An earlier post on this blog took note of the controversy surrounding the Washington Redskins’ name and whether it ought to be changed.

I have concluded that it should. I said so in the post, which then was distributed via Twitter and Facebook. One of my Facebook friends — and he’s an actual friend, not just a social media acquaintance — took serious exception to my notion that the Redskins name is offensive to Native Americans.

We went back and forth. My friend says we’ve fallen victim to political correctness run amok. Indeed, the Redskins name stood virtually unchallenged for many decades until the nation heightened its civil rights awareness. I keep returning to my point about the term “Redskins” and whether it originated as a term of endearment. I doubt it strongly.

Then a member of my family entered the fray. One of my sons noted that “Redskins” is a “descriptive term” coined by white people. It is meant as an epithet. His example: “Look at them Redskins. Let’s go take their land and stuff.” I died laughing.

His larger point is a valid one, which is that the term offends some people. Why not, then, simply change it?

He came up with this notion, which I’ll pass along here. Call ’em the Washington Indians, he said.

Interesting. We already have the Cleveland Indians in baseball. We also have several other duplicate team nicknames: The San Francisco and New York Giants, the Arizona and St. Louis Cardinals, the New York and Texas Rangers, the Winnipeg and New York Jets. There might be more … but you get the drift.

Besides, he said, you wouldn’t even have to mess with the Washington team logo.

Has anyone griped about the Cleveland Indians, a non-descript term that doesn’t offend anyone?

Problem solved.