Washington Redskins. Love 'em or hate 'em, they're impossible to ignore these days -- for reasons that have a grand total of zero to do with football. The controversy over the Washington Redskins name is nothing new, of course, but the latest round of sparring pits NFL Hall of Fame tight end and coach Mike Ditka in one corner and former NFL referee Mike Carey in the other. So, what do the two have to say about the Washington Redskins moniker?
Never one to mince words, the plain-spoken Mike Ditka has made it clear that he thinks the whole argument is pretty stupid. In an interview on The Redskins Historian website, the former Chicago Bears player and coach said:
"What's all the stink over the Redskins name? It's so much horsesh*t, it's incredible. We're going to let the liberals of the world run this world. It was said out of reverence, out of pride to the American Indian. Even though it was called a Redskin, what are you going to call them, a Brownskin? This is so stupid it's appalling, and I hope that owner keeps fighting for it and never changes it, because the Redskins are part of an American football history, and it should never be anything but the Washington Redskins. That's the way it is."
Ditka went on to explain how liberals are the cause of not only the Washington Redskins mascot controversy, but a whole host of other problems in the country. Fortunately, the only people who would possibly object to the team Mike Ditka coached and played for (winning an NFL championship as both a player and a coach) are the folks at PETA.
On the other side of the issue, according to a Fox Sports report, former NFL referee Mike Carey took exception to the Washington Redskins mascot, asking not to be assigned to Washington Redskins games after 2006. Mike Carey, himself a minority -- in fact, the first African-American to referee a Super Bowl -- feels that the Redskins mascot is disrespectful and that he didn't want to be part of that. The Fox Sports report quotes Carey, who is slated to serve as the CBS Sports rules analyst starting this season, saying:
"The league respectfully honored my request not to officiate Washington. It happened sometime after I refereed their playoff game in 2006, I think. It just became clear to me that to be in the middle of the field, where something disrespectful is happening, was probably not the best thing for me. Human beings take social stances and if you're respectful of all human beings, you have to decide what you're going to do and why you're going to do it. I know that if a team had a derogatory name for African-Americans, I would help those who helped extinguish that name. I have quite a few friends who are Native Americans. And even if I didn't have Native American friends, the name of the team is disrespectful."
In a related article published earlier in Inquisitr, even the ultra-liberal ACLU has sided with the Washington Redskins regarding their right to use the Redskins moniker, despite the fact that the University of Minnesota thinks it can demand the Redskins wear alternate uniforms in the Land of 1,000 Lakes.
You can read my thoughts on it in this op-ed published earlier in Inquisitr(Spoiler alert: I also opine about the Cleveland Indians' Chief Wahoo and the Detroit Tigers' playoff chances in the article). So tell us, do you stand with Mike Ditka or Mike Carey on the Washington Redskins mascot controversy?