Skip to content

Bruce Allen sees nothing offensive about the name “Redskins”

NFL LABOR FOOTBALL AP

As the Washington Redskins continue to come under criticism for a team name that is considered by many to be offensive, it is unsurprising that the team’s general manager sees nothing offensive about it.

Redskins G.M. Bruce Allen said today that the team is not considering changing its name.

“I’m proud to be the general manager of the Washington Redskins,” Allen said. “We represent an iconic sports franchise that’s 81 years old, that involves millions of fans worldwide, that has thousands of alumni. It’s ludicrous to think in any way that we’re trying to upset anybody. . . . There’s nothing that we feel that is offensive, and we’re proud of our history. To suggest that players and coaches and fans are thinking any other way, it doesn’t make sense.”

When Allen says the team is not “trying to upset anybody,” he’s surely right: Players, coaches, team officials and fans aren’t actively hoping to offend Native Americans when they sing “Hail to the Redskins” and put on their Redskins clothing.

But just because Allen doesn’t find the name offensive, that doesn’t change the fact that others do. The National Congress of American Indians released a statement last month calling upon the team to change its name.

“It’s time for the NFL and the Washington football team to join the 21st century and leave the mockery and racism of the past where it belongs, in the past,” the statement said.

The time may come when the Redskins get a new name. But it probably won’t come any time soon, because as Allen’s comments demonstrate, the team is digging in its heels in opposition to change.

Permalink 176 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Top Stories, Washington Redskins
176 Responses to “Bruce Allen sees nothing offensive about the name “Redskins””
  1. walker615 says: Feb 14, 2013 6:45 PM

    For the love of all that is good in this world,

    LET. IT. GO.

  2. moerawn says: Feb 14, 2013 6:46 PM

    Finally somebody who doesn’t cave to the PC wave.

  3. jmac34 says: Feb 14, 2013 6:47 PM

    These type of issues are made so politicians can try to make a name for themselves and people who have way too much time on their hands.

  4. freedomispopular says: Feb 14, 2013 6:47 PM

    It’s time for the National Congress of American Indians and minorities everywhere to join the 21st century and leave playing the racism card at every turn of the past where it belongs, in the past.

  5. atrophiedambitions says: Feb 14, 2013 6:48 PM

    Rename them the Washington Iroquois.

    The team is in DC and our constitution is modeled after their system of government anyway so it makes a ton of sense historically. What’s the harm in changing? New logo, new look, new marketing, more attendance…I have no idea why this is a smart fight to dig in one’s heels on. It’s 2013, just let it go. Hate political correctness? Fine! Do it for business reasons.

  6. sanders8920 says: Feb 14, 2013 6:48 PM

    I am still amazed how sensitive we as Americans are. I am a native American and d not find the team name offensive. Congrats Bruce Allen, stand up for your team. Next thing you know, people with nothing better to do will go after the ‘Fighting Irish’ and say it offends the Irish folks, hell maybe even the PETA is pissed because the Dolphins are getting a bad wrap.

  7. stoutfiles says: Feb 14, 2013 6:49 PM

    “But just because Allen doesn’t find the name offensive, that doesn’t change the fact that others do. ”

    There’s always going to be someone that finds something offensive. Let’s be real, redskin stopped being used as a racial slur a long time ago. The only time it is ever said anymore is in sports, and it’s always used as a team name in a proud manner respective to Native Americans.

  8. whitecastleisafoodgroup says: Feb 14, 2013 6:50 PM

    Easy to say coming from white guy.

    Nice umbrella.

  9. capitaloffense says: Feb 14, 2013 6:50 PM

    The name is offensive to those it’s directed at. Yes, I know some Native Americans are not offended. No matter how anyone feels the name was without question used in a derogatory nature towards Native Americans. With that said, I am a fan of the team and don’t necessarily want the name to change. If it did change, I would still be a fan. This comes up EVERY year about the same time in D.C. Some years its backpage news, others it gets some wheels.

    If I were Washington’s PR or front office I would do one of two things:

    1.) Change the name and be done with it.

    2.) Shut the hell up and let the clamor die down by itself like it always does. Because defending the name publically does nothing beneficial for you in the public relations realm. In today’s overly sensitive society you cannot make yourself look better defending a word that is without question a racial slur.

  10. prmpft says: Feb 14, 2013 6:50 PM

    Nor should anyone who is not trying to bend the world through whining or riding the “Stupid” Bandwagon…

  11. dolphins512 says: Feb 14, 2013 6:54 PM

    I really don’t see the issue here. The only place I see this being discussed is on this site.

  12. revhein says: Feb 14, 2013 6:56 PM

    AGREED! It’s more of a badge of honor than it is offensive, people are too sensitive.

    If they wanna change the redskins name, let’s change the Vikings too cause it’s offensive to people of Norse decent

  13. jonstump says: Feb 14, 2013 6:56 PM

    Are the Chicago Bears “mocking” bears? Are the New Orleans Saints “mocking” Catholics? Are the 49ers mocking our gold rushing ancestors? On behalf of electricity everywhere, I am offended by the team from San Diego. Also, as a graduate of the University of Chief Illiniwek” as so proudly stated by David Diel during player intros, I’ve see this play out before. Not one person is less offended now that the Chief is gone from Illinois games, they just find the next thing to be offended by. Can we all please just relax a little?

  14. cballlv11 says: Feb 14, 2013 6:59 PM

    I ONLY hear about this issue on THIS site. Stop including anyone else in your solo campaign.

  15. barrywhererufrom says: Feb 14, 2013 7:00 PM

    YIPEE!! enough of the pc bs. Make an issue out of a non issue. It’s the way of the leftist in our country. They live for political correctness..enough..

  16. rbhttr says: Feb 14, 2013 7:00 PM

    You have a better chance getting the Yankees to change their name.

  17. kylexitron says: Feb 14, 2013 7:05 PM

    “Are the Chicago Bears “mocking” bears? Are the New Orleans Saints “mocking” Catholics?”

    “Saint” and “Bear” were never words invented and used solely to be an insulting degrading objectifying label for an entire group of people based on skin color. Nice swing and complete miss though.

  18. zombiepatriot says: Feb 14, 2013 7:06 PM

    I fail to understand how the opinion of a Caucasian man matters when speaking about the acceptability of a racially offensive term for Aboriginal people.

  19. thegreatgabbert says: Feb 14, 2013 7:07 PM

    “Like any other 81 year old, we’re a bit creaky, a little fuzzy upstairs, but stubbornly set in our ways. Firmly anchored in the pre WWII era……..

    Eh, what’s that you say?……”.

  20. juicyballs says: Feb 14, 2013 7:07 PM

    boring.

  21. kane337 says: Feb 14, 2013 7:09 PM

    Change the name to the Washington Pigskins.

  22. phiddysent says: Feb 14, 2013 7:10 PM

    You PFTers are SO obsessed with this. Should we change the name of EVERY town in America with a Latin or Native American name?

  23. taylorgang24 says: Feb 14, 2013 7:10 PM

    It’s an embarassing mark on American culture that we’re so utterly scared of saying anything that could be considered even a little offensive to some group. I mean are Indians honestly pissed? Or is it just a bunch of whites who feel like getting involved? I’m sure it’s the latter.

  24. preakin says: Feb 14, 2013 7:11 PM

    I am a member of the Cherokee tribe, and come from a long bloodline of Native Americans. We have dealt with enough when it comes to hatred towards us. And I dare any of you to go to a Native American territory, or bar and that area and say Redskin around them, you WILL be leaving on a stretcher. Its extremely offensive, and to say Native Americans are ok with it, shows you know nothing. Its racial slang, we dont go around and say the N word or call asians the C word. Once again the people who where in this country first, and we where murdered for being here, get overlooked for a NFL team. It shows how disrespectful this country still is to Native Ameicans.

