Skip to content

Trask says Redskins should change their name and logo

Trask Getty Images

If former Raiders CEO Amy Trask will be approaching her upcoming work for CBS the same way she has tackled the Redskins’ simmering (for now) name controversy, she’ll be saying plenty of things worth listening to — whether you agree with her or not.

In a recent item for TheMMQB.com, Trask shared her views on 10 topics.  At No. 3, she argued briefly for the Redskins to change their name and logo.

We were intrigued.  We wanted to hear more.  So we asked her to expand on the topic, and she did with a special submission to PFT.

It’s fairly short, which we like.  And it’s fairly powerful, which we like even more.

Given her 26-year tenure with the Raiders and involvement at the highest levels of league matters and meetings, her opinion could rattle through the front office of every team, possibly prompting some current high-level team officials to share their own views on the subject.

Earlier this month, Packers CEO Mark Murphy acknowledged that the team name is “very derogatory to a lot of people,” but he stopped short of calling for it to change.

Still, owner Daniel Snyder has insisted he won’t change the team’s name.  If Trask’s former boss, the late Al Davis, were still with us, it’s hard not to wonder whether Davis would advise Snyder to set his watch to never o’clock.  And it’ll be interesting to see whether any of the 31 owners publicly or privately do the same.

Permalink 146 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, Top Stories, Washington Redskins
146 Responses to “Trask says Redskins should change their name and logo”
  1. delmonte55 says: Aug 26, 2013 10:51 AM

    Here we go again…….

  2. jimmyt says: Aug 26, 2013 10:51 AM

    Skin color is what it is and everyone should be proud of theirs and their heritage. That said Native Americans did not have red skin. Bronzeskins or beautifullytanskins would be more accurate. I believe the red refers to war paint.

  3. exnavysub says: Aug 26, 2013 10:51 AM

    Oh geez. This again. Enough already. Redskins Redskins Redskins. That is their name, not and forever. Get over it. It affects no one and this is nothing but the politically correct losers running out of things to whine about.

  4. ColtsWinColtsWin!! says: Aug 26, 2013 10:51 AM

    Very intelligent lady, she is finally saying what everybody, including redbadname fans are thinking. It’s time to change the name to FluffyBunnies. Get it done Washington, get id done.

  5. justsomerandomguy24 says: Aug 26, 2013 10:53 AM

    They should. It is a racial slur. This isn’t the 1940s anymore.

  6. duncanthecat says: Aug 26, 2013 10:53 AM

    Logicalvoice please respond on our behalf to another attempt to change our beloved team’s name.

    Thanks,

    Redskin’s Fans

  7. ras1tafari says: Aug 26, 2013 10:55 AM

    In my view, the “Redskins” name refers to a football team, not a race of people. Change the logo, keep the colors and name. People need to stop with the fake outrage about every little thing.

  8. ravensdominate says: Aug 26, 2013 10:55 AM

    Lol at this franchise. They win the media Super Bowl every year.

  9. 5ohhh says: Aug 26, 2013 10:56 AM

    I wear a patch over my eye and the Raiders logo is very offensive to me.

  10. rasta028 says: Aug 26, 2013 10:57 AM

    She needs to change that ugly mug of hers…

  11. steamycrust says: Aug 26, 2013 10:58 AM

    My goodness… Again with the name change.
    Why don’t we find out what happened in Benghazi first before we tackle this extremely important political issue.

  12. ravanator says: Aug 26, 2013 10:59 AM

    R-Words just change your name already. No one cares if they embarrass that dump called Landover by losing all the time with the most pathetic team ever assembled. But now the R-Words are embarrassing the NFL by keeping a racist name, and having a QB that sext a Hooters girl on his wedding day.

  13. rasta028 says: Aug 26, 2013 11:00 AM

    Colts should change there name to the TANKERS!

  14. twilson962 says: Aug 26, 2013 11:01 AM

    Keep trying ravanator. keep trying.

  15. stevejjones says: Aug 26, 2013 11:03 AM

    Anyone who doesen’t like the name Redskins in not a patriotic person. This doesn’t have to do with scalps, it has to do with the Boston Tea Party and a way for the Boston Braves to stay connected to their old name when they moved to DC. Debate no longer simmering. Debate over. Slam dunk by me:

    The Improved Order of Red Men traces its origin to certain secret patriotic societies founded before the American Revolution. They were established to promote Liberty and to defy the tyranny of the English Crown. Among the early groups were: The Sons of Liberty, the Sons of St. Tammany, and later the Society of Red Men.
    On December 16, 1773 a group of men, all members of the Sons of Liberty, met in Boston to protest the tax on tea imposed by England. When their protest went unheeded, they disguised themselves as Mohawk Indians, proceeded to Boston harbor, and dumped overboard 342 chests of English tea.
    During the Revolutionary War, members of secret societies quenched their council fires and took up muskets to join with the Continental Army. To the cause of Freedom and Liberty they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honors. At the end of the hard fought war the American Republic was born and was soon acknowledged among the nations of the world.
    Following the American Revolution many of the various secret societies founded before and during the conflict continued in existence as brotherhoods or fraternities.
    For the next 35 years, however, each of the original Sons of Liberty and Sons of St. Tamina groups went their own way, under many different names. In 1813, at historic Fort Mifflin, near Philadelphia, several of these groups came together and formed one organization known as the Society of Red Men. The name was changed to the Improved Order of Red Men in Baltimore in 1834. In the late 18th century, social and benevolent Tammany Societies, named after Tamanend, were formed. The most famous of these was New York City’s Society of St. Tammany, which grew into a major political machine known as “Tammany Hall.” Around 1813, a disenchanted group created the philanthropic “Society of Red Men” at Fort Mifflin in Philadelphia. From this, the “Improved Order of Red Men” was later formed as a working man’s drinking group similar to the Odd Fellows fraternal organization.

  16. frankiesweep says: Aug 26, 2013 11:04 AM

    The Raiders were such a model organization over the last 26 years…. She did a GREAT JOB!

  17. lagg1 says: Aug 26, 2013 11:05 AM

    As usual Washington fans never have the inclination to speak to native Americans (100% native). Wear the Redskin t-shirt on the Pine Ridge Lakota reservation in South Dakota and see what happens. I was just there and they are a proud people and football names are not part of that pride. Ignorance is a virtue in Washington!

  18. lingsun54 says: Aug 26, 2013 11:07 AM

    As a white person of Scandinavian ancestry I find the Vikings team name offensive.

  19. releasetheorakigan says: Aug 26, 2013 11:08 AM

    Let’s just keep pumping the PC agenda whether it’s factually correct or not!!!

    Walter Wetzel, former chairman of the Blackfoot tribe and president of the National Congress of American Indians in the 1960s. By the early ‘60s, the Redskins had dropped any reference to Indians in their logo, uniforms and merchandise. Wetzel went to the Redskins office with photos of Indians in full headdress.

    “I said, ‘I’d like to see an Indian on your helmets,’” which then sported a big “R” as the team logo, remembers Wetzel, now 86 and retired in Montana. Within weeks, the Redskins had a new logo, a composite Indian taken from the features in Wetzel’s pictures. “It made us all so proud to have an Indian on a big-time team. . . . It’s only a small group of radicals who oppose those names. Indians are proud of Indians.”

  20. shackdelrio says: Aug 26, 2013 11:08 AM

    This is an example of why women should not be involved in football.

