Skip to content

Goodell defends Redskins name, admits issues raised are “complex”

Getty Images

When NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell was asked about the Redskins’ name during this year’s pre-Super Bowl press conference, his off-the-cuff response was, “I don’t think anybody wants to offend anybody.”  With the benefit of time to reflect on a written reply to a recent letter from 10 members of Congress, Goodell was more articulate and detailed.  And also surprisingly candid.

Goodell’s letter, a copy of which can be seen here, begins with an explanation of the origins of the label.

“As you may know,” Goodell writes, “the team began as the Boston Braves in 1932, a name that honored the courage and heritage of Native Americans.  The following year, the name was changed to the Redskins — in part to avoid confusion with the Boston baseball team of the same name, but also to honor the team’s then-head coach, William ‘Lone Star’ Dietz.  Neither in intent nor use was the name ever meant to denigrate Native Americans or offend any group.”

Goodell then argues that, because the name began with positive intentions, its meaning is “distinct from any disparagement that could be viewed in some other context.”  And so, he explains, “For the team’s millions of fans and customers, who represent one of America’s most ethnically and geographically diverse fan bases, the name is a unifying force that stands for strength, courage, pride and respect.”

Still, Goodell concedes that the “issues raised with respect to the Washington Redskins name are complex,” and he points out that the NFL “respect[s] that reasonable people may view it differently, particularly over time.”

In our view, it’s a delicate way of acknowledging that, at some point in time, the superficially negative connotations of the term “Redskins” will outweigh the positive (or at least non-negative) intentions.  A lot of things that were acceptable in 1932 are no longer deemed appropriate, regardless of original or current intent.  At some point in the future, the reasonable minds that see the term as unacceptable likely will outweigh those that don’t.

The fact that the letter wasn’t publicized by the NFL when sent to Congress on June 5 reflects, in our view, a subtle understanding that there’s no good way out of this corn maze.  (Or, in this specific context, maize maze.)

The reaction from at least one member of Congress has been loud and pointed.  Eni Faleomavaega (D-American Samoa) took to the floor of the House of Representatives on Tuesday to complain about Goodell’s response.

“Whether good intentioned or not, the ‘R’ word is a racial slur akin to the ‘N’ word among African Americans, or the ‘W’ word among Latin Americans,” Faleomavaega said.

“Goodell has completely missed the point,” Faleomaveaga added.  “It is time for the NFL to stop making excuses for itself and fully embrace its so-called commitment to diversity.”

Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) chided Goodell’s response as demonstrating “twisted logic,” and she called it a “statement of absurdity.”

“Goodell’s letter is another attempt to justify a racial slur on behalf of [Redskins owner] Dan Snyder and other NFL owners who appear to be only concerned with earning ever larger profits, even if it means exploiting a racist stereotype of Native Americans,” McCollum said.

“Would Roger Goodell and Dan Snyder actually travel to a Native American community and greet a group of tribal leaders by saying, ‘Hey, what’s up, Redskin?’ I think not. . . .  Indian children, families and elders are Americans, and just like all racial, ethnic or religious groups, they deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, not as a demeaning caricature or mascot.  That shouldn’t be too much to ask of the NFL.”

Of course, Goodell and Snyder also wouldn’t say, “What’s up, Chief?” or “What’s up, Seminole?” or “What’s up, Brave?”  Still, those words — Chief, Seminole, Brave — when removed from the context of a team name and regarded in isolation aren’t objectively objectionable.  Redskin, when stripped from the football team and regarded as simply a word, carries a distinct know-it-when-you-see-it label of racism.

That’s the simple reality.  Fans and defenders tie the name to the team and the team to the name and see nothing problematic about it.  Or, for some fans and defenders, they realize that they need to outwardly claim there’s nothing problematic about it.

Goodell’s letter acknowledges in know-it-when-you-see-it fashion that he knows the day will come when the NFL sees the name changed.  It may not happen for 50 years or more, but eventually it will happen.

And then, for the next 50 years or more, people who wanted to see the name remain the same will complain that it shouldn’t have changed.

So, basically, get used to this controversy.  It’s officially one of the subplots of America’s ultimate reality show, and it could be lingering for longer than the NFL already has existed.

Permalink 143 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Top Stories, Washington Redskins
143 Responses to “Goodell defends Redskins name, admits issues raised are “complex””
  1. baddegg says: Jun 12, 2013 9:17 AM

    uh, oh. Rodger is going to get an angry phone call from his boss, John Mara.

  2. sdelmonte says: Jun 12, 2013 9:20 AM

    I think the whole “these names honored the Native Americans” thing is crap. The teams chose the names because they liked the names and didn’t think about the idea that any minority – especially one that was persecuted and marginalized long ago – would be offended. Frankly, it’s a bit of a wonder that we never had a franchise named using other slurs.

  3. kcpx123 says: Jun 12, 2013 9:20 AM

    Our elected officials need to stop worrying about the name of a sports team and focus more on real issues.

  4. parkerfly says: Jun 12, 2013 9:21 AM

    “A lot of things that were acceptable in 1932 are no longer deemed appropriate.”

    And a lot of things that were unacceptable in 1932 are now deemed appropriate.

  5. therealhardt says: Jun 12, 2013 9:22 AM

    Sorry, but you can’t defend the name anymore. Snyder needs to grow a conscience and a pair and change it.

  6. ialwayswantedtobeabanker says: Jun 12, 2013 9:22 AM

    I disagree with so much of Goodell’s angles (and approaches) – but gotta give him credit on this call. In no way does the name “Redskins” make me view a segment of people any less favorably (or more favorably).

    So many bad takes by Goodell – but he has had some good ones. Here are a few examples from Goodell that are positive:
    (1) the NFL logo is cleaner – and no more elf-shoe letter “L”
    (2) setting Team schedules to involve divisional match-ups in weeks 16 and 17 was nice
    (3) flex match-ups as the season evolves – and sexy match-ups are better ascertained

  7. jimmyt says: Jun 12, 2013 9:22 AM

    Anyone else sick and tired of having “diversity” rammed down our throats at every turn?

  8. redbearwoodall says: Jun 12, 2013 9:23 AM

    “So basically, get used to the controversy.”
    This is the best way to describe this situation. There’s no possible way to proceed under these circumstances without pissing somebody off, so the NFL is just going to stick to their guns. No amount of letters from congressional members will change that.

  9. notthatguy87 says: Jun 12, 2013 9:24 AM

    “W” word…?

  10. nyfootballgiants says: Jun 12, 2013 9:26 AM

    So riddle me this batman….

    If the people whom this alleged racial slur is intended to insult, do not find it insulting – how is this a problem?

    Seems to me another situation where people are trying to create problems where they don’t exist.

