Over the last few decades, team names that originally featured reference to Native Americans and First Nations have been gradually altered to be less race-related -- like a high school changing its moniker from "Chiefs" to "Cyclone." You get the idea. Now, it's easy to see some team names being a bit more offensive than others. For example, the University of Illinois' Fighting Illini isn't any different than, say, Notre Dame's Fighting Irish. Plus, the Illini have the advantage of not having some racial caricature as a mascot (Cleveland Indians, I'm looking at you...). Florida State picked "Seminoles" as its name in 1947 among a list of possibilitires which, hilariously, also included the somewhat less-than complimentary name for white folk, "Crackers." The Seminole nickname is also actually sanctioned by The Seminole Tribe of Florida.

But perhaps the one team name that's easiest to agree on, in terms of offensive possibility, is that of the NFL's Washington Redskins. Redskins. Seems like the closest approximation to a Native American n-word, non? It's not a name of a specific tribe or group, simply a skin colour. But today, USA Today reports that the American Supreme Court has ruled in favour of the Redskins in a case brought against them by the National Congress of American Indians. The primary reason for the ruling? "The American Indians had not asserted their rights under trademark law in a timely fashion. The Redskins trademark was first issued in 1967, and the lawsuit filed in 1992." This echoes an earlier decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

So, is this justice upheld or justice denied? Would the decision be different if the team were the Washington Brownskins or Blackskins? One argument the Redskins' lawyers used was that the team had spent millions promoting and advertising the trademarked name. So does that mean if I buy a $1 million black-faced lawn jockey ornament, it'll be less offensive based on the price tag? I'm going to go with an easy "No." on that one.

This decision smacks of using "tradition" as an excuse for currently unacceptable behaviour. It's a bit like having a racist old relative who your family just ignores or laughs off because they're old and "grew up in a different time." And before this is labeled just another bleeding-heart PC bullsh*t issue, answer this -- if you were awarded an expansion franchise in the league of your choice, would you feel comfortable naming your team the "Redskins" in 2009?

Either way, the Redskins could always kill the controversy by keeping the name and just changing their logo to a potato.