  21. floratiotime says: Aug 26, 2013 11:08 AM

    Face it … the R-words are never changing it. You’re lucky they dropped the Dixie for DC in their pathetic fight song.

  22. thehelmutt says: Aug 26, 2013 11:10 AM

    When I think of Redskins, the ONLY thing I think about is the football team – NOT Native Americans or racism. The same way I think of the “Packers” football team – NOT people packing and shipping items from a company in WI.

  23. johnnyb1976 says: Aug 26, 2013 11:12 AM

    Why is it that the only people offended by the redskins name is white folk?

  24. (oYo) Chesticles (oYo) says: Aug 26, 2013 11:12 AM

    When are we going to require the Patriots to change their name? After all, Patriotism is lacking in this country, and it probably offends 20 million illegal aliens, err, I mean undocumented citizens

  25. therillest says: Aug 26, 2013 11:14 AM

    The Washington Rollovers has a nice ring to it!

  26. cuda1234 says: Aug 26, 2013 11:14 AM

    More proof that girls and football don’t mix. Also, I wonder if she would have gotten a request for more media is she spoke out against changing the name and logo. I bet not.

  27. dblodg says: Aug 26, 2013 11:19 AM

    Get us to change our logo, have to get Blackhawks and Indians to change their logos as well. NOOOOOOOT gonna happen.

  28. releasetheorakigan says: Aug 26, 2013 11:19 AM

    Also, if we are removing all references to skin color then Oklahoma has to be changed since it is just Choctaw for “Red People”.

  29. geniusesq says: Aug 26, 2013 11:20 AM

    HAIL TO THE REDSKINS!!!

    HAIL VICTORY.

    BRAVES ON THE WARPATH.

    FIGHT FOR OLD DC.

    It’s about honoring warriors for bravery. Not racism. End the fake outrage. This is no more racist than the term Tarheel. Get over it.

  30. logicalvoicesays says: Aug 26, 2013 11:21 AM

    DAN SNYDER SAID NO AND THAT’S FINAL. Nobody tells Dan “The Man” Snyder what to do. We are the Washington REDSKINS and we are better than you on and off the field. #DealwithIT

  31. dryzzt23 says: Aug 26, 2013 11:21 AM

    BLACK panthers – I wonder what her take is on that? Why is it not “african-american” panthers?
    What about “White” Sox?
    “Red” Sox?
    “Browns”?
    “Padres”? – offensive to Catholics perhaps?
    “Steelers” – offensive to environmentalist wackos?
    “Titans” – offensive to “weak” people?
    “Chargers” – offensive to environmentalist wackos since it refers to production of electricity?
    Where does it end?

  32. lightcleric says: Aug 26, 2013 11:22 AM

    All this controversy always makes me think back to a story that happened in the UK a few years ago.

    A town took down their Christmas tree to not offend the Muslims in the community…except the Muslims never complained. They came out and said they had no problem at all with the tree and were actually more worried about possible backlash at them for something they never asked to happen. Everyone was getting along and then PC people stirred the pot.

    Maybe our media should take a hint and stop trying to jin up racial tensions everywhere. We’d all get along better that way.

  33. germanstingray says: Aug 26, 2013 11:23 AM

    OK then, if the Redskins name is that offensive, the following changes also must be considered:

    The Packers need to change their name because it’s a gay slur.

    The Raiders and Buccaneers must change because their names glorify violence and criminal activity.

    The Cowboys must change their name because of harm done to cows and the use of firearms.

    The Saints’ name sullies the image of a religion.

    The Chargers moniker might encourage unsafe use of electrical equipment or overspending on lines of credit.

    Philadelphia’s use of the Eagle as a mascot might encourage some to hunt an endangered species. Same for Atlanta and the Falcons and Carolina with the Panthers.

    The Rams encourage unsafe driving.

    The Broncos might encourage poor treatment of horses.

    Once the idiocy starts, it just continues to get worse.

  34. Patriot42 says: Aug 26, 2013 11:24 AM

    Her successes with the faiders speak for themselves

  35. goodellisruiningtheleague says: Aug 26, 2013 11:28 AM

    Thanks for the update!

  36. reesesteel23 says: Aug 26, 2013 11:30 AM

    People keep saying they are offended by other team names to try and prove a point…

    Ex: Vikings, Raiders, Red Sox etc.

    Vikings referred to themselves as Vikings
    Raiders referred to themselves as Raiders

    None of these are referring to the tone of someone’s skin….you gotta come up with a better way to prove your point.

  37. pastorbobs says: Aug 26, 2013 11:31 AM

    Funny story; my son’s LA class had to debate on this topic; being diehard fans we are against changing it, some clueless girls in his class said: “they should change it, can you imagine how people would feel if there was a team named the Browns?”

    I got a good laugh at that one…

  38. vicnocal says: Aug 26, 2013 11:32 AM

    Never played a down in her life.

  39. Dennis Koulatsos says: Aug 26, 2013 11:32 AM

    From a marketing standpoint, I would think that it would be smart to change the name. It would generate incremental and additional revenue to the franchise – shirts, hats, mugs, etc. Changing the name would be the business thing to do, and the smart thing to do… on many levels.

  40. johnnybgood19 says: Aug 26, 2013 11:32 AM

    The Washington Redskins should change their name… just as soon as the team from South Bend drops its odious name of ‘Fighting Irish’ implying that those of us who happen to be Irish are nothing but fighters. The subtle implications are that of course they are bar fighters which in turn implys drunks…

    By the way my great uncle was killed, mauled by a Bengal Tiger… I find Bengal Tigers as offensive. Another relative was a meat packer in the Chicago meat packing industry around 1913, as protrayed in the Upton Snclair novel ‘The Jungle’ again I’m offended.

    I tell you I resent the whole thing…. new rule… all sports teams in all sports must take bird names as this will be the only thing that will not offend someone… I offer the Oakland Buzzards and the Boston Canary.

  41. cmahdavi says: Aug 26, 2013 11:34 AM

    I thought about this for a while and I can see both sides. On the one hand you have what quite a few people maintain it’s a racial slur as a team name. On the other hand others who are a fan of said team argue that just because some people are “offended” (which these days any noun or adjective can be offensive to some) doesn’t mean you have to change something that’s been around for so long and beloved by so many.

    It’s a case of PC versus tradition.

    Now I can see that argument be maintained when it comes to like a national identity argument sorta thing (I.E. Southern flag) but let’s be honest for one second here.

    We are talking about a name of a football team. Not an army, not a nation, not a historic cultural organization. A group of people get together and get paid to play a game and the way they tell the groups apart are the colors and nicknames they give to each group.

    In this case people PLAYING A GAME (who granted are way more $uccessful than I) want to keep a name that is flat out derogatory at best and racist at worst.

    If you were to weigh the two which is worse?

    Just change the fricken name. Save the outrage for school shootings, genocide in Africa or chemical weapons in Syria. Buy a new banner and cheer making a different noise. You’ll live.

    If you maintain that the term is COMPLETELY NEUTRAL than all Dan Snyder has to do is film himself going up to Native American kids on different reservations calling them Redskins to their faces and their grandparents faces. As in “hey there Redskin”

    He could have done that LOOOONG ago. Solved all problems. End all debates. He didn’t. He doesn’t. Cuz it’s at best derogatory and at worst racist. And as years go by and it becomes more and more clear that that term isn’t gonna fly in public he’d be politically destroyed by that footage.

    Would you call your Indian boss a Redskin? If the answer is no change the friggen name.

