Skip to content

Redskins lawyer admits Dan Snyder shouldn’t have said “never”

Snyder AP

The Redskins never will be able to change their name as long as the only official word from their owner is that he’ll never do it.

On Wednesday, the team began the process of getting Snyder out of the corner into which he has painted himself.

The message was sent not by Snyder but by outside counsel Lanny Davis, who admitted that Snyder’s comments were too strong — and that Snyder won’t be using those words again.  Davis also concedes, in a roundabout way, that his client can be a bit of a jerk.

“There are parts of Dan Snyder that I find extremely likeable, I think he’s a good guy — wish he would let people know that — but saying all caps isn’t the side of Dan Snyder that I want him to project,” Davis told Holden Kushner and Danny Rouhier of 106.7 the Fan.  (Note that Davis didn’t say the comment falsely portrays Snyder.  Instead, Davis said it shows an aspect of Snyder’s personality that Davis would prefer remain hidden from public view.)

“I let my opinions be known,” Davis added.  “Dan brought me in, and I don’t always tell him what he wants to hear sometimes, and I think that’s why he wants me around, because I get him irritated by telling him what he doesn’t want to hear, but I’m a friend and I’m allowed to do that.”

That’s precisely what Snyder needs — someone in the inner circle who will point out that the emperor is butt-naked on a horse, and whom the emperor won’t behead (or at least fire) for saying so.

“[T]he answer is no, I don’t think saying ‘all caps, never’ is the right tone,” Davis said. “I think saying ‘We care about people’s feelings, we’re respectful when anyone is offended, but we have this 80-year name that we love.  We sing ‘Hail to the Redskins’ every Sunday at the stadium, and we say we’re part of ‘Redskins Nation.’  That’s our vocabulary.  Those are terms of honor.’  And that’s what he should have said, but he, I don’t think is going to say ‘all caps, never’ again.”

If that’s what Snyder should have said, why doesn’t he say it now?  Though it’s admirable that Snyder has found a way to pivot from a comment that serves only to harden positions and recruit opponents, he should be saying it, not Davis.

Even if/when Snyder says it, the fundamental problem won’t change.  Some want the Redskins to change their name, and the Redskins aren’t inclined to do it.

Whether the words used are “all caps, never” or “we don’t intend to offend you in any way with what we believe to be a term of honor and respect,” the end result is the same.  The Redskins don’t plan to change their name.

What they plan to do, with the assistance of Lanny Davis and Frank Luntz and presumably others skilled and schooled in politics and P.R., is continue looking for a way to get people who want the name to be changed to quit pushing the issue.

Permalink 82 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Top Stories, Washington Redskins
82 Responses to “Redskins lawyer admits Dan Snyder shouldn’t have said “never””
  1. johnnyjagfan says: Oct 9, 2013 1:09 PM

    We always tell kids to be careful going online and posting before letting things cool down. About how it’s there forever and to watch what you say.

    Applies to grown-ups, too.

  2. ejmstr says: Oct 9, 2013 1:13 PM

    I don’t get it. It portrays the Redskins as proud warriors. This isn’t exactly Bucco Bruce.

  3. stealthscorpio says: Oct 9, 2013 1:15 PM

    What exactly does singing “Hail to the Redskins” every Sunday have to do with anything???

    So if the KKK sang “Hail to the N words” every weekend it would make it OK?

    Does the phrase “Bear Down” glorify grizzly bears???

    Bizarre and beyond meaningless justification.

  4. dpj1022 says: Oct 9, 2013 1:16 PM

    Of course the name isn’t changing. They will just yes the pc media to death saying how they are considering their views.

  5. jiveturkeygobbler says: Oct 9, 2013 1:17 PM

    His lawyer may be right, I prefer Snyder’s non-sugar coated, politically incorrect approach though.

  6. donnymacjack says: Oct 9, 2013 1:17 PM

    What about the Cowboys? Weren’t the original Cowboys a bunch of outlaws? According to Tombstone they were. So why doesn’t the name “Cowboys” offend anyone who’s ansestors are from that era? And Raiders, why doesn’t the name Raiders offend people? Especially those who’ve been subject to piracy in one for or another? Oh wait, I almost forgot…What about the Chiefs? Isn’t that pretty much the same this as Redskins? Or is it the fact the name represents a skin color rather than a group, like Indians, Cowboys, Bucaneers, Patriots, etc., etc.

