Skip to content

Columnist warns banning Redskins name will be just the beginning

img21697452 Getty Images

Few NFL-related issues have been as polarizing as the question of whether the Redskins should change their name.

OK, Tebow is that polarizing.  As is pretty much any dispute between the league and the NFLPA.  And whether public money should be used to build stadiums.  And whether Joe Flacco is elite.  And whether Eli Manning used to be not elite.

When it comes to pro football, plenty of topics push two competing views to sharp extremes.  The debate regarding the Redskins’ name is simply the most recent.

On Sunday, Walter L. Williams (a frequent replacement host for Rush Limbaugh) published a column strongly opposing the push to alter the nickname by dusting off the old give-an-inch-take-a-mile argument.  But Williams dubs the dynamic the “classic method of busybodies and tyrants.”  (And now “busybodies and tyrants” has rocketed into the top five of my potential fantasy football team names this year.)

As many proponents of keeping the name have done, Williams attacks the possibility by extrapolating the movement to a ridiculous extreme, suggesting that the next target will be the use of specific tribal names and, ultimately, the names of animals.

It’s a common tactic for those who resist any type of change.  If we allow change, they argue, where will change end?

And so for the same reason that some have said the legalization of same-sex marriage means people eventually will have the ability to marry animals, some are saying the banishment of the Redskins moniker will eventually destroy the ability to name teams after them.

But not everything is a slippery slope that will spit society into the bowels of hell.  Those who make such arguments surely realize that.  They just use a goofy concept to help rally the least common denominator into thinking that anyone who wants one thing to change has a secret agenda to radically change everything.

As applied to the Redskins name, the argument overlooks one important point.  When stripped from the football team and regarded in isolation, it really is an offensive term.

Redskin.  As in red skin.  As in, “Hey, you have red skin.  And even though you are a human being whom God created equal to the rest of us, I’m going to call you ‘redskin’ to remind you that you’re different, and also beneath the rest of us.”

We realize that it’s hard to separate the name from the team.  But the oddball arguments being trotted out to defend something that, in all fairness, has become at this point in the development of our society indefensible will serve only to stir up and organize stronger opposition to the name.

In the end, then, maybe it’s a good thing that such clumsy, nonsensical arguments are being advanced to not change it.  As more and more people believe their intelligence is being insulted by the sky-is-falling hysterics, more people will become motivated to push strongly against the name.

Permalink 130 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Rumor Mill, Washington Redskins
130 Responses to “Columnist warns banning Redskins name will be just the beginning”
  1. unbiasfan says: Jun 30, 2013 11:39 PM

    Political Correctness is ruining our nation right in front of our eyes

  2. wickerskin says: Jun 30, 2013 11:44 PM

    Okay, here’s the thing about this argument.

    The people who are in favor of making the Redskins change their name, are actually being MORE racist against Native Americans than the Redskins are in using the name in the first place.

    Here’s why.

    The great majority of Native Americans don’t have a problem with the name. A poll from the Annenberg Public Policy Center in 2004 found that 90 percent of Native Americans in the United States had no problem with the name, and only nine percent did. I haven’t seen a more recent study.

    To make the same point, from a more personal standpoint, i live in the state with the highest percentage of Native Americans in the population in the lower 48 (New Mexico, with 9.7% of the population being Native Americans).

    and i can tell you that here, by far, the Redskins are the third most popular team after the somewhat “local” teams of the Cowboys and Broncos. I rarely drive more than a mile or two in Albuquerque without seeing one or more Redskins Decals on the back window of pickup trucks or the like. And when you pull up even with them, it’s almost always a Native American behind the wheel. They clearly don’t feel that the team name is racist (or at least they aren’t upset by it), and they support the team themselves. I have worn my Redskins cap and my RG3 jersey to Indian Casinos with pride, and have never once heard a comment about the name, or even gotten a funny look from a Native American about it. Once I commented “Hail to the Redskins” to a Native American man who was wearing a Redskins cap, and his response? “Damn Straight”.

    the point is that the great majority of native americans, in this state with a very large population of native americans, take pride in the name.

    meanwhile, a large number of non-native-americans think that Native Americans SHOULD be offended by the name, and that the name should be changed because of the offense that Native Americans SHOULD take.

    So, with that in mind, which is more racist?

    1. to use a name which 100 years ago was very derogatory, but has lost most of its derogatory meaning due to its use as a football team moniker, or

    2. to assume you know better than an entire ethnic group what should be offensive to them, and ignore what they have to say on the matter, because they’re not smart enough to be offended by it

    If anyone thinks it’s #1, i’d love to hear why you think so.

  3. vikesfan320 says: Jun 30, 2013 11:47 PM

    I have a simple solution for those defending the name “Redskin”… Walk onto a reservation and yell “What’s up Redskins?”. If you are comfortable enough to do that (and if you live to tell about it), then you can defend Redskin as long as you want.

  4. charger383 says: Jun 30, 2013 11:48 PM

    REDSKINS forever

  5. nflofficeadmin says: Jun 30, 2013 11:50 PM

    It’s similar to calling chocolate sprinkles Jimmys. People know what it is and continue to do it for various reason. And I’ve found that people that use that term are adamant about calling them Jimmys and not chocolate sprinkles.

  6. 619sdfan4life says: Jun 30, 2013 11:51 PM

    How about the “Washington Natives”…

  7. thommillermd says: Jun 30, 2013 11:53 PM

    They should just change the name

  8. vertskate900 says: Jun 30, 2013 11:55 PM

    A high school in Utah last year abandoned their team name “Cougars” because of the double entendre that word has with frisky older women. You wanna bet the “everything offends us” crowd won’t stop with changing the Redskins name?

  9. Organic-boy says: Jun 30, 2013 11:55 PM

    Its a well recognized name that has been used by the team for years.

    Political correctness does not apply to every area of society.

    Whats next? Ban singing the national anthem as its offensive to some special interest group?

    Ban a team color because it “means” something?

    Its a NAME- the Redskins team name. Get over it.

  10. nyyjetsknicks says: Jun 30, 2013 11:56 PM

    Will anyone who claims the name is not offensive call a group of Native Americans a “Redskin” to their face?