  25. umainebearman says: Feb 14, 2013 7:12 PM

    So I guess I’m not sure why ALL OF A SUDDEN in 2012/2013 people are caring about the name. 1932 is when they became the Boston Redskins. 1932 where exactly has this “controversy” been for the last 81 years. Who makes the money if they are forced to change their name? Plus we like calling them the Foreskins! So if they change us unoriginal idiots will spend 3 seconds coming up with new nick names for them. So please don’t change the name.

  26. patssox says: Feb 14, 2013 7:13 PM

    >>”I really don’t see the issue here. The only place I see this being discussed is on this site.”<<

    Haha! Yep! Exactly! : )

    This seems to matter more to the site contributors than to just about anyone else. : )

  27. bearsnoah says: Feb 14, 2013 7:13 PM

    The Republican Sentator from Oklahoma Jim Inhoffe believes the name is offensive and wants it changed–guess what, he represents a LOT of native Americans.

    Native Americans are offended–just like African Americans would be if there was a team called the “blackskins.”

    All of you blowhards in your La-Z-Boy chairs that have never been marginalized need to realize that reasonable people see differently than you, like Republican Senators.

  28. blackandbluedivision says: Feb 14, 2013 7:14 PM

    Is the name “Redskins” racist. Yes!
    Is it being used for “racist” reasons. No!

    I think the fact that people are taking the racist name and flipping it around to celebrate Native Americans should be a sense of pride.

  29. mrbigass says: Feb 14, 2013 7:14 PM

    This is all media driven like most of the mindless drivel that the glut of news outlets scramble to find something to agitate the masses about….

    Fubar!

  30. blackandbluedivision says: Feb 14, 2013 7:15 PM

    phiddysent says:
    Feb 14, 2013 7:10 PM
    You PFTers are SO obsessed with this. Should we change the name of EVERY town in America with a Latin or Native American name?
    __________________________

    The name “Redskins” is offensive by nature. It isn’t just a Native American name.

  31. davearnone says: Feb 14, 2013 7:15 PM

    I’d be honored if a decided the
    “fightingdagos” made sense for them.

  32. 6thsense79 says: Feb 14, 2013 7:15 PM

    Well from someone who has a brother that didn’t know macacca was offensive this isn’t surprising.

    I can’t even defend the name and the Skins are my team. To all those hollering about PC police give it a rest already. Native Americans have gotten the short end of the stick for generations and now you’re poo pooing their very legitimate beef over a name they find offensive. I know if the Skins were called the Washington Darkies I would be upset. But because the Natives have been killed and diseased off and are a small part of the population they can’t get people to take their protest seriously.

    The Skins use to be namr the Braves so it’s not like the franchise name has always been the Redskins.

  33. chc4 says: Feb 14, 2013 7:16 PM

    We stole their land. Poo happens. Get over it.

  34. blackandbluedivision says: Feb 14, 2013 7:16 PM

    freedomispopular says:
    Feb 14, 2013 6:47 PM
    It’s time for the National Congress of American Indians and minorities everywhere to join the 21st century and leave playing the racism card at every turn of the past where it belongs, in the past.
    ___________________________

    Right…right…so the people who actually hurl the racial slurs or commit the actual racism aren’t the problem. It’s just the one’s that complain about it. Why? because you don’t want to hear about it.

  35. larrydavid7000 says: Feb 14, 2013 7:17 PM

    all I have to say is. HAIL TO THE REDSKINS.!!!!!!!!

  36. kev86 says: Feb 14, 2013 7:17 PM

    Washington Skins. Done.

  37. rgtre10 says: Feb 14, 2013 7:17 PM

    Well we know the past and present Congress is a joke and a disgrace to the American people Redskin, whiteskin, blackskin etc., why should the National Congress of American Indians be any different?

  38. mackcarrington says: Feb 14, 2013 7:19 PM

    Leaving racial issues “in the past” is a nice idea for people who get uncomfortable and queasy dealing with racial issues. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a “Post racial world”. Take a look at what is going on in soccer. Would be nice if there were no “racial issues”, but every time a “minority” player gets entangled in some off-field legal issues, we get tons of comments that contain bigoted, stereotypical remarks. And these are the people who are always saying “stop playing the race card”.

  39. mullman76 says: Feb 14, 2013 7:19 PM

    @kylexitron: Yours is the only sane post in the whole lot. Well said.

  40. jaymo13 says: Feb 14, 2013 7:20 PM

    moerawn says: Feb 14, 2013 6:46 PM

    Finally somebody who doesn’t cave to the PC wave.

    _______

    You should move the celebration to your nearest Native American Reservation. Let’s how strong that opinion of yours is..

  41. thegreatgabbert says: Feb 14, 2013 7:20 PM

    “So I fart loudly at the dinner table, fall asleep on the couch snoring loudly with my mouth open and scatter pedestrians like bowling pins when I go for a drive, I’m 81 goddamn years old and I’ve earned the right to do what I please. You gotta problem with that?”.

  42. chawk12thman says: Feb 14, 2013 7:22 PM

    NEW NAME: “Washington Politicians”

    Mascots would be elephant and/or jack ass………One can only imagine how the voting for the pro bowl would be corrupted so all their players made the team…….etc……etc….etc……

  43. zombiepatriot says: Feb 14, 2013 7:23 PM

    I wonder how many of those who are willing to stand and say they have no issue with the term Redskin and that the so called P.C. crowd should be silenced would be willing to address Native Americans on a reserve, at a Pow-Wow or any large gathering with the word. I have a hard time there would be many who would because even the loudest supporter for a racially insensitive term usually becomes rather quiet when having to used it in the presence of those it is marginalizing.

  44. clickablecontent says: Feb 14, 2013 7:24 PM

    This is a reason why the Redskins aren’t a premiere franchise: Change your name, add more fans. Keep your name, alienate potential fans. Simple business.

  45. johnnycamparm says: Feb 14, 2013 7:24 PM

    This name change thing is SUCH a joke! These liberals cry about the Redskins being an offensive name, and are worried so much about the Native Americans’ feelings, but have no problem living on stolen land. I say, if you Liberals care so much, why don’t you give your land back to the next Native American you see, and move the f#$% out of this country. Quit ruining this country for everyone else… I bet you a million dollars that I am way more offended by your liberal antics, than you are by the name “Redskin”.

  46. jimmysee says: Feb 14, 2013 7:25 PM

    Actually, the Redskins and the Dolphins should swap team names.

    I’ve been down in Miami.

    I stayed out in the sun way too long.

    I got red skin.

    It was not pretty.

    That would solve the problem.

  47. atrophiedambitions says: Feb 14, 2013 7:26 PM

    “Are the Chicago Bears “mocking” bears? ”

    ———

    If there were a racial slur for bears — like if brown bears called black bears “Darks” for years during the systematic killing and mass death inflicted on black bears then yes, the Chicago Darks would be mocking black bears which makes it stupid to keep the name since you’d be better off not angering any of your potential fans instead of some. As you may know, however, humans are historically far more prone to violent forms of racialized oppression than bears.

    I think you don’t quite get it — the push to get the name changed wouldn’t be nearly as strong if they were the Washington Indians (even though there are those who think even ‘Indian’ is moderately offensive). the push is strong because its a SLUR. We’re not talking about changing ‘manholes’ to ‘personholes’.

    Ironically, your poor logic does demonstrate the strongest argument for change and that is this:

    31 other teams in the NFL managed to come up with names that are barely if at all offensive (even “Chief” is a rank, not a slur). Why create drama where there doesn’t need to be any? You know how many times the Cardinals have had to have a public debate about their name? Zero. Same with the Bears.

    We can have a debate about how sensitive people should or shouldn’t be but that is a separate question from whether or not its smart policy to openly offend some people with your brand name. If you believe people should be less sensitive, it still doesn’t make sense to go out of your way to try to offend them. Do you march through shopping malls shouting the N-word to teach people a similar lesson? Of course you don’t. You can believe that people shouldn’t be offended by that language without proactively putting it in their face, ESPECIALLY when you are running a multi-million dollar business.