  11. fryeways says: Jun 12, 2013 9:28 AM

    This is no surprise – the NFL has not yet demonstrated a modern version of “commitment to diversity,” or tolerance. Nearly every pro sport supported Jason Collins when he came out last month – where was the NFL on that one? Socially, the league has a long way to go, and Goodell isn’t moving it in the right direction.

  12. floratiotime says: Jun 12, 2013 9:28 AM

    Damn caucasians … you know how those people are.

  13. baddegg says: Jun 12, 2013 9:28 AM

    Actually, this is far more complex that you all point out. While you say the people considering it offensive will outweigh those who don’t, that’s really not in line with the polling, nor is it apparent that it will EVER be the case.

    With that said, without consensus on the issue, the question is whether it should be legal to force a company to relinquish all the benefits of their very valuable, world-wide brand simply on the whim of a few people who feel the name is offensive.

    Even though we may not like Dan Snyder, he does have certain rights as a business owner. You can’t just tell a business owner — recklessly — change your business name even though you will lose the brand recognition that is worth millions of dollars or more. You simply can’t do that without some sort of official consensus on the issue.

    I don’t like Snyder all the time either but gosh business owners do have SOME rights.

  14. xlax1306 says: Jun 12, 2013 9:28 AM

    “Whether good intentioned or not, the ‘R’ word is a racial slur akin to the ‘N’ word among African Americans, or the ‘W’ word among Latin Americans,” Faleomavaega said.

    Anyone know what ‘The W word’ is? Not sure I’m familiar with that one.

  15. bestbitter says: Jun 12, 2013 9:30 AM

    If you’ve ever heard ‘Redskin’ used in a derogatory way in your day-to-day life, please give me a thumbs up, if you’ve never heard it used in a derogatory way, please thumb it down.

  16. cash804 says: Jun 12, 2013 9:30 AM

    Dan Snyder will “NEVER” change the name…Hail To The REDSKINS!!!

  17. timb12 says: Jun 12, 2013 9:30 AM

    If they change the mascot/logo to Shanahan then I don’t think there will be a problem.

  18. abninf says: Jun 12, 2013 9:31 AM

    This Dallas fan supports the Redskins on this media manufactured issue. Don’t give in, Snyder.

  19. timb12 says: Jun 12, 2013 9:31 AM

    If they make Shanahan the new logo then I don’t think anyone would have a problem with it.

  20. logicalvoicesayz says: Jun 12, 2013 9:31 AM

    Best team in Maryland wears purple and black… and doesn’t have a racist name.


  21. zaggs says: Jun 12, 2013 9:32 AM

    So if I formed a new team in Alabama and named them the Birmingham Blackies, (you know, to honor the bravery of the Slaves that worked the plantations), Goodell would be cool with that right?

  22. audient says: Jun 12, 2013 9:37 AM

    If the United States government simply declined any further trademark protection of the name Redskins and related logos, I suspect that the NFL would change the name rather than allow the unlicensed use (and all the money lost that goes with that) of the present team name of the Washington NFL franchise.

    Could do the same with Indians, Braves, and Blackhawks, too.

    Let the down votes and cries over political correctness commence.

  23. pftbillsfan says: Jun 12, 2013 9:38 AM

    That is a perfect explanation. I believed it to be racist until I read that and now knowing the original intent I feel it’s fine. If someone is going to be offended about something they owe it to their indignation to research the entire landscape of the topic. I wish I had done so before

  24. weepingjebus says: Jun 12, 2013 9:39 AM

    What a surprise a bunch of no-name Democrat reps are up in arms about this. It’s not like they have blanket domestic survelliance or politically motivated IRS assaults to worry about. Why sweat the small stuff, I always say.

  25. imissnumber21 says: Jun 12, 2013 9:40 AM

    This sight would be much better if you kept to facts instead of always adding your opinion or some snide remark at the end of every article. We are NEVER changing our name….. In all CAPS.

  26. getyourownname says: Jun 12, 2013 9:40 AM

    Floro is right about this one. Fans won’t see it because they are invested in their team and they don’t intend the name to be derogatory, but the term was adopted in a different era and objective observers understand that sensibilities have changed.

    But Little Danny can always be counted on to do the wrong thing, as long as possible.

  27. blacknole08 says: Jun 12, 2013 9:40 AM

    Betty McCollum is an idiot. Native americans ARE NOT indians! People from India are. I think they would find that term more offensive than the term Redskin.

    This is getting beyond ridiculous.

  28. crs334 says: Jun 12, 2013 9:42 AM

    Buccaneers is also offensive to pirates. And Cowboys to southern Americans. And 49ers to people born in 1949. And Bears to people who have been attacked by bears. And Packers to airline luggage handlers. Everything is offensive and I’m scared

  29. mvp43 says: Jun 12, 2013 9:44 AM

    I can see why the word Redskins could be offensive to some, but is it really necessary for our congress to get invloved?

    Maybe Betty McCollum should look into the word Vikings if she’s so concerned about speaking on others behalf. The word Viking doesn’t exactly conjure up warm and fuzzy thoughts of our Scandinavian friends does it? They raided, raped, killed and conqured other people. That’s something to be proud of….

  30. tecmobowl34 says: Jun 12, 2013 9:45 AM

    Thank you, Florio. As a football fan with deep Native roots, I can’t for the life of me understand the defenders of this mascot. Most of them have no ties to Native culture, much less taken the time to empathize with the people who are offended by this. It’s simply, “durr political correctness is totally gay durr, I love my team”…meatheads aren’t known for their intellectual curiosity, nor for compassion for an entire race of people that have been systematically denigrated for centuries.

  31. greymares says: Jun 12, 2013 9:46 AM

    I couldn’t care less about the name but since it would aggravate most “Redskins” fans, I hope they have to change it. lol.

  32. pem34 says: Jun 12, 2013 9:46 AM

    I don;t think Goodell has any authority to order the changing of the name or to take any action on the issue. I could be wrong, but for some reason, despite numerous articles in the subject, it isn’t really clear whether or not he can or if the NFL as an entity has any power in this regard. Anybody know?

  33. b3nz0z says: Jun 12, 2013 9:49 AM

    When George Preston Marshall died in 1969, he left some money that the bulk of his estate be used to set up a foundation in his name. He attached one firm condition: that the foundation, should not direct a single dollar toward “any purpose which supports or employs the principle of racial integration in any form.”
    His second coach was a man whose mother was thought to be part Sioux. Marshall changed the name, in this coach’s “honor” (even though Marshall fired him after two seasons), from Braves to Redskins.
    Marshall was the last owner to accept a black player—fully 15 years after the ban was lifted. And his team drafted an African-American then (in 1961) only because it was forced to by the government—the then-new stadium that we call RFK Stadium today was built on Department of Interior land, which permitted the Kennedy administration to order the lessee (the team) to adhere to federal nondiscrimination policies.