  11. chunkala says: Jul 1, 2013 12:00 AM

    Weren’t Native Americans the majority when the redskin term was first coined?

  12. biist says: Jul 1, 2013 12:02 AM

    Yes. Red skin. It is a tribute. What organized team gives themselves a disparaging name? The Youngstown Prisoners or the Louisville Cowchips?
    This is an elitist capricious quest that itself has turned into a sport that PFT is glad to play. Redskins as a tribute to fighting and survival skill and keeps the native culture in memory. It is no different than Vikings or Cowboys. Walter Williams arguements are spot-on. It is your “drumb beat” (wait, maybe that is racist too?) that is nonsensical.

  13. paredskinwarrior1985 says: Jul 1, 2013 12:06 AM

    I’m a redskins fan and am sick of this. just change the name to shut up these ppl! hell it would make a ton of money

    I wanna see it changed to the Washington DC Dragons, use 2 wicked logos(one with a.dragon shaped in to dc with its wings spread, and the other.a dragon head) and make New Badass uniforms with dragon wings and a tail on the jerseys and pants and horns on top of the helmet. But as a tribute to the History of the Redskins keep the 4 uniforms and helmets used over the 80years and Change the redskins name to warriors on them and the curly r to a curly W and use a spear instead of the Indian head .

    there you go 4 games out of the season a tribute to history as the Washington Warriors and the other 12 games as a sign of progress and evolving society as the Washington DC Dragons!!!

    it would make a ton of money having 6 or 7 cool uniforms and helmets with the alternates a season to sell and having 2 trademarked cool names.

    I love the redskins but its time to just move on and evolve. maybe we can get a wicked awesome teamname and logo to cheer on. Hail To The Dragons

  14. lonewizard says: Jul 1, 2013 12:10 AM

    I think the Jets should change their name because they insult airmen. And don’t get me started on the Browns…..

  15. asimonetti88 says: Jul 1, 2013 12:10 AM

    I don’t think the Redskins need to change their name, but the author comparing it to tobacco bans is absolutely ridiculous.

  16. paredskinwarrior1985 says: Jul 1, 2013 12:13 AM

    time to change the name!!.

    Change the Name to the Washington DC Dragons, use 2 wicked New logos, the colors real metallic Gold and burgundy red

    but use the 4 redskins uniforms from the 80 years as a tribute to redskins history but change the name on them to Washington Warriors for 4 games a year!!!

    Hail to the DC Dragons

  17. operwapitsai says: Jul 1, 2013 12:16 AM

    well said

  18. humb0lt says: Jul 1, 2013 12:21 AM

    Just rename the Redskins the Dolly Madisons. She had more balls than most of our presidents.

  19. rickyspanish says: Jul 1, 2013 12:21 AM

    There ya go R-Word fans, this is the man fighting your fight. Seems like you should be served well with this whackadoo spewing his craziness. Hail to your R-Words

  20. humb0lt says: Jul 1, 2013 12:22 AM

    That should be the Dolley Madisons rather.

  21. norvturnersneck says: Jul 1, 2013 12:23 AM

    How does the name say they are “beneath us”?

    Just being devils advocate-
    I have olive skin and it reminds my family and I that Portugal was conquered by the Moors for a period of time. I don’t/won’t take offense if some person says I have brown skin. It is just a reality.

  22. crosbee says: Jul 1, 2013 12:32 AM

    Well said. And yet far too reasonable to mean anything to fans of Limbaugh/Williams (hence the problem).

  23. marchettirants says: Jul 1, 2013 12:32 AM

    Redskin. As in red skin. As in, “Hey, you have red skin. And even though you are a human being whom God created equal to the rest of us, I’m going to call you ‘redskin’ to remind you that you’re different, and also beneath the rest of us.”
    WEAK WEAK WEAK. No one is separating the word from the team except people like you.The name of the team was never meant to be derogatory it was for a former coach of the team whose mother was a Sioux

  24. datmilehighswagistoodamnhigh says: Jul 1, 2013 12:45 AM

    are there even anymore natives left to be offended. Sure kill millions of them and now white folks are offended by the name they gave them? Much like the N word but now every Justin bieber haircut having suburban white kid uses it. How many times has anybody been called a redskin since like 1850 when Natives actually existed? Its fake guilt used to distracted and divide the American people who are now so scared to sound racist they agree with any PC crap that’s thrown at them. At least a good percentage and those who wont take the crap are viewed as biggots and make the divide possible. Its a freaking football team , its not like banning the name is gonna in any shape or form make up the past 500 years. In fact its kind of an honor, maybe Cleveland should rename themselves from the Browns to the Negroes. People need to get a life and focus on the fascist governenment world bank evil cult Illuminati who run our countries….

  25. eagles512 says: Jul 1, 2013 12:48 AM

    It’s not polarizing when almost everyone including Native Americans don’t care about the name.

  26. funktron2x says: Jul 1, 2013 12:58 AM

    It’s just nit a simple situation. A vast majority of polled native Americans are not offended by the term. It would be cut and dried if it was even something like a quarter who were, but it is like 95 percent who don’t care a lick about the moniker. Are we completely sure that requires a company to rebrand and shift away from a long storied history? I really don’t know that it is necessary to force the issue unless the people involved are truly hurt by the situation scores of years after the term actually was used derisively to oppress people. But I do understand entirely how we should want to distance ourselves from any bigoted terminology. Agreed that the slippery slope argument is crapola, but the argument never truly lay in that direction anyway.

  27. santolonius says: Jul 1, 2013 1:02 AM

    here’s a good way to kill some time: search the word “redskin” in a google books search (using the criteria of 19th century publications). these old books provide a pretty clear picture of how the term was used in the context of the times. while the word is not always blatantly pejorative, it does seem at the very least to caricature the people to whom it refers.

  28. hansenbrothers says: Jul 1, 2013 1:07 AM

    This is insane. It’s 2013 & people are defending a racial slur. Insane.