  48. fringetastic says: Feb 14, 2013 7:26 PM

    I’m getting sick of this story line. It’s going to be a long offseason.

    “a team name that is considered by many to be offensive”

    Define ‘many’. Because the last time I saw legit polling on this, it wasn’t even close to a majority.

    But you know… you’ve got an angle.. beat it into the ground.

  49. jaymo13 says: Feb 14, 2013 7:26 PM

    revhein says: Feb 14, 2013 6:56 PM

    If they wanna change the redskins name, let’s change the Vikings too cause it’s offensive to people of Norse decent

    _________

    Because, in a simpleton’s world, these two are one and the same. Good grief.

  50. showtyme34 says: Feb 14, 2013 7:27 PM

    The way I see it, change the name. Native American’s don’t deserve the respect that comes with having the name of a National Football League Team. Call it the Washington White Man. If they don’t want the honor and privledge, give it to someone else.

    Ohh by the way, if they want to be fair. Let someone other than indians run Casinos. A little competition never hurt anyone.

  51. poprox13 says: Feb 14, 2013 7:27 PM

    Let it go……………..!

  52. jaymo13 says: Feb 14, 2013 7:28 PM

    San Diego Bean’rs. I don’t see anything offensive about it and I’m not trying to upset anyone.

  53. blackandbluedivision says: Feb 14, 2013 7:28 PM

    The problem is Native Americans are a underrepresented minority. If this were blacks and the NAACP causing up a storm and making a bigger stink, this would be a bigger issue. But, because people can’t find enough people, that they know that find this offensive, they don’t think it’s offensive. That’s pretty ignorant. If Native Americans are truly Americans. They’re needs and issues should be taken into consideration, just like anyone else.

    You’re asking blacks, whites, and people of other cultures if they find the name offensive…then put a small paragraph about Native Americans who do find it offensive. You don’t see how this is swaying public opinion. You push one side long and hard enough the other side will just be forgotten. Did anyone bother to educate the people you ask on why this might be offensive before you ask? or did you just ask if they thought it was offensive?

  54. jaymo13 says: Feb 14, 2013 7:29 PM

    New York Spades. I don’t see anything offensive about it and I’m not trying to upset anyone.

  55. bert1913 says: Feb 14, 2013 7:32 PM

    the native americans should name a casino “insert offensive name for a caucasian” when the caucasians complain about the name, tell them to get over it because it doesn’t offend native americans.

  56. rbhttr says: Feb 14, 2013 7:32 PM

    PReakin – I call BS.
    As someone who has lived on Navajo land and tough in their schools. I think most American Indians are more concerns with US treaties that haven’t been upheld still on our end then with a football logo. Such as land ownership or any other 36 treaties we have skipped out on but to this day still hold all tribes to their end of our treaties.

    With all the legal battles representing Native Americans in the supreme court and NM and AZ supreme courts I doubt a name and logo would be their top concern.

    Coming on here pretending to be an Indian to prove a put is more insulting then any logo or name.

    Good day sir.

  57. rbhttr says: Feb 14, 2013 7:33 PM

    And Yes I wear my R hat everyday to school with no issue ever in 5 years along with my redskins sticker/logo on my truck.

  58. thegreatgabbert says: Feb 14, 2013 7:36 PM

    Episode 317 of “The Indian Wars”. Bruce Allen digs in his heels. Will he be able to hold the fort?

    Stay tuned.

  59. baywatchboy says: Feb 14, 2013 7:37 PM

    This is insane. Washington already changed one team name because the owner wanted to be PC. He changed the Bullets to the Wizards. Seriously? The Bullets were named for a train and he changed it from that to a rank in the KKK and it’s supposed to be better? I don’t think so.

    Changing the name to Skins is about stupid.

    Everyone needs to get off their high horse or soapbox and relax.

  60. scytherius says: Feb 14, 2013 7:41 PM

    Bet if the name was “Old White Redneck Crackers” a lot of the thumbs up here would be thumbs down.

  61. blackandbluedivision says: Feb 14, 2013 7:41 PM

    rbhttr says:
    Feb 14, 2013 7:32 PM
    PReakin – I call BS.
    As someone who has lived on Navajo land and tough in their schools. I think most American Indians are more concerns with US treaties that haven’t been upheld still on our end then with a football logo. Such as land ownership or any other 36 treaties we have skipped out on but to this day still hold all tribes to their end of our treaties.

    With all the legal battles representing Native Americans in the supreme court and NM and AZ supreme courts I doubt a name and logo would be their top concern.

    Coming on here pretending to be an Indian to prove a put is more insulting then any logo or name.

    Good day sir.
    _____________________________

    If the National Congress of American Indians releasing a statement condemning the name, isn’t enough to prove to you that they take the seriously then I don’t know what is:

    The National Congress of American Indians released a statement last month calling upon the team to change its name.

    “It’s time for the NFL and the Washington football team to join the 21st century and leave the mockery and racism of the past where it belongs, in the past,” the statement said.

  62. mackcarrington says: Feb 14, 2013 7:42 PM

    @ jaymo13- Beaners…. Spades…. ????? Don’t give these people any ideas. They just might take you seriously.

  63. blackandbluedivision says: Feb 14, 2013 7:42 PM

    I love the argument. “I don’t find it offensive.” “You’re too sensitive.”

    So why is it always about YOUR feelings. Ever thought to care for someone else for a second. A fellow American.

  64. jander05 says: Feb 14, 2013 7:43 PM

    For peetes sake, you dont hear people complaining about ‘Chiefs’ but regardless of the age of the moniker, ‘Redskins’ is still a term that directly references the skin color of a people as its mascot. Change your name to Braves or something and keep your logo and call it good. Jeez.

  65. chachooga says: Feb 14, 2013 7:43 PM

    The redskins only “come under fire” when this contrived controversy is pushed by the liberal media and their white guilt complex.

    I am an FSU grad. Funny how this nonsense falls flat when the Seminole Nation endorses FSU every time a media outlet like CBS comes whining.

  66. SilentMajority says: Feb 14, 2013 7:45 PM

    Eh, manufactured outrage is all this is. It’s been reading about this since I was in high school back in the early ’90s. Nothing’s changed since then to make me think they’ll change their name.

  67. chachooga says: Feb 14, 2013 7:48 PM

    @fringetastic

    “I’m getting sick of this story line. It’s going to be a long offseason.

    “a team name that is considered by many to be offensive”

    Define ‘many’. Because the last time I saw legit polling on this, it wasn’t even close to a majority.

    But you know… you’ve got an angle.. beat it into the ground.”

    ^^This

    You say it so well!!!!!!!

  68. warhammer420 says: Feb 14, 2013 7:51 PM

    I agree, no big deal. And I propose if L.A. gets a team, they call them the Blackskins.

  69. baywatchboy says: Feb 14, 2013 7:57 PM

    What about the Padres? With all the issues the Catholic church is having, wouldn’t all of those who have been abused, find that name offensive?

    The Tampa Bay Devil Rays changed their name, but the New Jersey Devils and Duke Blue Devils didn’t.

    Should the Houston Rockets change their name because a Rocket is a missile and they kill people?

    The Golden State Warriors? Sounds like a gang, change it.

    The Reds? That’s Communist

    The Brewers? They encourage underage drinking.

    The Yankees? That’s offensive to anyone from the South

    @blackandbluedivision
    You’re right, to an extent. Should you change what something is named or called anytime someone finds it offensive? That seems a bit over the top and excessive to me.

  70. seanb20124 says: Feb 14, 2013 7:59 PM

    I agree with the Allen

  71. seawurd says: Feb 14, 2013 8:00 PM

    How about that old baseball team from the 40’s called the Small Pecker Whiteboys. Nobody was upset about that.