  42. cbass59 says: Aug 26, 2013 11:35 AM

    It’s a friggin name. Why are so many people defending it? It was chosen by a super racist owner and I doubt it was to honor anyone.

    I’d bet most of those defending the name are conservatives with some racism in them. Think for a change.

  43. totallyuselessme says: Aug 26, 2013 11:35 AM

    My only real problem is that if this were a larger, more visible ethnic group, the name’d be changed already. As it is, Native Americans really don’t have a voice in this sort of thing, and haven’t for decades. The last time you really had to hear from them on anything was courtesy of Marlon Brando.

    Everyone’s acceptance of the double-standard is a little annoying to me, but I guess that’s just the world we live in.

  44. vgferenzi says: Aug 26, 2013 11:39 AM

    The term “redskin” has always been a derogatory term.

    The NFL has made it clear that they consider African Americans more a more important race than Native Americans when they fined and openly “did not condone” his actions…but continue to offer D.C. revenue sharing for theirs.

  45. malab377 says: Aug 26, 2013 11:42 AM

    I think the Jets should change their name. It is pretty offensive for all the airplanes up in the sky to be associated with a team that can’t take-off the ground.

  46. evrybdyhas1 says: Aug 26, 2013 11:42 AM

    The name is actually for the look of anger, shame and embarrassment the fans have when leaving the stadium during the Snyder era. Now that they are winning perhaps they should change the name so we can stop reading all this pc crap.

  47. peytonsneck18 says: Aug 26, 2013 11:43 AM

    HOW about the Washed-upington Failed-skins

  48. vicnocal says: Aug 26, 2013 11:44 AM

    The logo is awesome. It depicts a proud Indian chief.

    Under Trask’s logic, the Vikings should change their name too. And dressing up in a Viking costume when you go to the game at the Metrodome should be considered racist and degrading to the old Vikings, whose descendants now live in Finland or something. That’s what idiots say about people who dress up as Indians when they go to the Redskins game, that they are insulting the culture.

  49. kanishj says: Aug 26, 2013 11:46 AM

    I think the Raiders should change their name and logo as well. Pirate’s everywhere are outraged.

  50. i10east says: Aug 26, 2013 11:47 AM

    They can do like Syracuse did, and name them the Washington Red.

  51. kenstabler says: Aug 26, 2013 11:49 AM

    Who gave the Redskins their name?

    The original name for franchise was the Boston Braves. In 1933, the name was changed to Redskins by the team’s coach William “Lone Star” Dietz who was actually Sioux. He was known to dress up in regalia and be open about his pride of being Native American. He saw the name as bestowing an image of pride and recognition for the Native American people. Therefore, the name itself came from a Native American who saw nothing wrong with the name.

    What do Native Americans themselves think?

    This is where it gets kind of odd. In actuallity, less than 18% of Native Americans are offended by Indian Mascots in pro sports. In a March 4, 2002 Sports Illustrated 7 page editorial entitled “The Indian Wars”, a poll was conducted amongst Native Americans. Surprisingly, the following information was gathered

    “Asked if high school and college teams should stop using Indian nicknames, 81% of Native American respondents said no. As for pro sports, 83% of Native American respondents said teams should not stop using Indian nicknames, mascots, characters and sy

  52. bkeating51 says: Aug 26, 2013 11:49 AM

    You don’t think anyone really cares about this. It’s just for the publicity. The media loves stories like this where they can champion minorities with something as lightweight as political correctness.

    This country screwed the Indians badly (keeping in mind that many but far from all Indian tribes were brutal savages), but changing the name of the Washington NFL franchise won’t do anything

    I you want to help Native American, subsidize their children’s education so they can go to the top schools.

  53. vgferenzi says: Aug 26, 2013 11:52 AM

    cbass59 says:

    I’d bet most of those defending the name are conservatives with some racism in them. Think for a change.

    ====================================

    Making an ignorant statement about an entire group of people to show that you’re “open minded” and then demanding that they change is the epitome of hypocrisy.

    It is a fact that the term is derogatory. It is a fact that the NFL has come out against the use of other derogatory terms.

    The argument is to have DC and the NFL explain why some derogatory terms are okay and others aren’t.

    It is not to mach there level of ignorance with your own. Like most conversations, demagogues just fuel the fire for the other side. This isn’t a conservative/liberal thing or a republican/democrat thing.

    Just as in politics there are liberals who resort to name calling and think anyone who is white/christian/conservative is an uneducated redneck. There are conservatives who think anyone who is gay/concerned with the environment/ foreign/liberal, must be a commie abomination leaching off the taxpayers.

    Truth is there are two cams, the ignorant and the informed. You sir made it clear which camp you are in.

  54. whatjusthapped says: Aug 26, 2013 11:57 AM

    Looking at her mug offends me. Where is my relief? Can I ask PFT to refrain from showing any pics of her?

  55. cfballfan1 says: Aug 26, 2013 11:57 AM

    Directly out of the pc playbook: Pursue opinions who support yours. Supress or ignore those opinions who do not support yours. Frame the debate in your own terms and timing. Create the perception that your opinion is the popular opinion. Demonize those who disagree. Declare Victory.

  56. baddegg says: Aug 26, 2013 12:00 PM

    Seriously, who cares what Trask says.

    Why does it matter what she thinks vs. everyone else’s opinion on this?

    I don’t even know who she is.

  57. joshmelder says: Aug 26, 2013 12:00 PM

    I find the name Raiders very offensive.

  58. pem34 says: Aug 26, 2013 12:01 PM

    It will be interesting to see what happens if the name is changed and the new name is not related to Native Americans (or any other ethnic group/race) in any way. Say something generic like the Washington Football Club or the DC Pandas or something.

    Would there be backlash for not incorporating Native Americans into the new name?

  59. piscataquis007 says: Aug 26, 2013 12:02 PM

    Trask looks a lot like Chief Wahoo

  60. barrstarr says: Aug 26, 2013 12:03 PM

    The only thing offensive is her 3 chins. If she couldn’t change the Raiders organization around how can she plan on changing another pro teams name and logo. Apparently looking at her track record with Oakland, she might be best suited getting a job managing a McDonalds and attempting to raise their sanitary rating.

    HAIL

  61. kbdubya7788 says: Aug 26, 2013 12:04 PM

    I love how race gets thrown into the equation, when simply put its a football team!!! A racial slur is not intended to uplift a group of people but degrade them. The Washington Redskins are among the select original franchises in the NFL. The history speaks for itself I look at it like a compliment to name a team after a certain historical group of people. just my opinion.

  62. poridge1214 says: Aug 26, 2013 12:05 PM

    The Al Davis comment made no sense. The Redskins were around for Al Davis’ whole tenure as owner of the Raiders, so if he never said anything about the Redskins’ name while alive, what makes you think he’d chime in if he were alive today?

  63. baddegg says: Aug 26, 2013 12:05 PM

    reesesteel23 says:
    Aug 26, 2013 11:30 AM
    People keep saying they are offended by other team names to try and prove a point…

    Ex: Vikings, Raiders, Red Sox etc.

    Vikings referred to themselves as Vikings
    Raiders referred to themselves as Raiders

    None of these are referring to the tone of someone’s skin….you gotta come up with a better way to prove your point.

    —————

    Uh, Redskins referred to themselves as Redskins.

    YOU come up with a better argument.