  29. bobhk says: Jul 1, 2013 1:12 AM

    @As applied to the Redskins name, the argument overlooks one important point. When stripped from the football team and regarded in isolation, it really is an offensive term.
    ——–
    Stupid statement. You can’t strip context.

  30. aaroncurryisbust says: Jul 1, 2013 1:13 AM

    The name MUST be changed! It’s a travesty that its still around. Would it be appropriate if 150 years from now there were an expansion team called the Los Angeles Negroes because the term has “dulled” in potency over time? Of course not. It’s still a dirty epithet rooted in hate, discrimination, and bigotry.

  31. hedleykow says: Jul 1, 2013 1:18 AM

    I know people who will “ONLY” listen to a certain News Channel because (according to them) “all the other channels spew liberal propaganda that will poison your mind.” Then after 5 or 10 years of buying into the crazy talk, they fully believe the narrow channel of information they allow themselves to get is mainstream. And then one day reality hits–Gay Rights are the law of the land–and they don’t know what hit them. Too bad for them. The Redskins team name will go the same way … closed minded people just can’t seem to get it through their heads that they are irrelevant.

  32. irishfury says: Jul 1, 2013 1:20 AM

    I’m so sick of this. it’s the name of the team everybody should just get over it I don’t care neither should you freedom of speech whatever I don’t care

  33. alphaomega13 says: Jul 1, 2013 1:22 AM

    Removing the racial slur “redskins” would be a good thing for this country. Look at it like this, whites see this so-called team nickname as an honor to Natives. What are you honoring? The Native as a warrior? The only war or wars that is honorable are the “Indian Wars” which are the wars that Natives fought in, in defended tribal lands from white invaders. Wars against the U.S. Government in order to keep from being exterminated? The white man is honoring their one time enemy as you saw them. As for honor, you will never see a tribal government honor the white race or government for the genocide they tried to commit. Always know this, Natives celebrate their victory at Little Bighorn over the United States to this day. Glad to know, whites know they were wrong and honor the Natives fight for social justice today.

  34. raiderlatey says: Jul 1, 2013 1:24 AM

    I’m curious what Chris Kluwe would say about this matter? Then again I’m tired of this dumb ass debate. Mr. Snider keep the name. It’s your team! Maybe the government should worry about other things. Heaven knows there is just nothing else they should concern themselves with.

  35. threeravenz says: Jul 1, 2013 1:24 AM

    Any Team name that represents or refers to Native Indians is an insult and not an honor. Native Indians were not a waring people as history would have you believe,,,but lived a peaceful and friendly lifestyle for the most part. Today you have many sports teams simulating going into battle if you will, with opposing members who represent their state too win the status of champion. There were many great Native Indians who got the title of a great warrior, but not by their choice. They were forced into fighting.

  36. hifive123 says: Jul 1, 2013 1:24 AM

    I’m Native American and not offended. The mascot for the Cleveland Indians, though, is offensive.

    Honest questions: if the Redskins are forced to change, will the Chiefs and Indians be next? What about the ugly, blonde Vikings mascot? What about the Fighting Irish and the ugly, correponding mascot?

  37. davidnc says: Jul 1, 2013 1:37 AM

    I had another Australian friend who just discovered that the Redskins are a team (didn’t know too much about the sorry before that). He couldn’t believe that a team with that name would exist in a modern day country like Australia. It would be like having a team called the blackskins, whiteskins or yellowskins. It make the people in charge look backwards to say the least.

  38. holdup08 says: Jul 1, 2013 1:39 AM

    We should probably do away with athletic teams. It’s a slippery slope toward providing teams with names.

  39. Stiller43 says: Jul 1, 2013 1:45 AM

    “As many proponents of keeping the name have done, Williams attacks the possibility by extrapolating the movement to a ridiculous extreme, suggesting that the next target will be the use of specific tribal names and, ultimately, the names of animals.”

    How ridiculous is it to name a team after a race of people in the first place? Warriors would be okay. White skins, black skins, yellow skins, red skins. Why would that be a name for a team in the first place?

  40. chi01town says: Jul 1, 2013 1:54 AM

    I dont think the Redskins should change the name of that team.
    this is the NFL and the Redskins is
    one of the oldest teams. I just dont belive they mean any disrespect to anyone.

  41. johnniedenson says: Jul 1, 2013 1:54 AM

    The real question is, Florio, why does everything have to change? Why is there a felt need that everything must conform to this milquetoast, PC, shenaniganizing?

    There was a time when “Redskins” the football team was ok. There was a time when a private company could be named whatever they wanted. Should there be a public fallout due to the name, it was at the cost and detriment of the company.

    Perhaps I should get in a tizzy over anyone having the last name “White”. As a matter of fact I think tge Beatles need to change tge name of THAT album and the name of the Presidential living quarters has made me lose hours of sleep. HOURS I tell you!

  42. thefhaloanguy says: Jul 1, 2013 2:06 AM

    Lib loonies like this really don’t get the idea that other people can think for themselves. You have to tell others how to live, how to think, just mind your own business. Ah but that’s the hardest thing to do for a lib.

  43. razorthorns says: Jul 1, 2013 2:38 AM

    I can understand why some would want to change the name but none of those arguments are true to the reason the name was chosen or what it represents.

    I mean seriously a team would not name itself something in way to offend potential customers.

    The way the team is using the term redskins is not about being racist. It’s about respecting some of the fiercest warriors of the wild west. A name that brought fear to the soldiers who had to fight them and usually referred to the Apache and Cherokee Indian tribes.

    It’s a name of respect towards the Indians not disrespect. Those who don’t understand that just don’t understand history. It has nothing to do with the origins of the more derogatory term Red Man which came about from the Indians on the east coast who painted their faces red as a way of showing their war paint.

    I think its more insulting to call them Indians just because Christopher Columbus messed up and thought he was in India. Since they are not really “native” to America since they are immigrants from Russia and China. Perhaps we could call them The First Settlers.

    Perhaps we could even grow some REAL respect and stop trying to put over 100 different tribes grouped together under one name and just call them by the name of their tribe they claim heritage too because an Apache sure wont find it a comfort to grouped in with the Pueblos any more than someone who is French like to be grouped together with a German cause of white skin.

