Skip to content

Native American author calls Goodell “cowardly” on Redskins issue

Roger Goodell AP

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has defended the Washington Redskins’ nickname by saying that it “stands for strength, courage, pride and respect.” Native American author Mark Anthony Rolo says he and other Native Americans don’t see anything respectful about it.

In a column published by several papers as part of the McClatchy-Tribune News Service, Rolo said that Goodell’s statement can’t hide the fact that the name of one of the NFL’s 32 teams is offensive to Native Americans.

Goodell’s offensive reply is not only cowardly, but it is also an antiquated defense reminiscent of those who refused to recognize other pop culture stereotypes such as Little Black Sambo and Frito Bandito,” Rolo wrote.

Rolo suspects that the real motivation of Goodell and Redskins owner Dan Snyder is simply that they’re worried that a name change would cost the league merchandising money. In a story about the Redskins controversy in the New York Times, marketing experts suggest that there may be truth to that, and having to change names could cost the team millions.

If the Redskins lose their trademark protection, however, it may turn out to be financially damaging to the team to keep its name, as it would no longer be able to control its own merchandising. And a group of Native Americans is currently challenging the Redskins’ trademark on the grounds that a racial slur cannot be trademarked. If the team loses that battle, it may decide to change its name not because it’s the right thing to do, but because it’s the right thing for the bottom line.

Permalink 203 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Top Stories, Washington Redskins
203 Responses to “Native American author calls Goodell “cowardly” on Redskins issue”
  1. t8ertot says: Jul 5, 2013 7:51 AM

    The name change is going to happen folks, as dumb as it is. Welcome to our PC society

  2. sampulls says: Jul 5, 2013 7:52 AM

    I am offended by the use of the term cowardly.

  3. jruc says: Jul 5, 2013 7:53 AM

    Well then why no just change it to the “Skins” and keep the logo? Is that still racial?

  4. carpi2 says: Jul 5, 2013 7:53 AM

    The team should get it over with, and rename themselves “The Albert Haynesworths.”

  5. SAV says: Jul 5, 2013 7:55 AM

    Goodell is one of the nicest people you will ever meet. The Skins name should be changed this year with the emergence of RG3 he can erase years of futility of this once proud franchise and start over with a new brand for a new era. History is history but sometimes change is good and the PR the NFL is getting over this is negative and not worth it over a team name. Especially a team that hasn’t won a title in a couple of decades. They could use a refresher.
    New face of the franchise, new name. Making a big mistake holding on to the old, this is baseball’s downfall.

    Just change the name to Washington Wookies and be done with it already

  6. wryly1 says: Jul 5, 2013 7:56 AM

    Goodell? He serves at the pleasure of 32 billionaires to protect their investment.

    There is no native American blood in my family, but the name ‘Redskins’ should be as offensively outdated to any thinking, 21st century American, with any reasonable social conscience, as any other racial epithet or cultural stereotype.

    The thick-skulled (who typically have the thinnest skin) will take issue with that.

  7. twilson962 says: Jul 5, 2013 7:59 AM

    Hail to the REDSKINS!!!

  8. wiley16350 says: Jul 5, 2013 8:00 AM

    Does the guy even know what a coward is? The political and public pressure is on the NFL and Snyder to change the name. If Goodell was a coward he would be asking Snyder to change the name to avoid negative press.

  9. jaxcliff says: Jul 5, 2013 8:00 AM

    What’s cowardly is a Native American cowering in the corner and whining about being called a bad name.

  10. aaroncurryisbust says: Jul 5, 2013 8:01 AM

    It’s ridiculous that an outrageously offensive racial slur like “Redskin” is still allowed to be the name of a billion dollar sports franchise.

  11. saints4life57 says: Jul 5, 2013 8:03 AM

    If this is the case, then where does it end? If they did happen to win this battle and the Redskins change their name all that would do is open the door for others to follow in their same footsteps! The thing I don’t get is they are calling themselves Redskins not other people so what’s the big deal? Be like calling myself the N word as to calling someone else it! I’m not going to offend myself! ; )

  12. artvandelay187 says: Jul 5, 2013 8:04 AM

    Goodell is a joke.

  13. maxkingpin says: Jul 5, 2013 8:07 AM

    Back in their formative years (1930s) they were the Braves. Maybe they go back to that.

  14. blackqbwhiterb says: Jul 5, 2013 8:09 AM

    At least now we are hearing from Native Americans, not a bunch of white media people pushing an agenda to sell the controversy etc….

  15. tincansailor981 says: Jul 5, 2013 8:09 AM

    Goodell a coward? Surely you jest

  16. beachsidejames says: Jul 5, 2013 8:11 AM

    Name calling…what does that make Rolo? Childlike?

  17. kdub79 says: Jul 5, 2013 8:14 AM

    Prior to this I’d thought it was just the P.C. Police looking out for the feelings of people who don’t even care themselves. Now we know that at least 1 Native American wants the name changed.

  18. abusementland says: Jul 5, 2013 8:15 AM

    I find the Notre Dame Fighting Irish logo offensive. The fact that Irish people, who were treated extremely unfair when crossing the Atlantic Ocean, I portrayed by a little Mythical Creature getting ready for a fight?

    I think the team that should be under the most scrutiny on this issue is the Cleveland Indians. I know they love Chief Wahoo in Cleveland, but could they make him look any more like a clown with the teeth and all?

    Bottom line, these teams are not using the mascots to embarrass a group of people. The fact that there are groups that get all wound up about this makes me think that they need more to worry about in life. What’s next? Nordic People saying that the Viking is a little too flamboyant with the braids in the hair, wearing purple, and the 80′s ‘stache?

  19. umainebearman says: Jul 5, 2013 8:16 AM

    Wonder where all these experts, authors, and activists 80 some odd years ago when they became the Redskins? Hell why haven’t they been bitching and moaning between then and now? Bunch of whining people wanting a little media attention.

  20. micknangold says: Jul 5, 2013 8:16 AM

    Yet no one is busting the Cleveland Indians’ chops.

  21. lionsftw says: Jul 5, 2013 8:19 AM

    You mean a real deal Native American is offended by an obviously racist team name? Wow, I’m shocked! Maybe Snyder and Goodell can find some more “Natives” who will defend the name saying how they call each other redskins. It’s pathetic that they try to defend it, the original owner was a scumbag racist and so is the name, change it or be remembered as a scumbag racist yourself that simple. And to all you who say it isn’t, you really need to shutup because you’re wrong!

  22. SparkyGump says: Jul 5, 2013 8:19 AM

    It always boils down to money. Goodell is trying to protect Snyder’s money and now the Native American’s are going to use that cash cow against them. Teams change their names all the time. So can the Redskins.

  23. bmoreravens1012013 says: Jul 5, 2013 8:19 AM

    Your “Washington Red Potato Skins” sounds nice to me. Beats deadskins….Anyway, this chief had me sold when he called the ” Great Emporer ” a coward. The fact that Roger and ol Danny boy tried to trot out a “chief” who wasn’t even native American –to advocate for the name to stay the same — was priceless and as low as you can get. Any backlash they get , they fully well deserve. Honestly , I don’t even know why they are called Washington anything. They don’t even play in D.C. They should be called Virginia or Landover .

  24. dryzzt23 says: Jul 5, 2013 8:21 AM

    I wonder which left-wing group is pressuring Rolo to do this. The ONLY answer is to take a poll of REGISTERED native americans who live on reservations, and let THEM decide. This political correctness crap has to stop. But if this happens then change the name of the Vikings, Browns, Panthers (as in Black panthers – it is offensive to white people), and the Fighting Irish.

  25. dannyreneau says: Jul 5, 2013 8:24 AM

    As someone with quite a bit of Cherokee in their blood, and actually red skin, I do find the name of the team somewhat offensive. I do however sympathize with the fan base and can completely understand why they wouldnt want the name of there team changed. I also don’t believe the owner or fans are prejudice, I just believe that in this day and age we shouldnt have known racial slurs as names of our beloved teams. Why let something like a name taint your beloved team? It will change some day, it’s better to do it now and start the process of adapting to and loving the future of this storied franchise.

  26. WACANHFL says: Jul 5, 2013 8:30 AM

    Change the name already.

  27. vikescry1 says: Jul 5, 2013 8:33 AM

    it has been this way for a long time, get over it. i am part indian at it doesn’t bother me. people have thin skin these day’s and just want to be sue happy.

  28. itsunclepauley says: Jul 5, 2013 8:37 AM

    I agree that in the year 2013, the PC police is out of control. Lots of people are pointing that out.

    That doesn’t change the fact that the name is a slur.

  29. citiciti says: Jul 5, 2013 8:37 AM

    bunch of cry babies

  30. cardmagnet says: Jul 5, 2013 8:37 AM

    Times have changed and so has the meaning of the word “redskin”. Among the majority and in pop culture today, the word is not meant as a slur. People have to stop living in the past and waging a political/legal war over their (dated) interpretation of a word.