  34. quickdraw85 says: Jun 12, 2013 9:50 AM

    These people who get offended by the team’s name need to find a hobby. “So guys….. I was thinking that we should get that team with longstanding tradition and a huge fan base to change their name.” Explain to me what harm is done by calling the team the Redskins (and I will try not to laugh)

  35. SparkyGump says: Jun 12, 2013 9:52 AM

    Why doesn’t the NFL just hire an independent polling firm to take a poll of what native Americans think of the name “Redskins”?

  36. prospero63 says: Jun 12, 2013 9:53 AM

    “the reasonable minds that see the term as unacceptable likely will outweigh those that don’t”

    I love how the use of a logical fallacy is used to attempt to make a point. Here’s a hint, when you have to demean folks that don’t have the same view as you, your position is likely invalid and false. Reasonable minds recognize this.

  37. recyclecode6 says: Jun 12, 2013 9:56 AM

    They won’t change until forced which is surprising based on the revenue for new merchandise that would be sold. If the league only cared about money, they would force a change for new revenue.

    We conquered the Indians land, maybe making a racial slur name change could bring awareness to a group that struggles to be accepted as equal.

    FYI, you think casinos and wealth, but the Native American population remains one of the most poor unequal populations in America today. Sadly, it’s just a fact.

  38. cowartsh says: Jun 12, 2013 9:57 AM

    I hate the redskins but I hope they never change the name and bow down to all this politically correct garbage. So sick of hearing this crap

  39. ambitoos says: Jun 12, 2013 9:57 AM

    Maybe the next franchise will be called the white skins or black skins or yellow skins. That’s OK, right.

  40. steelfan1 says: Jun 12, 2013 9:58 AM

    I love it when some White people try to school the rest of us on whats racist and what isn’t.

    Fact is, these racist names were created by White people to denigrate these races because they felt they were inferior to white people. So to hear Goodell and Snyder pretend like the word Redskins means nothing but actually an uplifting term is BS.

    I am black and not affiliated with any Native Americans, so i can’t speak for the true meaning of the word, but if the Native American people are saying this is a racist term, then why are we still having this conversation.

    To me, it seems, it is another ploy from a few white men to once again keep profiting off of Native Americans.

  41. 4gone says: Jun 12, 2013 10:07 AM

    They should just change it and then wear throwbacks every week.

    Done and Done.

  42. scytherius says: Jun 12, 2013 10:09 AM

    So I guess Washington Whities would be OK too and no one would complain?

  43. dpj1022 says: Jun 12, 2013 10:10 AM

    This writer’s interpretation of Goodell’s letter is ludicrous. Goodell is practicing Irish diplomacy here: telling the ten idiot Congressmen who want to meddle in this to go to hell while making them want to enjoy the trip. He’s stoking them but telling them to stuff it at the same time. PFT is on record as being pc and against the Redskins name so people should read everything written in that context.

  44. fafaflunky says: Jun 12, 2013 10:17 AM

    no racial name against whites? why isn’t the H word listed..honky for those who don’t know

  45. asimonetti88 says: Jun 12, 2013 10:17 AM

    In what world should this draw a more negative and prolonged response than the NSA snooping?

  46. staff2cj says: Jun 12, 2013 10:19 AM

    “A lot of things that were acceptable in 1932 are no longer deemed appropriate.”

    i.e. slavery etc.. the name is offensive, period.

  47. kerryc21realty says: Jun 12, 2013 10:22 AM

    It’s only liberal sportscasters and liberal politicians I hear being, “offended”, this political correctness garbage has got so out of hand since Obama was elected, it’s just silly now!

  48. briscocountyjr says: Jun 12, 2013 10:23 AM

    I have to laugh at the irony that is Dan Snyder– he’ll sue the City Paper for a drawing that he says is anti-semitic (his picture was scribbled on with horns and goatee), and can hardly be seen anywhere near that. Then, defends REDSKIN as a name, no matter what anyone thinks of it. What a hypocrite!!!

  49. wiley16350 says: Jun 12, 2013 10:23 AM

    Question. How does a term that was acceptable in 1932 become unacceptable in 2013 when the negative usage of the term was used in the 1800’s? How many people alive today have actually been called a redskin in reference to it’s negative context? How many people alive today actually have been called redskin in a negative way? Is that term actually as bad as the N word? When white people use the N word, it is usually purposely used to insult. That’s why they take offense to it. It is why they can call each other the N word because they know there is no insult. The overall point is that words have meaning and context to them. The term redskin has been used in different ways throughout history. At one time it referred to the way the Natives painted their faces. At another time it referred to the redder hue of their skin when compared to the Europeans. At it’s worst it was to refer to scalping accomplished by one ruler in a very specific time in the 1800’s. Why would someone take offense to something that they never experienced? The negative term of redskin is nothing but historical. Who ever uses the term redskin to demean another person? That is the primary difference between using redskin and the N word. The N word is still used by white people today to demean African Americans. that is why they appropriately take offense to it. The two words aren’t the same. The N word is also a slang word that actually doesn’t describe anything about a person. It has no positive quality to it. Redskin as a term can just be used as a descriptor and can be used in a positive context. Nobody would go up to one individual and call them a redskin, it would be pointless since the word is a descriptive word and not a word to address another person. The reason one would take offense to someone addressing them as redskin is because it is insulting to address someone descriptively rather than personally. People that do that tend to do it purposely to insult.

  50. mrx149 says: Jun 12, 2013 10:24 AM

    The term Redskins came from the natives. The red comes from the puccoon plant which they rubbed on their skin as insect repellant. And they referred to themselves oftentimes — in treaty negotiations, in meetings with the early settlers – as Redskins. So it’s not a term that the white man created; it’s actually a term that the Indians themselves created. This goes back to 1608. In the early 1930’s, the head coach, who was Native American, was asked to come up with a new nickname, this Native American selected Redskins. By the early 1960s, the Redskins had dropped any reference to Indians in their logo, uniforms and merchandise. So Walter Wetzel, former chairman of the Blackfoot tribe and president of the National Congress of American Indians in the 1960s went to the Redskins office with photos of Indians in full headdress. He said, “I’d like to see an Indian on your helmets,” which then sported a big “R” as the team logo. Within weeks, the Redskins had a new logo, a composite Indian taken from the features in Wetzel’s pictures. Wetzel recalls “It made us all so proud to have an Indian on a big-time team. . . . It’s only a small group of radicals who oppose those names. Indians are proud of Indians.” As you can see, Native Americans are responsible for the creation of the term Redskin, are responsible for the team name Redskin, and are the ones who requested the logo. Too late to put the genie back into the bottle. Reap what you sow.