  64. fancyleague says: Aug 26, 2013 12:05 PM

    The Redskins should change their name right after the Vikings ditch that negative and narrow portrayal of Scandinavians.

  65. @Cereal_22 says: Aug 26, 2013 12:06 PM

    DC Warmongers ??

  66. udontknowjaq says: Aug 26, 2013 12:08 PM

    I live in Washington and everybody knows the name is derogatory. argue with the fans here they fight it out of pure stubbornness…

  67. dylanssongwriter says: Aug 26, 2013 12:08 PM

    More white people “feeling the pain” of a minority group. How about the media actually talk to a Native American, who isn’t a member of some interest group, about the subject.

  68. scmems07 says: Aug 26, 2013 12:09 PM

    i bet they would’nt care as much when they are consistantly good, it’s just becuase they have been bad for so long that people are starting to get offended. where was this argument when they won the superbowl?

    as a hispanic male, i am offended by the browns team name and i would like to see it changed.

  69. fc187 says: Aug 26, 2013 12:11 PM

    Politicians wanting to get their faces and names in the news. Former Raider’s exec’s (seem to be a lot of them) with nothing better to do.
    People in general with too much time on their hands want the name change.

    Seeing a pattern here.

  70. condor75 says: Aug 26, 2013 12:12 PM

    exnavysub says:
    Aug 26, 2013 10:51 AM
    Oh geez. This again. Enough already. Redskins Redskins Redskins. That is their name, not and forever. Get over it. It affects no one and this is nothing but the politically correct losers running out of things to whine about.
    That could be one of the stupidest statements ever in print

  71. bigbluekat says: Aug 26, 2013 12:16 PM

    Just change the name to “Pigskins”. It is a football term. It has “skins” in it, which adds to the familiarity. The fans call themselves Hogs after the former offensive linemen. And if you don’t think a pig is scary, go visit Arkansas sometime, Wild boars will rip your guts out.

  72. dubyabolts says: Aug 26, 2013 12:17 PM

    I think everyone is missing the point. This is not about the name but more so the logo. My solution is simple. Put a redskin potato in place of the current logo. Now you can keep the name without offending anyone.

  73. silverandblackfan77 says: Aug 26, 2013 12:18 PM

    Just change their name to the Warriors and keep the logo and everything just change the name but if the league really wants it to change they should anty up some money because it will be expensive

  74. gzinn18631 says: Aug 26, 2013 12:18 PM

    raid·er

    /ˈrādər/

    noun

    noun: raider; plural noun: raiders

    1.

    a person who attacks an enemy in the enemy’s territory; a marauder.

    “Scandinavian raiders put down their roots in Cumbria”

    synonyms: robber, burglar, thief, housebreaker, plunderer, pillager, looter

  75. defscottyb says: Aug 26, 2013 12:20 PM

    RED in Redskins is a re: to Red War Paint worn in battle and NOT SKIN COLOR.

  76. nflpoker says: Aug 26, 2013 12:21 PM

    Actually, I believe we would not be having this conversation if that logo was never used. Consider this; what if the Cleveland Browns had a logo depicting the head of an african american. There would be a stink about that as well. The nickname “Browns” is not derogatory itself in any way. Then again they don’t have a logo that could cause a problem. Redskins, I believe is not the problem, but. . .

  77. thirdistheworrd says: Aug 26, 2013 12:25 PM

    OH MY GOD. Amy Trask, a numbetr of white sportswriters, Ted Thompson, Eleanor Holmes Norton, the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt, and several Occupy-New-Yorkers rebelling against their rich yuppie parents strongly believe the name should change– How has it not happened already!!?

    Natives are people. They are intelligent, assertive, and capable American citizens, just like you and I. We need professional advocacy against cruelty to animals, child labor laws, and human trafficking because those victims are not able to speak for themselves; but the idea that others need to take action when Natives and their tribal and national governing bodies are interested in taking a stand themselves is simply insulting to the Native community.

    Simply put, the fact that the media seems to feel like Native Americans are somehow incapable of speaking out; having their voices heard; or advocating for themselves: and that sportswriters are the only ones who can do it; is not only arrogant, but far more belittling than anything one could construe from Washington’s team name or logo.

    If and when we see a legitimate, representative, and dogmatic Native opposition to the name, this is an issue that can and should be discussed; but until then we’re just spinning our wheels, putting words in others’mouths; and exerting our time and energy promoting and condoning the media’s insatiable need to create stories out of thin air to generate readership.

  78. goodellisruiningtheleague says: Aug 26, 2013 12:27 PM

    I bet everyone that wants the name changed voted for Obama

  79. nananatman says: Aug 26, 2013 12:30 PM

    She must know a lot the Raiders are in really-really good shape.

  80. partmachine says: Aug 26, 2013 12:32 PM

    DC needs a new name for their football team. Just get it over with already. And they might as well change the DC part too, doesn’t really apply.

  81. jhig713 says: Aug 26, 2013 12:32 PM

    In·di·an (nd-n)
    adj.
    1. Of or relating to India or the East Indies or to their peoples, languages, or cultures.
    2. Of or relating to any of the Native American peoples except the Eskimos, Aleuts, and Inuits.

    chief[ cheef ]
    noun
    1. the head or leader of an organized body of people; the person highest in authority: the chief of police.
    2. the head or ruler of a tribe or clan: an Indian chief.

    redskin[ red-skin ]
    noun Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive.
    1. a North American Indian.

    Do we see the difference yet?

    Thumbs down for ignoring facts.

  82. reesesteel23 says: Aug 26, 2013 12:34 PM

    baddegg

    So…

    All these different races of people came up with derogatory names for themselves?….Gotcha

  83. realfootballfan says: Aug 26, 2013 12:35 PM

    But it’s a tradition, just like slavery, discrimination, and white people openly saying the n word.

    Can’t believe people (and I use that word loosely to describe you if you love this name that much) are actually trying to defend this nonsense.

  84. idolized1 says: Aug 26, 2013 12:39 PM

    Right, because I almost, just about, maybe just a little bit, really have respect for her opinion after her affirmative action sympathy hire gave her this bogus pedestal to stand on.

    Her and people like her, AKA white folk looking to stir the pot for their own agenda (You really think they care about Native Americans?) need to keep their mouths shut and stay away from this beautiful game.

    People like her and our great commissioner (Both who have never worn pads before) should have no business in football, but hey why not? Everything else in the world has gone to hell lately so why expect pro sports to be any different…

    /End rant

  85. fc187 says: Aug 26, 2013 12:41 PM

    Economy on the edge, Syria gassing their own people. Hostile governments plotting our demise.

    Thousands going homeless and with out food in our own country,

    And we are worried about the name of a football team.

    Glad we have our priorities.

  86. hawkwind8 says: Aug 26, 2013 12:43 PM

    Crowanator– If the Skins are the most pathetic football team ever assembled, tell me how it is that they came to bet your precious team in their specal year?

  87. SilentMajority says: Aug 26, 2013 12:44 PM

    Unlike the N-word the term Redskin has never been used as a derogatory word or racial slur it has simply been used as a term explaining skin color.

    This is similar to how many Americans refer to themselves as being white or black, granted they do not refer to themselves as “whiteskins” or “blackskins”, but nevertheless, they are still referring to their skin color.

    Matter of fact, if you were to look deeper into the phrase, “Redskins,” you would find that many Native American’s used the term Redskins to describe themselves back in the 1600-1700′s. Other similar phrases used during that time period include Red Men and Red Indian.