    If this were 1920, things would be different. However, it is 2013 and both culture and language have evolved. You can’t hold modern society at fault for their ancestors twisting a word into a slur in the past.

  31. duffelbagsports says: Jul 5, 2013 8:38 AM

    I’m sure there were those who felt the name was offensive over these 80 years who didn’t have a voice. As an African American I can identify with the issue and we really don’t need a poll or a vote to find out if it’s offensive. It has been used in the past as a racial slur and that should be enough. 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.

  32. noyourearacist says: Jul 5, 2013 8:40 AM

    Where have all you “obvious racial slur” people been all my life?

  33. jaxdolfan says: Jul 5, 2013 8:43 AM

    They should be called the Washington ambulance chasers. No one will complain about that offensive name.

  34. whoisferg says: Jul 5, 2013 8:44 AM

    Wow. It’s too bad things are coming to this…

    I am a white guy. I’m not trying to state how an American indian should feel about the term Redskins. I don’t pretend to know how he should feel seeing the Redskins name flying on banners and painted in the endzone at FedEx field. But, I do feel that since the football team in Washington has used the name for 80+ years, the idea that it is being used as a derogatory term is ludicrous.

    Is it possible that those folks in Washington believe that the Redskins name represents the “GOOD” qualities of the American Indian? Is it possible that the fans of the Washington Redskins believe in the name because they see American Indians have the qualities that Roger Goodell mentions in his speech? Is it possible that Mr. Rolo needs to take a step back and look at the bigger picture?

    Again, I could be way off base here, but I see the Redskins name in a positive way. However, if the majority (and not just a loud minority, but a majority…) of American Indians do feel that this is degrading term, I’ll bet that eventually the ‘Skins will have to relent and change the name.

  35. mrbigass says: Jul 5, 2013 8:44 AM

    The problem is too much media these days trying to inject as much “news” as possible into the endless amount of social interwebbing (yes, great word I just made up).

    So, now all it takes is 3 people with some perceived slight and the news hungry media laps it up and presto, it’s read by millions that assume it’s a big deal and something must be done about it, damn it!

    No, we do not have to change every damn thing about our history just because the media interwebbed it……I mean it……

  36. acmepackers says: Jul 5, 2013 8:46 AM

    Keep the name. It’s a brand. Suck it, Politically Correct people

  37. zemongoose says: Jul 5, 2013 8:46 AM

    Unless it contributes to significantly shortening the lifespan of Goodell or Snyder, I don’t care either way.

  38. nukepuke says: Jul 5, 2013 8:46 AM

    A few things -

    The name isn’t racist and you are going to be unable to provide literally any qualified historical information to prove that it is.

    A slur requires derogatory intention – none exists here. However, it is quite nice that all of you have decided what is and isn’t racist for a people who used this name as a self descriptor.

    Spend 5 minutes actually researching some etymology before you unequivocally determine you have some insight into the actual meaning and history of the name Redskins.

    Redskin is not like the N word in any capacity. The N word was a term born from the word “ignorant” and used as a symbol of oppression for many decades. Redskin has literally zero correlation to that kind of history.

    Redskin does not refer to skin color, but your racial bias makes you think it does, either out of guilt or your own inherent racism.

  39. longdrive2011 says: Jul 5, 2013 8:47 AM

    I have enough Chipiwa blood to qualify as a native American for many programs, scholarships, etc. Gee, I guess that also qualifies me to be offended by any number of things also. Well, I chose not to be offended any more than I chose to take advantage of those various programs. They only point out our differences and separate us.

    What made and built this country in to the gem that IT IS was rugged individualism. That’s seems to have waned long ago. The brave Native Americans are offended by a name – good heavens.

    As always, those of you who think that the country was stolen from the Indians(which is true), please bed the first to sell all you have aquired at their expense, donate it to them and leave the USA.

  40. guitarkevin says: Jul 5, 2013 8:50 AM

    Call them the Washington Wizards. Oh wait…

  41. tfppft says: Jul 5, 2013 8:52 AM

    What I find offensive are the special benefits that Native Americans get in this country that the rest of us don’t.

  42. napgamer says: Jul 5, 2013 9:03 AM

    As an Irish American I am offended by the name fighting Irish because of its likeness to a drunk Irish stereotype. Notre dame better watch out because I’m looking for a lawyer right now. Hey if everybody else can do it why not me.

  43. thesteelers says: Jul 5, 2013 9:03 AM

    Goodell is cowardly on every issue, really. H

  44. rrecine says: Jul 5, 2013 9:03 AM

    As a Redskin fan for 40 years, I do think the name should be changed. However, it comes down to finances. The name change will never happen, unless the entire NFL, including the teams eat the cost. Why should only the Redskins have to pay? The cost can be easily absorbed by an organization that doesn’t even pay taxes! To our dear native American friends, we sincerely thank you for your understanding, even though you might not. I can assure you, we think and respect you very much. I understand both sides, and when I wear my jersey, I do it with pride and it does represent both sides. Thank you!

  45. taintedlombardis says: Jul 5, 2013 9:04 AM

    The name will never change.

  46. apeters79 says: Jul 5, 2013 9:04 AM

    Seems to me, its pretty disgusting that Redskin fans are so anti changing the name, even though its BLATENTLY racist, just because the name has tradition, and they don’t want change. For a fan, it does not change your life one iota if the name is switched, yet native americans have to live with the fact that a popular sports teams has a slur as a nickname. As a fan, is it really that important to you that offending native americans is ok?

  47. quickdraw85 says: Jul 5, 2013 9:04 AM

    Stop watching the game if you get so easily offended. Maybe you should stick to figure skating.

  48. bigbluefan11 says: Jul 5, 2013 9:07 AM

    SAV says: Jul 5, 2013 7:55 AM

    The Skins name should be changed this year with the emergence of RG3

    =====

    Agreed. The Washington Gimps it is.

  49. oranjellojones says: Jul 5, 2013 9:08 AM

    Oh and dryzzt The Annenburg Public Policy Center did exactly that, interviewing Indians in every state but Alaska and Hawaii over a 1 year period and 90% said they weren’t offended. But that’s another piece of tangible evidence that the critics that won’t let this go refuse to even acknowledge.

  50. canneddogmeat says: Jul 5, 2013 9:08 AM

    i thought we were living in a free society.there’s nothing racist about the redskins.it’s only fabricated by liberal socialist democrats,because they are all about control.it’s funny how 2 words(liberal,conservative)have opposite meanings.liberal=control,conservative=freedom.

  51. nflpoker says: Jul 5, 2013 9:11 AM

    Just curious, but how did the Browns name come about? You would think it would be right up there with the Redskins, giving that we are referencing a color.

  52. propertyofthebroncos says: Jul 5, 2013 9:11 AM

    No one is saying anything to the Cleveland Indians because Indian is not derogatory. Redskin is and its offensive.

  53. koufaxmitzvah says: Jul 5, 2013 9:12 AM

    micknangold says: Jul 5, 2013 8:16 AM

    Yet no one is busting the Cleveland Indians’ chops.
    ———————————————–
    1. Indians in and of itself is not a slur.

    2. But we baseball fans with a conscience are very aware of Chief Wahoo, the official mascot, as being a stereotypical, white man’s image of the comedic F-Troop stylized Indian. This image brings up a lot of controversy at sister web page, HardballTalk.

    3. Everything I wrote is a waste of time because tomorrow, in a nearly identical article, somebody with just as much wit and wisdom will cry on this board, “But what about the Cleveland Indians? Nobody says nothing about them.”

    Interwebz!1!

  54. oranjellojones says: Jul 5, 2013 9:12 AM

    If Red Mesa High School can proudly name themselves The Redskins as a Navajo school then someone is going to have a hard time explaining how it’s offensive, especially since that’s only a single example of one of the top 3 names Indian teams name themselves on Reservations across the land.

  55. billsfan1 says: Jul 5, 2013 9:13 AM

    Says the guy who gets to live tax free, on their own land, their own jurisdiction, go to school for free yet is probably the poorest socioeconomic status in our country..

    Its an unfortunate event that so many were slaughtered but lets face it, this wasn’t the first time in the worlds history that happened…Life as we know it wouldn’t be as it is if events didn’t happen, yes even events as tragic as that.

    Here in WNY, the Natives that own all the smoke shops live in huge mansions on Indian Territory, for the sole purpose of tax evasion yet they themselves hold down their people.

    ANd my biggest question is this: why, after 80 some years of Redskins football, is this now a priority?

  56. lks311 says: Jul 5, 2013 9:13 AM

    So, for all those Washington fans that say, “I’ve got native american friends and they’re not offended by the name”, here you go.