  7. primenumber19 says: Oct 9, 2013 1:18 PM

    Ha, you think?

  8. sprest83 says: Oct 9, 2013 1:18 PM

    Why? If he will never change it(nor should he, then why use any other word than “never”?

  9. granadafan says: Oct 9, 2013 1:19 PM

    Snyder: We will NEVER change the turf!

    Oops

  10. pixelito says: Oct 9, 2013 1:20 PM

    Just change the stupid name already.

  11. tennesseeoilers says: Oct 9, 2013 1:22 PM

    The tipping point in this debate occurred several weeks ago when Redskins legends Darrell Green and Art Monk both said listening to the concerns over the team’s name was valid.

    That’s when I knew: the Redskins will eventually change their name.

  12. surfinbird1 says: Oct 9, 2013 1:23 PM

    He never said that.

  13. rdrs68 says: Oct 9, 2013 1:25 PM

    One thing he should have “never” done is hire the self appointed genius of a coach.

  14. geniusry says: Oct 9, 2013 1:26 PM

    “Some want the Redskins to change their name”

    I think some should be few.

    Please post a poll for PFT and let’s see how the fans feel.

  15. myspaceyourface says: Oct 9, 2013 1:29 PM

    - Steel workers are offended in Pittsburgh

    – Turds are offended in Cleveland

    – Vikings are offended in Norway

    – Large people are offended in NY

    – Americans are offended at the Patriots

    – Animal rights activists are mad at 80% of the rest

    WHERE WILL THE INSANITY END

  16. steelerchicken says: Oct 9, 2013 1:35 PM

    Change happens! Its offensive

  17. mogogo1 says: Oct 9, 2013 1:35 PM

    Sounds like Snyder needs to hire a new lawyer. I certainly wouldn’t want my lawyer publicly disagreeing with anything I said.

    And Snyder saying “never” isn’t legally binding or anything. You can “never” today and change your mind about it tomorrow. This is just the lawyer wanting to get his name in the press.

  18. helix828 says: Oct 9, 2013 1:36 PM

    What’s more interesting, as probably the only actual Native on this site, and I don’t mean ‘My grandma was 1/16th Cherokee” Native, I mean “Born on a rez Native”, any time I post regarding this issue, because I’ve supported the Skins on this many times, and because I’m NOT offended by the name, and DON’T support a name change, my posts on this topic only are now ALWAYS deleted. I can post about anything else. What’s up with that?

  19. southpaw2k says: Oct 9, 2013 1:40 PM

    I wonder if atheists in Louisiana are offended at the thought of being associated with a religiously-themed name for their team, too.

    If Goodell truly will stand by his philosophy of “if one person is offended, we have to do something about it,” then he better listen to any atheists around New Orleans.

  20. germanstingray says: Oct 9, 2013 1:41 PM

    Snyder is not “in a corner.” It’s his team, and he doesn’t have to change the name.

  21. yamchargers says: Oct 9, 2013 1:41 PM

    I was born in BC Canada were there are alot of true Natives and many of them cheer for the Redskins. Its amusing to them and just not that offensive. I have heard many derogatory terms in my life and I am sure I have never heard Redskin one time. This is a made up issue for politicians and celebs that just dont have any real work to do.

  22. pooflingingmonkey says: Oct 9, 2013 1:43 PM

    I think there’s very little doubt that they’ll be forced by public opinion to rename the team.

    The Washington Dumpster Fire has a nice ring to it.

  23. andypro18 says: Oct 9, 2013 1:44 PM

    They want the name changed because they say it’s offensive. It’s only offensive if it’s somehow racist. Therefore, those who are calling for the name change are calling Daniel Snyder racist.

    Now, I AM OFFENDED that those who are calling for the name change are calling others racist.

    So, by using the logic of those who are calling for the name change, since their calling for the name change offends some, they should have to stop calling for the name change.

  24. brocattosbasement says: Oct 9, 2013 1:51 PM

    Please PFT, post a poll with one of your many articles about the Redskins name and let’s find out how the fans feel! Don’t be scared.

  25. miamatt says: Oct 9, 2013 1:53 PM

    As soon as somebody compares the name “Redskin” to “Chief”, “Raider”, or “Cowboy”, I have to shake my head.