  51. tinbender2000 says: Jun 12, 2013 10:31 AM

    quickdraw85 says: Jun 12, 2013 9:50 AM

    These people who get offended by the team’s name need to find a hobby. “So guys….. I was thinking that we should get that team with longstanding tradition and a huge fan base to change their name.” Explain to me what harm is done by calling the team the Redskins (and I will try not to laugh)
    A hobby? You mean like being 1/4 Native American? Idiot. Racist. Moron. White Trash.
    Not only does “Redskin” offend me on a personal level, the fact that it also denotes that I’m lousy at running a business and can’t play football worth a crap doesn’t set well either.

  52. firstclasspack says: Jun 12, 2013 10:32 AM

    Let’s put the issue of the name aside for a second and ask ourselves why the U.S. Congress is spending 1 second talking about this. These are our elected officials that are getting paid by you and me as taxpayers to govern our country. There are about a million more important things that I think our government should be concerned with than the name of a football team that’s been around for 80 years.

    If there is a group that wants the name changed then they can set up a meeting with Dan Snyder and if that gets them nowhere they can take it to court. Once the court makes a final ruling that is the end of it.

    Why has everyone is this country gotten so sensitive about every little thing. Do Americans not see how people in other countries are being executed by their own governments just for disagreeing with them and people die by the thousands every day because their governments neglect them. We’re extremely lucky to be Americans….let’s not try too hard to ruin it by being a bunch of crybabies.

  53. finsguy says: Jun 12, 2013 10:32 AM

    Is it just me or does grown men saying things like “N word”, “R word”, and “W word” make them sound like they are 4 yrs old?

    I get that people find the words offensive but so much so that we can’t even abide hearing the word even when not directed at anyone but just in discussion of the words themselves?

  54. dpj1022 says: Jun 12, 2013 10:32 AM

    Sparky: the univ of PA did an independent poll of NA’s in 2004 and found 91% okay with Redskins name.

  55. ahs2 says: Jun 12, 2013 10:33 AM

    Any adult who substitutes “N word”, “R word”, “W word” or any other letter-word in place of the actual word has lost my attention. If it’s so offensive, SAY IT in in it’s entirety in debate. The oxymoron that is today’s society today is a total joke…how have we not been taken over?!?!?!?!

  56. psuorioles says: Jun 12, 2013 10:35 AM

    For those asking, I believe the W stands for Wetbacks…

  57. johny248 says: Jun 12, 2013 10:37 AM

    Congress is going to try to force a privately owned company to change its name because some people don’t like it. These politicians should worry about real issues instead of this crap. I’m tired of hearing about this. Its taking away from valuable Tebow coverage and possible Favre un-retirement lol

  58. marty2020 says: Jun 12, 2013 10:43 AM

    People take offense because they want to take offense. What they don’t seem to realize is that when they take offense, they put their feelings in the hands of other people.

    If people would just decide that the name is not offensive, then problem solved. Or, if they simply decide that other people are not going to control the way they feel, then that would also solve the problem.

  59. wiley16350 says: Jun 12, 2013 10:48 AM

    I could put it this way. If you take offense to a term that is used in a positive context where a group of people proudly accept the term as their own to represent who they are, basically celebrating who you are, then maybe you need to evaluate how you actually feel about who you are. Think about it. If people were going around and saying that it’s bad to be a redskin because of some negative aspect and so you start taking offense to being called a redskin then you’re basically admitting that the negative aspect is right. How bad must you feel about being called something that you even start to take offense when a group of people choose to use that term to describe themselves. Also have got to ask, how bad can the term be when people are using it to describe themselves when they aren’t being forced to do so?

  60. reddogdogred says: Jun 12, 2013 10:51 AM

    the term “redskins” was and is a derogatory racist name. I don’t care if they thought that naming the team was supposed to be honoring William ‘Lone Star’ Dietz. You do not honor a person by calling them a racial slur. Goodell is manifesting the ignorance\arrogance of the “dominant culture” of if I say its OK then its OK and eff what anyone else thinks.

    If some one calls me redskin, I will want to rip their face off.

    If they want to keep insulting a whole culture then they should name other teams the mics, palefaces, big noses, honkys, et al.

    dpj1022 question who did the u of PA question in their poll? cause you will get different results depending upon your control group. So I would question that poll!

  61. jimmyt says: Jun 12, 2013 10:52 AM

    Yeah, I’m sure she ment “Wetbacks” when she referenced the “W” word and I havn’t heard that term in probably longer than the term “Colored”.

  62. sikoix says: Jun 12, 2013 10:54 AM

    I’m sorry, but “Redskin” is not the “N-word”, and I’m not even sure exactly what the “W-word” is (I assume it begins with WET, but still). These people have real problems they should be dealing with. I can almost see some kind of deal being worked out where somehow the Redskins/NFL get millions of tax dollars to subsidize a name change which is somewhat infuriating to think about.

  63. jeffreyshulenburg says: Jun 12, 2013 11:01 AM

    Again, virtually any name in the NFL can be understood in an unacceptable light. The Giants are offensive to people with giantism(I dont know the technical term off the top of my head). The Buffalo Bills take their name from a man who made his fame nearly wiping out a species and destroyed native american culture in the process. The Jets are offensive to a city that still cries every Sept. 11th. The Raiders encourage dangerous behaviors(I mean, have you ever seen their fanbase). My point is, none of the supposedly offended parties have been coming forward publicly to express their concerns. So in the end its just politicians blowing smoke. I want to see NA nation chiefs come to washington and say on camera that they have a problem with it. Until that day, this shouldnt be an issue

  64. justintuckrule says: Jun 12, 2013 11:04 AM

    How does redskin honor lone star dietz? Please explain. Without it, it’s more nonsense. Might as well said they changed the name to honor fruit baskets. More dumb goodell.

  65. justintuckrule says: Jun 12, 2013 11:05 AM

    Who knew American Samoa had a rep in congress?

  66. granadafan says: Jun 12, 2013 11:05 AM

    Yet, Gooddell doesn’t seem to think it’s complex for NFL teams to tear the heart out of communities by encouraging teams to move to the highest bidder and change team names. Got it, Rog.

  67. shaunypoo says: Jun 12, 2013 11:07 AM

    I can barely see you way up there on your soapbox. Maybe if you came down here with us common folk you would realize that you are in the minority. Please stop trying to legislate your views on others and force them to make the changes you want. If you want him to change, tell the people who are offended not to buy his stuff. No one is making you say the name “Redskins” like you did at least 7 times in your essay.

    “Redskin, when stripped from the football team and regarded as simply a word, carries a distinct know-it-when-you-see-it label of racism.”

    Doesn’t that imply that when you don’t strip it from the football team that it doesn’t imply racism? That defeats your whole argument of racism if you have to change a facet of the word to get to the racism in the first place.