  72. deacon85 says: Feb 14, 2013 8:02 PM

    Exactly when was it that the National Congress of American Indians was anointed to speak on behalf of all Indians? speaking of which, shouldn’t they change their name to the “National Congress of Native Americans” since someone might be offended by “Indians”?

  73. skinsrollyou says: Feb 14, 2013 8:06 PM

    The only criticism is hear about it comes from you baffoons and the local radio jackasses that act like ur the news

  74. nj22 says: Feb 14, 2013 8:06 PM

    Well thank goodness Bruce Allen is not offended by the name. That is really all that matters. In similar news Rush Limbau declares N-word does not offend him either. Lol

  75. radrntn says: Feb 14, 2013 8:07 PM

    hmmmmm …….trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill….i am going to have to tell me kids no more playing cowboys and indians…it’s offensive

  76. tombstone7 says: Feb 14, 2013 8:08 PM

    Historically, European Americans have always been insensitive to the indigenious people in this country. That’s a fact! The Piscataway Tribe that lived along the Chesapeak Bay during the 1600’s were murdered, eliminated and became culuturally extinct.

    The owner of the the Washington Redskins will never believe that it is offensive. I would like to hear Mr. Allen say, “those Japs” can really make electronics!” Now that’s racist…..but naming your team “Redskins” is not?

    Given that he is rich and “privileged”, perhaps he is not referring to the indigenious people at all, maybe he named them the Redskins after white people who get burned when tanning!…yeah, that’s it! (sarcasm)

  77. baywatchboy says: Feb 14, 2013 8:08 PM

    @deacon85

    Then you have to change the name of the NAACP

  78. pftbillsfan says: Feb 14, 2013 8:09 PM

    Come on RG3 bang the drum and demand change!!!!! Oh and Terry Bradshaw is still dead.

  79. FinFan68 says: Feb 14, 2013 8:10 PM

    Stop it, please. The word is not offensive. Overly sensitive people are somehow offended by a term. Do some research of the word’s origins (try a little harder than wikipedia) and you will find it was not a pejorative and was not “invented” by racist white guys. People seem to be offended because they have been led to believe the word is supposed to be offensive. It must be offensive because others have said so… The use of the word in this case is to honor a specific Native American/Indian (feel free to substitute a term you are not offended by here) and thereby honoring them in general. If you were trying to honor someone you cared about, would you use a term that was racist in describing him/her? The argument is ridiculous and has been propagated by “sensitive” people that have not thought for themselves or done adequate research.

  80. rbhttr says: Feb 14, 2013 8:11 PM

    blackandbluedivision says:
    If the National Congress of American Indians releasing a statement condemning the name, isn’t enough to prove to you that they take the seriously then I don’t know what is:

    The National Congress of American Indians released a statement last month calling upon the team to change its name.

    “It’s time for the NFL and the Washington football team to join the 21st century and leave the mockery and racism of the past where it belongs, in the past,” the statement said.

    Google is a good friend. Right? The group you mentioned doesn’t represent Native Americans. It’s the same 12 Indian Lawyers that lost this case 5 years ago. There in it to make money and a name. Feel free to google who they represent. A group that consist all of 115 people. Who aren’t identified.

  81. realskipbayless says: Feb 14, 2013 8:12 PM

    Wahhhhh need a Kleenex to wipe them tears or do u need to change your tampon? Get over yourself you bunch of whiners.

  82. filthymcnasty1 says: Feb 14, 2013 8:12 PM

    The Marquette Golden Eagles have won exactly ZERO NCAA basketball championships since they caved in to all this political correctness tripe and changed their name from the Warriors. And now I hear that Eagle Scouts find the name offensive.

    Sometimes you just can’t win.

  83. thrstr says: Feb 14, 2013 8:17 PM

    National Congress of American Indians? please, sounds about as “correct” as NAA Colored People, and everyone knows that they only represent democrat people of color, not the African American community as a whole.
    Drop it.

  84. deacon85 says: Feb 14, 2013 8:18 PM

    baywatchboy, my sarcasm aside, that’s exactly the point. No organization has exclusive rights to speak on behalf of every member of an ethnic group. If the NAACP wants to call itself that, so be it. If a football team wants to call themselves the Redskins, that’s up to them.

  85. filthymcnasty1 says: Feb 14, 2013 8:18 PM

    If New Zealand can have its All Blacks rugby team, I don’t see why Washington shouldn’t be able to have the Redskins.

  86. mmercer4 says: Feb 14, 2013 8:20 PM

    Apparently Rodger Goodell is rubbing off on America because America is becoming sissy and sensitive like the nfl

  87. selldannysell says: Feb 14, 2013 8:21 PM

    Washington Warpath.

  88. wafflestomp says: Feb 14, 2013 8:21 PM

    (Yawn!)….When do training camps open?

  89. Getoffmylawn! says: Feb 14, 2013 8:22 PM

    zombiepatriot
    Feb 14, 2013, 4:06 PM PST
    I fail to understand how the opinion of a Caucasian man matters when speaking about the acceptability of a racially offensive term for Aboriginal people.
    —————
    Um, because this particular Caucasian happens to own the team and therefore the name of said team. That Caucasian matters the most.

  90. monkeyhateclean says: Feb 14, 2013 8:22 PM

    Its sad how consistently this topic brings out PFT’ers who confuse tradition with ethnic stereotyping.

    First off, teams change their names all the time. Even really traditional teams. Do you think anyone in Baltimore cares about the Colts? Or Houston the Titans? Those cities got new monikers less than 15 years ago, have either team’s traditions been “hurt” by them? There are plenty of apt names Washington DC’s NFL team could claim, including names of specific tribes of Native Americans who once dominated that region, if they are so set on honoring regional history.

    Secondly, there are no other professional sports teams (that I know of) named after the an ethnic group’s embarrassingly generalized skin color. The Indians, the Braves, the Seminoles, the Vikings…none are so casually dismissive of an ethnic group to identify them solely by their skin pigmentation.

    And with good reason. Africans, Europeans, Asians, even Inuit all have significant genetic variation that result in pigment variation, none of which could ever be reasonably considered “red”.

    Face it, Redskins is an ethnic slur no different that “Darkies”, or “Yellows”, neither of which would be an acceptable name for an NFL team, “tradition” or not.

  91. gbar22 says: Feb 14, 2013 8:23 PM

    Thank goodness they aren’t caving! Love the name love the team.They already destroyed north Dakota please leave the redskins alone. Outside of media outlets I would take gander if a poll was taken amongst Americans 85% could not care less about this issue.

  92. savojah says: Feb 14, 2013 8:23 PM

    “AGREED! It’s more of a badge of honor than it is offensive, people are too sensitive.

    If they wanna change the redskins name, let’s change the Vikings too cause it’s offensive to people of Norse decent”

    A Viking is an official name of a group of people. The equivalent of this would be renaming the Redskins the Washington Native Americans. I think that would be a cool name. Or just Washington Natives.

  93. guinsrule says: Feb 14, 2013 8:23 PM

    Re-name them the “Washington White Guys” and watch people complain that they’re being excluded.

  94. wc828791 says: Feb 14, 2013 8:24 PM

    PFT: America’s best source for breaking news on the Redskins team name.

  95. miztake82 says: Feb 14, 2013 8:31 PM

    Is that Alan Thicke holding and umbrella?

  96. baywatchboy says: Feb 14, 2013 8:32 PM

    @monkeyhateclean

    Go ask the people of Baltimore if the care about the Colts. They do. That name is very dear to them.

  97. pcarlson77 says: Feb 14, 2013 8:33 PM

    Those who think the name doesn’t need to change are on the wrong side of history. (to the guy/gal who said it wasn’t offensive when the term originated I am pretty sure at that time Native Indians weren’t considered human by white society)

    The NCAA is slowly dealing with this issue, and in time the NFL will as well. Hopefully we all will as people. Just wait and see how long the Fighting Sioux hold out when they can’t play rivals anymore. (Hockey in case you aren’t aware)

    Redskin is flat out offensive. If you don’t think so try using it at your office in reference to Native Indians and see how that works out for you.