    One of those words is an obvious racial epithet…. the others are not. Nobody has ever tried to degrade a white man by calling him a cowboy or a buccaneer or anything of that sort. And “Chief” is more akin to a name like “Kings” or “Generals” than it is “Redskins”.

    Just because we are all used to the name Redskins doesn’t make it right; and if I were a Redskins fan I’d have a real hard time dealing with a name change. But the way thumbs down fly on this site for anybody suggesting the name is offensive is truly appalling.

  26. thefootballgodssay says: Oct 9, 2013 1:54 PM

    hey DANNY FAT BOY SNYDER CHANGE THE NAME

  27. TheDPR says: Oct 9, 2013 1:56 PM

    Snyder reminds me of Garth in Wayne’s World when he was asked how he felt about changing aspects of the show.

    “I’m thinking you should consider marketing your football team with a new 21st century brand. How would you feel about making a change?”

    “We fear change.”

  28. captainphintastic says: Oct 9, 2013 1:57 PM

    NEVER means exactly that. NEVER!

    Stick to your guns Mr Snyder.

  29. drsous74 says: Oct 9, 2013 1:58 PM

    this is getting beyond ludicrous. there is always going to be something that someone doesn’t like or gets offended by. are we supposed to be forced to change something because “some” people, but not the majority, don’t like it ??

    I’ve said it a million times, if you don’t like the REDSKINS, don’t watch them. don’t buy their tickets to games. don’t buy their merchandise.

    i’m guessing more than half of the people that are supposedly offended by their name don’t even watch football to begin with. they just simply found a cause to fight for to pass the time in their boring and miserable lives. if/when this gets settled, they’ll just move on to something else to complain about because people like this will “NEVER” be happy !!!!!

  30. Slim Charles says: Oct 9, 2013 1:58 PM

    If you wanted a convincing reason for Snyder being in the wrong, look at the hiring of Lanny Davis. Seriously, check his client list. Everyone from warlords who literally eat people to the Clintons to Penn State trying to cover their asses after the Sandusky scandal.

  31. harrisonhits2 says: Oct 9, 2013 2:01 PM

    donnymacjack says:

    What about the Cowboys? Weren’t the original Cowboys a bunch of outlaws? According to Tombstone they were. So why doesn’t the name “Cowboys” offend anyone who’s ansestors are from that era? And Raiders, why doesn’t the name Raiders offend people?
    _________________

    You and the other people who disingenuously using terms to compare to redskins that were never used in the same offensive ways that redskin was used are making a failed argument.

    Cowboys was never used in the derogatory fashion that redskins was. Raiders was of course used in fearful and derogatory fashion, but was not attached to any specific ethnic or national group.

    The other guy above who said steel workers are offended by the Steelers’ name is an even worse comparison. No one has ever used the term steel workers in a derogatory fashion except possibly corporate executives during negotiations with a union.

    None of the terms you’re complaining about stands the test of having been used as a racial slur for one specific ethnic group.

    And the fact is that even though at least some of the origins of the term redskin came from the Native Americans themselves, there is no question that as time went on it was used as a racial epithat with all the same negative connotations that the n word has.

    And as far as traditions like singing HTTR every game at their stadium, people have many times defended many offensive practices by claiming the shield of tradition. Traditionally women were not allowed to vote for example. Traditionally interracial marriage was not allowed in the USA for a long long time. The list goes on and on.

    The one and only defense that can apply here is the right to free speech. If they really want to keep calling the team Redskins it is their right to under the constitution. And if a customer of that business does not like the name, they can vote by taking their patronage elsewhere just like I do when I don’t like the way a company performs or acts.

    Personally I think they should reward the politicians involved by changing the name to the “Washington Corruption”.

  32. tformation says: Oct 9, 2013 2:03 PM

    Nope. Don’t give an inch, Dan. Say “never” and mean “never.”

    Never give in to the race hustlers. The debt they imagine you owe will never, ever be repaid.

  33. justintuckrule says: Oct 9, 2013 2:04 PM

    It’s pretty sad how some people never learned the art of argument and persuasion. Exhibit A are these posters who continue to make the same illogical, uninspired and disingenuous position that “I’m an offended cowboy, Dallas should change their name too”. They are too dumb to recognize that they are WEAKENING their position not strengthening it.