  44. tjzoo says: Jul 1, 2013 2:44 AM

    How can you compare the marrying another human being to marrying an animal!?… Thats just insensitive and stupid

  45. greggfletch1 says: Jul 1, 2013 2:45 AM

    I never see the comment I post but I will post anyway. Like the late great George Carlin said, words are only words, its the racist A@#hole you have to worry about. When they picked the name I am pretty cofindent that they did not do it to make fun. I guess we should stop playing cards because it has spades in the deck.

  46. greggfletch1 says: Jul 1, 2013 2:46 AM

    thats using them are the ones you have to worry about

  47. skb2121 says: Jul 1, 2013 3:09 AM

    They need to change the name. I say this as a lifelong Redskins fan. I’m from DC. It’s come to the point where wearing my Redskins hat feels like I’m endorsing these idiotic arguments in favor of keeping the name, when I actually just like football. I care about football. I care about RGIII. I care about Orakpo. I care about not being racist. Change the name.

  48. yaryers says: Jul 1, 2013 3:11 AM

    “Get ‘em……GET ‘EM!”

    - LaVarr Arrington

  49. icdogg says: Jul 1, 2013 3:17 AM

    When you hear “Redskins” you are no more likely to think of Native Americans than you are to think of gold prospectors when you hear “49ers”. So even though the name was and remains a little-used racial epithet, that name is far more associated with the franchise in the NFL. And I think that is probably the only argument for keeping it that can stand up, since no one would take a new franchise and name it after a racial epithet today.

  50. laydluckey says: Jul 1, 2013 3:32 AM

    Just change their logo from am Indian to a potato….as in redskin potatoes. Problem solved.

  51. sfm073 says: Jul 1, 2013 3:57 AM

    I personally don’t care if the name changes or not, but why does the left always resort back to animals? What is the fascination there?

  52. denverdude7 says: Jul 1, 2013 4:03 AM

    I understand the position that the name Redskins can be interpreted as a racial slur.

    However, the name must be viewed in the context in which it is being used. It is meant as a name of honor.

    As a counterpoint to the argument I would point out that the University of Notre Dame’s sports teams are named the Fighting Irish, complete with a red haired, fair skinned fellow with his fists up ready to fight.

    I have no issue whatsoever with that. By the way, I happen to be Irish.

  53. Corey Jeppesen says: Jul 1, 2013 4:08 AM

    I’m getting tired of all this. Can’t I escape to just football anymore? Ugh.

  54. logicalvoicesayz says: Jul 1, 2013 5:33 AM

    The best team in Maryland wears purple and black and doesn’t rely on whackjobs to defend its team name.

    #wonanythinglately?

  55. theskinsman says: Jul 1, 2013 5:35 AM

    Actually, my intelligence is insulted by those who think the name of a football team matters.

  56. gtmac21 says: Jul 1, 2013 5:40 AM

    If the Redskins change their name, then Kansas City will have to change the name of their team, then the Atlanta Braves and Cleveland Indians will be next! Where does it really end? There will always be someone who is offended! Will descendants of gold hunters in San Francisco be offended by the term ’49er and demand a name more civil, which better represents the “people of the region”? Get ready for the 2020 San Francisco Pipe-smokers!

  57. pitofzombies94 says: Jul 1, 2013 5:43 AM

    my whole life growing up I have never heard anyone complain about the name Redskins now all of the sudden its a big deal. I think the name Texans is dumb cause not all the players are Texans get rid of that name too. I wonder if giants have a problem with the New York Giants change that name too.

  58. wagon151515 says: Jul 1, 2013 6:04 AM

    Get rid of the hateful name already. Washington Cheesepuffs sounds much better. Hail Puffs!

  59. danman114 says: Jul 1, 2013 6:13 AM

    For a term to be derogatory it has to be commonly used in a derogatory fashion. I’ve never heard the term Redskin in that manner. Simply breaking down the word and pointing out how it’s a description of the physical characteristics isn’t proof it’s a demeaning word.

  60. bigmike7914 says: Jul 1, 2013 6:21 AM

    If redskins is an offensive term then the native americans should also work to change the name of the state of Oklahoma which translates as red man, further more what are they doing to change the name of the popular chewing tobaco red man, if you want to change one thing you should try and change all things deemed offensive.

  61. atlfan31833 says: Jul 1, 2013 6:26 AM

    So please don’t ever use the terms southerner, yankee, redneck, or any other slang to describe me other than American. I find them offensive and if you’ve ever used them before, even in jest, I believe you should lose your job even if it was 30 years ago and you’re sorry for it now.

    I don’t mind them changing the name since it is offensive to the native americans. I Just think people ought to get off of their hypocritical high-horse before pointing fingers at others.

  62. kane337 says: Jul 1, 2013 6:46 AM

    Well stated Florio.

  63. sdelmonte says: Jul 1, 2013 6:53 AM

    Bravo!

  64. boyd54 says: Jul 1, 2013 6:58 AM

    The fact that someone, anyone is able to attempt to make an argument that uses the logic that a race of people is compared to animals should say all that needs to be said on this topic.

  65. guvsta says: Jul 1, 2013 6:59 AM

    There are some things where you do think it’s political correctness gone mad but racial comments aren’t one of them. It is inevitable that this name will have to change one day- Snyder should realise this and rebrand the team name on his own terms/ Otherwise, he’ll just look bitter and grudging when it finally happens.

  66. daburgher says: Jul 1, 2013 7:03 AM

    Cmon man!

  67. rationalitybias says: Jul 1, 2013 7:07 AM

    As Bart Simpson said, “You’re damned if you do, and you’re damned if you don’t.”

    “All men are equal and that’s the way they’re created, but that was written black and white people were segregated.” – CL

  68. floratiotime says: Jul 1, 2013 7:10 AM

    Washington banned ‘classy’ long ago.

  69. torturedraiderfan says: Jul 1, 2013 7:11 AM

    If you think my excerpt from Robert “Two Eagles” Green sounds like he IS offended by the Redskin name, here’s the rest of his comments.