  68. humpofdc says: Jun 12, 2013 11:10 AM

    I’m a life long Redskin fan, born and raised in DC. I’m telling all of you, the team will be known as the Washington Warriors. The name is CHANGING Snyder owns the new name. It is just a matter of time.

  69. t8ertot says: Jun 12, 2013 11:13 AM

    If they changed the name to palefaces or honkeys, I wouldn’t be offended

    Just saying

  70. garryjercia says: Jun 12, 2013 11:14 AM

    All these congressmen concerned with respect. How did they vote on gay marriage?

  71. thirdistheworrd says: Jun 12, 2013 11:15 AM

    Regardless of how you feel about the issue, the really offensive thing is how the writers here feel like the have to be the sole engine of social change for Native Americans.

    If Native American groups really wanted to make a big deal out of the nickname, they would. The fact that this website’s staff seems to feel like Native Americans are somehow incapable of speaking out; having their voices heard; or advocating for themselves: and that sportswriters are the only ones who can do it; is not only arrogant, but far more belittling than anything one could construe from Washington’s team name or logo.

  72. thirdistheworrd says: Jun 12, 2013 11:16 AM

    And, for my next trick, I will end this argument.

    Just Google “Native American Chief Talks About Redskins”. If PFT would post that, the whole issue could be over. Unfortunately, there’s way too much money in non-Natives BSing around on the internet.
    Stephen Dodson is a hereditary chief of the Aleut People, here are some of his choice quotes:

    ““People are speaking for Native Americans that aren’t Native American…we had a big problem with all the things that were coming out [of the discussion]…they were basically saying that we were offended, our people were offended, and they were misrepresenting the Native American nation… Redskin’ isn’t something given to us by the white man or the blue eyes, it was something in the Native American community that was taken from us. [It’s] used also as a term of respect, because that’s how we were. We respected each other with that term… It just bothered me that somebody would twist something so negatively when it’s a positive.”

    “[Much of the discussion over the Redskins name is led by non-Natives, and that makes me] Irritated. Irritated is a polite term to say… When you have people trying to represent our nation, you should be from our nation. Don’t represent our nation if you don’t even have an ounce of blood in you.”

    Well, I think that about wraps that up.

    Dodson certainly doesn’t speak for all Natives, but his opinion about who should be speaking for all Natives seems very conclusive.

    Goddamn, does anybody remember when this site was about football?

  73. paulz624 says: Jun 12, 2013 11:19 AM

    Are these Native Americans really comparing the word Redskins with the N word? Somebody better tell them they better stop smoking that peace pipe.

  74. mnpacker says: Jun 12, 2013 11:22 AM

    The sooner the better… Hoka Hey!

  75. kjp0810 says: Jun 12, 2013 11:25 AM

    Redskins is only offensive to those actively searching for racist things to be angry about. They see a color in the same term as “skins” and think, “A term referring to skin color?!?! That has to be racist.” And that’s the end of the discussion. It doesn’t matter that the term doesn’t have racist origins or that the natives started the use of the term to refer to themselves. It doesn’t matter that the natives painted themselves with red ochre. The only thing that matters is that they can use it to score political points with other people dumb enough to jump to the same non-factual, emotionally blinded conclusion that they did. Facts don’t matter to them, they “feel” the term is racist, therefore it is, end of discussion. They’re intellectual cowards. And yes, that includes you, Florio, for your mindless advocacy on this issue.

  76. lions81slappy says: Jun 12, 2013 11:26 AM

    why are we making such a big deal about potatoes?

  77. jmac1013 says: Jun 12, 2013 11:28 AM

    tinbender2000 says:
    Jun 12, 2013 10:31 AM

    A hobby? You mean like being 1/4 Native American? Idiot. Racist. Moron. White Trash.
    Not only does “Redskin” offend me on a personal level, the fact that it also denotes that I’m lousy at running a business and can’t play football worth a crap doesn’t set well either.
    You really don’t know anything about your heritage. Since you like name calling…you are an ignoramus.

    mrx149 spelled it out for you and all of the other uneducated people.

  78. august589 says: Jun 12, 2013 11:32 AM

    Well, I see the dead horse is experiencing its weekly resurrection. BTW, I have received the Redskins T-Shirt from that my Cherokee wife specifically requested for her birthday. And, it was her Cherokee mother who became a Redskins fan specifically because of the team’s name. Let it go, people. Surveys continually show that Native Americans don’t care what the Washington NFL team calls itself because they have bigger problems to care about among their people. Things like rampant unemployment and alcoholism as well as getting proper medical care for those with diabetes, which is prevalent among Natives. And, that’s just three issues. Let this dead horse remain dead, please.

  79. coolzog says: Jun 12, 2013 11:33 AM

    On the other hand, who REALLY cares?…

  80. audient says: Jun 12, 2013 11:35 AM

    I am Irish, German, and Iroquois. I find the name Redskins offensive. I might feel differently if North American natives had founded and owned the team, but we know that isn’t the case.

    I can take or leave Notre Dame’s Fighting Irish moniker and mascot. The founder of Notre Dame was born in France, and so I assume he was French, but it isn’t as if France ever committed genocide against the Irish. And that’s why it isn’t the same thing.

  81. chuckforeman44 says: Jun 12, 2013 11:39 AM

    Would the name “Redskins” be offensive if there was a peanut on the side of the helmet instead of an Indian? Probably not.
    Truth is, 90% of everybody that was alive when the term Redskin was a racial slur, is dead now and most fans today dont even remotely view the name as even the slightest bit derogatory.
    The fact that politicians (Democrats) are concerning themselves with the name of a professional sports team, is proof that they clearly have no clue as to what their job description and duties/responsibilities really are!

  82. hatesycophants says: Jun 12, 2013 11:41 AM

    Some of you should ask yourselves if you lack the ability to empathize.

  83. peoriaviking says: Jun 12, 2013 11:45 AM

    This will never end. As soon as the Redskins become the warriors, some group will take issue with that. The only politically correct safe names are animal names like bears or lions. Just ask the University of Illinois about their former team name. About one tenth of one percent of the student body took issue with it and because they were loud enough, they got the name changed to basically the same thing, which is just the name of our State. Indianaopolis, Indiana will become City A, in State of Midwest United States so as not to offend.

  84. noozehound says: Jun 12, 2013 11:48 AM

    Why does American Samoa get a representative? you’re not a state, neither is Guam, nor Puerto Rico.

  85. footballchic777 says: Jun 12, 2013 11:49 AM

    Oh no……it’s bad. Is that good bad or bad bad? So tired of being politically correct. So, there was no problem with the name originally, it was a compliment, that was taken as such, but now someone doesn’t like it? Really?

  86. davebarnes21 says: Jun 12, 2013 11:57 AM

    FINALLY this guy Goodell gets something right!!!!!!!!!!