    So, how many “native americans” have to be offended to call this legit?

  57. ddjesus says: Jul 5, 2013 9:13 AM

    Chief Wahoo is racist, and people are complaining about it, people. The Cleveland Indians have been slowly phasing that logo out of use for years. So many minor and college teams have changed their names, and Rolo is right, the redskins won’t do the decent thing because it will affect their bottom line.

  58. i10east says: Jul 5, 2013 9:14 AM

    Two words: Washington Columns.

  59. billsfan1 says: Jul 5, 2013 9:15 AM

    ID like to rename then the Washington Tax Evasionists.

  60. lks311 says: Jul 5, 2013 9:15 AM

    sabanissatan says:
    Jul 5, 2013 9:00 AM
    I think the Washington Sambos has a nice ring to it
    ———-
    Wow.

  61. jojopuppyfish says: Jul 5, 2013 9:15 AM

    No need to change the name. Change the logo.
    Redskin Potato
    Native Americans have even suggested this according to wiki.

  62. vikingshipper says: Jul 5, 2013 9:15 AM

    The R-Words need to go!

  63. cowboys317row9 says: Jul 5, 2013 9:20 AM

    Washington Indians, logos remain intact, do it Danny boy.

  64. jimr10 says: Jul 5, 2013 9:20 AM

    I happened to be talking to some Bears the other day and they are greatly offended also…makes them look meaner than they are….

  65. nflpoker says: Jul 5, 2013 9:23 AM

    @@recine,
    To our dear native American friends, we sincerely thank you for your understanding, even though you might not. I can assure you, we think and respect you very much.

    ————————————————-
    Talk about patronizing. I am sure they felt very much respected when they went to the reservations. NOT. You must be a RedSkin fan, stupid, or both.

  66. stealthscorpio says: Jul 5, 2013 9:23 AM

    No Frito Bandito??? Stop the Madness!!!

  67. stayclassyasheville says: Jul 5, 2013 9:27 AM

    I’m glad to see that the NFL is receiving pressure to change the Redskins name. This is long overdue. It’s time to evolve. Remove Washington’s tax exempt status for using a slur as an organization name.

  68. firestarter0728 says: Jul 5, 2013 9:28 AM

    If these Native Americans were really as proud of their heritage as they claim, they wouldn’t allow something as silly as a football team name to offend them so much.

  69. GenXJay says: Jul 5, 2013 9:28 AM

    why was this issue not a big deal when segregation civil rights in the early 60′s happened?

  70. jayquintana says: Jul 5, 2013 9:28 AM

    When you think about it, isn’t “Native American” a way more offensive name than “Redskin”?

    I mean, the former implies that this land was always meant to be America, not the land of the Sioux, or the Navajo, or the Apache, or other indigenous tribes.

  71. oranjellojones says: Jul 5, 2013 9:29 AM

    lks311…Oh I dunno, more than 9% maybe. Anneburg has proven that over 90% disagree with this guy. So are we to disregard the opinion of over 90% and go with the significant minority?

    And this guy would have disagreed too…

    The Redskins were approached by Walter Wetzel (a Native American who was the president of the National Congress of American Indians and chairman of the Blackfeet Nation). Wetzel suggested that the team use an Indian chieftain to replace the “R” and emphasize the Redskins Indian ties.

    “Back then, (in the 1960s) there was only the letter “R” on the helmet, so I requested a few pictures to be sent down from my reservation of Indian chiefs,” Wetzel explained.
    Wetzel said he walked into the office of the Washington Redskins and said, “I came here to see you guys about seeing a real Indian on the helmets.”

    from “Tribal Leader Rubbed Elbows With Elite”
    By: Shawn White Wolf (thanks WalkingDeadman)

  72. broncosaddict says: Jul 5, 2013 9:29 AM

    All the people that feel this is an “obvious racial slur”, why have we never heard from you before on something so obvious? Why did you need someone else to point it out before talking about it?
    Same is true of all the posters claiming to be part indian ….you were so upset that you never mentioned it before now.

    In the news, it seems like there are only one or two Native American’s that find it offensive and one is an author (I’m sure he’s not trying to get free publicity) …..

    The other thing that appears odd is why are the teams being forced/pressured into changing their names all located in D.C.? Makes me think not just P.C. is involved but actual politics (which is just as bad).

  73. greenmeattruck says: Jul 5, 2013 9:32 AM

    No SIR, in my opinion, the cowardly ones are the ones who are concerned about offending people who look for reasons to be offended.

    I find it very empowering to decide not to live my life as a victim- you should try it.

  74. dallascowboysdishingthereal says: Jul 5, 2013 9:34 AM

    Actually it would be cowardly for Goodell to cave into pressure and change the name like some have already done. It’s not often I agree with Goodell but I think he is right on this one.

  75. nflpoker says: Jul 5, 2013 9:35 AM

    Of course, if a certain Washington football owner “Got the Red out” and put the name of his re ligion there instead, I am sure he would find it ok. No, I don’t like so. To him it would be a slur. This was the only way to get my comment in without the mods going crazy and deleting it.

  76. vngnce says: Jul 5, 2013 9:37 AM

    Couple of thoughts:

    1) I’m from Cleveland
    2) My kids are recognized as Indian decent on their mom’s side.
    3) No one in the families could possibly care less about ‘Redskins’ or “Chief Wahoo” – it’s a non-issue.
    4) Everyone is offend by something
    5) Paternal side family – I have two nephews who are “African – American”
    6) The are visually ‘white’ as anyone.
    7) Their father is Egyptian and they hold duel citizenship in Egypt and in America – hence “African-America” 8) For their sake, can I be offended by anyone who calls themselves African-American yet does not hold duel citizenship?

    RE: item #4 above….how many people will reply because they are offended by what I wrote in #8?

    I missed it…When and where did we receive the right to “not be offended by anything”?

  77. daburgher says: Jul 5, 2013 9:39 AM

    There is absolutely NOTHING that SOMEONE wont find offensive.. this issue is so ridiculous

  78. harrisonhits2 says: Jul 5, 2013 9:39 AM

    jaxcliff says:

    What’s cowardly is a Native American cowering in the corner and whining about being called a bad name.
    ____________________

    What a pathetic statement.

    Ok so lets change the name to the Washington N-words and watch all the African Americans “whine” about it.

    Just because Native Americans are a small group doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to not be called racial slurs.

  79. vngnce says: Jul 5, 2013 9:39 AM

    —-not sure what I fat fingered to put the emoticon in there….RE: #7,not #8

  80. jda129 says: Jul 5, 2013 9:40 AM

    How about the Washington Redkens? Keep the logo just change it a little so he his hair is shampooed and conditioned with a little product to give him a well-groomed look.

  81. nflpoker says: Jul 5, 2013 9:42 AM

    Correction: I meant to say ‘I don’t think so’.

  82. tmadrigal1 says: Jul 5, 2013 9:43 AM

    The name needs to be changed. That’s like putting a picture of a black dude and calling the team “The Washington Blackskins.” It’s just not right when you can use so many different names.

  83. johnnyballsack says: Jul 5, 2013 9:44 AM

    They should rename themselves after their owner… The Washington Midgets. Wait, that is an offensive name to Snyder. How about the Washington Dwarfs?

  84. nukepuke says: Jul 5, 2013 9:44 AM

    Still waiting for anyone to provide any historical correlation with the term Redskins and origins or use as a slur.

    Redskin is not a reference to skin color. Read a freaking book.

  85. vinnyb33 says: Jul 5, 2013 9:44 AM

    I’ve never heard one Native American rapper use the “R” word.

  86. skinscity10 says: Jul 5, 2013 9:45 AM

    The Washington Redskins will never change there name while Danny boy owns the team.

  87. hedleykow says: Jul 5, 2013 9:45 AM

    The opposition to changing a franchise trademark name from a racial slur to something a little smarter isn’t surprising, considering the opposition to the emancipation proclamation at an earlier time in history. Same dumb families, different fruit.

  88. nukepuke says: Jul 5, 2013 9:45 AM

    Comparing Redskins with the N word is ignorant in and of itself and incredibly insulting to African Americans. Perhaps understand what you are saying before you just spout it out.

  89. getyourownname says: Jul 5, 2013 9:46 AM

    The estate of Miguel de Cervantes called. They want royalties.

  90. skinscity10 says: Jul 5, 2013 9:47 AM

    Sad truth is the Native American population makes up such a small % of NFL fanbase that nothing will be done about the issue…..HTTR

  91. buffobeel42 says: Jul 5, 2013 9:49 AM

    We need a color for marketing and we like the idea of having an object as some thing we tie into a mascot….how about the washington whitebreads?

  92. bjtmeyer says: Jul 5, 2013 9:50 AM

    From past comments I’ve seen, I don’t think most Native Americans really care about the issue at this point. They would rather see congress actually be productive than worry about a sports team name.