    I do think tribes should be able to endorse the use of their own names if they choose.

    Lastly I suggest they go with DC Foggy Bottoms. I have a few logo ideas.

  98. mackcarrington says: Feb 14, 2013 8:34 PM

    Seems that some people are very uncomfortable with the name “Washington Honkees”. That isn’t offensive, is it? Get over it !!!!

  99. mackcarrington says: Feb 14, 2013 8:35 PM

    The “Washington Whiteys” has a nice ring to it !!!
    That isn’t offensive to anyone.

  100. stratomaticfan says: Feb 14, 2013 8:39 PM

    Why can’t people ever take things the way they were intended? The intention was that Native Americans were historically fierce warriors and the team took on their name and created a logo to go with that. It was done to celebrate the positive aspects, not to slight anyone in any manner.

    This is just another example of PC gone too far.

  101. dccowboyfan says: Feb 14, 2013 8:41 PM

    Wow. I can’t even make a simple un offensive comment without it getting wiped!
    Lets just call them:
    The Washington Equal Opportunity ,
    Non-Denominational, Androgenous, Gay and Lesbian, Trans-Gender, All Colors of the Rainbow , Everyone Inclusive Football Participants!
    It’s a bit long, but gives everyone (esp all the sensitive people) something to be proud of. It’s a name that the Great RG III will approve of to champion the cause of. And thatz really important cuz hes the only one who can change it!¡! Hope that one is more suitable than my last offering Mr. moderator!

  102. monkeyhateclean says: Feb 14, 2013 8:43 PM

    savojah says: Feb 14, 2013 8:23 PM

    let’s change the Vikings too cause it’s offensive to people of Norse decent”

    A Viking is an official name of a group of people. The equivalent of this would be renaming the Redskins the Washington Native Americans. I think that would be a cool name. Or just Washington Natives.

    ________________________

    You really can’t see a difference between “Vikings” (a term referring to infamous raiders and explorers who hailed from the Scandinavian Peninsula, yet had varying pigmentation), and “Redskins” (what American settlers pejoratively called Indians) ?

    A better comparison would be the college of Florida State, which named their sports teams after the Seminole tribe, with their assent. I think it would be great if the DC team reached a similar accord by naming themselves after the tribes who have history in that region.

  103. mackcarrington says: Feb 14, 2013 8:45 PM

    The Tennesee Tar Babies has great ring to it !!!!! I don’t see how anybody could be offended by that.
    Or maybe the Detroit Darkies. Sounds great to me !!!!

  104. pcarlson77 says: Feb 14, 2013 8:46 PM

    Not to serial comment here but all these ideas where Native Indians should be happy and honored.

    Try this argument with your friends or with yourself.

    “The Blank Mandingos name is in honor of the physical strength of African Americans. Why can’t everyone just take it for what it is. ”

    Hail Mandingos

  105. jpepperton says: Feb 14, 2013 8:48 PM

    SLOW NEWS DAYS MEANS MEDIA DRIVEN CONTROVERSIES. TWO PFT ARTICLES AND ONE MORNING ONE LINER IN PFT ABOUT THE SUBJECT IN TWO DAYS! WOW

  106. raiderapologist says: Feb 14, 2013 8:49 PM

    I used to catch squaw fish here in Idaho. Now I catch pikeminnows. It’s the same fish, far as I can tell. Looks the same to me, at least, but now when I catch one, I don’t offend Indians. It’s no different for you people that think changing the name of the Redskins would do anything to help Indians. The only thing it would do is make you feel better about yourselves. It won’t do a damn thing for Indians. You still won’t care about them. You won’t make any tangible sacrifice on their behalf. You won’t be taking any working vacations to an Indian reservation.

  107. commandercornpone says: Feb 14, 2013 8:51 PM

    PC was always too far.

    Redskins is a fine name for a football team.

    Those of the left/media/lawyeraria have nothing useful to do so they dream up bs reasons to make stupid things happen.

  108. linemanguy74 says: Feb 14, 2013 8:52 PM

    North Dakota had to drop Fighting Sioux, but Fighting Irish is ok and Redskins is ok “what the hell is going on here?”

  109. mackcarrington says: Feb 14, 2013 8:54 PM

    @pcarlson77— There was (or is) actually a tribe in Africa called the Mandinka tribe. The slaves who couldn’t speak English were thought by the slaveowners to be saying “mandingo”. I don’t think it is as much offensive as it is just ignorance.

  110. monkeyhateclean says: Feb 14, 2013 8:55 PM

    baywatchboy says: Feb 14, 2013 8:32 PM

    @monkeyhateclean

    Go ask the people of Baltimore if the care about the Colts. They do. That name is very dear to them.

    ________________________

    Not being from the area, I’ll take your word for it. Hopefully they got some catharsis from their Ravens not only burying the Colts in the playoffs, but winning the whole damn thing!!!

    My point remains, over time many teams change names, and somehow civilization doesn’t end. I wonder how many sports fans even know that the MLB Giants, Athletics, and Dodgers originated on the East Coast?

  111. woodreaux70119 says: Feb 14, 2013 8:58 PM

    …being it is apparently not offensive for africans (don’t dare let anyone else do it) to holler the n word at each other, even a couple times a minute in certain movies, does it bother redskins if they squeal the word “redskins” at each other? just wondering…

  112. bat42boy says: Feb 14, 2013 8:59 PM

    I’m with Allen 100 per cent. They don’t need to change there name. It’s not racist. Only the media thinks it’s racist. I’ve never heard anyone in my circle of friends say it was. It never has been brought up in any conversation. Only the media has brought it up. Must be a bad news day with nothing to talk about but so called racist nicknames. This is disgusting as l want to talk about sports.

  113. skinsfan91 says: Feb 14, 2013 8:59 PM

    Not all N.A.’s view the name as racist. When the Cards were in the NFC I remember tailgating with what I believe were Pima Indians and they the Skins flags. A blanket. They were proud of it, I guess it’s how you look at it.

  114. sourdoughsam says: Feb 14, 2013 9:00 PM

    The irony is that sports teams don’t pick mascots that they believe to represent weakness. The Redskins’ mascot, as I’ve always perceived it, represents the strong Native American warriors who held their ground for centuries despite being outnumbered by an enemy with superior firepower. If the team mascot was meant to represent these objectivists in a not-so-kind way, the team would be called the Washington Thin-skins.

  115. skinsfan91 says: Feb 14, 2013 9:00 PM

    *When the Cards were in the NFC East.

  116. jander05 says: Feb 14, 2013 9:01 PM

    I see so many comparisons to things that are not even in the same ballpark… saying its the same as insulting Bears and Norse people is stupid. People aren’t complaining about the Chiefs. A Chief is still a Native American but it isn’t referring to their skin color specifically. There is absolutely no difference between ‘Washington Redskins’ and something like ‘Los Angeles Slant Eyes’.

    If they change their name to Indians or Braves or something that doesnt directly reference their race they could still keep their exact logo and it becomes a non issue.

  117. cincity7378 says: Feb 14, 2013 9:03 PM

    while we are at it. on behalf of all irishmen who dont fight, i say we sue notre dame to change their name.

  118. stopdk12 says: Feb 14, 2013 9:06 PM

    Stuff that in your Peace Pipe and Smoke It!

    HAIL!

  119. hor2012 says: Feb 14, 2013 9:10 PM

    When this frist started I really didn’t give it much thought because I wasn’t exactly sure how the term was offensive. But, has a American who is black I have to admit that I can see why some Native Americans would find the name offensive. The problem I have with this is that it doesn’t seem to bother all Navtive Americans. So, I’m not sure if the voices of a few are enough to change the name. I would say to my white counter parts that it real easy to say the we should move on from the racism of the past especially if you weren’t the target of that racism. But, there’s another issue that I think all of us as adults may need to come to terms with. We are living in a changing world.