    People can argue that the the word is outdated, but to argue that it is derogatory or a racial slur is wrong and dishonest.

  88. tvguy22 says: Aug 26, 2013 12:46 PM

    germanstingray says:Aug 26, 2013 11:23 AM

    The Rams encourage unsafe driving.

    ———————————————–

    Is that a Leonard Little reference?

  89. stevent92 says: Aug 26, 2013 12:47 PM

    If we really want to truly honor Native Americans, the Government should cut the reservation funding that keeps them in abject poverty and allow them to fully integrate into society. For more information, look-up the Lumbee Tribe in Robeson County, NC.

  90. fballguy says: Aug 26, 2013 12:49 PM

    I’ve never heard of one Irish protest before, during or after a Notre Dame game.

    Why is that?

    Because nobody cares.

    There’s a lesson to be learned there.

  91. jimeejohnson says: Aug 26, 2013 12:50 PM

    “Giants” offensive to midgets.
    “Cardinals” offensive to Blue Jays and vica-versa.
    “Yankees” offensive to Southerners.
    “Padres” offensive to Madres.
    “Tigers” offensive to elephants.
    “Phillies” offensive to colts.
    “Lakers” offensive to rivers.
    “Jets” offensive to propeller planes.
    “Diamondbacks” offensive to cottonmouths.
    “Twins” offensive to triplets.
    “Mighty Ducks” offensive to weakling ducks!

  92. boogiedownmusic says: Aug 26, 2013 12:50 PM

    If the Raiders stink it up this year like it looks like they’re gonna do then we may need to change our name. The Skunks. I love my Raiders but it’s gonna be a llloooonnnnggg season. 1-15 !

  93. laserw says: Aug 26, 2013 12:52 PM

    I find the “Raiders” to be offensive – they are violent and have no redeeming quality – they promote stealing and their colors are just dreadful.

    Having an executive from such a miscreant team ridiculing the Redskins is laughable – the Raiders have been such a dreadful team for so long that anyone from their front office, former or current, weighing in on another team is – well – pointless.

    Plus, this executive is a woman.

    NUFF SAID.

  94. jimeejohnson says: Aug 26, 2013 12:55 PM

    “Unlike the N-word the term Redskin has never been used as a derogatory word or racial slur it has simply been used as a term explaining skin color. ”

    “redskin[ red-skin ]
    noun Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive.
    1. a North American Indian.”

  95. thirdistheworrd says: Aug 26, 2013 12:58 PM

    dylanssongwriter says:
    media actually talk to a Native American, who isn’t a member of some interest group, about the subject.
    ________________
    More like how about some Native, who is representative of our nation’s Native community and has the backing and support of tribal and intertribal governing organizations, take the initiative to go to the media himself and declare that the name is offensive to Natives and they want something done about it. Then we’ll have a discussion.

    What we have here is a bunch of politicians and journalists telling us what a crisis this is, while Natives and legitimate Native representatives could not be less interested. While news outlet after news outlet boldly declares they will no longer discuss the Washington Redskins; the reservation population of Teton, Idaho and Tec Nos Pos Arizona, struggle mightily to retain their high school mascot, the Redskins, even as the state government attempts to strip the name, in order to “do what’s right” for the Native population.

    Until we see media and political activists working in tandem with representative Native leadership to oppose the name, this is not an “issue”, it’s not a “crusade”, it’s not even a “cause”. It’s just blowhard soapboxing for attention, readership, and political gain.

  96. concord148 says: Aug 26, 2013 1:04 PM

    Offended are you kidding me. I wear a paper bag on my head when I go out with my wife and I am very offended when I see a Raider Fan wear a bag over their head. You dont go to a football game wearing a paper bag. That’s why the NFL is coming out with a clear plastic bag policy.

  97. eagles512 says: Aug 26, 2013 1:08 PM

    Enough!!

  98. harrycanyon says: Aug 26, 2013 1:08 PM

    I’d wager that most of you were not offended in any way with the team name before some in congress suggested it was offensive, and made an issue with it. That’s the problem with the world today and how information gets to the masses. People have stopped thinking for themselves, and just grab onto what other people say and do and make it their own. Trends travel faster and farther than ever before, and this is nothing more. It’s also a big trend to be offended on the behalf of someone else. By all mean though, let’s cower and change the name to something non offensive and very pc.
    or just make a peanut the Mascot and be done with this garbage.
    (I also bet when it’s eventually change to something asinine like the Washington Rallies, you all will wish you would have left the non issue alone.)

  99. baddegg says: Aug 26, 2013 1:10 PM

    reesesteel23 says:
    Aug 26, 2013 12:34 PM
    baddegg

    So…

    All these different races of people came up with derogatory names for themselves?….Gotcha

    ————-

    at reesesteel23 –

    noooo, the race uses a non-derogatory name for themselves, then arrogant liberals later on declare that its derogatory to make themselves looks sensitive…

    …gotcha

  100. thirdistheworrd says: Aug 26, 2013 1:11 PM

    OH MY GOD. Amy Trask, a number of white sportswriters, Eleanor Holmes Norton, and several Occupy-New-Yorkers rebelling against their rich yuppie parents strongly believe the name should change– How has it not happened already!!?

    Natives are people. They are intelligent, assertive, and capable American citizens, just like you and I. We need professional advocacy against the abuse of animals and because those victims are not able to speak for themselves; but the idea that others need to take action when Natives and their tribal and national governing bodies are, themselves, not interested in taking a stand is simply insulting to the Native community.

    Simply put, the fact that the media seems to feel like Native Americans are somehow incapable of speaking out; having their voices heard; or advocating for themselves: and that sportswriters are the only ones who can do it; is not only arrogant, but far more belittling than anything one could construe from Washington’s team name or logo.

    If and when we see a legitimate, representative, and dogmatic Native opposition to the name, this is an issue that can and should be discussed; but until then we’re just spinning our wheels, putting words in others’ mouths; and exerting our time and energy promoting and condoning the media’s insatiable need to create stories out of thin air to generate readership.

  101. paulz624 says: Aug 26, 2013 1:25 PM

    Don’t give in Snyder! Here in Philly their was a Steak shop called ‘Chinks’, been around 40yrs, great business, new owner came in, had the PC people tell him how offensive the name was and he has to change it, he did and now lost 70% of his business, the question is, where are all the people who told him he has to change the name at now? They did their damage and now are gone. Let them make their threats all they want, your business isn’t gonna be hurt, your loyal fans aren’t going anywhere.

  102. releasetheorakigan says: Aug 26, 2013 1:29 PM

    vgferenzi says: Aug 26, 2013 11:39 AM

    The term “redskin” has always been a derogatory term.

    =====================================

    100% incorrect. Read I am Redskin by Ives Goddard. The team was first coined by Natives to distinguish themselves from the settlers. If the term was derogatory then why do Natives themselves use it for a mascot? Check out the Red Mesa Redskins.

  103. channer81 says: Aug 26, 2013 1:29 PM

    Only when the skins are winning is their name an issue, this was a non-issue during the Turner, Spurrier and Zorn era..

  104. chazatlas says: Aug 26, 2013 1:35 PM

    Take Indian names out of sports teams and nobody will ever mention Indians except in elementary school right before Thanksgiving. Bet they don’t have a problem with the Chiefs in KC.

