Last night, the Washington Redskins brought their much-debated appellation to “Monday Night Football.”

“Hail to the Redskins” was sung in the nation’s capital on national television at a taxpayer-subsidized event.

If the team today had the name “darky,” a word that Eleanor Roosevelt used in formal writing in the 1930s — in the same decade “Redskins” became a football franchise — there’s no chance the team would keep the name, no chance fans would sing a song with that name. So why is Redskins O.K.?

Most probably don’t know that because Marshall promoted the Redskins as a segregated Southern team, in some years the song ended “Fight for old Dixie!” Most Redskins fans probably don’t know that American Indians were held as slaves in old Dixie and in colonial New England, including at colleges of what would become the Ivy League — see the troubling book ”Ebony and Ivy” by Craig Steven Wilder. Most probably don’t know that American Indians suffered indentured servitude in pre-statehood California.

Supporters of the Redskins name sometimes contend that although today the word is objectionable, that was not the case in 1933 when the Boston Braves became the Boston Redskins: because the name was used in polite speech when chosen, it should continue for historical reasons. But in that time, “darky” was not necessarily a slur; it too was accepted in polite speech. There’s no chance the N.F.L. would, today, have a team by that name. There’s no chance fans would sing after touchdowns using that name.

When you hear “Washington Redskins” in that song, mentally substitute the other name. Soon you’ll favor a name change.