  87. starchybunker says: Jun 12, 2013 11:58 AM

    “If they change the mascot/logo to Shanahan then I don’t think there will be a problem.”

    then they would have to change the name to OrangeSkins or Spray-On-Tan-Skins…

  88. davebarnes21 says: Jun 12, 2013 11:59 AM

    Hey audient – how about you grow up and let your fragile sensitivities toughen up a bit.

    Not sure what it is you do for a living but, with an attitude like that you couldnt possibly be any good at it.

    For God’s sake!

    “I’m an Irish American and I dont like when people make fun of my freckles”!

    Gimmee a break!

  89. elyasm says: Jun 12, 2013 12:04 PM

    I think the Redskins should change their name right after they rename the state of Oklahoma to something less offensive.

    From Wikipedia: “The state’s name is derived from the Choctaw words okla and humma, meaning “red people”.”

    (Needless to say, this is sarcasm.)

  90. blackqbwhiterb says: Jun 12, 2013 12:08 PM

    If Dan Snyder was the same color as RG3 nothing would ever be said. Don’t even pretend it would.

  91. thetrashjuice says: Jun 12, 2013 12:10 PM

    Go talk about Tebow more… sheesh when will this end?!?

  92. justintuckrule says: Jun 12, 2013 12:10 PM

    Leave the helmet alone and change the name to the griffins. They are identical

  93. bjax357 says: Jun 12, 2013 12:11 PM

    Once again You see these post used by the most ignorant people in the Land. It s not offensive to most of these people because the don’t care and are not on end of the slur barrrell. These people enjoy the confusion because some how it makes them feel as if they are on a higher level. They are the creators of such mockery, so why would they find it to be offensive. They make all kinds of excuses about what whites did to whites to its ok to do it to you. As for the owners it’s about Money. If he knew he could make a billion dollars calling them the pickles he would. for those who don’t know the W slur is Wetback.
    Most of these posters are smarter than this they just choose to be ignorant. I for one am a Redskin fan but I know the name has to change. There is nothing American about this behavior. The examples people are using is rediculous knowing dam well the word Redskins is wrong. The just being who they are. We have come to an age where retards are using the computer.

  94. jhkayejr says: Jun 12, 2013 12:14 PM

    I know this is an unpopular sentiment around here, but if you ask nearly most people under thirty what their opinion is, they’ll tell you it’s racist. You can argue it back and forth in your own head, and you can shout tradition or whatever, but the fact of the matter is that in about ten years, people will shake their heads and roll their eyes about the people who defended this name. You just can’t run from that fact.

  95. keysersoze4211 says: Jun 12, 2013 12:16 PM

    Does anyone else notice Florio is the only one writing about this issue? and he writes about at least once a week. Dude obviously has a personal issue with the Redskins.

  96. smokingto says: Jun 12, 2013 12:16 PM

    I believe only the native americans have a say in this matter!!!

  97. prijak1 says: Jun 12, 2013 12:20 PM

    The Redskins name is very offensive to all Indians… And other minorities

  98. pillowporkers says: Jun 12, 2013 12:23 PM

    Please don’t think all people from Minnesota are this insane.

  99. Rick Spielman is a Magician says: Jun 12, 2013 12:25 PM

    “Goodell’s letter is another attempt to justify a racial slur on behalf of [Redskins owner] Dan Snyder and other NFL owners who appear to be only concerned with earning ever larger profits, even if it means exploiting a racist stereotype of Native Americans,” McCollum said.

    If the NFL just wanted ever larger profits, they would change the name. They would make a ton on all the new merchandising. I don’t see how keeping the name the same results in larger profits.

  100. alphaq2 says: Jun 12, 2013 12:26 PM

    As a life long, die hard Redskins fan I am so sick of this debate. It’s been proven that the vast majority of Native Americans don’t find it offensive, but just to shut the non-natives up I’m fine with changing it. Maybe if we change it then congress can focus on paying down the ginormous deficit before China owns the entire country.

  101. finsguy says: Jun 12, 2013 12:46 PM

    Being 1/4 Native is a hobby?

  102. oranjellojones says: Jun 12, 2013 12:46 PM

    The willful ignorance and stupidity is breathtaking in these Redskins name threads. You can post literally black and white proof that this isn’t offensive to the actual people it supposedly harms, give people overwhelming amounts of historical, fact based research couple with modern day polling of Indian reservations across the Nation and they refuse to read it or recognize the truth for what it is. It really explains a lot about why this country is going to hell in a handbasket. It’d be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic.

  103. slugdc says: Jun 12, 2013 12:48 PM

    Someone should call up all those native American High Schools who use Redskin as their mascot and tell them that they’re being horribly offensive to themselves.

  104. oranjellojones says: Jun 12, 2013 12:51 PM

    OK bjax if all that’s true then answer one question.

    Why is Redskins among the top 3 names Indian teams name THEMSELVES on reservations across the Nation?

  105. bjtmeyer says: Jun 12, 2013 12:53 PM

    The people making this such a big deal really have no lives. So many more important issues on the totem pole to deal with than this.

  106. tmkelley1 says: Jun 12, 2013 12:56 PM

    Three Virginia tribes have put this matter to rest, the most pointed of which was from the chief of the Rappahannock Tribe, G. Anne Richardson.

    “I don’t have an issue with it,” she said. “There are so many more issues that are important for the tribe than to waste time on what a team is called. We’re worried about real things, and I don’t consider that a real thing.

    “We’re more worried about our kids being educated, our people housed, elder care and the survival of our culture. We’ve been in that survival mode for 400 years. We’re not worried about how some ball team is named.”

    The quote is from the Richmond Times-Dispatch as printed in the Washington Post, May 15, 2013.

  107. curtdog63 says: Jun 12, 2013 12:59 PM

    Its ironic congress speak of disrespect as if that’s not exactly what there doing to the american people everyday. Making light of our democracy and disrespecting our choice of president, taken our tax money and refusing to do their job. Putting their personal vendettas over the commonwealth of the country. THAT’S DISRECPECT

  108. prijak1 says: Jun 12, 2013 1:12 PM

    Redskins is a terrible name … Congress is doing them a favor. I would name the team the Dragons

  109. comeonnowguys says: Jun 12, 2013 1:13 PM

    Congress really doesn’t have time to mess with this.

    That said, the name is embarrassing, and it will be no surprise that the troll cave here will be the last to endorse what should have been done along time ago.

  110. antalicus says: Jun 12, 2013 1:29 PM

    80 years now and only now is its such a big issue. Probably because no one even cared who the Redskins were until RG3 showed up. Might as well call the team the Griffins.

    Better yet, change the mascot to a picture of Dog the Bounty Hunter with a sunburn and you can keep the name and the feathers in the hair.

  111. melbatoast123 says: Jun 12, 2013 1:30 PM

    First, what Native Americans call themselves is completely irrelevant. We all know African Americans call themselves a racial slur but that doesn’t make that term acceptable for general use.