    Just because I love debate and could care less what the Washington football team calls itself, let me help you. So far, the best argument I’ve heard is changing the name of the State of Oklahoma because that name means Redskins. Stay on that topic. That’s actually persuasive and boxes in the liberal argument that if the term “redskin” is a slur, you have no choice but to say that the name Oklahoma is a slur. QUIT it with change the name of the Patriots because I’m an American who doesn’t like that team. You sound dumb as rocks.

    Also…listen to Lanny Davis. He acknowledges that the term is troubling but there are ways around it including that the term actually brings public attention to a significant American issue (i.e. that rez life is difficult). If Snyder helps more natives than the term hurts (which should be easy if he makes a few rinky dink indian scholarships), that undercuts the reason to change the name.

    Think people….think!!!

  34. khenien says: Oct 9, 2013 2:05 PM

    People are so damn stupid. Are you a Native American? If yes, I care about your opinion on this subject. If not, I could not POSSIBLY care less and think less of you for talking about a subject you have no clue about. If a collective group of people decides it offends them then who are you as a non-native American to tell them that they should feel honored. Terrible stupidity everywhere I look.

  35. boyshole25 says: Oct 9, 2013 2:05 PM

    I am offended by the term Indian

  36. justintuckrule says: Oct 9, 2013 2:06 PM

    I love how the “get over it” crowd are the same ones willing to stifle death benefits to the military in the name of repealing a law that has been approved in both legislatures, upheld by the S.C. and withstood attack on at least 40+ occasions. Speaking of “get over it”.

  37. wearethesteelers says: Oct 9, 2013 2:08 PM

    Pittsburgh is the city.

  38. hanifmiller says: Oct 9, 2013 2:08 PM

    I wonder how many Native Americans are offended by the “Redskins” name? I’m an African American and I’ve never been offended by the term black –even though i’m lighter skinned. Most caucasian americans are not offended by the term white even though they are not the color white. This seems like just another instance of a minority of people trying to push an agenda. But the reality is–some racial stereotypes are not derogatory. You’ll never hear me complain about the stereotype of being well-endowed.

  39. waitingguilty says: Oct 9, 2013 2:10 PM

    First of all, that’s a great picture…sums up Snyder better than 1,000 words.

    Second, all I heard Lanny say was that he should not have used caps…not that he should not say never…correct me if I’m wrong though.

  40. ma5terbla5t3r says: Oct 9, 2013 2:12 PM

    I cannot bileeve this is an issue with Snyder being called a rascist as Klaus Maria was a white man and not an alleged “Redskin.” His atterney is misstating the facts as Goodell is obviously pulling the strings on this one. Redskins…not a rasceist name. Bank on it!

  41. geniusry says: Oct 9, 2013 2:13 PM

    justintuckrule says: Oct 9, 2013 2:04 PM

    It’s pretty sad how some people never learned the art of argument and persuasion. Exhibit A are these posters who continue to make the same illogical, uninspired and disingenuous position that “I’m an offended cowboy, Dallas should change their name too”. They are too dumb to recognize that they are WEAKENING their position not strengthening it.

    Just because I love debate and could care less what the Washington football team calls itself, let me help you.
    —————————————————————

    Since you were so kind to help us, let me help you: I think you meant to say “couldn’t care less.” By saying you “could care less” you are stating that you care and could care very much.

    Other than that, well done.

  42. missraiderette says: Oct 9, 2013 2:17 PM

    I get so upset when other teams use to phrase “Nation” when it refers to their fan base. There is ONLY ONE NATION and it is “RAIDER NATION” all the rest are copy cats!

  43. baddegg says: Oct 9, 2013 2:17 PM

    justintuckrule says:
    Oct 9, 2013 2:06 PM
    I love how the “get over it” crowd are the same ones willing to stifle death benefits to the military in the name of repealing a law that has been approved in both legislatures, upheld by the S.C. and withstood attack on at least 40+ occasions. Speaking of “get over it”.
    —————-
    0-5

  44. seattlelibtard says: Oct 9, 2013 2:19 PM

    I love the comment about turds are being offended by the use of the Browns name. Classic.

  45. dexterismyhero says: Oct 9, 2013 2:20 PM

    All team nicknames can go then. (sarcasm).

    then let the teams sell advertising on the uniforms and helmets.

    It would be pretty cool to see Peyton with a Papa Johns helmet!!!!

  46. kevpft says: Oct 9, 2013 2:24 PM

    I think we have to get past this “terms of honor” defense of a football team’s name. It’s a GAME. It’s manufactured entertainment. It’s not something sacred, noble, or anything to be revered. It’s just the name of a corporate product.