    Robert “Two Eagles” Green, who retired from his presiding role over the 1300-member Patawomeck Tribe in March, was a guest on SiriusXM NFL Radio’s “The Opening Drive” on Wednesday.

    He gave a detailed account of the origin of the term Redskin, why so many people are offended by it, and how political correctness has allowed this story to fester far longer than it should.

    “I think that first of all, you have to make a decision whether you consider it offensive or not, and frankly, the members of my tribe, the vast majority, don’t find it offensive,” Green said. “I’ve been a Redskins fan for years and to be honest with you, I would be offended if they did change it.”

  70. vikingshipper says: Jul 1, 2013 7:14 AM

    Lets go with “Washington Warriors” so I can stop referring to them as the Washington “R”words.

  71. bcmcknight77 says: Jul 1, 2013 7:15 AM

    Yeah, let’s change the name!

    Oh, by the way, who is going to pay Daniel Snyder for the billions he would lose in brand recognition that’s been built over the past few decades.

    Then there is the risk they’ll change it from something that is offensive (to like 8 people in the entire US), to something just plain stupid. Did you know there is a NBA team called the Pelicans right now?

  72. solomon151 says: Jul 1, 2013 7:18 AM

    “Redskin” is a racial descriptor for Native Americans, the origin of which is disputed. Although by some accounts not originally having negative intent [1], the term is now defined by dictionaries of American English as “usually offensive” [2], “disparaging” [3] [4], “insulting” [5], “taboo” [6] and is avoided in public usage with the exception of its continued use as a name for sports teams.
    The term derives from the use of “red” as a color metaphor for race following European colonization of the Western Hemisphere. While initial explorers and later Anglo-Americans termed Native Americans light-skinned, brown, tawny, and russet. According to historian Alden T. Vaughan, “Not until the middle of the eighteenth century did most Anglo-Americans view Indians as significantly different in color from themselves, and not until the nineteenth century did red become the universally accepted color label for American Indians.”[7] Slang identifiers for ethnic groups based upon physical characteristics, including skin color, are almost universally slurs, or derogatory, emphasizing the difference between the speaker and the target.[8]

  73. boyshole25 says: Jul 1, 2013 7:49 AM

    As a minority,(white middle class male) I am not offended in the least by this

  74. atthemurph says: Jul 1, 2013 7:57 AM

    Fighting Irish
    Chiefs
    Indians
    Braves
    Warriors (as in Marquette)
    Bullets
    Blackhawks
    Sioux
    Padres
    ………..

    all are offensive to some offended group.

  75. blurryvisi0n says: Jul 1, 2013 7:59 AM

    If they change the name, it’s like opening Pandora’s box…No more Cleveland Indians (because it’s politically incorrect), no more Atlanta Braves (doesn’t sound offensive but they are known for the chop, and that might hurt someone’s feelings). My suggestion leave it alone.

  76. petedutcherjr says: Jul 1, 2013 7:59 AM

    I’ve had red skin on many occasions. I live in Florida!

    Seriously though. I am part Cherokee and I take zero offense from the name. I actually like the name (not the team though)!

  77. jda129 says: Jul 1, 2013 8:07 AM

    I’m lobbying for the Washington Voldemorts and then we can call them That Team Which Shall Not Be Named.

  78. jda129 says: Jul 1, 2013 8:19 AM

    Before this is over I predict that Dan Snyder will make a peace offering to his opposition by sending them stadium blankets infected with small pox.

  79. b3nz0z says: Jul 1, 2013 8:20 AM

    the slippery slope argument is always a fallacy. it’s an admission that you can’t argue against the actual issue being discussed.

  80. ringwormsherm says: Jul 1, 2013 8:26 AM

    So sick and tired of this liberal B.S. this nation will be toast in 40 years if we keep worrying about all this PC. SMH.

  81. calicokiller49 says: Jul 1, 2013 8:38 AM

    Every Native American I know. Wich is at least 30 or 40, has a redskins hat, so it must not be that offensive.

  82. bilbo1000 says: Jul 1, 2013 8:41 AM

    I’ve never understood why having teams named after one’s race isn’t considered an honor. I happen to be white, and I wouldn’t mind at all having a team named Whiteskins or Caucasians. That said, if use of “Redskins” is truly repulsive to Native Americans, then it should be changed. I just don’t understand why it would be considered repulsive. The most ridiculous name change was Marquette University (Milwaukee) getting rid of its “Warriors” name — a name that is not racially based and could refer to anyone.

  83. notdemfalcons says: Jul 1, 2013 8:43 AM

    Lost in all of this is the question of those dang peanuts.

    mmm, redskin peanuts.

  84. iamforliberty says: Jul 1, 2013 9:17 AM

    The point that Walter Williams is making is in the process of making little changes we continue to loss a little freedom. Those who want to force (government is force) change to what they want do not stop at that little change, they advocate for another little change or fail to oppose the additional change.

    If the people (as in the general public) wanted the changing of the team’s name they would stop supporting the team. If a group is opposed to the name, they can speak out for change. In a free society that is the proper method to change, it would be improper to use the force of government to change the name.

  85. djrobb says: Jul 1, 2013 9:25 AM

    In reference to the following quote, I’m just curious why you assume the second phrase is implied? “I’m going to call you ‘redskin’ to remind you that you’re different, and also beneath the rest of us.”

    Could it have been because “that is how you are referring to yourselves” as Smithsonian Institution senior linguist Ives Goddard determined in research dating back to 1769 (first in French and then in English).

    Sure, you can make the argument that even if the Indians were the first to use it, that doesn’t justify it’s later use, but your inference in this post is that white people created the term to disparage Indians and that’s just not true. The term became controversial far after its inception. The term Indian and Native American are controversial today too.

  86. blackandbluedivision says: Jul 1, 2013 9:26 AM

    When stripped from the football team and regarded in isolation, it really is an offensive term.
    __________________

    I really wish people would see this. I really do.

    “I’m not offended by term.”
    “I have red skin some times.”
    “The term isn’t being used offensively”
    “If black people can call each other the n-word. Why can’t this stand?”

    Seriously. The term is offensive. There is no ifs ands or buts about it. You wouldn’t walk up to a Native American and call him a “Redskin” it’s offensive.