    Second, surveys on this topic are also meaningless. These surveys ask people to self-identify as Native American. Anyone can say they are native in order to respond to the survey to support their opinion on the matter. Obviously, there’s a lot of people who want to keep the name and they will respond accordingly.

    There was a Native American symposium on this matter which I cannot link to here because the post gets deleted otherwise, but you can Google it. In it, the actual Native Americans in attendance were against all kinds of Native American imagery in sports. Attending one of these or a series of tribal meetings will get the real opinion of Native Americans on this topic.

  112. vex24 says: Jun 12, 2013 1:33 PM

    I like the team, but I hate the name. I’ve always had deep moral issues with the obviously insulting name, Redskins. I was living in Washington, D.C. the year that Doug Williams held the Super Bowl Trophy high in the air. I cheered and partied all over D.C….But I refused to sing ‘Hail to the Redskins’. Changing the name is so way over due. It’s just so freakin’ obvious!

  113. jeremyb91 says: Jun 12, 2013 1:41 PM

    Being from an area with a very large American Indian population in Spokane, Washington you would be surprised to see how many American Indians have Redskins flags outside their homes, wear plenty of their apparel, and support the team because of the name.

    I’m white and not really sure how to defend or support this argument. I can understand how it’s offensive but why would good hard working American Indians support this?

  114. metalman5150 says: Jun 12, 2013 1:51 PM

    That congress is spending time debating this is topic is more offensive than a football team called, the ‘redskins.’
    so insecure and easily offended. stop wasting my tax dollars!!!

  115. theclaim says: Jun 12, 2013 1:59 PM

    melbatoast123 says:
    Jun 12, 2013 1:30 PM
    First, what Native Americans call themselves is completely irrelevant. We all know African Americans call themselves a racial slur but that doesn’t make that term acceptable for general use.

    Second, surveys on this topic are also meaningless. These surveys ask people to self-identify as Native American. Anyone can say they are native in order to respond to the survey to support their opinion on the matter. Obviously, there’s a lot of people who want to keep the name and they will respond accordingly.

    There was a Native American symposium on this matter which I cannot link to here because the post gets deleted otherwise, but you can Google it. In it, the actual Native Americans in attendance were against all kinds of Native American imagery in sports. Attending one of these or a series of tribal meetings will get the real opinion of Native Americans on this topic.

     @melbatoast. You are clueless! So it doesn’t matter what Native Americans THINK or SAY thats important UNLESS they side with you? Try This Genius, Hold your OWN survey regarding the Redskins name. I live next to a reservation and have PERSONALLY asked the Natives I know if they find it offensive and LESS than one in ten does. One guy I asked said yes, he was MOSTLY white. Has native blood, lives on the Rez.

  116. bigharold says: Jun 12, 2013 2:15 PM

    “..Redskin, when stripped from the football team and regarded as simply a word, carries a distinct know-it-when-you-see-it label of racism.”

    Perhaps but what we are talking about here IS a football team’s name so an objective, non-contextual review is not germane in this instance.

    Considering their approve ratings Congress should be focused on doing a better job running the country, .. or at least trying to appears as if they trying to do a better job of running the country.

    And, if the name bothers you that much, root against them, .. or don’t watch the NFL. Form a boycott, .. it’s your right. But, these are businessmen here and they have rights too. Like the right to run their business any way they see fit, within the law. One would have a hard time convincing most people that the name of the DC football franchise violates the law. As such, they are under no obligation to be politically correct. If they lose enough customers they’d likely change the name but something tells me they won’t lose much if any customers.

  117. chuckforeman44 says: Jun 12, 2013 2:21 PM

    Personally, I think the yellow helmets with the circled “R” and feathers are sweet looking helmets. I wonder if we’d even be having this discussion if that was still the Redskins logo.

  118. istateyourname says: Jun 12, 2013 2:33 PM

    I call on PFT/NBC to stop using offensive terms. It’s not too complex to just call them Washington until reasonable minds at some point in the future change it to a name that the government prefers.

  119. r8rsfan says: Jun 12, 2013 2:35 PM

    IF Snyder wanted to cash in, a name change would result in a huge boost in merchandise sales, and take his team to the water cooler discussion in every office. It’s not about money.

  120. speedlimit41 says: Jun 12, 2013 2:41 PM

    just call them The Skins and be done with it,they stink anyway

  121. blutbaddenbill says: Jun 12, 2013 2:44 PM

    if you are a lifetime redskins fan are calling for them to change the name,pull for some other team! the redskins is the team name! not the warriors,the redskins and like snyder says,put it in capital letters!

  122. johnmetfan says: Jun 12, 2013 2:54 PM

    I suppose I’ll care about changing the name of the Redskins when the Native Americans care about changing the name of the guinea pig.
    Don’t be hating, just a little humor from a proud wop.

  123. kosarsmyidol says: Jun 12, 2013 3:00 PM

    “a subtle understanding that there’s no good way out of this corn maze. (Or, in this specific context, maize maze.)”

    We’re talking about Native Americans, so that’s supposed to be funny, I guess.

  124. blutbaddenbill says: Jun 12, 2013 3:04 PM

    i got indian friends who call me paleface and i call them redskins.they don’t get mad at me for calling them redskins and i chuckle and laugh when they call me paleface. this just gives people something to whine and complain about despite all the numerous serious problems we have her in america!

  125. immafubared says: Jun 12, 2013 3:27 PM

    COMPLEX? They are named the Redskins. Pronounce it Goodall RED SKINS, just like the peanuts. How freekin complicated can that be?

  126. lionshawk says: Jun 12, 2013 3:29 PM

    The Washington Crackers is not a disparaging or demeaning name for white people. It’s origin is from the local bread company and meant to be a positive mascot for the team and in part to honor the owner Jimbo “Whitey” Reese. The fact that the melatonin challenged of today find this as a racial slur is unfortunate but the main point is it started as a positive. Also the fact that we have a semi-translucent profile of a big-nose man with a crew cut doesn’t mean the name didn’t start as a cracker factory.

  127. cav2ya says: Jun 12, 2013 3:29 PM

    I’m sure glad out congress men and women, are using their free time wisely, especially since nothing else is going on in the US right now.

  128. melbatoast123 says: Jun 12, 2013 3:32 PM

    @theclaim So it doesn’t matter what Native Americans THINK or SAY thats important UNLESS they side with you?

    Nowhere did I state this. Try again.

    Try This Genius, Hold your OWN survey regarding the Redskins name. I live next to a reservation and have PERSONALLY asked the Natives I know if they find it offensive and LESS than one in ten does. One guy I asked said yes, he was MOSTLY white. Has native blood, lives on the Rez.

    So your anecdotal survey is proof of what? Sorry if I don’t believe some anonymous claim on the internet.