  93. websoutofcontrol says: Jul 5, 2013 9:54 AM

    Hey native americans, wanna tip from the pros?? DONT LOSE!!

  94. johnnyballsack says: Jul 5, 2013 9:55 AM

    nukepuke says:
    Jul 5, 2013 9:45 AM
    Comparing Redskins with the N word is ignorant in and of itself and incredibly insulting to African Americans. Perhaps understand what you are saying before you just spout it out.

    ——————————————
    Actually that is a great comparison. The N word insults African Americans the same way Redskins insults Native Americans. It doesn’t matter how many people a word offends, but just that offends. Just because the N word insults more people does not make it more insulting. Learn your history. Look up the term Redskin.

  95. gtotech says: Jul 5, 2013 9:56 AM

    I don’t want to sound ignorant, but was the “Redskins” name ever an issue before the last few years. Did someone wake up one day and decide to make this their life achievement? I myself did not know the name was considered offensive, for I am proud to be a fan of a team that seemed to honor the Native American culture in its logo, team, and winning heritage, and not to mention the great rivalry of the Cowboys and Redskins.
    I believe in respecting people and their culture and ethnicity so I have a solution, keep the name and throw away the logo. Anytime I see context of the name Redskin, it does not have an “s” on the end, essentially making our team name a new word, not affiliated with the Native American slang Redskin. But I still feel this is a waste of time, why don’t we just remove all names from team sports and give them names like serial numbers, and while we are at it, lets change the names of streets, cities, states and what not, so that we may not offend anyone at all at anytime in this poor excuse for modern society. We can say its okay for two like kind people to get married, under a”religious” ceremony of marriage instead of a “civil” type union, and it’s okay to take a life in self defense, and we have the “freedom of speech” as long as you do not offend anyone, or give away secrets.
    You know what, I am done with this story and hearing, reading, or discussing it in any way, now I am angry that I even considered posting this. I love the team, the name, and the warrior spirit that the logo shows and the fight to win. If that is offensive to a Native American person, I am sorry. But I am offended by quite a few thing in society, but majority rules, and until the majority says change the name, it should stay.

  96. noring4youstill says: Jul 5, 2013 9:57 AM

    Can we just settle this the old fashioned way? Lets play cowboys and Indians again. This time for the name.

  97. computerfinch says: Jul 5, 2013 9:58 AM

    I can probably count on one hand the number of people truly offended by the name. so let’s change it to the Washington Whiteys and we can all have a good laugh

  98. moondizzle says: Jul 5, 2013 9:58 AM

    The idea that this movement to change the name is a result of an overly sensitive, politically correct mob is unfounded. It’s also rather simplistic.

    People dislike change – even if it’s for the greater good. So they point to “liberals” (which I am not) and “the PC police” as their bogeymen when they feel like their territory is being infringed upon.

    Fact is – this is something that should have happened a long time ago. It’s not part of some new political wave. Changing their name doesn’t damage their brand – nor that of the NFL’s – an entity that is profiting prodigiously.

    This shouldn’t even be a debate.

  99. gtotech says: Jul 5, 2013 9:59 AM

    PS, take that mammy off Aunt Jemima syrup!!

    you see what I mean?

  100. bat42boy says: Jul 5, 2013 10:00 AM

    What a bunch of Hogwash!!!!

  101. moondizzle says: Jul 5, 2013 10:03 AM

    gtotech:

    “…But I am offended by quite a few thing in society, but majority rules…”

    - – - – - – - -

    If the majority was allowed to dictate terms on what should or should not offend people, this country wouldn’t have made much progress.

  102. trspat says: Jul 5, 2013 10:07 AM

    First, the N word came from a scientific determination. Like the word Caucasian. Look it up. Just cause it was used by folks with bad intent does not make the origin of the word itself terrible. An anthropologist came up with it due to the darker skin pigmentation.
    Can’t they just put a hog on the helmet and remain red skins because their jerseys are red. Anyway, the Chiefs are okay? They even play at arrowhead! If I was Goodell I’d change their name to the Savages.

  103. godofwine330 says: Jul 5, 2013 10:08 AM

    I agree with dannyreneau. Do it now and start the adaptation process. My great grandmother was full-blood Indian. I hope it gets changed soon because it is offensive, and as he said I understand why fans and ownership don’t want to change the name. We live in a PC world, now, and the history of how that team name came to be suggests that it should have been changed as soon as the racist man who named them died.

    Goodell is a coward, but understand that he is the Hand to the Kings, the 32 owners. He isn’t the visionary that Rozelle was, nor the man that Tagliabue was, either. He is 100% businessman caring about nothing but how to grow his business, and men like that have blinders on. Huge blinders. People harping on this issue will not affect their business, so maybe it is more likely that he is insensitive and doesn’t care because businessmen only care about their business, not other peoples’ feelings.

  104. nflpoker says: Jul 5, 2013 10:08 AM

    The smaller the minority, the less clout they have and smaller the concern to things that could be interpreted as slurs, etc.

  105. 4grammarpolice says: Jul 5, 2013 10:13 AM

    dryzzt23 (and anyone else who thinks the team name Browns is offensive): The Cleveland Browns are named after Paul Brown. It has nothing to do with skin color.

  106. nukepuke says: Jul 5, 2013 10:15 AM

    Actually that is a great comparison. The N word insults African Americans the same way Redskins insults Native Americans. It doesn’t matter how many people a word offends, but just that offends. Just because the N word insults more people does not make it more insulting. Learn your history. Look up the term Redskin.

    ———————————————

    So I am assuming you are just typing stuff and haven’t managed to actually do what you just told me to do. Redskin has never had the same connotation as the N word. White people didn’t make up the word. Native Americans used it to identify themselves to settlers. it is in reference to paint on their bodies that was used as an insect repellent on the east coast – Delaware Indians, etc.

    Also, by your logic, we should change the name of the “Giants” because I feel it is an affront to those with great height or size. Since it doesn’t matter how many people are offended, I suppose you will agree we should sanitize anything and everything I feel is offensive, whether I am right or wrong.

    I will not stand by and let people’s absurd ignorance of this issue be constantly broadcast with literally no recourse. If you think that Redskin is in any way related to race, or is used as, meant to be, or can be construed in some way as a racial slur, you are an unmitigated moron.

  107. nukepuke says: Jul 5, 2013 10:17 AM

    ITT – people who are not outraged by the state named Oklahoma, but who are outraged at a reference to people wearing bug repellent.

    FYI – Oklahoma translates to “Red Man”………

  108. nflpoker says: Jul 5, 2013 10:17 AM

    Take the guy off the boxes of Uncle Ben’s rice.

  109. moondizzle says: Jul 5, 2013 10:20 AM

    trspat:

    You had a couple of gems here:

    “First, the N word came from a scientific determination.”

    - The origin of a word doesn’t matter. It’s how it’s used. And “the N word” was used as a tool of oppressive, murdering racists. Hence why it’s not commonplace.

    “Anyway, the Chiefs are okay? They even play at arrowhead!”

    You’re sort of right. We probably shouldn’t be using a people that were robbed of their land as mascots for our sports teams. But “Chiefs” doesn’t play on the skin tone of Native Americans, nor was it ever used as a disparaging epithet.

    And beyond that, I’m glad you’re not Roger Goodell.

  110. bayafan says: Jul 5, 2013 10:20 AM

    Why don’t they change the name back to the braves?

  111. jpmelon says: Jul 5, 2013 10:20 AM

    I see Goodell and Snyder as taking a stand against PC nonsense. Thus, hardly acting cowardly.

    The Redskins franchise is a privately owned company. If you don’t like the name, you certainly have the ability to not watch the games in protest.

  112. mblue24 says: Jul 5, 2013 10:22 AM

    I can’t stand how these damn people keep trying to get the logo changed. It’s been that way for years so leave it alone. If you don’t like it, don’t look at it. I would keep the Redskins name and wouldn’t change it for anyone. I tired of all of the racist BS. That’s all people do now days is sit back and complain. Find smtg else to do in your life. Go Redskins. Don’t give in to these aholes

  113. moondizzle says: Jul 5, 2013 10:23 AM

    nukepuke:

    ” it is in reference to paint on their bodies that was used as an insect repellent on the east coast – Delaware Indians, etc.”

    It’s a shame you penned all of that nonsense when this little sentence in there negates your point. While certain Native Americans were identified as such by their body paint, the word was used as a pejorative in areas where this practice (exclusive to the Delaware) wasn’t in place. You really should have read up on the issue before rambling.

  114. moondizzle says: Jul 5, 2013 10:27 AM

    “Oklahoma” was never used in a derogatory fashion, hence why it remained when the ‘Oklahoma Territory’ was founded. It’s about what words mean – and how they’re used. Not the foundation or etymology of the term.

