"In response to widespread disagreement over the meaning of the name Redskins, I have crafted this interpretive totem pole of words, in lieu of a peace pipe, to help guide at least some Washington football team fans along the path to enlightenment. "What [Redskins] means is tradition, what it means is competitiveness, what it means is honor," team owner Daniel Snyder has said. "It is not meant to be derogatory."

Let us meditate on this. Is our home team really competitive? Is there honor in being the highest grossing (some would also say gouging) franchise in the NFL and not winning so much as an NFC East championship since 1999?

Snyder's claim that the name is honorific might soon be tested before the U.S. Supreme Court, which was asked last week to rule on whether Redskins is too offensive a nickname to merit trademark protection. The suit was filed by Native Americans angry over a name they say is offensive and injurious.

It would be fitting if the highest court in the land would take on a legal issue that is sweeping the land."

Get the Story:
Courtland Milloy: If the Redskins Care About Honor . . . (The Washington Post 9/23)

Relevant Documents:
Petition for Certiorari

D.C. Circuit Decision:
Pro-Football v. Harjo (May 15, 2009)

Related Stories:
The Independent: On the warpath over Redskins (9/21)
Column: 'Redskins' is the equivalent to N-word (9/18)
Column: Activists await last word on 'Redskins' (9/18)
Column: Not all 'Indian' mascots are offensive (9/18)
Turtle Talk: Redskins has Supreme Court appeal (9/16)
BLT: Supreme Court asked to take on Redskins (9/15)
Opinion: A shameful day in America with 'Redskins' (05/20)
Court sides with 'Redskins' in trademark dispute (5/18)