  87. rgtre10 says: Jul 1, 2013 9:29 AM

    Again i’ll say as one with Native American heritage this does not bother nor offend me in any way…and just because some ambulance chaser with a need for attention finds a few who are offended by it does not make it bad.

    I’m sure there are plenty of people offended by other team names and or mascots or traditions…like the Braves fans and the tomahawk chop and chant! I’m offended by the name Cowboys because of what they did and how they treated Native Americans.

    Wake up America there are far more pressing issues then a team name which fans adore and cheer and faithfully sing the fight song none of which is meant to offend or disrespect in any way.

    And for those who like to put it in the same category as the “N” word…get real, when someone of the opposite race uses that word in the way they use it yes that’s offensive. But you’d probably hard pressed to argue that point as well since most rappers seem to incorporate it in their ryhmes along with the “B” word etc.,

  88. thefootballgodssay says: Jul 1, 2013 9:30 AM

    GIANTS VS THE DEADSKINS GIANTS 92 WINS 64 LOSSES AND 4TIES

  89. mrlaloosh says: Jul 1, 2013 9:31 AM

    Being a born-again Atheist, I’m offended by the name Saints. I’m also terrified of flying so Jets has to go. I hate my cousin Bill so Buffalo needs a new mascot. I spend way too much with credit cards so Chargers is insulting. I could go on…….

  90. mhs8031 says: Jul 1, 2013 9:33 AM

    There is one point everyone seems to miss. People do not name teams after things they do not usually admire. So the negativity is assumed, not actual. We still call people Whites and Blacks. What do you think that comes from? Am I offended when someone calls me White? Nope. The Redskin name is due to the population of natives who were in the region before Whites arrived. They were called that–historically. If the term is not meant to be offensive–after all, I would not name my team after something I disrespect—then you have to take the spirit of the apellation into consideration. Yes, if seperate from the NFL team, it could be a negative term. But when associated with the team, it refers to courage and honor. I know some will not see it that way-I am not a skin fan, btw.

  91. blackandbluedivision says: Jul 1, 2013 9:34 AM

    Anybody ever ask any Native American players how they would feel if they were on this team and were called a “Redskin?”

    Coincidentally, Tyler Bray (member of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation) signed as an undrafted free agent with the “Chiefs”

  92. myeaglescantwin says: Jul 1, 2013 9:38 AM

    why is it so hard for a organization that represents the capitol of the free world to take into considerations the history and concerns of the people of the country??

    Everyone throws out statistics of who wants the change, they state that the american Indian population represents a small part of the outcry and even smaller portion of the nations’ people..
    SHOULDN’T THAT BE AN EVEN BIGGER REASON TO MAKE THE SWITCH???
    The team represents america.. they shouldn’t need people to ask them to switch, they should switch simply because it is the right thing to do.

    The name is incentive, the reason’s for not changing it are borderline racist..
    why not identify a tribe from the local area and then give them fame by championing that name..

    the word redskin is flat out racist & derogatory.
    if you fight for it, then so are you.

  93. Rick Spielman is a Magician says: Jul 1, 2013 9:46 AM

    How about the Washington Pelicans?

  94. oranjellojones says: Jul 1, 2013 9:49 AM

    yea blackandblue they have and the Indians LOVE it. In fact they love it so much they name their own teams that more than all but 2 other names on Reservations across the country. Facts aren’t your friend in this one.

  95. ColtsWinColtsWin!! says: Jul 1, 2013 9:52 AM

    Hail to the Fuzzy Bunnies!!!!

  96. salmen76 says: Jul 1, 2013 9:53 AM

    Wa wa Wa. Some people will complain about anything. America has become ‘The nation Of The Offended”. Ah, that offends me! Get over it whiners. If you let your government continue to whittle away at our liberties soon we will have no Liberty at all. Redskin Redskin Redskin. Look i said it 3 times. In writing. Am i going to be under arrested? Ha Ha. I have more respect for myself and others like me that just try and be tolerable of each others differences. Changing the Redskins name is absolutely ridiculous. My team is called the Saints. But their not really Saints. They’re sinners. We all are. But if the Saints would have named themselves the Sinners people would have whined and complained about that name. What a world! Geaux Saints!

  97. dowhatifeellike says: Jul 1, 2013 9:57 AM

    There’s a very big difference between a name that is used as an insult and a name that is a symbol of oppression.

    The other day I had a conservative friend tell me that he finds the terms “cracker” and “ginger” as offensive as the n-word. I told him to get back to me when someone in a position of authority uses those terms while treating him unfairly.

  98. tformation says: Jul 1, 2013 10:09 AM

    It’s a valid argument. These people are race bullies. You give into them, they’re only going to ask for more.

    I can’t say I’m a fan of the Redskins, but every day that Snyder resists these clowns, the more respect I have for the man.

  99. jampacun says: Jul 1, 2013 10:14 AM

    In most of the world “yankee” is used as a derogatory term, and nobody seems to care

  100. jjbadd385 says: Jul 1, 2013 10:14 AM

    Im not a Redskin fan, nor am i racist. But why should Dan Snyder and all of the supporters of the name, have to compromise their rights & freedoms, to satisfy others? Thats the way i see it, if he doesnt want to change it, then whether you or i agree or not, its his right not to. You cannot strip the rights and freedoms of 1 to satisfy another. In the end, someone is going to be unhappy and not satisfied, why should it be the owner?

  101. skolvikingspurplepride says: Jul 1, 2013 10:20 AM

    To be fair I wouldn’t walk up to a Native American and call him Yankee or cowboy either

  102. vibesid says: Jul 1, 2013 10:21 AM

    Question: What is the politically correct term for a person in America of African descent? Is it now “black?” It’s changed so often I forget. But if it is, then the reference to color should not be deemed offensive. Many people of color refer to “whites” as a racial group.

  103. kane337 says: Jul 1, 2013 10:35 AM

    Washington Redstains would be a better name.