  115. pleasefiregoodell says: Jul 5, 2013 10:27 AM

    This native American author just became one of my favorite people. Will somebody will ANYBODY please fire Goodell?

  116. hehateme2 says: Jul 5, 2013 10:35 AM

    So… Washington Redtails it is!
    #thisisapatheticfranchise

  117. pooflingingmonkey says: Jul 5, 2013 10:37 AM

    I see nothing wrong with this.

    Regards,

    Guy on the Cream O’ Wheat box

  118. tackledummy1505 says: Jul 5, 2013 10:39 AM

    You know what the funny part is, if the Redskins need to change their name then does that mean that the Raiders will be next? Raiders are a negative portrait of people robbing and pillaging villages of the Caribbean. So are Cubans and other places like that going to uprise and take great offense to the hardship they had to endure by pirates in those days? Maybe the Minnesota Vikings should change their name because English folk will be greatly offended for the brutal killing and raping of their people when the term Viking meant something. Maybe the Miami Dolphins will have to change their name because of the merciless killing of Dolphins for food and certain lifestyle products made for every day people. Why stop there we could go to the NHL where the Buffalo Sabres have the buffalo pictured with army swords on the logo, we all know what happen to the buffalo. Maybe Edmonton Oilers should change there name since places like Pensacola Florida is having hardships with the BP incident of their oil rig. Blackhawks sound certainly racist doesn’t it? I mean Native American Indian pictured with the word Black in it. Lol I know this all sounds out of proportion but seriously it’s getting to the point where anything and everything is either racist or out of term. In the end the only people who are losers in all of this is the die hard Redskin fans who cheer, watch, love and go to see every Sunday. The winners in all of this, the private sellers for Redskin memorabilia and jerseys (just look at what the Aaron Hernandez fiasco has turned up on eBay), the Washington Redskin organization who will undoubtedly make a ton of money on new RG3 jersey sales throughout the country, and all of the people who have been trying to get their 15 minutes of fame trying to be the voice of the movement for trying to get the name change. I’m tired of hearing about Redskin being used as the same as the N word as well. The N word has always been used in a downgrading way and was created by a populace of people to downgrade the African American populace by it. Only the African American populace turned it around as an okay response and not even half of them used that term lightly. Like one other responder had said before, if there isn’t a line drawn on this, when will the line be drawn. This isn’t like steroids or HGH, where health or life is affected, this is a 15 minutes of fame movement that always seems to be made more of a fact then it really is. I feel sorry for the Washington Redskin fan base and I’m a die hard Philadelphia Eagles fan. I would be heart broken if the Eagles’ name had to be changed because the bald Eagle was on the brink of extinction and society thought it best if we changed the name to the team so people wouldn’t think about them anymore to hunt or something. I know it sounds stupid but this is what this whole situation sounds to me. Congrats 15 minutes of fame people, you officially are dumb

  119. strokeytheclown says: Jul 5, 2013 10:39 AM

    Here we go again! Every offseason we go through this crap. This is worse than Favrewatch every year! Let it go already!

  120. mp4pack says: Jul 5, 2013 10:44 AM

    Goodell and Snyder know full well that the name needs to go and that it’s only a matter of time. They are just posturing to curry favor with the knuckle-dragging masses.

  121. justintuckrule says: Jul 5, 2013 10:47 AM

    I laugh at all the fighting Irish comments. Not only isn’t the argument remotely close (it’s not a slur), these morons are doing nothing but keeping the tide of change flowing. Way to help the cause. Ha ha

  122. bigdog75 says: Jul 5, 2013 10:55 AM

    How about Washington Potato Skins?
    Those are pretty tasty!

  123. oranjellojones says: Jul 5, 2013 10:55 AM

    Uh no it wasn’t moondizzle. That’s a blatant lie. If you’re right it should be real easy for you to post examples of this word being used as pejorative. Take the Pepsi challenge and produce them. Ives Goddard -the head of the Linguistics department at The Smithsonian and also a career expert in Native American studies- has researched this extensively and wasn’t able to find a single instance of pejorative use. Nor has any Indian I’ve ever talked to heard or seen it used in a pejorative manner. Just repeating it over and over won’t make it true, there has to be actual evidence of such and thus far not a single speck has been produced.

    Oh and the bug repellent bit is at best unconfirmed. What we DO know is that the first examples of it in print came July 22, 1815 in a news story in the Missouri Gazette on talks between Midwestern Indian tribes and envoys sent by President James Madison to negotiate treaties after the War of 1812. “Restrain your feelings and hear calmly what I say,” Meskwaki chief Black Thunder told the envoys. “I have never injured you, and innocence can feel no fear. I turn to all red skins and white skins, and challenge an accusation against me.”

  124. 1phd says: Jul 5, 2013 10:56 AM

    Best part of the story is the group challenging the trademark. I hope they win and then anyone can start selling redskin jerseys and products and the rights and money the old racist fogies are trying to protect will be lost.

  125. tackledummy1505 says: Jul 5, 2013 10:59 AM

    Justintuckeule- then what you are referring to is that the name Fighting Irish doesn’t mean all Irish people are fighters? Cause Fighting Irish definitely seems to me like a picture that all Irish people have bad tempers and are always looking for a fight. I would like for you to explain why you don’t think it’s the same. Sounds like a racist profiling of ethnicity to me? It sounds like something being blown out of proportion because this whole Redskin name change seems exactly like that. Still would like for you to explain why you don’t think it’s the same lol

  126. bucforever says: Jul 5, 2013 10:59 AM

    Much ado about nothing!

  127. riddlin78 says: Jul 5, 2013 11:00 AM

    Why did you call the guy a “Native American” author? Why didn’t you just call him a “Redskin Author”?

  128. baikes says: Jul 5, 2013 11:05 AM

    (-____-)

    the problem with comparing “Redskin” to a stereotype like “Sambo” is the absence of an actual stereotype.

    “Sambo” is a made-up character complete with suggested mannerisms, speech and behavior patterns, and assumptions about level of intelligence…used as an embarrassing mis-characterization of a group of people.

    “Redskin” is a essentially a shorthand statement of fact. Native American people DO have red skin.
    This Rolo cat seems smart enough, so im surprised he thought it was okay to make up opinions for other cultures about seperate manners. I guarantee you no black person on the planet is gonna get offended if you call them “black” or “black skinned,” (speaking from personal experience) thats not a slur or stereotype.

    not gonna tell the native americans what to be offended by, but they are reaching here…

  129. bigdon76 says: Jul 5, 2013 11:12 AM

    Let dan snyder name them the washington blackskins. Then when a white man is running a team called the blackskins and african americans get mad and say it racist goodell will step in and say it is paying respect to those african americans everywhere.

  130. skinsfaninnebraska says: Jul 5, 2013 11:15 AM

    I believe Dan Snyder is on record as saying he doesn’t care if he loses trademark protection, he’s not changing the name.

    If so, then the bottom line isn’t going to force it to happen, is it?

  131. cowboyhater says: Jul 5, 2013 11:17 AM

    Can training camp please start so this issue get’s placed on the back burner, because that’s what is going to happen. This only becomes an issue during the off season, and then suddenly low and behold we stop talking about it once the season starts. As a “redskins” fan, I have never seen this as a term of prejudice or ignorance, but only as a team name for a storied franchise. That’s it. If they changed the name then so be it. Again, it will be a team name and I will be that same fan as before they changed.

  132. sidepull says: Jul 5, 2013 11:17 AM

    “If Red Mesa High School can proudly name themselves The Redskins as a Navajo school then someone is going to have a hard time explaining how it’s offensive, especially since that’s only a single example of one of the top 3 names Indian teams name themselves on Reservations across the land.”

    I agree with this statement. I also know that I hear frequently in movies, in the neighborhood, in music that African Americans freely throw around the N word without hesitation.

    I think American Indians can call themselves anything they want. The problem arises when others that are not of that race or culture use the term. Then you stand to lose your job, get punched in the faced, etc. because it suddenly becomes offensive to the very culture that uses it themselves. Never mind that they continue to keep it alive and take zero responsibility for it.

    That’s BS. Everybody stop using it and then we are getting somewhere. In the mean time if you cant do that mind your business.

    HTR

  133. Robert Chandler says: Jul 5, 2013 11:19 AM

    I just would like to comment on the argument related to financial costs. That is such a weak argument against changing the name and logo. First of all, there are some inherent costs associated with owning an NFL franchise and every owner knows it. In this case, it is obviously an unplanned expense to alter so many items from stationery to signage to uniforms and merchandise. But, the League would likely contribute some percentage to offset the hit on Mr. Snyder’s bankroll. Also, the team would likely make back a lot of income, as fans who own the outdated merchandise would flock to purchase all new stuff as soon as they could. Over time, the franchise would likely recoup a large percentage of what they have to initially spend. This would have to all be phased in over a number of years, other than the team uniforms and logos around the stadium.

