskins” put someone down? If anything it sounds as high praise and respect. What about “Braves on the Warpath, Fight for ol D.C.?” The Redskins are sending their best, or “braves,” on the warpath to fight for their city. Didn’t Native Americans send their best to fight for their land?

Being of Cheraw decent I can personally say the name Redskins does not offend me in any way, nor does it offend my family who I had the discussion with. That’s not because we happen to be fans of the football team or season ticket holders, it’s because of the respect shown, but more importantly the image of the Native American living outside of the casino.

The fight song which was first performed in 1938 by the Redskins Marching Band, has been performed each season since 1938, minus the brief controversy with the Dallas Cowboys, whom bought the rights to the song and threatened to not allow the team to perform it unless George Preston Marshall allowed Dallas to become a football team.

When fans think of the Washington Redskins, the majority of them will tell you the fight song is one of the more sacred parts of the teams history. After all, not only is it played during each home game, it’s also played on numerous shows, such as at the end of Redskins Nation. It’s become a trend on Twitter “#HTTR,” as well as a common saying between fans in the parking lots.

However, is there a time when playing Hail to the Redskins at FedExField becomes disrespectful? The fight song is about team tradition, and being proud of the product that is representing the fan base as well as the city of Washington D.C. When the Redskins are losing by almost quadruple the score, such as against the Giants in 2009 (a 45-12 loss), should the team have been playing the song which represents the complete opposite of that (the team didn’t score their first points till being down 38-0)?

During games such as the Giants in 2009, the Eagles in 2010, and the other countless blowouts, these are the current thoughts that are going through my head as the song is being played. I know a fair amount of fans feel the same way, as they had already left to go home, walked back to the parking lots to tailgate more, or are booing and holding up anti-Snyder signs.

Hail to the Redskins! – Am I suppose to be happy about a 45-12 loss?
Hail Victory! – What victory?
Braves on the Warpath! – How can you fight when you are showing no signs of life?
Fight for old D.C.! – Fight for old D.C? It’s 38-0 and it’s not even halftime!
Run or pass and score — we want a lot more! – Is that supposed to say three-and-outs?
Beat ‘em, Swamp ‘em, – Only team doing that is the team playing the Redskins.
Touchdown! — Let the points soar! – What touchdown?
Fight on, fight on ‘Til you have won – Can’t fight if you didn’t show up to begin with.

Furthermore, isn’t playing Hail to the Redskins on CD, rather than having it played by the Hall of Fame Marching Band even more disrespectful? The song, which George Preston Marshall had written specifically to support both the Redskins and to entertain fans is now losing the tradition it once had.

The Redskins Marching Band had played it each season up to 2010, when the team started to mix in the CD version halfway into the season, and completely converted to the CD in 2011, leaving the band in silence. For a team that has recently been all about “restoring the tradition,” isn’t disowning the band going against those exact words?

There are plenty of things the team can do over the PA, but having the band just sit there is stupid. Hail to the Redskins is meant to be a battle cry, not a party mix.

I’m not saying Hail to the Redskins shouldn’t be played when the team is losing a tight game, but when the team is being obliterated, isn’t it a bit disrespectful to everyone and everything to do with the Redskins? Being the team is doing nothing to live up to the words that make up each line in the song? Not to mention a mockery when being played by CD?

Time again for the weekly SOW Podcast. In the Midst of super sadness amongst Redskins Nation hang out with Kiel and I as we hit all sorts of Redskins topics including but not limited to The Return of Carlos Rogers, Adding another Cowboy to Redskins Nation, What is wrong with the Skins, Predictions over the rest of the schedule and much much more (Including Kiel making some SUPER CRAZY comparisons).

Check us out tell your friends and let us know what you think in the comments section!

Download Here SOWPodcast 11-2-11