    As someone who’s followed the NFL for most of my life, I know that it can FEEL like something more profound to fans. But it is NOT. The football dramas, ups and downs and team allegiance we wrap ourselves in are just imaginary, just projecting ourselves into things that don’t really matter.

    This should be an easy call. We know better now. Doesn’t matter what we did for the last 80 years, this is now. Enjoy the hell out of the game all you like, but when it comes into conflict with something in the real world, football should lose every time.

    Redskins ownership should be smarter than this. The longer this drags out, the more people will ask themselves why things are this way, and why they should be supporting it. Which are very good questions. Just pick a new name that starts with “R”, keep the same colors, and move on.

  47. allday420ap says: Oct 9, 2013 2:25 PM

    NEVER say never

  48. jaykray says: Oct 9, 2013 2:27 PM

    Cowboys are a profession found in the west that were mostly made up of Caucasians, but also included minorities. The team comes from Texas and was and is owned by a white guy.

    Vikings is the proper name of a Scandinavian pirate, trader, and plunderer. All were Caucasian. The team takes the name because the area of Minnesota is settled by Scandinavian descendants and was/is owned by a white guy.

    The Redskins is not an occupation or even the proper name of a Native American people or nation. Its a racial slur. The team was and is owned by a white man (As we all know, the original owner was a racist.)

    Ok, so some Native Americans are not offended by it and even call their own teams by this name. Well, it’s just like the “N” word. Black people can not be offended to it when they call themselves that, or just use the word, but any white person who walks up to that and says it is gonna get smacked down and rightfully so.

    Come on, I know (hope) most of you are not stupid, so enough of this “Well this team name is…”

  49. khenien says: Oct 9, 2013 2:28 PM

    Your first sentence is the only question that should matter and be answered. Not these other morons who aren’t even native Americans chiming in that Native Americans shouldn’t be offended.

    hanifmiller says: Oct 9, 2013 2:08 PM

    I wonder how many Native Americans are offended by the “Redskins” name? I’m an African American and I’ve never been offended by the term black –even though i’m lighter skinned. Most caucasian americans are not offended by the term white even though they are not the color white. This seems like just another instance of a minority of people trying to push an agenda. But the reality is–some racial stereotypes are not derogatory. You’ll never hear me complain about the stereotype of being well-endowed.

  50. wcman says: Oct 9, 2013 2:29 PM

    Here’s the problem as I see it: The people who want the Redskins name changed are basing that opinion on what they perceive the name to mean and represent.

    Dan Snyder is saying that is not what the name means or represents. My question is: how can you expect the team to change the name because others are reading their own interpretations into what it actually means? There have been numerous stories about how the Redskins name honors the Native American Warriors and how they prepared for battle. Whether you believe that is what it means or not, the team has stated that is what it means to them, so I don’t see how people against the name can expect the team to change it when there is so much history behind it.

    As is often the case in todays politically correct times, small groups get extremely vocal and soon the story takes on a life of it’s own making it seem like there is a huge push for change, when in reality the percentage of people that actually want the change made is minimal. That is the case here and I hope Snyder stands his ground because this is as much about the rights of people as it is about a team keeping its name and tradition. Too many people in this world including the owner of this once very good site, want to dictate what others should believe and do in trivial instances like this, and it’s time somebody stood up and fought back.

    You don’t have to like the name and there are ways to show it like refusing to give them support financially, but to ignore their side in favor of taking offense and wanting a name change is nothing more than being a bully quite frankly and the bully needs to be stood up to.

  51. ma5terbla5t3r says: Oct 9, 2013 2:29 PM

    allday42oap –

    You have no game whasoever and couldn’t servive a punt, pass, kick competition.

  52. allday420ap says: Oct 9, 2013 2:33 PM

    the washington racists is more fitting

  53. piratefreedom says: Oct 9, 2013 2:36 PM

    re: “what about cowboys”

    I would call a Cowboy a Cowboy right to his face.
    I wouldn’t call a Native American a “R******”.

  54. rickc402 says: Oct 9, 2013 2:37 PM

    @justintuckrule, I think the best argument is that the term “Redskins” is not really a racial slur and is more likely to be used when discussing sports rather than people or social issues. The term was not used as a slur when it was coined in the late 1700,s by the late 1800,s it had changed and was used as a racial slur. Today if your in an airport and you hear some talking about “Redskins” do you think they are talking about people or sports? I think sports, this is like woman getting offended by being call Dames, or Broads. “Redskin” as a slur isn’t used by anyone born after 1940.