    In my personal opinion, as a marketing professional, I might look upon this as a perfect opportunity to take advantage of the situation and sell all new merch to an eager fan base. If managed well, it could actually turn out to be a financial windfall. Personally, I am on the fence as to what I feel the team should do. The name always seemed borderline offensive to me, but I never heard any public outcry so I assumed it was a case of me being overly sensitive. I would probably change the name to something very patriotic that would represent the majority rather than an homage (which was the original intent) to a minority group.

  134. thelastpieceofcheese says: Jul 5, 2013 11:19 AM

    The Native American author cannot supersede the US Supreme Court which in its 2009 landmark decision affirmed that the Redskins have the right to call themselves Redskins.

  135. truths4all says: Jul 5, 2013 11:22 AM

    This is America and if these PC Indians, PC Liberals, and PC Liberal media do not like this storied team name here is the most obvious answer: Have the Indian Tribes with BILLIONS in casino profits band together (novel idea since the Indian tribes were busy killing and raiding each other before anyone else invaded America) and produce a 6 billion dollar fund to buy out Snyder. After they do, they can change the team name to the Wussie White Men in revenge for the many years of suffering and injustices inflicted on Indians by white men, mainly corrupt Indian agents who stole virtually all of the Federal monies meant for food, shelter, clothing, and medical care for the Indians forced to live on Reservations. Yeah, I know the PC Liberals would love this idea since those guys are already emasculated and the rest of us would hate it, but in America, the money is King and speaks the loudest. With the obscene casino profits the Indian tribes have in their bank accounts, they can now be national player instead trying to use these monies to buy local elections. BTW, while the tribes are flush with plenty of cash, most of the tribal members are still scraping by with their meager monthly BIA check that is funded by the taxes we pay Obama and his cronies every April 15th.

  136. noncentsicle says: Jul 5, 2013 11:24 AM

    Since the team represents our nation’s Capitol, I can think of a few team names that are much more appropriate, such as the Washington Fraud, Washington Corruption, or the Washington Crooks.

  137. deljzc says: Jul 5, 2013 11:26 AM

    There are currently 62 high schools in the U.S. that use “Redskins” as their mascot name.

    Included in those are three primarily Native American schools (Red Mesa H.S. in AZ, Wellpinit H.S. in WA, and Kingston H.S. in OK).

    I just have a hard time taking the P.C. crowd seriously when majority Native American High Schools are using the exact same name as their “mascot”.

  138. tackledummy1505 says: Jul 5, 2013 11:27 AM

    Why do all of you state that the Washington Redskins will lose money? Last time I checked teams come out with new logos and uniforms all the time with 1 sole purpose…….. REVENUE!!!!!! Dee de dee!!! Were all of you born under rocks or something? I can almost guarantee the team will make back whatever it has to spend on changing logos and names around the stadium on RG3 jerseys a lone. We’re not even talking about car flags, posters, other jerseys, helmets and everything else die hard fans and sports memorabilia collectors will spend on first year collections. This isn’t like a bank taking over another bank and having to change logos and uniforms nation wide (not to mention people don’t buy bank uniforms and stuff), so why oh why do you think this will be a negative in the bank accounts of Dan Snyder. Lets even say it does some damage, do you really think this will put Dan Snyder in a financial turmoil? Lol seriously, people don’t even have the slightest clue sometimes lol

  139. goodellisruiningtheleague says: Jul 5, 2013 11:32 AM

    I find the name ‘Yankees” prejudice. I’m a white repbulican male though so my opinion does make a difference.

  140. tackledummy1505 says: Jul 5, 2013 11:33 AM

    I should sue TV for naming Dora the Explorer, Dora. Dora is definitely not a Hispanic name and I feel offended by it lol what a joke

  141. jackbassett says: Jul 5, 2013 11:37 AM

    tackledummy1505 says:

    “You know what the funny part is, if the Redskins need to change their name then does that mean that the Raiders will be next? Raiders are a negative portrait of people robbing and pillaging villages of the Caribbean…..”

    ——————-

    Thank you so much for going through the major sports and pointing out potentially offensive names/mascots (Buffalo, Dolphins, Vikings, etc.). That has never been done here in a PFT thread relating to the Washington Redskins. [rolls eyes]

    I don’t have strong feelings either way on the “redskins” debate. That said, I believe it’s ridiculous to compare the Redskins and their logo to the Saints, Browns, etc.

  142. wilsonwillbreaku says: Jul 5, 2013 11:41 AM

    Keep the name Redskins but change the logo to Larry The Cable Guy…there, problem solved…you’re welcome.

  143. avail88 says: Jul 5, 2013 11:43 AM

    The name Washington Redskins is not a slur period. A slur requires derogatory intent, why would you refer to yourself with bad intent. That would be like calling yourselves the Washington Idiots. Political correctness is a very dangerous thing, it will eventually kill freedom of speech.

  144. thewarrenmoon says: Jul 5, 2013 11:43 AM

    there is no such thing as a “native American”. DNA has shown that Indians wandered over the Bering straights from Asia. Also no conquered people ever had it so good. They are still a sovereign nation…if any other people had taken the America’s they would have been slaughtered outright.

  145. EJ says: Jul 5, 2013 11:52 AM

    I disagree. The term “Redskin” stands for the color of an American Indian’s skin color. What is wrong with stating the obvious? My grandfather was half Seneca Indian, It wouldn’t have bothered him. They call us white men or black men, which is the same, the color of our skin and I’m not offended.
    The Redskins nickname has been around for a long time, why not bring this up years ago if it was bothersome?
    I stand by Goodell, the NFL and the Washington Redskins on this one. Times have changed, people have changed. Its time to worry about the much larger issues in life, not a professional sports team’s nickname.

  146. WACANHFL says: Jul 5, 2013 11:54 AM

    Wow! Look at all the reactionaries. No wonder nothing gets done in this country. People spending too much time arguing and defending something offensive just like Civil Rights Equal rights Slavery etc. etc.
    Its an insult not a tradition.
    Change the name already.

  147. fanofevilempire says: Jul 5, 2013 11:56 AM

    keep joking folks but once this gets to the courts the name change will go down and it is about time.
    I wish the Native American Indian group all the
    best wishes and luck in taking down this racist
    nick name and there will be more name changes to come.

  148. rickfromcasper says: Jul 5, 2013 11:58 AM

    The most derogatory thing you can say to somebody is call them “Washington”. Stands for corruption and incompetence. They need to change the name to “D.C. area Redskins”

  149. stew48 says: Jul 5, 2013 12:00 PM

    Is Rolo also an American Indian? Because I am a Native American but not an American Indian. As he seems incensed about this issue, so am I about the very loose and inaccurate term “Native American”. And, if you don’t understand my comment, please do not mark yea or nea, as it would only show your ignorance.

  150. swagger52 says: Jul 5, 2013 12:07 PM

    Oh great…

    This article makes me miss the FRITO Bandito.

  151. geo1113 says: Jul 5, 2013 12:08 PM

    Robert Chandler, I do tend to agree with your assessment of the marketing situation. However, your comment on the cost argument comes off as if Snyder and the NFL are using that argument. The cost argument was used by the Native American author in a snarky way so he could chalk the whole thing up to greed.

  152. thefox61 says: Jul 5, 2013 12:10 PM

    The name IS offensive. There is no justifying it. Yes, there will be a cost associated with the changing of the name AND logo but, as previously stated it will be recouped many, many times over. Not only will the new merchandise sell like hot cakes but the old merchandise will instantly become highly collectable
    Besides, it’s a chance to do the right thing.
    Look at the NBA and see what some of their teams have done recently: the Hornets are now the Pelicans, the Sonics are now the Thunder and lets not forget the Bullets who are now the Wizards.
    It just makes sense. It’s going to happen. You don’t have to like it. You can either be a part of something great or you can fight it and lose.

  153. swagger52 says: Jul 5, 2013 12:15 PM

    99.99 percent of people think that the Redskins are a football team in DC. The other 0.01 percent are living in the 1880s with the gun totin Cowboys and Indians and Patriots Aaron Hernandez.

  154. gadzod says: Jul 5, 2013 12:20 PM

    They’ve been the Washington Redskins for 81 years, and NOW people are offended by it? LOL

  155. justintuckrule says: Jul 5, 2013 12:22 PM

    @tacledummy – if notre dame were called the fighting micks, then these people would have an argument. See the difference?

  156. purp1eone says: Jul 5, 2013 12:23 PM

    Guess my last wasn’t PC enough.

    Try to make it simpler so it won’t be removed.

    Cowboys were bad and they offend me so the name should be changed

    Giants scare little kids and the name should be changed

    49ers did bad things to get that gold and the name should be changed

    Raiders and Bucs are pirates so these are obviously offensive and their names should be changed.