    I don’t need to conduct my own survey. There were actual meetings with Native American leaders who provided their perspective. Since I can’t link to it or the PFT overlords will delete my post, here are a few quotes from it:

    From John Orendorff, a U.S. Army colonel and Native American: “I often feel that the underlying point of these ‘honors’ is that my Indian heritage is owned by others. The message I’m constantly getting is: ‘We own you. We will define how we honor you. Don’t tell us whether you like it or not, because we own you

    From Robert Holden, deputy director of the National Congress of American Indians: “I’m a sports junkie, but I don’t think the [team] owners understand that they’re not honoring us. Honors like that we don’t need. Please, take it back.”

    Manley Begay, senior lecturer in the American Indian Studies Program at the University of Arizona and a member of the Navajo Nation. “I’ve been called a ‘dirty redskin’ and a ‘stinking red n—–,'” he said. “So believe me when I say those words are still very hurtful, including when you see them being celebrated in a sports context.”

  129. cav2ya says: Jun 12, 2013 3:52 PM

    Redskins, Chiefs, Braves, Browns, Reds, Padres, Blackhawks (there’s a double), Canucks, Red Wings..

    So, where does congress aim their sites after the Redskins ?

  130. seahawks4alltime says: Jun 12, 2013 3:54 PM

    As a fifth generation German Mick, I find the term “Native American” insulting. They are no more “native” than the rest of us. Sure, they have been on this land longer, so they deserve respect for that; It’s good land, they have good taste. But, this is America and we ALL came to this land from somewhere else.

    Native Americans are not Indians, they are Americans. African Americans are not African, they are American. The list goes on.. We are ALL Americans. Period.

    As the NFL franchise for the District of Columbia I think the team name SHOULD be changed. They should be called the Washington Americans. Keep the logo exactly the same. Change ONLY the name.

  131. halftermguv says: Jun 12, 2013 4:31 PM

    I can understand why redskin would be offensive to people who were called “Indians” and “redskins” by Europeans when neither is true.

    Having to hear about Columbus “discovering” America must be maddening as well. [How do you discover a land when you pull up to the shore and there are people there to greet you? And how ridiculous is it to plant a flag in the ground in front of them and declare that it has been claimed in the name of (insert name of king or queen)]

    Anyways after this issue is resolved I’d like to propose that I no longer want to be referred to by the W word. From now on I’m the beige guy.

  132. valarmorghuliss says: Jun 12, 2013 4:37 PM

    White guy telling Native American’s what they should be offended by. Poetic

  133. jh360 says: Jun 12, 2013 4:51 PM

    Regardless of the term’s origin or whether Native Americans perpetuated the term, after slavery it’s connotations became principally racist.

    As in connecting it to the proof that a bounty had been exercised. Attaching “dirty” or greasy” to it, etc. An the modern issue of ownership of the term, positive or negative, by a non indigenous business.

    The term is a thing of the past and outdated. It’s appropriation by a noted racist for his team’s name belies the notion of it’s use in the name of “honor”.

    Those attached to it need to let go. For some groups of individuals, it brings up some of the ugliest aspects of American history, for others it’s just misplaced, twisted praise. That should be enough to alter it. Reinvention isn’t a bad thing.

  134. zemongoose says: Jun 12, 2013 4:52 PM

    Goodell, tell you what-give us back the$36mil you stole from us and you can keep the bleeping name.

  135. charger383 says: Jun 12, 2013 9:44 PM

    First thing he has done that I like

  136. buffedwhiteman says: Jun 12, 2013 9:49 PM

    Memo to Mike Florio; Liberal/left politically correct thought control is just an extension of busy-body-ism, and ultimately they both extend to socialism — the attempt to make everyone conform to a central (politically correct speech) dictated by elitist planners in the political State.

  137. muckhappy says: Jun 12, 2013 10:20 PM

    Ok. Well i guess that the notre dame fighting irish are in trouble then too. People get over yourselves. People in this country seem to have a need to bitch about something or their day is not fullfilled. Is this really an issue that needs to be brought to congress? Really? We have unemployment rates at record highs and people are starving but this is the issue that needs to be corrected. People its a football team, and thats all. Its not a beacon of hate. It is not there to spur a debate. Stop making more out of everything than there is. If you think about it you can get offended by basically everything in society. Hell being irish i guess i should be pissed at notre dame. I mean im really offended at the negative implications of fighting irish. Clearly it means that the irish are drunken brawlers right? Um no the origin has nothing to do with that. You know the cracker barrell there is something that i must alert my local congressman about. Grow the hell up

  138. gbpakrfan says: Jun 12, 2013 10:32 PM

    Come on Dan Snyder…just add on a casino already!

  139. eagles512 says: Jun 13, 2013 12:07 AM

    So Melba quotes 3 people and they count for more than the majority that have no issue just because of their title? Sorry, I prefer the voices of the real people.

  140. freakskins says: Jun 13, 2013 3:46 AM

    I am a diehard Redskins fan. I am also a father, teacher, husband to an Asian wife, son of a Puerto Rican father and Caucasian mother, and I have an extremely diverse group of friends from many cultures and backgrounds. I believe words are like stones; they can be used to build shelters and bridges, or they can be thrown at others to cause pain. In the case of the word Redskin as a team name I truly believe that the representatives of that name from owner to administrators to coaches to players ALL do their best to. Represent the name with honor and dignity. The idea of our government wasting the time and effort to address this issue is disturbing. I would much prefer to see them address the issues that truly negatively impact the Native American people of our country.

  141. woodyc says: Jun 13, 2013 9:13 AM

    Are Native Americans really offended by the name of a football team, or is it just wacko do-gooder white liberal people who aren’t happy unless they are “fixing” some perceived injustice that no one really cares about and isn’t really an issue or even important? How does the name of a sports team hurt anyone? It doesn’t. Seriously, if they renamed the team the fighting pale faces with the logo of a Caucasian man’s face, most white people wouldn’t give a flying flip.

  142. rebelsrevelations says: Jun 13, 2013 11:21 AM

    I will not be deterred!
    Yesterday, I made a statement that has since been removed! But like other Native Americans throughout history, I will not be silenced!
    You people in politics are unbe-f-ing-lievable!
    You cry for a football team to change their nearly a century old name, and logo, because you think it’s politically incorrect and offensive to “Indians?!”
    Tell you what … Give the indigenous people our land back, and beg our forgiveness for centuries of oppression and then you can tell Mr.Snyder he has a name that is offensive! Until such time as that happens, please kindly refrain from further using my people, to further your political career! That is what I find offensive!!

  143. openseason51 says: Jun 13, 2013 6:19 PM

    Typical Democrats. They are more interested in social issues than dealing with the real issues that the unemployed face everyday.

Leave a Reply

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