  55. proindiantalkcom says: Oct 9, 2013 2:38 PM

    Finally, it’s about time we got back to my preferred website topics.

  56. richkotitte says: Oct 9, 2013 2:39 PM

    I applaud Lanny “Dances with Dingos” Davis for taking a stand!

  57. gjdodger2 says: Oct 9, 2013 2:40 PM

    I $u$pect Lanny Davi$ $ee$ a way to get tho$e who are oppo$ed to the Red$kin$ name to adju$t their po$ition$.

  58. atleastimnotaraidersfan says: Oct 9, 2013 2:45 PM

    wcman says: Oct 9, 2013 2:29 PM

    Here’s the problem as I see it: The people who want the Redskins name changed are basing that opinion on what they perceive the name to mean and represent.

    Dan Snyder is saying that is not what the name means or represents. My question is: how can you expect the team to change the name because others are reading their own interpretations into what it actually means? There have been numerous stories about how the Redskins name honors the Native American Warriors and how they prepared for battle. Whether you believe that is what it means or not, the team has stated that is what it means to them, so I don’t see how people against the name can expect the team to change it when there is so much history behind it.

    As is often the case in todays politically correct times, small groups get extremely vocal and soon the story takes on a life of it’s own making it seem like there is a huge push for change, when in reality the percentage of people that actually want the change made is minimal. That is the case here and I hope Snyder stands his ground because this is as much about the rights of people as it is about a team keeping its name and tradition. Too many people in this world including the owner of this once very good site, want to dictate what others should believe and do in trivial instances like this, and it’s time somebody stood up and fought back.

    You don’t have to like the name and there are ways to show it like refusing to give them support financially, but to ignore their side in favor of taking offense and wanting a name change is nothing more than being a bully quite frankly and the bully needs to be stood up to.
    ———————————————
    I can’t believe this post actually made it through the “filter” (which seems to take offense easily). I wish I could thumbs up this 100 times.

  59. ace8842 says: Oct 9, 2013 2:46 PM

    Not sure why PFT deleted my original comments. How come for all these years no one said anything about it, and now all of the sudden in 2013 it is an issue? Some of you watch MSNBC too much where the world revolves around race. What about all the Redskins fans who bought all sorts of items over the years and decorated their houses in Redskins garb? Who is going to reimburse them? The political correctness here is just absurd – there are so many more important things to worry about than a sports nickname.

  60. proindiantalkcom says: Oct 9, 2013 2:48 PM

    KC was named Chiefs because the mayor in KC at the time was referred to as “big chief”. KC fans pay homage to big chief every week by eating too much BBQ and drinking too much beer. Now evolution took place with the tomahawk chop, war paint, and the recent scalping of the NFC east. But we’ve gone back to our roots by hiring Big Red so we’re back on the PC track. So if you are named after some big white guy, everything’s cool. Washington just needs a similar story and everything will be okay.

  61. wrossi81 says: Oct 9, 2013 2:50 PM

    Snyder’s lawyer is smart to walk it back. There is the threat in the background that litigation (or new legislation) could cause the loss of a trademark on the team’s name, in which case Snyder wouldn’t be able to block the production of counterfeit gear. A name change would be forced. That’s not very likely, but it’s possible.

    There’s a stronger possibility that in the future, to save face, the league would tell Snyder to change it. This would be the NFL trying to steer away from some bad PR, rather than any principled stand either way. Snyder could look very bad if he dug in at that point, so he needs to have room to back out of the position.

  62. pftbillsfan says: Oct 9, 2013 2:50 PM

    I’m Norwegian and the Vikings is unbelievably offensive to me. As it is a term generalizing an entire race as barbaric, terrible, uncivilized people. Please take up that mantle.

  63. justintuckrule says: Oct 9, 2013 2:53 PM

    @rickc – I agree with you. If what you say is true (i.e. that the term was not coined as a slur but developed as a slur over time) that is another strong argument.