  157. cofran2004 says: Jul 5, 2013 12:30 PM

    I’m a cowboy, and am very offended at the NFL’s portrayal of me as someone who makes terrible mistakes at the worst possible time. I mean come on… a real cowboy doesnt mess up holding the ball in the playoffs, throw four picks a game, and just shrink from the spotli–

    sorry, got off topic. Erm…. change the cowboys name!

  158. mp4pack says: Jul 5, 2013 12:39 PM

    I don’t know why this is still being discussed. It was put up for a popular vote, and it was found that a majority of Americans don’t find the name offensive. I bet you could put Sambo and Frito up for a vote and get the same result, so heck, let’s bring them back. Come to think of it, I don’t think segregation, even slavery, ever got their fair shake in the voting booth. Put them up for a vote, I think you’ll find a majority of Americans aren’t as offended by them as you think. Our democratic right to a vote is being squashed by all this hippy liberal PC garbage.

  159. baikes says: Jul 5, 2013 12:41 PM

    ““If Red Mesa High School can proudly name themselves The Redskins as a Navajo school then someone is going to have a hard time explaining how it’s offensive, especially since that’s only a single example of one of the top 3 names Indian teams name themselves on Reservations across the land.”

    I agree with this statement. I also know that I hear frequently in movies, in the neighborhood, in music that African Americans freely throw around the N word without hesitation.

    I think American Indians can call themselves anything they want. The problem arises when others that are not of that race or culture use the term. Then you stand to lose your job, get punched in the faced, etc. because it suddenly becomes offensive to the very culture that uses it themselves. Never mind that they continue to keep it alive and take zero responsibility for it.

    That’s BS. Everybody stop using it and then we are getting somewhere. In the mean time if you cant do that mind your business.

    HTR”

    ———————————————–
    in the backward, bizarre, extremely dumb plane of reality where everybody has the right to do everything someone else does, this makes sense.

    Basically, by your logic, Lebron James has the right to demand a Lombardi for winning the NBA Championship despite the fact that the Lombardi legacy has not a damn thing to do with his own culture.

    Hey boxers and UFC fighters are legally indemnified against the deaths of their opponents, why dont we just go ahead and open that up to EVERYBODY who gets in a fight anywhere.

    One has to wonder why white people are so anxious to use the N word anyway? seriously, what actual benefit would it gain them…other than the ability to freely and openly be belligerent racists without judgement, that is.

  160. lanman11 says: Jul 5, 2013 12:44 PM

    Here comes the shaming language again. It’s the “go to” tactic of the left.

    What’s wrong with “The Frito Bandito?” Seriously, wasn’t that just a play on a roadside bandit from Mexico stealing my Frito’s because he loved them? Are we to pretend that there is no such thing as a roadside bandit? In Mexico? That happens to love Frito’s? Or is it an issue now because there are so many immigrants here illegally that have figured out they can use this shaming language tactic to get more of what they want for free out of our government, and we don’t want to offend them? Now those are the real Banditos.

    Aye, yaye, yaye yaye,…..I am the Frito Bandito! Give me Frito’s cornchips and I be your friend, the Frito Bandito YOU MUST NOT OFF-END….

    Aye, yaye, yaye yaye!

  161. valarmorghuliss says: Jul 5, 2013 12:51 PM

    Purp1one the massive failure….

    Cowboys isn’t an ethnic group

    Giants aren’t real

    49ers isn’t an ethnic group either and not considered a slur.

    Raiders and Bucs are not slurs, neither is Pirates considering both groups of people called themselves by those names.

    What a complete swing and miss

  162. pimpdaddyspider says: Jul 5, 2013 1:14 PM

    Keep the name, change the logo… to a potato. Next, move the team to Idaho. It’s about time the NFL fielded a team that our agricultural base could get behind.

  163. alwaters9 says: Jul 5, 2013 1:22 PM

    The use of animals names is offensive and all team names using an animal be changed to something else.
    SIGNED,
    PETA

  164. lagg1 says: Jul 5, 2013 1:33 PM

    mp4pack states-Our democratic right to a vote is being squashed by all this hippy liberal PC garbage.

    No- we have a constitutional system of checks and balances where the minority can be protected by the ignorance and stupidity of the majority as exemplified by yourself.

  165. drbob117 says: Jul 5, 2013 1:48 PM

    Of course it’s because they would lose money if they changed the logo, and there’s nothing wrong with them taking that stance. They are running a business, more than 99% of Redskins fans couldn’t care less about the PC of the name, but are not going to be willing to buy new merchandise. Snyder and Roger have to take care of the people that are buying tickets and T shirts , they’re the ones that can hurt them if they change the name. The people that want the name changed are not Redskins fans and don’t do business with the Skins. Snyder has no reason to regard the wishes of unaffiliated people simply for the sake of political correctness.

  166. vngnce says: Jul 5, 2013 2:06 PM

    baikes

    I don’t want to or need to use the ‘N-word’. What I can’t abide is the double standard in society that says it is socially acceptable for some to use a specific word/phrase/particle of language but others are ostracized for it.

    On a more personally note, I don’t understand why ‘N-word’ itself is somehow acceptable. Is there a single person who hears the phrase and doesn’t mentally have to make the conversion to the word that is obscured, thereby rendering the the whole point moot? Haven’t we been conditioned that they are, in essence one and the same? To the matter at hand – should this thread be censored so that every time the word ‘Redskin’ appears it is replaced with ‘R-word’?

    I accept that on this point, I may be wrong. This is just how I think, I guess.

  167. theuglitruth says: Jul 5, 2013 2:06 PM

    This is easily resolved if they changed another team’s name to BLACK SKINS or WHITE SKINS. Since the use of skin color seems to be ok with most of the posters on this thread. I think that would be a fair trade off for anyone with red skin.

  168. 1standinches says: Jul 5, 2013 2:07 PM

    shut up! with all this I’m offended crap. you know the sex and violence on TV thats offensive to people and no one does a damn thing about it? That’s exactly what’s going to happen with this situation “nothing” so stop talking about it!

  169. thesportgenius says: Jul 5, 2013 2:08 PM

    Seems like it could be a huge marketing opportunity for the Skins with a new logo-name-jersey to sell. Everyone would want the latest RG3 RainbowSkins gear right?

  170. purp1eone says: Jul 5, 2013 2:08 PM

    valarmorghuliss says: Jul 5, 2013 12:51 PM

    Purp1one the massive failure….

    Cowboys isn’t an ethnic group

    Giants aren’t real

    49ers isn’t an ethnic group either and not considered a slur.

    Raiders and Bucs are not slurs, neither is Pirates considering both groups of people called themselves by those names.

    What a complete swing and miss

    ————————

    Why should that matter? They are all offensive to me, isn’t that what matters?

    They need to change their names because every time I see cowboy, giants, 49ers, raiders and bucs I am offended.

  171. painsyndicate says: Jul 5, 2013 2:09 PM

    Change the Redskins name – I stop watching/spending money on the NFL.

    NFL promotes 0bamacare – I stop watching/spending money on the NFL.

    Proliferation of RGIII type QBs – I stop watching/spending money on the NFL.

  172. ggreen7 says: Jul 5, 2013 2:17 PM

    To the contrary, Washington would stand to make millions by changing the logo. If they developed a new logo they would instantly have millions of fans buying the new merchandise. If they did it for the sake of it, people would accuse them of gouging their fans. Instead they could do it in the cover of political correctness and make a fortune. The fact that they don’t tells me that they just want to keep the tradition. And why would the team keep a name that it viewed as derogatory? I wouldn’t start a team and call it the Indianapolis Idiots. Obviously they take pride in the name.

  173. emperorzero says: Jul 5, 2013 2:18 PM

    Less than 2% of the population is Native-American (and that is counting those who have as little as 1/8 blood). No wonder they don’t have a voice to be heard in the argument. Also add that no one has ever cared what Native-Americans think and is it that hard to understand why the Redskins have had the name for over 80 years?

  174. jamson64 says: Jul 5, 2013 2:25 PM

    tehfox-something great? You make me laugh PC queen.

  175. mp4pack says: Jul 5, 2013 2:31 PM

    Lagg detecting sarcasm clearly isn’t your strong suit.

  176. souldogdave says: Jul 5, 2013 2:33 PM

    I guess this Navajo disagrees with that Chippewa.

  177. thestrategyexpert says: Jul 5, 2013 2:36 PM

    I call it “sweeping” cause that’s what these big powerful guys do; they sweep the unpleasant stuff under a giant rug. That’s why they make those really fancy super large pieces, they are for rich people with a lot of dirt. If you live in the ghetto you only get covered for half a welcome mat.