  105. fordboy183 says: Aug 26, 2013 1:41 PM

    vgferenzi says:
    Aug 26, 2013 11:52 AM
    cbass59 says:

    I’d bet most of those defending the name are conservatives with some racism in them. Think for a change.

    ====================================

    Making an ignorant statement about an entire group of people to show that you’re “open minded” and then demanding that they change is the epitome of hypocrisy.

    It is a fact that the term is derogatory. It is a fact that the NFL has come out against the use of other derogatory terms.

    The argument is to have DC and the NFL explain why some derogatory terms are okay and others aren’t.

    It is not to mach there level of ignorance with your own. Like most conversations, demagogues just fuel the fire for the other side. This isn’t a conservative/liberal thing or a republican/democrat thing.

    Just as in politics there are liberals who resort to name calling and think anyone who is white/christian/conservative is an uneducated redneck. There are conservatives who think anyone who is gay/concerned with the environment/ foreign/liberal, must be a commie abomination leaching off the taxpayers.

    Truth is there are two cams, the ignorant and the informed. You sir made it clear which camp you are in.

    @ vgferenzi

    I suggest you inform yourself before you claim this team name is racist:

    1.) Name itself suggested by the native american head coach of the redskins back in the 30′s.

    2.) Change of helmet from an R to a native american made also by a native american in the 60′s.

    3.) The “red” in red skin refers the war paint they wore, not their skin color.

    All these points have been made, but the uniformed cry-babies crying foul seem to forget if there is a group to blame for the name, it’s native americans themselves. Get over it and move on.

  106. thirdistheworrd says: Aug 26, 2013 1:48 PM

    What do Native Americans themselves think?

    This is where it gets kind of odd. In actuallity, less than 18% of Native Americans are offended by Indian Mascots in pro sports. In a March 4, 2002 Sports Illustrated 7 page editorial entitled “The Indian Wars”, a poll was conducted amongst Native Americans. Surprisingly, the following information was gathered

    “Asked if high school and college teams should stop using Indian nicknames, 81% of Native American respondents said no. As for pro sports, 83% of Native American respondents said teams should not stop using Indian nicknames, mascots, characters and sy
    _____________
    Well put, however, a poll of Sports Illustrataed Readers is not as scientific, accurate or conclusive as some of the other data out there. If we want to get more specific, accurate, and relevant, the only poll ever done on the Washington Redskins, a 2004 study by the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Institute for Public Policy polled only Natives over a four year time frame and concluded that 92% of our country’s Native were not bothered by the name and did not want to see it changed. The Annenberg institute is considered one of the world’s most reliable polling organizations, but what make this survey even more interesting is that it used a sample size 200 times larger than average Gallup Polls (generally considered the World’s most reliable poll).

    This does not determine whether the name is “offensive” or not, but it does conclusively demonstrate that, whether or not the name is “offensive”, the Native community is not looking to change it, and a crusade against the name by piliticians and the media is in credibly derogatory insulting to the entire Native community.

    We need legislation and activists to protect victims of child and animal abuse, because they are unable to speak up and protect themselves. by conjuring this anti-Redskins crusade out of nowhere, the media has essentially deemed Natives to be on the same level as dogs and abused children.

    They are not. Natives are just as capable of self advocation, representation, and assertion as any other American. If this was something the Native community wanted to change, they would do something about it. The fact that they are not speaks volumes.

    The point is, it doesn’t matter what Amy Trask thinks, it doesn’t matter what Ted Thompson thinks, it doesn’t matter what the writers here think, all that matters is what our country’s Native community thinks.

  107. posmoo says: Aug 26, 2013 1:52 PM

    they probably should change the name, but why is this chick being presented as having an opinion that matters on anything?

  108. whosennext says: Aug 26, 2013 1:54 PM

    Holy cow batman, they just can’t leave it alone. I bet the same people complaining about it use other terms to describe other nationalities. The same people who are offended by Mr. Magoo because they are making fun of a old blind man, or Fat Albert because they are making fun of a fat black kid, or does it really matter. I watched these cartoons as a kid. All I saw was they were funny. Yes funny, not because of who the were because it made you laugh. Archie Bunker was funny, George Jefferson was funny, Red Fox was funny. Grow up people and get a flippin life and laugh at things that are funny when you have the chance instead of being some dumb person who cannot see any humor in life. Keep what is serious in life just that, serious and teach it to your children, but also teach them that everything in life does not need to be serious and laugh with the things that are funny. Life is too short to not have a good laugh everyday. I look in the mirror every morning to get my first laugh. Keep the name redskins and get on with your life people.

  109. SilentMajority says: Aug 26, 2013 1:55 PM

    jimeejohnson says:
    Aug 26, 2013 12:55 PM
    “Unlike the N-word the term Redskin has never been used as a derogatory word or racial slur it has simply been used as a term explaining skin color. ”

    “redskin[ red-skin ]
    noun Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive.
    1. a North American Indian.”

    ____________________________________

    As I implied in my original comment if you dig deeper than Websters dictionary, and look to see how the phrase has historically been used, then you would notice that it has never been used to dehumanize the Native Americans.

  110. fafaflunky says: Aug 26, 2013 2:03 PM

    REDSK1NS..name changed

  111. irishnativeson says: Aug 26, 2013 2:14 PM

    Never any shortage of low information, myopic, self righteous, defenders of the status quo, here on PFT. They know as much about football as they do about this particular subject, which is absolutely nothing. Talk about your rank hypocrisy, imploring who they’ve labeled “PC” to get over the issue, get over yourselves. Unfortunately I’ve neither the time nor inclination to systematically annihilate every single one of these capricious arguments. That fools errand is reserved for those who choose to defend the perpetuation of ignorance.

  112. rufustfireflyjr says: Aug 26, 2013 2:28 PM

    So, who are we going to go to next in your seemingly endless campaign to keep this issue alive? The assistant trainer for the New York Jets? The backup ticket taker at Gate A at Lucas Oil Stadium? Come on, there must be SOMEONE you haven’t quoted yet.

  113. waterfalldungeon says: Aug 26, 2013 2:29 PM

    HISTORY LESSON:

    The “RED” in Redskins does NOT refer to SKIN COLOR!

    “Redskins” refers to RED PAINT worn during battles.

    If you think the term “Redskins” is a racial slur or refers to skin color, you are simply IGNORANT to the FACTS.

    Period.

    End of Story.

  114. jayniner says: Aug 26, 2013 2:31 PM

    I find the whole Raiders organization offensive to the game of football…

  115. ivanckstrong says: Aug 26, 2013 2:31 PM

    It’s funny to me that an article calling out discrimination against native Americans is discriminatory in itself by deleting valid comments that call out the integrity and origin of the issue.

    Again, the overwhelming majority of native Americans are not offended by the team’s name. The persons pushing this subject are doing so for their own personal reasons that have nothing to do with well being of American Indians.

  116. thirdistheworrd says: Aug 26, 2013 2:31 PM

    jimeejohnson says:
    Aug 26, 2013 12:55 PM
    “Unlike the N-word the term Redskin has never been used as a derogatory word or racial slur it has simply been used as a term explaining skin color. ”

    “redskin[ red-skin ]
    noun Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive.
    1. a North American Indian.”
    ________________
    And where did you get this definition? If you go on Google Scholar there are literally hundreds of theses and academic papers explaining the origins of the term “redskin”. Their are two main schools of thought on the subject. The first is that it was a term Natives used themselves to describe warriors painting with themselves with red dyes or paints, or possibly the blood of their enemies. Essentially the equivalent of “brave”, “BAMF”, “guy you don’t want to mess with ” or any phrase you might use for a Navy SEAL.