    A few weeks ago I was at my sister’s house. My neice had some friends over. Some of them were white. I happen to be standing in the kitchen when I heard someone use the “N” word. I was shocked and offended. But, I saw something that shock me. In a room full of 15 and 16 year old girls no one blanked and eye. After the group left I asked my sister’s daugter about the conversation. She looked at me and said that nobody is scared of words anymore. So, I think we’re moving toward a time when this conversation won’t be one we’ll be having. But, until then if Native Americans have every right to express anger and outrage if the feel the need to.

  120. hieroglyphics257 says: Feb 14, 2013 9:11 PM

    Here’s the Truth: The real problem is white America’s staggering and unyielding lack of creativity. Minorities are always victimized by white people’s tendency to name something in the simplest, laziest, most uncreative term possible.
    Their music sucks, their dancing is lame, they get dominated in every sport except hockey, their country is run by a black guy etc.

    These are the same people who watch sports non-stop, post all over these sites, yet still believe they are just as athletic as black people!?! Of course they think all minorities are too sensitive. Let them keep their little offensive nickname. What else does the angry white male have these days…

  121. pcarlson77 says: Feb 14, 2013 9:12 PM

    @mackcarrington

    I don’t think that ignorance is relevant to the evolution of the term Mandingo in this country. The eventual meaning of the term in this country is what I am referring to.

    Historical usages and origins of language don’t serve to justify continued usage. I am sure the word N—– was uttered in congress in it’s day. It doesn’t mean it will be again.

    Language and cultures evolve and not even football can stop that process.

  122. goldenperspective says: Feb 14, 2013 9:12 PM

    Even if you renamed them the Whiteskins, someone will turn it into a racist issue saying that the name projects Caucasians as superior. If you feel in your heart that the name is not being used as a derogatory slur, but rather a gesture of respect, keep it the same. If anyone is offended by your good intentions, that’s their problem.

  123. dknicholson56 says: Feb 14, 2013 9:16 PM

    To all those who are offended by the name “REDSKINS”, tough. Get over it, you can’t always get what you want.

  124. peytonsneck18 says: Feb 14, 2013 9:21 PM

    its offensive to call IRG3 rookie of the year, that cornball didnt earn it!!! uncle ruckus 3

  125. defscottyb says: Feb 14, 2013 9:22 PM

    Seriously… what is with the obsession on this site to write all these stories about the Redskins name? Nobody was even talking about this “issue” since 1992 (when a tiny group tried to strong-arm the Redskins into giving them a cut of Redskins merchandising $ and lost in the Supreme Court). 1992 was a Skins superbowl year. Now, just because RG3 comes in and the Skins have some success all of a sudden it’s an “issue” again. Why doesn’t anyone point out that the Cowboys name is completely racist? The term “Cowboy” is in reference to a freed black slave. Look it up.

  126. mrlaloosh says: Feb 14, 2013 9:22 PM

    This site just proves how moronic the general population has become. The name is absolutely a SLUR! All you so-called fans should get a life and demand a change. You say “it’s tradition”. Really? Owning other people was a tradition. How did that one go.
    Change the name willingly to just do the right thing!
    We all know how this will turn out. It will be changed. The government has a long history of dealing fairly with Native people….. oh, wait. Never-mind.

  127. nflofficeadmin says: Feb 14, 2013 9:26 PM

    How about the Yellowskins or the Blackskins?

  128. belgaron says: Feb 14, 2013 9:33 PM

    Team name is not a problem. Quality of home field playing surface must be fixed yesterday.

  129. sc711 says: Feb 14, 2013 9:34 PM

    I am a member of the Chickasaw tribe. My opinion is this…..I do not believe that the Redskins are trying to dishonor American Indians……..but what they must understand is that the term Redskin comes from the hunting and killing of Native Americans by Europeans…….in todays money people could kill you and the scalp would fetch $9000.00….it represents being hunted like an animal.
    I believe that the Redskins should embrace their former name…..”Braves”…..it is a part of “their” past and a proud part of “ours”.

  130. nubian21 says: Feb 14, 2013 9:34 PM

    What a bunch of redneck racist! Since you don’t want to worry about political correctness, how about naming the team The Washington Crackers!

  131. yousuxxors says: Feb 14, 2013 9:35 PM

    redskin stopped being offensive a long time ago because most of them got killed off or shipped out west.

  132. rkeeps says: Feb 14, 2013 9:37 PM

    I don’t think some of you get it, it’s a slur. The name came from when people HUNTED Native Americans for their ‘redskins’ and received money for any ears, fingers, scalps they brought in. So you may sit in your chairs and say ‘get over it, stop being so sensitive’ need to realize where the name came from.

    Also it’s not like this happened to Native Americans 200-300 years ago, discrimination has been happening to Native Americans just as long as it was happening to the Blacks in the 50-60s.

    You think Native Americans should be proud and that you are honoring them with the name ‘redskins’ really? Would any black people feel honored if they were the Washington Blacks? or any Asians feel honored if they were the Washington Yellows? Mascot for the Blacks of course would be a black face with huge red lips and for the Yellows, squinty eyes and buck teeth. You think that would fly today? Nope, but because Native Americans are only around 3% of the total pop in the US it is okay.

  133. yousuxxors says: Feb 14, 2013 9:37 PM

    its about people who tan to much… snookie is the new mascot

  134. defscottyb says: Feb 14, 2013 9:41 PM

    Seriously, what is the obsession on this site to write all these stories about the Redskins name? Nobody was even talking about this “issue” since 1992 (when a tiny group tried to strong-arm the Skins into giving them a cut of their merchandising profits and lost in the supreme court). They said you can keep the name as long as we get $. So, it wasn’t even about the name it was all about $. 1992 was a superbowl year, go figure. Now, RG3 comes in and the Skins have some success and limelight again and all of a sudden the name is an “issue” again… Please. Why doesn’t anyone point out the fact that the Cowboys name is completely Racist? The term “Cowboy” is a reference to a freed black slave. Look it up.

  135. johnnyoclock says: Feb 14, 2013 9:43 PM

    This is the problem with Mr. F here, and why people like him only hold the country back but are too obtuse to see it.

    It’s all about ego, being someone’s superman. Before you can feed your ego by being a social superman, you must first convince any group of people they are a victim. They can’t be a superman without a victim, so here you get people like Mr F who insist on being the one’s who are actually denegrating cultures by patting them on the head saying you need me.

    It’s called the 21st century plantation, perpetrated by white liberals. It’s the new racism.

  136. toonloonboon says: Feb 14, 2013 9:46 PM

    I say create a new logo of an Indian farming the land , growing potatos. redskin potatoes. then keep the name and put out a press release that the team has decided to change what it celebrates to the history of American agriculture, symbolized by the redskin potato.

  137. kane337 says: Feb 14, 2013 9:47 PM

    Joe Gibbs is going to coach them again and change the name to the Washington Nascar’s.

  138. ducknichols50 says: Feb 14, 2013 9:48 PM

    Were people equally offended with the Atlanta Black Crackers of the Negro Baseball League?

    People need to just quit with this dumb stuff.

  139. wafflestomp says: Feb 14, 2013 9:49 PM

    Hey, wasn’t RG III supposed to pick up the mantle of this movement.
    His responsibility, right?

  140. matthewcarlson1 says: Feb 14, 2013 9:49 PM

    revhein says:
    Feb 14, 2013 6:56 PM
    AGREED! It’s more of a badge of honor than it is offensive, people are too sensitive.

    If they wanna change the redskins name, let’s change the Vikings too cause it’s offensive to people of Norse decent
    ——————————————–
    That’s a pretty unintelligent comment. Redskins is a derogatory term for Indians, the Vikings were a race of people. That’s why they aren’t mad about the Cleveland Indians. Indians really got the short end of the stick in this country and are still paying for it. Not all of them own casinos.