  104. dave4nyfg says: Jul 1, 2013 10:35 AM

    gtmac21 says:Jul 1, 2013 5:40 AM

    If the Redskins change their name, then Kansas City will have to change the name of their team, then the Atlanta Braves and Cleveland Indians will be next! Where does it really end? There will always be someone who is offended! Will descendants of gold hunters in San Francisco be offended by the term ’49er and demand a name more civil, which better represents the “people of the region”? Get ready for the 2020 San Francisco Pipe-smokers!

    _________________

    To answer your last question: No, decendants of gold hunters will not object to the use of ’49ers. With that major concern of yours off the table, assume we can agree to change the Redskins name?

  105. justintuckrule says: Jul 1, 2013 10:38 AM

    It has taken the right over 200 years to develop that argument strategy. Unpersuasive as it has always been, now that you have showed them how ridiculous it is, it’s funny they have no alternative argument and can’t resist going back to it. Look at the bright lights still trying to make the argument that the jets should change their name because they are scared to fly. These yokels just don’t get it and never will.

  106. musicman495 says: Jul 1, 2013 10:58 AM

    logicalvoicesayz says: Jul 1, 2013 5:33 AM

    The best team in Maryland wears purple and black and doesn’t rely on whackjobs to defend its team name.
    —————
    The Redskins are one of the top five most successful and most popular sports franchises IN THE ENTIRE WORLD, and do not care about Maryland.

  107. billygoat says: Jul 1, 2013 11:10 AM

    If I were Dan Snyder I would tell them I’m changing the name.
    We will now be known as the
    Los Angeles Gangsta’s. Then move the team.

  108. nflfolly says: Jul 1, 2013 11:11 AM

    Racist Snyder needs to change the name.

  109. skinsaphrenic says: Jul 1, 2013 11:21 AM

    Who said they’re beneath anyone else because they’re said to have red skin?

  110. johnniedenson says: Jul 1, 2013 11:42 AM

    cracker barrel better change their name! As a matter of fact I don’t want to see crackers sold at the store!

  111. noring4youstill says: Jul 1, 2013 12:00 PM

    How bout we just call the Reds Kin?

  112. kmart0319 says: Jul 1, 2013 12:01 PM

    I think their is some truth to the Willams’ argument. You only need to look at the ND Fighting Sioux. Where was this actually derogatory? IMHO, the moniker was a proud name of a team and nation of the Sioux tribe but some ppl got their panties in a bunch and next thing you know the name is banned by the NCAA. Now every other name that could be construed as potentially racist or demeaning is looked at to ban.

  113. baddegg says: Jul 1, 2013 12:16 PM

    The funny thing is…you could like 1,000 writers and politicians up condemning the name and Dan Snyder STILL wouldn’t change it unless he was forced to.

    How could he be forced?

    1. Public so mad they stop buying his product. Sorry, I don’t think Mr. Snyder has to worry about losing the 1,000 PC people nationwide railing against this. Amazingly, he has raised ticket, parking and merchandise prices for years with a losing franchise and still makes serious coin. So why should he change just because some liberal writer or grandstanding politician sqwauks.

    2. He could be sued in court and forced to change it. I’ve not seen the legal case presented yet that’s going to force the change.

    That’s the funny thing. You haters (yes, half the people arguing for name change are just doing it cuz they don’t like the redskins, let’s face it) are not going to get a change just cuz you say it.

    MOST PEOPLE DON’T GIVE A FIG. HAHA it’s not changing!

  114. weaponx73 says: Jul 1, 2013 12:24 PM

    Would people stop all the BS posturing and just admit they dont want the name changed because its the name of the team they rooted for since they were a little kid and not because it is some how an ok term. Its not its a racial slur and no one here would be ok with a team being named after a durogatory term for their race or culture.

    And stop using stupid examples like taking spades out of cards as if its a picture of a black man in the corner of the card not a you know spade which predates the derogatory term. Or that calling people black is the same as calling them a redskin. If you think that go call a black guy a darky and see how that goes over.

    Like I said keep the name because it has transended its ugly roots but stop pretending like it was some great honor you bestowed on these people.

  115. stevent92 says: Jul 1, 2013 12:29 PM

    We live in a nation of private property rights and property ownership. The Washington Redskins are under the ownership of Daniel Snyder and he has all the right in the world to name them whatever the sam hill he wants to.

    Fans also have a choice: not to support him, his team, or for that fact, the NFL due to what they perceive as bigotry and intolerance. Beyond that, they can shut their mouths and go about their lives.

    Chances are – nothing will be done. Snyder has not broken any laws, other than the unwritten moral code of political correctness that uber-liberals insist everyone must honor.

    I would love for the name to stay as it is, if for none other than teaching these whining, sniveling leftists that you can’t always get what you want (for once in their life).

  116. daglaws says: Jul 1, 2013 12:55 PM

    Words can’t be offensive. They’re just letters on paper or sounds from someone’s mouth. If a word was actually offensive, EVERYONE would be offended by it. However, people can choose to be offended by assigning their own ‘rules’ to certain words and then those rules are broken.

    Political correctness works by raising ‘victims’ above regular everyday people, providing power and support from those who subscribe to PC ideology. So it’s advantageous for those who find truth and reality difficult or inconvenient to live with to take the convenient victim route. Actual right and wrong is not important; having the power of ‘the people’ determines what’s right and wrong in PC land.

    Interestingly, from what I’ve seen, it’s rarely the ‘offended groups’ that have a problem, but a small group of PC police that have made it their lives work to ‘save’ all of the ‘disadvantaged’ groups from real life. Some of these PC folks have made a ton of money and fame by convincing groups they’ve been offended. How nice.

    Go Niners…

  117. marchmanningness says: Jul 1, 2013 1:03 PM

    I am a Redskins fan my self and while I do think the moniker should be changed to something like Braves (They were originally the Boston Braves after all) or something along those lines that better honors Native Americans I am gonna play devils advocate here. Context can be all the difference really. African Americans regularly refer to each other using the N word because it is claimed they are trying to diminish the power that it has by removing its negative connotation and using it as a positive word. Why should it be any different with the name Redskin? That being said I don’t think the N word should be used by anyone really and like I said the Redskins should choose a name that better honors Native Americans. Braves is a compromise because its honors both Native Americans and the franchises “Storied History” by returning it to its original name. Just dear god please don’t go with Red Tails like the DC Councilman recommended. While I think it’s great to honor the Tuskegee Airmen it just invites way too many jokes about getting their asses spanked.