    The other thought is that it is a term originating among Natives during trade talks with European settlers in the early 1700′s, simplifying the difference Natives’ ruddier skin and the Northern Europeans’ pale skin as a means of distinguishing between the two groups.

    Any word can be made offensive by usage and context, and the meaning of words can certainly change over time, but that does not mean the word can’t be applied to its original etymology.

    Think about the word Einstein, and keep in mind I’m being entirely tongue-in-cheek here. How often do you use it to refer to the Nobel-winning physicist? And how often do you use it to mock your friends for doing something dumb (“Nice going, Einstein!” “You make a left on rt. 50, Einstein!” “the 27th is a Tuesday, Einstein!”) Does that mean that Einstein can now only be used derogatory slur for someone with below average intelligence?

  117. bunkslurpscrabmustard says: Aug 26, 2013 2:36 PM

    If they’re ever forced to change it or do voluntarily, both highly unlikely, just change it to Warriors, keep the uni’s and colors, call it a day.

  118. blackqbwhiterb says: Aug 26, 2013 2:40 PM

    The people that want the Redskins to change their name are the same types that fly in their private jets to Copenhagen or the Fountainbleu in Miami, spend the weekend eating truffles and caviar and sipping champagne at gatherings to discuss the poor people.

    Let’s spend the time and money on doing things that really help Native Americans, not pressuring some football franchise to change a name that the real Native Americans aren’t paying too much attention to.

    Besides, who do you think they root for? Betcha it isn’t the Cowboys

  119. 302baller says: Aug 26, 2013 2:43 PM

    Do research dumb lady with a CEO title…they are honoring natives….and statistics show that most natives could care less. Media and PC will continue to make this an issue….forever.

  120. njskins says: Aug 26, 2013 2:43 PM

    So an employee of a franchise whose nickname celebrates those who robbed, pillaged, raped and murdered is offended by the name “Redskins.” Let’s think about this before we celebrate Ms. Trask’s opinion, PFT.

  121. timbuttrum says: Aug 26, 2013 2:50 PM

    A former CEO comments on the Redskins name and this is newsworthy how?

  122. furnhole says: Aug 26, 2013 3:01 PM

    Just one more PC California idiot. Give it a rest.

  123. screechdaddy says: Aug 26, 2013 3:08 PM

    jimeejohnson says:

    “Giants” offensive to midgets…

    …“Phillies” offensive to colts.

    And using that logic…

    “jimeejohnson” offensive to geniuses.

    A psychology professor once told our class:

    “Human beings are capable of justifying anything.

    How right he was. Just look at the lengths to which so many of you go to justify continued use of a nickname derogatory to an entire race of people just so you can continue to feel good about yourselves. Changing “Redskins” to, say, “Warriors” would solve everything, and you could even keep the logo, not to mention it sounds way more bad-ass than the racial slur you currently defend with ridiculous attempts to equate other team names as also derogatory. Is that not a blatant admission that the name IS derogatory?? Of course it is, but you’re all much too ignorant and stubborn to notice that.

    This isn’t so much about how many Native Americans are or are not offended by the name “Redskins,” as it is about rising to the challenge of simply being better people, the kind who take the feelings of others into consideration rather than just their own selfish desires. Grow up. Evolve! You’ll like yourselves a lot better for having done so.

  124. edrooneyjr says: Aug 26, 2013 3:25 PM

    Why not just change the name to Indians and keep the logo!

    I’m a 40 yr fan of the team and I could live with this.

  125. cmdrsmooth says: Aug 26, 2013 3:59 PM

    How about changing it to Whiteskins? Or Brownskins? Or Blackskins? Yellowskins?

    Get the picture people?

  126. spytdi says: Aug 26, 2013 3:59 PM

    She lives in CA, right? Enough said.

  127. thirdistheworrd says: Aug 26, 2013 4:28 PM

    lagg1 says:
    Aug 26, 2013 11:05 AM
    As usual Washington fans never have the inclination to speak to native Americans (100% native). Wear the Redskin t-shirt on the Pine Ridge Lakota reservation in South Dakota and see what happens. I was just there and they are a proud people and football names are not part of that pride. Ignorance is a virtue in Washington!
    ____________________
    Why? What do you think would happen? They would attack me? For supporting a football team? Natives are people. And people don’t attack other people without just provocation. Are you arguing that the men and women of the Pine Ridge Reservation are not smart enough to see that I’m a footbal fan, and not trying to personally degrade them or belittle their culture in any way. They may not like the team name, but they are not irrational or psychotic human beings.

    Speaking of ignorance, how about you wear a Redskins T-shirt on the reservations in Teec Nos Pos, AZ; Driggs, Idaho; Loudon, Tennessee; the Osage reservation near Tulsa, OK; Capitol Hill, OK; Big Lake, Arkansas; Gustine, CA; Calaveras, CA; St. John’s, AZ; Oneonta, AL, La Veta, CO, Little River, KS; Wellpinnit, WA; Rush Springs, OK; Kingston, OK; Liberal, KS, Pembroke, GA; McLoud, OK; Donna, TX; Chowchilla, CA; Lake Thunderbird, OK; etc, etc, etc and see what happens?

    You would probably be received very well for supporting their local football team. Of the 61 high schools using “the Redskins” as a mascot, 46 are either on, or just outside, Native reservations. Red Mesa High School in Teec Nos Pos and Teton High School in Driggs have both been in the news recently when their state and local government attempted to strip the schools of the Redskins mascot and were met with massive resistance from the local Native populations.

  128. bbadbob says: Aug 26, 2013 5:13 PM

    I live in the DC area and have a Native American co-worker. I spoke with him at length about this issue a few years ago, and again just recently as the topic resurfaced here. He told me that it is essentially a non-issue with most native Americans and that they view all of the recent comments as mostly people trying to make a name for themselves. He went further to say that to the contrary, many Native Americans are more concerned about what they view as efforts to wipe their images from existence under a false pretense of political correctness, and that while he is not a Redskins fan, many of his people are and have no problem whatsoever with the name itself.

  129. ontheteebox says: Aug 26, 2013 7:14 PM

    Change the name already!

  130. stayclassyasheville says: Aug 26, 2013 7:30 PM

    It’s a slur and they should change their name. Aren’t they tax exempt? If so, (why?!) doesn’t that carry some requirements that would prevent using the name? Forfeit the name!

  131. skinsfansince71 says: Aug 26, 2013 7:38 PM

    peytonsneck18 says: Aug 26, 2013 11:43 AM

    HOW about the Washed-upington Failed-skins

    Talk about beating a dead horse……………..never mind that the Colts.

  132. mrcogburn says: Aug 26, 2013 7:51 PM

    Liberals are so insufferable. Mind our own business, lady.

  133. mrcogburn says: Aug 26, 2013 7:53 PM

    That would be YOUR own business ;-)

  134. rasta028 says: Aug 26, 2013 8:25 PM

    How about we change the name of the Colts to the Shetland ponies? Tankers since you bums tanked 2011 to get Luck.

  135. mettaworldplease says: Aug 26, 2013 9:49 PM

    Dan Snyder should find a milk crate, turn it over, stand on it and have a press conference behind the podium and change the name to the Washington Globetrotters. All future games will be held at Six Flags against Bugs Bunny and the Looney Tunes gang and cross promote his two enterprises.