  141. steelersfanfromtheseventies says: Feb 14, 2013 9:55 PM

    Wondering what kind of an uproar there would be if the steelers changed there name to the pittsburg pollocks ?

  142. jwreck says: Feb 14, 2013 9:58 PM

    kylexitron says: Feb 14, 2013 7:05 PM

    “Are the Chicago Bears “mocking” bears? Are the New Orleans Saints “mocking” Catholics?”

    “Saint” and “Bear” were never words invented and used solely to be an insulting degrading objectifying label for an entire group of people based on skin color. Nice swing and complete miss though.
    ____________
    Neither was “Redskin”. Though the connotation has changed over the years; in the 1930’s, that was simply the phrase used to describe a Native American. It was not considered any more offensive than calling a team Texans, Cowboys, Steelers, Patriots, Yankees, or Canadiens. It’s standing in modern society may be in question, at least by the writers here, but it’s simply incontrovertible that naming a team the “Redskins”, especially at the time was never meant to offend, degrade, or disparage anybody.

    You can keep beating your point into that dead horse, but I really doubt that when they named the team for their first coach, a Native American; or were requested to depict a Native American as their logo by chairman of the Blackfoot tribe, and National Congress of American Indians president Walter Wetzel, who also posed for the picture, they were deliberately trying to denigrate an entire race of people. “Nice swing and complete miss though.”

  143. sc711 says: Feb 14, 2013 10:01 PM

    As to the mistreatment of Native Americans…..the goverment has settled a lawsuit that has spanned many presidents…..and is paying 3.4 billion that it has owed.
    The Indian healthcare act is now permanent, this is a program that has changed the lifespan of a native american from 50 years to over 70.
    We have worked with caring people for many years, we must recognize that and thank them for their assistance.

  144. gammynomnom says: Feb 14, 2013 10:03 PM

    Wow, it seems like only yesterday when Dan Snyder was suing a paper for 2 million dollars because he called doctored pic of him ” anti semitic”

    So as long as its not him being offended its all good I guess.

  145. davo61 says: Feb 14, 2013 10:03 PM

    Nobody in the Delmarva peninsula sees anything wrong with the name Redskins. The Redskins walk on water to everyone there. It’s everyone outside of the Delmarva peninsula who doesn’t understand the Redskins tradition and fan base that have the problem with the name.

    I am a football fan but not a Redskin fan by a long shot (life long Cowboys fan), that said, I do live in the DC area. The tradition that the team has and the diversity of the fan base is really remarkable to witness.

    I don’t see how the name can be considered racist when you have people from all ethnic backgrounds coming together as one and cheering for this team on Sundays.

    Leave the team name alone, it is a tribute if anything, not a racist slur.

  146. shrshot says: Feb 14, 2013 10:07 PM

    This is a horse poop PC issue created by the liberal media, mainly the Washington comPost who has been feuding with the team since Snyder had their tickets taken away due to critical coverage. It is the comPost who is dragging in people like Sally Jenkins, who only writes for them 2x a year ALWAYS to criticize the Skins. This is WaPo v Redskins, plain and simple. 99% of the earth has no problem with REDSKINS so let the 1% complain, they always will about something.

  147. thetooloftools says: Feb 14, 2013 10:08 PM

    Freakin’ idiots. Only the bravest of the brave, front line warriors were Redskins. They put red clay on their faces and bodies before they went to war. They were the most feared fighters. Not all Indians were Redskins.
    Wait a moment… fierce fighters, brave, warriors,
    yep… it’s time to change the name with this current group of pass around candy (|)’s.

  148. defscottyb says: Feb 14, 2013 10:08 PM

    Notre Dame “Fighting Irish” is completely racist. It sterotypes Irish people as being drunk brawlers but nobody talks about that. People need to relax and stop being so freaking PC.

  149. illicitbehavior says: Feb 14, 2013 10:14 PM

    As a card carrying Cherokee, I can say any hatred I have for white people, or any indignation I feel towards the Redskins disappears twice a year when I receive my casino per capita check. Thanks old white people!

  150. lebronsinsecurity says: Feb 14, 2013 10:25 PM

    I love the “I don’t find anything wrong with it” argument.. Of course you don’t, the issue has nothing to do with you!

  151. lebronsinsecurity says: Feb 14, 2013 10:30 PM

    bat42boy says:
    Feb 14, 2013 8:59 PM

    “I’m with Allen 100 per cent. They don’t need to change there name. It’s not racist. Only the media thinks it’s racist. I’ve never heard anyone in my circle of friends say it was. It never has been brought up in any conversation. Only the media has brought it up. Must be a bad news day with nothing to talk about but so called racist nicknames. This is disgusting as l want to talk about sports.”

    Sorry, my bad.. I didn’t realize your friends had already spoke for everyone…. oops!

    The powers to be have spoken people, case closed.

  152. hailll says: Feb 14, 2013 10:31 PM

    As soon as the federal government stops giving money to the state of red people, I will support a name change.

  153. macwomack says: Feb 14, 2013 10:52 PM

    Michael David Smith says:
    ““But just because Allen doesn’t find the name offensive, that doesn’t change the fact that others do. ”

    Ok – MDS – I can find bunch of Irish people that find the name Fighting Irish offensive. Are you of the opinion that the name should be changed?

    If not – please explain your hypocrisy.

  154. mackcarrington says: Feb 14, 2013 11:53 PM

    @ pcarlson77– I don’t disagree with your response. I simply felt that it was necessary to add a little factual historical perspective as to the origin of the word “mandingo”. Although on this particular board it goes for naught.

  155. cubancowboy says: Feb 15, 2013 1:51 AM

    This is ridiculous!!! I’m a Cowboy and I agree with Allen!

  156. lancer255 says: Feb 15, 2013 4:28 AM

    Seriously this is one of the more over blown topics in sports. Let it go

  157. michael7843853 says: Feb 15, 2013 5:23 AM

    In order to avoid hypocrisy and show support for the status quo, shouldn’t all those who don’t think the term is offensive use it instead of Native American or Indian in all circumstances?

    That would get the name changed in no time, so they won’t do it.

  158. lavendar07girl says: Feb 15, 2013 7:44 AM

    i am lol at some of the above comments. i am native american female. i do not find the redskins, florida seminoles nor other names offensive. what i do find offensive is how the Nat’l Congress of AI; have decided to talk for me when i did not give permission. lol. i belong to a small tribe & no one that i know went to represent us & glad about that. there are obviously too many ppl that have too much time on their hands. the issue that they NCAI should bring up is how the A Indians oppress other A Indians such as corrupt tribal councils, corrupt representatives, corrupt BIA officials, corrupt tribal employees, corrupt tribal courts & it’s officials, etc. why don’t they fight for real issues like those? it just goes back the old saying “sticks & stones” because the name such as redskins doesn’t mean anything unless there are bad intentions behind it. omg ppl go get a life to the NCAI.

  159. lavendar07girl says: Feb 15, 2013 7:47 AM

    oh, i am glad to come to a news page where i do not have to look at photos/news articles about the katrashians and/or rihanna. lol. thank you to nbc. i stopped posting at yahoo news because they make the above named individuals news each time they do something. rolling my eyes. lol.

  160. gus1779 says: Feb 15, 2013 8:45 AM

    “Everyone is so sensitive.” This coming from fans who will be in whiney, pissy moods on Monday if “their team” loses on Sunday. So, a Native American who is offended by a racial slur is sensitive, but if Florio writes an article that makes your team look bad, it’s ok to go off your rocker…but that’s being normal. Got it.

  161. runfaraz says: Feb 15, 2013 9:01 AM

    Strange, I drive up north and go on the Rez and I see Redskins gear everywhere. I guess they protest their being offended by displaying the logo and name.