  178. bigbluefan11 says: Jul 5, 2013 2:55 PM

    theuglitruth says: Jul 5, 2013 2:06 PM

    This is easily resolved if they changed another team’s name to BLACK SKINS or WHITE SKINS. Since the use of skin color seems to be ok with most of the posters on this thread. I think that would be a fair trade off for anyone with red skin.

    =====

    If George Preston Marshall had his way, the team would have been the Whiteskins for all time. Last team to integrate and only done under immense pressure.

  179. ee00ee says: Jul 5, 2013 2:55 PM

    This whole idea that some group went and asked all the tribes is a LIE! Nobody asked me or anyone I’ve talked to about this. I believe if there was a real poll of all the nations the results would be overwhelmingly against using this negative term.

    People need to understand this isn’t just becoming offensive now. It’s just that YOU”RE only learning of it now! It has long been offensive in it’s use and connotation. What you are going to find out is that as the disempowered get a voice there are a lot of things you took for granted that weren’t as they seemed. If you need evidence of this just look at all the derogatory names for Asians and Africans that were once common that are now recognized as offensive.

    Gaining sensitivity for others isn’t a bad thing for you to change, it’s a good thing for all to come together.

  180. kabasaman says: Jul 5, 2013 3:12 PM

    I cannot believe that people would call the commissioner cowardly…. He only makes 33 million a year. He’s not being payed to do that…

  181. urbusted2 says: Jul 5, 2013 3:28 PM

    How about the Washington Wood Peckers? You could just call them the Peckers for short. Please add you own joke here…

  182. The Prophet says: Jul 5, 2013 3:50 PM

    The only reason people say it’s not offensive is because they are simply used to the name and haven’t heard it used in an offensive manner in many years, possibly decade.

    But if you knew Native Americans, but never heard of the NFL and someone told you a team was named “The Redskins” your reaction would be that it is a slur and it would seem an odd team name in 2013.

  183. 1phd says: Jul 5, 2013 3:58 PM

    The way everyone in DC is paid off to support the agenda of the people and companies with all the money, the only logical new name would have to be the Washington Lobbyists and you could use the image of the guy from the game Monopoly with the mustache or daddy bucks, on the side of their helmets.

  184. duffer58 says: Jul 5, 2013 4:00 PM

    Cowardly is exactly the right word. The name needs to change the sooner the better. Defending that name is like defending confederate flag.

  185. vegasgreek says: Jul 5, 2013 4:02 PM

    Just change the name to the FORESKINS ! LOL All kidding aside they could name the team after the local Indian tribe. The Washington Patomacs.

  186. noquickreactionshere says: Jul 5, 2013 4:05 PM

    How about we change the Ravens name to call them the Baltimore Negro’s…. let’s call the niners the SanFrancisco Queers, or maybe we can change the Dolphins name to the Miami Wetbacks? Can we call the Jets the NY kikes?

    Didn’t think so… but for some reason it’s OK to call the team in Washington the Redskins because it has historical significance……

  187. normaneinstein7 says: Jul 5, 2013 4:15 PM

    The word “Yankee” is actually derogatory in origin. “Fighting Irish” is using a racial stereotype. If you can pressure the NY Yankees, MLB’s most popular team to change their name, in addition to Notre Dame changing theirs, maybe the Redskins will consider it.

    In fact, why doesn’t some traditional teams like the Steelers, Bears or Giants change their name to set an example? No, those names aren’t considered offensive, but changing those names would be leading by example. It would actually put more pressure on the Redskins into changing theirs. “See, we changed from the Giants to the Metros. It wasn’t hard. Now you do it Washington.”

    Oh what’s that? You don’t want to do that? Why is that? Isn’t it for a good cause? You will be leading by example. What, you don’t want to change tradition if it affects your personal passion?

  188. sopadegato says: Jul 5, 2013 4:26 PM

    For the record, everyone whining about Goodell is misguided at best. He doesn’t have power over the teams to the extent MLB commissioner Bud Selig does (for example) and sure isn’t going to go against the owners in public. The only way he could do anything in this situation is for the owners to give him control – like they did with the Saints situation – and that’s not happening.

  189. oneilistheone says: Jul 5, 2013 4:33 PM

    True this is just a part of American culture!Football that is…But it is the most popular of American sports(By far my favorite ).Do you see where the support is the majority here?Is it in favor of keeping the name? and so shouldn’t majority rule? or are the Majority just racist and or ignorant fools? that represent a microcosm of the American people? or is it the majority of America’s tools? you make the call….

  190. condor75 says: Jul 5, 2013 5:15 PM

    it is almost comical watching so many here trying to defend something that is reprehensible and indefensible. Stop lying to yourself. it isn not “PC”, it is something that should have never happened in the first place, would your wives or mother be offended if someone called the c**t or would they just be being overly sensitive

  191. bluntsmokinskinsfan says: Jul 5, 2013 7:23 PM

    I’m offended by anything with the word white it. Same with cracker.

  192. fmc651 says: Jul 5, 2013 7:41 PM

    The Redskins are a classless organization. How can you have class when your nickname is a racial slur? You can’t. The absurd argument we have had this name for so many years doesn’t make it right. It makes it worse, you have done it way longer than you should have. You need to check yourself before you wreck yourself.

  193. jeremycrowhurst says: Jul 6, 2013 1:00 AM

    jruc says:Jul 5, 2013 7:53 AM

    Well then why no just change it to the “Skins” and keep the logo? Is that still racial?

    ——————-

    Yes. It’s demeaning to all the people who are forced onto the non-shirt wearing side in pickup basketball games….

  194. sportsinhd says: Jul 6, 2013 2:09 AM

    Would anyone here walk past a group of Native Americans and yell “Hey you all are a bunch of Red Skins!” With the exception of a few really stupid people the answer is no. In a similar vein no one would yell “Hey black skins” to a group of African Americans. The name is offensive, it’s got to go.

    While I don’t think that any racial slight is intended by the name “Redskins” its still there regardless. It’s time to change the name.

  195. dwats says: Jul 6, 2013 9:07 PM

    Non-story. No one cares about this sorry franchise anyway. Might as well just move them into the Canadian league.

  196. nativesupport says: Jul 7, 2013 4:36 PM

    The Annenberg Public Policy Center National Annenberg Election Survey 2004 (conducted in 2003-04), reports:

    Most American Indians say that calling Washington’s professional football team the “Redskins” does not bother them, the University of Pennsylvania’s National Annenberg Election Survey shows.

    Ninety percent of Indians took that position, while 9 percent said they found the name “offensive.” One percent had no answer. The margin of sampling error for those findings was plus or minus two percentage points.

    Because they make up a very small proportion of the total population, the responses of 768 people who said they were Indians or Native Americans were collected over a very long period of polling, from October 7, 2003 through September 20, 2004. They included Indians from every state except Alaska and Hawaii, where the Annenberg survey does not interview. The question that was put to them was “The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn’t it bother you?”

  197. nativesupport says: Jul 7, 2013 4:38 PM

    The first known use of the word redskin to be published contemporaneously, as reprinted in Niles’ Weekly Register (Baltimore) for October 14, 1815, from an issue of The Western Journal (St. Louis) that does not survive. Shown is the first paragraph of the official translation of the speech that the Meskwaki chief Black Thunder made on July 20, 1815, in the treaty council at Portage des Sioux, Missouri Territory. Addressing Gov. William Clark according to Indian convention as “My Father,” he referred to Indians and Europeans in the Meskwaki language as “red skins and white skins.” These were idioms current in several Indian languages of the area which were translated into Mississippi Valley French as Peaux-Rouges and Peaux-Blanches, and from French into local English. Credit: Smithsonian Institution, Dibner Library

  198. b3nz0z says: Jul 8, 2013 3:07 PM

    step 1. say any ugly thing you want
    step 2. call everyone else “PC”
    step 3. feel just like a real man

  199. nativesupport says: Jul 8, 2013 5:52 PM

    Well, if the shoe fits …

    Asked if they were offended by the name Redskins, 75% of Native American respondents in SI’s poll said they were not, and even on reservations, where Native American culture and influence are perhaps felt most intensely, 62% said they weren’t offended. Overall, 69% of Native American respondents—and 57% of those living on reservations—feel it’s O.K. for the Washington Redskins to continue using the name.

  200. thetooloftools says: Jul 8, 2013 7:21 PM

    Yea, because calling someone a name over someone calling someone a name makes perfect sense.

  201. baredon says: Jul 9, 2013 9:38 AM

    Hey Indians….

    Hate to bring this up, but your last “win” was at Little Big Horn…

  202. hoodoosteve says: Jul 9, 2013 1:45 PM

    There is a team called the “Ducks” who cares what the name of the team is.

  203. snikerbotloot says: Jul 12, 2013 1:56 AM

    Get over it. Evolve or die from fire water.

Leave a Reply

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