  64. jspb22 says: Oct 9, 2013 2:53 PM

    Khenian wrote:
    “People are so damn stupid. Are you a Native American? If yes, I care about your opinion on this subject. If not, I could not POSSIBLY care less and think less of you for talking about a subject you have no clue about. If a collective group of people decides it offends them then who are you as a non-native American to tell them that they should feel honored. Terrible stupidity everywhere I look.”
    ————————————————
    So from that perspective, if the vast majority of American Indians (they also find the term Native American offensive) decide that the name is not offensive, who are you to say they should be offended?

  65. weepingjebus says: Oct 9, 2013 2:59 PM

    “How come for all these years no one said anything about it, and now all of the sudden in 2013 it is an issue?”

    When our elected or self-appointed social engineers have crashed and burned on the economy, poverty, foreign policy, healthcare, domestic spying, and every other signature issue, all that’s left is distraction and hot button issues. Why do you think President Obama “casually” stepped into this debate? It wasn’t because our economy is roaring along and all the Middle East loves us.

  66. doctorrustbelt says: Oct 9, 2013 3:03 PM

    daniel snyder is an idiot.

  67. wiley16350 says: Oct 9, 2013 3:06 PM

    So if the KKK sang “Hail to the N words” every weekend it would make it OK?
    __________________________________
    The problem with your argument is that it has no basis in reality and isn’t actually the same thing. the Redskins chant “Hail to the Redskins” out of respect and for personal celebration. They don’t say it to mock and demean. The KKK on the other hand have no respect for people of different color. They would never chant “Hail to the N words” in the first place. If they did, it would be to mock and not to respect or celebrate. The Redskins also make the chant more in reference to themselves as a team, taking pride in the Redskins name. Does it seem realistic that the KKK would chant “Hail to the N words” in reference to themselves? Absolutely not, because they find no reverence in the word and nothing worthy of respect in the word. This is the reason why the 2 words are on completely different levels. The N word is used to demean and purposely lower the humanity of another. The use of the R word is not used in that way.

  68. minnesoulja says: Oct 9, 2013 3:11 PM

    WASHINGTON DIRTY POLITICIANS
    WASHINGTON TAX-MONGERS
    WASHINGTON HEALTH CARE ENFORCERS

    AMERICA IS CIRCLING THE DRAIN.

  69. itsunclepauley says: Oct 9, 2013 3:16 PM

    stealthscorpio says: Oct 9, 2013 1:15 PM

    What exactly does singing “Hail to the Redskins” every Sunday have to do with anything???

    So if the KKK sang “Hail to the N words” every weekend it would make it OK?

    Does the phrase “Bear Down” glorify grizzly bears???

    Bizarre and beyond meaningless justification.
    ————————————————————————————-

    Comment of the day! I can’t believe nobody gave you props for that one.

    Probably because they were forced to ignore how PERFECTLY it applies to this situation: a racial slur can’t be used as a ‘term of honor.

    Everyone else is too busy shouting their nonsense about how dolphins everywhere are offended by Miami’s team, and other assorted non sequiturs.

  70. cuda1234 says: Oct 9, 2013 3:17 PM

    Wow, the relentlessness of the PC crowd is amazing. How many hateful stories about the Redskins have been published here in the last 24 hours?

  71. Jizmaglobin says: Oct 9, 2013 3:21 PM

    I am 50% Cherokee and if you’re going to bring an argument about what offends then the name Indian, native american, american indian, etc. are just as offensive as Redskin. My family is only offended by the idea that this whole argument makes us sound weak and petty and distracts attention away from things that really are important. Since this country is based on a capitalist economy, why does there need to be laws regulating something like this instead of just letting capitalism play itself out? If it is truly a poor business decision then it will cost the business in the pocket book. If people are offended, don’t support the team. Since when is it a crime to offend someone in this country? If a company publicly states it doesn’t like , and will not cater to, “retards, cripples, and foreigners” they should have every right to do so and the market should dictate if that is a smart or stupid approach to doing business. A business owner shouldn’t be forced to cater to anything or anyone it doesn’t desire to. Let the market, not the law, dictate such things.

  72. andypro18 says: Oct 9, 2013 3:27 PM

    khenien says:

    People are so damn stupid. Are you a Native American? If yes, I care about your opinion on this subject. If not, I could not POSSIBLY care less and think less of you for talking about a subject you have no clue about. If a collective group of people decides it offends them then who are you as a non-native American to tell them that they should feel honored. Terrible stupidity everywhere I look.