  162. boon613 says: Feb 15, 2013 9:01 AM

    As a Native Canadian I don’t find it offensive. Redskins are my favourite team, not because I chose the team based primarily on the name. I’ve been a long serving fan since the days of Sean Taylor. Great player and if anyone deserved the “Redskin” tag, it was Sean. Fierce warrior and really got me into the game. To all the sensitive Indians out there, get over it. I feel honored we’re one of the only races to get names all over professional and amateur sporting team logos. To all the whites who say “so we killed your people and stole your land, get over it”..remember it wasn’t you that did that, and if it gives you some pleasure then you’re a sick, twisted individual.

  163. jwreck says: Feb 15, 2013 2:58 PM

    kylexitron says: Feb 14, 2013 7:05 PM
    Are the Chicago Bears “mocking” bears? Are the New Orleans Saints “mocking” Catholics?”

    “Saint” and “Bear” were never words invented and used solely to be an insulting degrading objectifying label for an entire group of people based on skin color. Nice swing and complete miss though.
    ____________
    Neither was “Redskin”. Though the connotation has changed over the years; in the 1930′s, that was simply the phrase used to describe a Native American. It was not considered any more offensive than referring to a Texan, Cowboy, Steel[work]er, Patriot, Yankee, or Canadien. It’s standing in modern society may be in question by some, but it’s simply incontrovertible that naming a team the “Redskins”, especially at the time, was never meant to offend, degrade, or disparage anybody.

    Everyone is more than welcome to keep beating that dead horse, but I really doubt that when they named the team for its first coach, a Native American, they were deliberately trying to denigrate an entire race of people. How about that time, they were requested to depict a Native American as their logo by chairman of the Blackfoot tribe, and National Congress of American Indians president Walter Wetzel, who also posed for the picture? Clearly racism at it’s worst. they were deliberately trying to denigrate an entire race of people.
    “Nice swing and complete miss though.”

  164. jwreck says: Feb 15, 2013 3:37 PM

    lavendar07girl says: Feb 15, 2013 7:44 AM
    i am native american female. i do not find the redskins, florida seminoles nor other names offensive. what i do find offensive is how the Nat’l Congress of AI; have decided to talk for me when i did not give permission. lol. i belong to a small tribe & no one that i know went to represent us & glad about that… the issue that they NCAI should bring up is how the A Indians oppress other A Indians such as corrupt tribal councils…why don’t they fight for real issues like those?
    _____________
    I am not a native American, so I may be out of line, however, I do work in lobbying, so I am not a total fish out of water. So “why don’t they fight for real issues like those?” The NCAI’s problems start with having the worst constituent to representative ratio in the world, and quite possibly in Human history– 5.5 million: 12. That’s right, the “National Congress of American Indians” has 12 executive members representing all 566 Native tribes.

    In other words, though I can’t confirm any corruption charges; the NCAI, with its 12 member executive board clearly does not represent the 5.5 million strong Native community in the United States: 85% of whom either approve of the name, or are not bothered by it, according to a recent study by Columbia University.

    To further discredit the organization, the NCAI is not supported by most larger Native tribal organizations and therefore doesn’t benefit from their government assistance. The NCAi virtually makes a living off of litigation and/or threatening litigation. Nearly all twelve board members have law degrees and were members of the failed 2007 lawsuit against the Redskins. In other words, the NCAI truly represents no one but themselves. Their beliefs represent all Native Americans just as well as mine represent all college-educated men in their mid-20’s. In fact, even better. (1:5.5 million vs. 12:5.5 million)

  165. jwreck says: Feb 15, 2013 4:53 PM

    steelersfanfromtheseventies says: Feb 14, 2013 9:55 PM

    Wondering what kind of an uproar there would be if the steelers changed there name to the pittsburg pollocks ?
    _______
    That’s actually kind of the point. If Washington had been named the Senators, or Wolverines, or something stupid, and tried to change their name to the Redskins in 2013, there’s no way that would fly. However, they were named “the Redskins” in the 1930’s, when the term had no negative or derogatory connotation, (in fact it was in honor of the team’s first coach, William Dietz, who was Native) and there are now 80 years of tradition behind the name. So it’s a question of original intent and tradition vs. current acceptability. Not taking a side here, just clarifying the issue.

    By the way, Danny– if you do end up backing down to the pressure created by these sportswiters and end up changing the name, can we go with Wolverines, because Washington Wolverines actually sounds awesome.

  166. mackcarrington says: Feb 15, 2013 6:55 PM

    ducknichols50 says:
    Feb 14, 2013 9:48 PM
    Were people equally offended with the Atlanta Black Crackers of the Negro Baseball League?
    ————————————————
    I hope you don’t think that Blacks were responsible for the name “Black Crackers”. The owner of that Negro League team also owned the Atlanta Crackers, so he simply named his Negro League team after them. I don’t know how much people were offended by those names, but do you see any teams with those kinds of names today ????

  167. futuremillionaire218 says: Feb 16, 2013 4:55 AM

    I am a 30 year old Ojibwe & Seminole Native American…in my opinion it’s more of the “old school” Natives that frown upon Names like the Redskins & Braves…most Natives my age or younger love to be able to represent our culture by wearing RedSkins apparel…in no way does it offend me and in no way is this name comparable to the “N” word…it’s not like their the Washington Savages or Sqaws or something of that nature…I personally think it’d be lame if they had to change their name cause nowhere near everybody feels that way on my Reservation…

  168. gtrdonald says: Feb 16, 2013 12:57 PM

    I’m sure glad that a bunch of white dudes have decided for a specific minority group what is and what isn’t offensive for them.

    I guess if someone called your mother something inappropriate and you got upset, it would be just fine for that person to decide for you that whatever they said shouldn’t be offensive to you.

  169. defscottyb says: Feb 16, 2013 2:54 PM

    This whole “issue” has always been about the MONEY not the name… it’s all about MONEY and the attorney gets a fat cut of all the Redskins merchandising money if he wins. Were talking about hundreds of millions of dollars in Redskins merchandising profits here (jerseys, hats, you name it). Just greedy bastards using the name excuse, a strong-arm tactic and platform for a huge money grab.

  170. miguel3557 says: Feb 17, 2013 10:27 PM

    Bruce is not himself an Indian. Did he do a survey of Indians to find out how they felt about the issue? How would he know anything about Indian sensibilities to be able say whether they’re offended?

    The truth is that Allen could care less what actual Indians feel. Allen is just another arrogant corporate talking head!

  171. humpofdc says: Feb 18, 2013 6:34 PM

    Being born and raised in DC and a TRUE fan of the Redskins, I believe I do have a say. Change to F N name!!!!!!!!!!!!! WASHINGTON WARRIORS FOR EVER!!!!! HAIL TO THE WARRIORS!!!

  172. JackAcid says: Feb 19, 2013 12:10 PM

    Funny how most Native Americans don’t care about this issue at all.

  173. tjhogan23 says: Feb 19, 2013 1:47 PM

    Why do we even care what the NCAI says? They are a “congress” with representatives that don’t even speak for all of the Native American tribes in the US. Now, it is a racist name, but its not being used in a racist way so I personally don’t have a problem with it, but I also wouldn’t care if they changed the name either.
    If they did change the name, it would also be good from a business perspective. Imagine how many more RGIII jerseys the organization could sell if they changed their name and colors to something more lucrative? It could and would change the entire marketing and business landscape of the NFL.
    All things considered though this really isn’t a big issue…

  174. ravensterpsarmystrong says: Feb 20, 2013 10:39 AM

    They couldn’t possibly change either part of their name! Too much confusion in that organization: They are named after Washington, DC, play games in Maryland, headquarted in VA, and now building a training camp in Richmond, VA. Go figure!

  175. diamonds2323 says: Feb 20, 2013 3:35 PM

    Who really cares what some chief (oh wait there’s another team named to be changed) says about the redskins. how about the indians, the yankees, the angels..i’m catholic, i demand the angels change their name. I wonder how much news that would make.

  176. cow395 says: Feb 21, 2013 1:09 PM

    not even an issue

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!