  136. lance19 says: Aug 27, 2013 3:59 AM

    “The Rams encourage unsafe driving.”

    Wow! This and other ludicrous comments show how very, very absurdly far some people are willing to stretch to pitifully attempt to defend and prop up racial insensitivity in 2013.

    I get “tradition”…but if America can get past hundreds of years of slavery tradition, it will certainly be beyond this “Redskins” nonsense by 2030.

  137. 302baller says: Aug 27, 2013 4:37 AM

    There’s a bunch of people here calling the name a Racial Slur …..stop….YOU LOOK FOOLISH! Not one person alive today has heard it used as a racial slur. They’re honoring natives, the name is not referencing skin itself, get a life….go help the local food bank if you want to do good!

  138. lagg1 says: Aug 27, 2013 10:51 AM

    lagg1 says:
    Aug 26, 2013 11:05 AM
    As usual Washington fans never have the inclination to speak to native Americans (100% native). Wear the Redskin t-shirt on the Pine Ridge Lakota reservation in South Dakota and see what happens. I was just there and they are a proud people and football names are not part of that pride. Ignorance is a virtue in Washington!
    ____________________
    Why? What do you think would happen? They would attack me? For supporting a football team? Natives are people. And people don’t attack other people without just provocation. Are you arguing that the men and women of the Pine Ridge Reservation are not smart enough to see that I’m a footbal fan, and not trying to personally degrade them or belittle their culture in any way. They may not like the team name, but they are not irrational or psychotic human beings.

    Speaking of ignorance, how about you wear a Redskins T-shirt on the reservations in Teec Nos Pos, AZ; Driggs, Idaho; Loudon, Tennessee; the Osage reservation near Tulsa, OK; Capitol Hill, OK; Big Lake, Arkansas; Gustine, CA; Calaveras, CA; St. John’s, AZ; Oneonta, AL, La Veta, CO, Little River, KS; Wellpinnit, WA; Rush Springs, OK; Kingston, OK; Liberal, KS, Pembroke, GA; McLoud, OK; Donna, TX; Chowchilla, CA; Lake Thunderbird, OK; etc, etc, etc and see what happens?

    You would probably be received very well for supporting their local football team. Of the 61 high schools using “the Redskins” as a mascot, 46 are either on, or just outside, Native reservations. Red Mesa High School in Teec Nos Pos and Teton High School in Driggs have both been in the news recently when their state and local government attempted to strip the schools of the Redskins mascot and were met with massive resistance from the local Native populations.

    _________________________________

    Again you do not get it-it has nothing to do with football or by honoring natives in using the name for your team but it has everything to do with making fun of the image by using the name for cheap promotion or fans self aggrandizement.

    These people are very proud. I’ve talked to more natives than you since I volunteered at Pine Ridge in a church mission years ago. Their culture is their’s alone. After 25 natives have received the medal of honor through the years I think that they earn respect.

    One final note it will not take much for a native american to file suit before a sympathetic judge to either block the use of the name or receive compensation as such. This is what the league is concerned about. They could win.

  139. rasta028 says: Aug 27, 2013 11:33 AM

    So sick of all these liberal PC fools always butting into everyone’s business, this ugly CEO is from CA so you know with her remarks she’s probably a liberal scumbag….

    Don’t you people have a tree to save? Get a life losers!

    HTTR FOR LIFE FOOLS! DEAL WITH IT!

  140. lagg1 says: Aug 27, 2013 11:56 AM

    to rasta028

    Since I have voted for 5 republicans for president over the years I do not consider myself liberal-all the same you do not get it so why bother to explain since you have no idea.

  141. defscottyb says: Aug 27, 2013 12:45 PM

    waterfalldungeon says: Aug 26, 2013 2:29 PM

    HISTORY LESSON:

    The “RED” in Redskins does NOT refer to SKIN COLOR!

    “Redskins” refers to RED PAINT worn during battles.

    If you think the term “Redskins” is a racial slur or refers to skin color, you are simply IGNORANT to the FACTS.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Exactly! PC Liberal Wacko’s just see Red-skin and automatically assume it’s a race issue when it is NOT. If they would just research it some they would know the truth. It’s just plain incompetence by anyone claiming it’s a skin color issue. Think about this: if the Redskins ever changed their name it would actually HURT native people and NOT HELP them. It would make them even more irrelevant then they are. Having such a glorious and historic franchise representing my people (yes I am of Cherokee Heritage) shines a good light on us and helps to keep my people relevant as well. HTTR, Hail victory, Braves on the Warpath (with Red War Paint on Fighting for victory)… Fight for Ole DC!

  142. jhig713 says: Aug 27, 2013 1:01 PM

    The Logo is not the problem. It is actually a very classy logo that honors Native Americans. Its just the name. Redskins did refer to Red Paint, and it did refer to the old coach, but it was also used a the term of cut pieces of native american skin during war. Although the original intentions if the name may have been positive, you cant overlook the negative side of the word in association with a native american logo.

    Keep the logo and uniforms.

    Washington Natives sounds more classy and honorable name.

    From a non-liberal.

  143. gregmorris78 says: Aug 27, 2013 1:48 PM

    Consider the source on this one

    We all know how her wisdom rubbed off on the raider franchise

  144. kbdubya7788 says: Aug 27, 2013 4:21 PM

    Here we go with the political views!!! This is Football politics do not belong on this platform if you want to post your opinion about liberalism and conservatism. Head on over to cnn or nbc. The redskins are the redskins period. you don’t like it don’t watch. and as far as being rascist I am a 6’5″ african american who has endured his fair share of bigotism. This is not the case. Trask is simply using this to propel an agenda so she can seem relevant in a world where nobody cares.

  145. skins1970 says: Aug 28, 2013 12:28 AM

    Why should we care about the former CEO of the Raiders says? They have been dysfunction city for 10 years.

  146. willtalk65 says: Sep 2, 2013 5:23 PM

    screechdaddy: posted

    A Psychology professor once told our class-

    ” Human beings are capable of justifying anything”

    How right he was. Just look at the lengths to which many of you go to justify the continued use of a Nick Name derogatory to an entire race of people just so you can continue to feel good about yourselves.———————————– but your all to ignorant and stubborn to admit that.

    This isn’t so much about how many Native Americans are or are not offended– It’s about rising to the challenge of being better people, the kind who take others feelings into consideration rather than their own selfish desires. Grow up- Evolve You’ll feel better for
    it.
    ______________________________
    ________________________________

    You claim that if we follow your lead then we will feel better for it. You also state it isn’t really about the issue of ” Native Americans being offended. That isn’t as important as the crusade to elevate us up to your level of conscientiousness and humanity ( make us better people).

    If as you stated the offense to Native Americans should take a back seat to the enlightenment and evolution of the masses, and your own sense of enlightenment makes you feel better about yourself, just imagine the feel good rush you would get by enlightening and evolving our society as a whole.

    But then it is logically your duty and required of you ( those of superior intellect and higher evolvement) to provide leadership to inferior beings like us. To become our Patrons is your higher calling. that is your rational and what is used as justification for your egocentric drivin motivations to control others. Those are the purely selfish personal motivations of the PC crowd. It’s all about feeding your own personal feel good addiction.

    So you see your objective is not actually motivated by a real concern for the feelings of others (Native Americans) but rather your own feel good agenda ( social engineering) while still attempting to remain hidden beneath a vale of altruism.

Leave a Reply

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