Team names can say a lot about the organisation that they represent. Having said that, they can just as easily mean nothing beyond a particularly arranged set of letters and an obsolete theme or idea. The All Blacks are so-named because they wear black jerseys (though they're not literally ‘all’ black any more). The Miami Heat, well, it gets pretty toasty in Florida. The Highlanders and the Chiefs in New Zealand rugby respectfully pay tribute to local cultural legacies while, say, the Melbourne Storm or Canberra Raiders names are more just example of badass imagery meant as a way of establishing an identity of intimidation and strength.

The NFL’s Washington Redskins have a problem with their name. As a franchise with great history and a well-recognised brand, they now finally seem poised to become a driving force once more, both on and off the field, thanks to one Robert Griffin III. RG3’s jersey is the highest selling jersey in the league, and his play on the field took the ‘Skins on their best playoff run for a long time. He is now the face of the brand and all it represents. But what exactly does it represent? Is their name racist?

The term ‘redskin’ is a racial descriptor (thanks Wikipedia) for Native Americans. The etymological origins of the word are unknown, but it’s pretty obvious where the term derives from (Red-Skin). In this age of freedom and equality, the word ‘redskin’ is widely out of use, and considered at the very least taboo in social interactions. In fact, sports are the only area of society where you will still hear it spoken without protest. So we can establish that it is an inappropriate epithet in most situations. Is it therefore too offensive for a sports team?

Well, who decides the offensiveness of words, anyway? Is it the offended, or should it be some non-invested third party? Clearly it’s not the offender, no matter how innocent their motives may have been. The current debate was sparked by a letter signed by ten US congressmen, only one of whom is of Native American descent (though that’s more a reflection of cultural population and a history of racially exclusive politics), in which it is claimed that the ‘R’ word is as offensive as the ‘N’ word, to which I would politely rebut: get off your goddamn high-horse. That word has a much deeper level of offense, while the ‘R’ word is an ignorant visual objection. Not that that has any influence on this debate. Any kind of stereotyping and labelling can be detrimental to self and community worth, but some are undeniably worse than others. Just as some are more offended than others, some also have thicker skin. Large portions of the Native American community are simply indifferent to the Washington football team. Some actually welcome it for the connotations of bravery and strength that football inspires (like the Highlanders or Chiefs examples). It’s not like there is much positive Native American imagery to choose from alternatively. Think Cowboys and Indians, casinos, that lone elder staring desolately across the industrial wasteland that poisons his ancestor’s lands. Even Tonto was a sidekick. Maybe the word would not be so offensive if the people it was coined for were treated more fairly, both now and especially historically. On the surface, is it any more offensive than the term ‘redneck’? I would argue not. I actually think that redneck for how it is used now more than anything is a much more offensive word than people realise. These things don’t matter so much when it isn't a defenceless minority that needs saving (or so self-serving politicians and anti-establishment neo-hippies seem to feel).

The Washington Redskins’ problem is that a rebranding would be hugely costly and time consuming. It does happen fairly often in American sports, think the Brooklyn Nets, but not from teams in Washington’s position. They are primed to be a strong team for many years. As such, they are developing their identity, and what will become their legacy. This is a sideshow that they have no time for. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell responded to the congressfolk’s letter with a thinly disguised dismissive laugh and more than a dose of hierarchal patronising. Nobody in a position to act on this issue actually cares enough to even consider it. So this debate will continue to promote this dispassionate polarity. If the zeitgeist leaned in either direction, something would soon happen, but it doesn’t so it won’t. It is probably worth mentioning that the original owner and christener of the Redskins was a renowned bigot, and the ‘skins were the last team in the league to integrate. And the current owner is too brand-conscious to consider a change. Keep in mind that a decade and a half of poor results hasn’t done much too derail what is now a US$1.6 billion global brand.

The argument exists that the name of a sports team, especially one so ingrained within its own context over time is meaningless. Or rather that it develops its own meaning. Does anyone still hear the name ‘Washington Redskins’ and think of Pocahontas or headdresses and teepees? Does anyone see their logo and think of generations of racial discrimination past? Neil Young aside, probably not (great song though). The name is meaningless to most pundits, and if the issue hadn't been brought up, few would have made the connotation. The word ‘Redskin’ denotes the grid iron team before anything else now. Having said that, just because the association is blurred doesn't mean that anybody in their right mind can defend a culturally offensive team name. Sport has often been at the forefront of racial equality. Think Jackie Robinson and his incredible legacy, not just in sports but as a worldwide figurehead for fairness. They made a film of it. Harrison Ford’s in it.

There is no reason why Native American culture, or any culture, cannot be appropriated like this. It happens in all walks of life and to all races and creeds. Cultural appropriation can be derogative, but it can also be a useful way of ensuring a modern and dynamic culture. No controversy exists with the Cleveland Indians or Atlanta Braves baseball teams. Where there has been similar controversy is with mascots that borrow or mimic Native American culture. Both aforementioned baseball teams were caught up in this. Mascots are silly and childish. It is obvious how this can be an affront to Native Americans, ridiculing and demeaning a proud peoples.

Ultimately, I could ramble on for thousand more words about this issue. There is no simple solution. Any time the race card is laid on the table, people become nervous and they tread delicately. The thing is, these debates are too hard to facilitate, because people become too easily offended on behalf of other people. No doubt I've written something offensive in this article myself. I apologise for my ignorance. I think that the Redskins moniker emerged from behind a veil of segregation. It’s not wildly offensive, but it would never be suggested if the team were formed today. Therefore we should not permit it today on the bases of legacy and nostalgia. We all loved Bugs Bunny and his buddies, but there are some things that we cannot endure without dropping an acme branded anvil on our morality. I was indifferent to start with, but as this article unravelled, so did my pretensions. I think they should change the name, and now is better than ever as this new era of Washington football commences. But I am sympathetic to the business that the sport has become. And it is Redskins’ owner Dan Snyder who has the final, irrevocable word: “We’ll never change the name. It’s that simple. NEVER.” So that’s that then. Marlon Brando’s ghost rests uneasy.

- Wildcard