Football Team Name Controversy

Words: 1421
Pages: 6

The Washington Redskins for those who don't know are an iconic American football team belonging to the east division of the National Football Convention. They originated as the Boston Braves in 1932, became the Boston Redskins in 1933, then in 1937 they relocated to Washington D.C and became the Washington Redskins. They are an iconic team due to the fact that they are located in our nation's capitol. “The Skins” as they are often referred to have three super bowl and two NFL championships. (NFL.com) Their headquarters are at Redskins Park in Ashburn Virginia and the team trains at Redskin complex in Richmond Virginia. This iconic team however is in the spotlight of a huge name controversy. The team's name has a very deep and now offensive …show more content…
Other Native American based names like Chiefs, or Braves are synonymous with strength, nobility, and courage something a team should be known for. (Gasper) They are used careful and respectfully, while Redskins is appeals to neither of those. The name controversy is such a big deal, that a Senator named Harry Reid felt compelled to orchestrate a campaign that would urge the team to change its name. However the team fired back with an unsuccessful argument. The team President Bruce Allen goes on to say, “ I hope you will attend one of our home games, where you would witness first-hand that the Washington Redskins are a positive, unifying force for our community in a city and region that is divided on so many levels.” (Solomon) Allen is using the logical fallacy Glory by Association. In this case he is associating the team and game atmosphere with positive feelings. He also goes on and mentions the team's charitable outreaches and how the name is supposed to be a respectful term. (Solomon) It’s great that the fans of the team are so positive and unified and it's also great that the team does charitable work, but it's not great that the team continues to use a racist name. Allen’s argument does nothing in the way of defending the actual use of the team’s name. He should have explained why they feel the name is respectful, and why they don't feel the need to change it, that would have …show more content…
They are a multi-billion dollar organization but they don’t pay a single dollar in taxes. Lawmakers in an ongoing attempt to get the team's name changed, threatened to reevaluate their tax break. They receive the break on the grounds of “educational purpose” but many do not agree. Senator Maria Cantwell a Democrat and Indian Affairs Committee chairwoman from Washington sums up the argument very well. She claims “You're getting a tax break for educational purposes, but you’re still embracing a name that people see as a slur and encouraging it.” (Huetteman A10) Defending their team a Redskins rep slammed the Senator for concerning herself with a not so pressing issue. In his reiteration he tries to deflect and distract from the topic at hand , the Redskins name. He introduces issues completely off topic when he says “ With all the important issues Congress has to deal with, such as a war in Afghanistan deficits to health care, don't they have more important issues to worry about than a football teams name?” (Huetteman A10) It is safe to say that the team's spokesperson has a point but in making that point he is guilty of using a logical fallacy. What he just did was distracted the reader from the issue at hand, he changed the subject in order to attack the people involved in this case that being the Senator. Doing this is called Argumentum Ad Hominem. In doing this he wasn't successful in making his argument