  118. skinsforlife says: Jul 1, 2013 2:03 PM

    blackandbluedivision says: Seriously. The term is offensive. There is no ifs ands or buts about it. You wouldn’t walk up to a Native American and call him a “Redskin” it’s offensive.

    …………………………………………………………..

    I wouldn’t walk up to a person of Scandinavian descent and call him Viking either. I wouldn’t walk up to an Irishman and call him Fighting Irish either. Do you need anymore examples?

  119. zn0rseman says: Jul 1, 2013 4:28 PM

    I think Snyder should change the name to The Crusders, or Confederates, or something equally annoying to the PC Police in this country.

    Heck, I’d probably buy their gear just to spite them!

  120. bbadbob says: Jul 1, 2013 6:30 PM

    This debate is not about Liberals vs. Conservatives as much as some may want it and everything else meaningful to be. Rather it’s an issue of whether or not the word Redskin is a derrogatory term by definition and application. There’s ample evidence that the vast majority of Native Americans have no issue at all with the term and that many actually are fans of the team. I have a close friend that is native American and active in the local Native American community and I asked him how he felt about it, and he told me it depends largely on how Native Americans are portrayed and that he didn’t have issues with the Redskins, but did have issues with other franchises catoonish symbolism. I’m open minded on the issue, but would suggest more research and less politics is in order here.

  121. rokusaburo says: Jul 1, 2013 6:47 PM

    To all the conservatives crying about political correctness ruining the country, here’s some real talk– how would you feel if I said that Evangelical Christians cry victim and persecution more than anyone, despite the fact that they’re privileged, ignorant, bigoted white people who are doing the persecuting themselves. And people like Tebow and Sarah Palin are frauds who make their millions selling bigotry and resentment under the guise of values and patriotism.

    And America is far from the greatest country in the world.

    So you agree with what I’m saying, right? Because I’m not being politically correct, after all.

  122. tscarney says: Jul 1, 2013 7:41 PM

    The answer to this is quite simple…would we accept a team named the New York N@$&#rs? The answer is of course no….so it is now beyond time for the Redskins to become a team named directly after a native American tribe from the area and honor their heritage

  123. godsowncrunk says: Jul 1, 2013 8:05 PM

    A simple theorem: The likelihood of a person being offended by the name Redskin is inversely proportional to their exposure to Native culture.

    As a born-and-raised Okie, a Giants fan (3rd gen – comes from my father being raised in Great Neck), and a person who interacts with Natives on an almost daily basis, I’m fairly certain the only people offended by the name are a) white and b) liberal.

    I assume the same still exists, but when I was in public school in Oklahoma, we had to go through a pretty thorough instruction of Native roots, history and culture. Cultural anthropology is dullsville [see also: The Golden Bough], but the idea of anyone “going on a reservation and calling people ‘redskin’” is preposterous” – no matter what you want to think, it’s not the taboo N-word, to say nothing of people who claim such a theoretical have probably never actually, I dunno, been on a reservation. Having been on many, it’s laughable the conception that concern trolls have of what a modern reservation actually is. Protip: Reservations aren’t The Pit from “The Wire.”

    In Oklahoma, where we know a bit about Native culture and the cliches that follow them – reservations are a paradox: extreme poverty on one end, and casino earnings on the other. We get cheaper tobacco at the smoke shops while at the same time ad campaigns that urge Natives to support their culture by not buying corporate tobacco. Atop our capitol dome stands a statue of a Native called “The Guardian.”

    The absence of offense from the dreaded R-word is antiquated, for starters. I’ve heard many racial slurs in my lifetime, but I’ve never heard a Native referred to as a ‘redskin.’ The only reason the word survives is because of the Washington football team. If you could find one Native alive today who’s heard the word in any other context, especially hurled as a racial slur, I’d be stunned. Unlike many racial slurs, no music I’ve heard by Natives (or anyone else) refers to Natives as redskins.

    Our language evolves and thrives because of this evolution. I know it won’t be dropped, but drop it already.

  124. lakermetskins says: Jul 1, 2013 9:36 PM

    I would be the first to go into a reservation and yell out the term “Redskins”, just to see how many fans were with the Burgundy and Gold!

  125. skins1970 says: Jul 1, 2013 10:32 PM

    I can’t wait for the Ravens window to close because we won’t have to hear about them for a few years.

  126. justintuckrule says: Jul 1, 2013 11:39 PM

    Righties have no idea how to argue. Der, how come Irish people aren’t offended in notre dame? It’s no surprise that their party will be officially and finally eradicated in a few short years.

  127. defscottyb says: Jul 2, 2013 2:38 AM

    I totally and 100% agree with Walter L. Williams. He is correct!

  128. tscarney says: Jul 2, 2013 11:05 AM

    @Justintuckrule….this is not a right left issue. It’s about right and wrong, I’m as conservative as they come and I think it would be appropriate to change the name. As for the R party being eradicated in s few short years well a few countries have fine that Germany in the thirties, the USSR, China, Cuba are a few and personally I prefer a country with open debate and political ebbs and flows. Absolute power corrupts absolutely remember that. It’s why your side lost so big in 2010

  129. ncpackluv says: Jul 5, 2013 1:59 PM

    My college, Indiana Univ. of Pennsylvania (a small school in PA) used to be called the Big Indians. About 5-10 years ago they changed it to the Crimson Hawks (a stupid, practically meaningless name, unlike the Big Indians), in deference to Native Americans and PC. However, Florida State still rides their “Native American” out to the middle of the field with his flaming spear. As a white man, I have never felt anything but admiration for the Native Americans who put up a helluva fight against superior technology but ultimately lost. I view the culture as strong and proud. What is the freaking problem?

  130. tigersfandan says: Jul 6, 2013 5:01 PM

    Should we stop using the term “political correctness” because it might offend someone?

Leave a Reply

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