    ———————————————————–

    Hey, khenien, are you an owner of an NFL team? If not, BY YOUR LOGIC, you shouldn’t be commenting on this topic.

    Terrible stupidity indeed.

  73. paulsimpsonv5 says: Oct 9, 2013 3:30 PM

    To think i came on this site to get football news. Come on everyone stop getting offended by words.

    True racism excludes people based on race, is hatefull because of race or ridicules based on race. Nowhere do i find that in a team being called the redskins.

  74. wiley16350 says: Oct 9, 2013 3:39 PM

    Here are the reasons why the term Redskins being used by a football team are not as bad or as offensive as people try to paint it as.

    1. The team is referring to THEMSELVES as Redskins. They are not referring to anyone else or pointing to another and calling them names.

    2. There is no intent to mock, disparage or portray others in a poor light.

    3. To use a name as a reference to oneself would seem to show that a person finds reverence and appreciation for the name.

    4. There is nothing wrong with being a redskin. There is no actual negativity in the word itself. At it’s most basic definition it means something with red skin. All other definitions come with historic significance. It’s most common reference is to a football team. It currently holds no actual negative connotation in society today. This is because of the football team.

    I think Mike should do an article of legitimate reasons why the term is offensive. He seems so set on that his side has such great arguments, well lets hear them. Not superficial things like its offensive because it points out a racial characteristic. Pointing out a racial physical trait is not offensive because their is absolutely nothing wrong with being a different color than someone else. I want to see legitimate reasons for being offended, things like how society uses it to demean others (not 200 years ago) in today’s society or in the lives of the so called offended. How have the people that are offended been actually negatively offended by the use of the word? All the arguments Mike’s side uses relies on historical references and superficial ideas of what Redskin means.

  75. goodellisruiningtheleague says: Oct 9, 2013 3:57 PM

    Oklahoma is the 20th most extensive and the 28th most populous of the 50 United States. The state’s name is derived from the Choctaw words okla and humma, meaning “red people”

  76. wiley16350 says: Oct 9, 2013 3:57 PM

    Another thought that I just had, what if the actual reason some are offended is because they don’t like having people that live in ways that they find abhorrent representing who they are. That seems to me a more legitimate reason for taking offense than what the term meant 200 years ago at a specific time that those living today have never actually experienced. How would that affect what you think of the Redskins changing their name?

  77. getyourownname says: Oct 9, 2013 4:06 PM

    When you have had to resort to hiring Lanny Davis, you have lost. It’s only a question of time.

    Just watch.

  78. hor2012 says: Oct 9, 2013 4:10 PM

    rather you’re on the side of a name change or not it looks like the NFL is going to cave on this one. Redskins fans you’d better start thinking about a new name.

  79. justintuckrule says: Oct 9, 2013 4:14 PM

    @jizgoblin – nobody is arguing that Snyder is required to change the name. Both sides agree that he has a free speech right to keep it.

  80. savior72 says: Oct 9, 2013 4:46 PM

    Ok here are the new names for all football teams: the Patriots are now called team 1, the Steelers are team 2, the Rams are team 3 …. Hope no one is offended by numbers.

  81. grumpyoleman says: Oct 9, 2013 4:53 PM

    I like that he said never and hope he stands by it.

  82. oneilistheone says: Oct 9, 2013 4:56 PM

    Gross ignorance and or apathy!It doesn’t matter if Black People call each other the N word,the word is considered to be offensive.No one cares the context which it is used,it would never be a nickname for a franchise.Not even allowed on public airways,nor should it be.

    If you are calling a (Race) of people “out of their name” then you should be pressured into a name change!It doesn’t matter that just because some Natives are not offended by it; because there are obviously some who are offended! no matter how few in comparison to the intirety!

    Black is considered to be a Race. Some may want to be called something else but it is not considered to be offensive!White is considered to be a Race some may want to be called something else but it is not considered to be offensive.

    We dont say the Blackskins! we dont say the Whiteskins. Do you call Asians The Yellowskins? and Latinos The Brownskins?So imagine if a franchise decided to call themselves that today?It would not fly! No one is that ignorant to even think to do that!This is how I view the Name Redskins!Out of their name and Out Dated!

    The only defense I can see is if Redskins are not reffering to Native American people or any Race of people? but I think the mascot furthers the offense.

    p.s. Spare me the red paint origin stories.See St.Johns Redman!Out of their name,out of time…

Leave a Reply

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