Al Bello/Getty Images Sports

Earlier this month, members of Congress sent a letter to the NFL's Washington Redskins owner, Dan Snyder, to express their disapproval of the team's name. In the same vein, CBS Sports columnist Mike Freeman has written a satire arguing that although there may not be a huge uproar over its racially loaded meaning, the name is still an offensive slur, much like "n—ger." And we should be just as outraged about it.

This is something blacks should get, but shockingly large numbers of black Washington fans stay silent on the issue, or they say, stupidly, the name Redskins is used to honor.

So, fine. OK, then. The city of Washington, D.C., my birthplace, is approximately 50 percent black, according to the U.S.Census Bureau. We used to call it Chocolate City.

The team shouldn't be called the racist name Redskins. There is no significant population of American Indians. The percentage of American Indians in D.C., the Census states, is 0.6 percent.

Thus the more correct correlation for a team name is the Washington N-Words.

If we're going to be bigots, why not go big? Or, actually, why not get more realistic?

Instead of a stereotypical Indian wearing war paint, the mascot can be a Sambo-like dude smacking his lips on some watermelon. Or maybe take Sergio Garcia's suggestion and have it be fried chicken.

Read more at CBS Sports.