Skip to content

Costas elaborates on his position regarding Redskins name

Costas Getty Images

The polarizing debate regarding the Redskins name has caused many on either side of the issue to dig in, to ignore any reasonable explanations of the contrary view, and to throw rocks at those who try to reasonably explain the contrary view.

Bob Costas of NBC continues to have rocks thrown at him by those who disagree with his belief that the Redskins name reasonably can be viewed as offensive.  On Thursday, Costas appeared with Andy Pollin and Jon Saraceno on SportsTalk 570′s The Sports Reporters, and Costas explained the reaction to his October 13 essay.

Dan Steinberg of the Washington Post has transcribed some of the quotes; we encourage reading the whole thing and/or listening to the interview.

For now, here are some of the key points.

First, Costas addressed the timing of the issue, since one of the primary arguments raised by supporters of the name is “why now?”

“Well, the Oneida Nation has registered some protests,” Costas said.  “They’ve asked to meet with league officials. Somebody asked President Obama about it.  He didn’t mention it gratuitously — he answered the question, he didn’t bring the subject up himself. When the President addresses it, then it brings additional attention to it.  There have been some columns written of late.  So as I said, the issue bubbled to the surface.”

Second, Costas addressed the commonly raised question regarding the failure of those raising questions about the term now to be offended about it in the past.

“I’ve actually tried — without saying anything to anybody — over the last several years, I’ve tried to avoid saying Redskins, because I just felt uncomfortable with it.  I know that I’ve slipped a few times,” Costas.  “But by and large, I’ve tried to avoid it.”

He’s telling the truth (and we’re compelled to point that out because some supporters of the name would simply say he’s not and ignore him).  Earlier this year, we explored the possibility of dropping the name altogether at PFT, and through the process of kicking the matter around internally, we learned that Costas has been avoiding the name without announcement or fanfare over the last several years.

Third, Costas lamented the fact that anyone who questions the name is dubbed a left-leaning political ideologue.

“[A] good portion of people who have commented on this think I’m some sort of doctrinaire liberal left-wing guy, which people who know me would be very surprised to hear,” Costas said.  “So that sort of thing is discouraging.  Not to me personally, but the way the discourse in the country is now, there’s less of a chance to have a nuanced conversation about the issues.”

Fourth, Costas summarized the crux of his concerns.

“I refer you to the dictionary,” Costas said.  “I consulted five.  All five dictionaries I consulted define Redskins as pejorative, derogatory, insulting, offensive.  Those were the four words used.  None of those words — NONE — are part of any definition of Braves or Chiefs or any other team name associated with Native Americans.  Now, sometimes, inappropriate symbols or inappropriate rituals can offend people when a team is known as Braves, Chiefs, Chippewas, whatever.  But by definition, those names alone are not offensive.  There’s no reason to change those names.  You might want to reconsider some of the logos or some of the other things, but the names themselves are not offensive.  The name Redskins, by definition, is.”

Still, anyone who points that out is a left-wing nut job who wants to systematically eradicate all Native American names and logos from American sports — and then move on to other human-based nicknames, followed by animals.  Then plants.  Then minerals.  Then weather patterns.  Then days of the week.  Then months of the year.

That’s one of the go-to tactics for those who prefer to cover their ears and cry “la-la-la-not-listening” when someone like Costas is making cogent, reasonable, persuasive arguments against the ongoing use of the name “Redskins.”  They oppose reasonable efforts to make changes by citing unreasonable fears regarding where change will lead.

Perhaps those who support the name realize that acknowledging the existence of cogent, reasonable, and persuasive arguments against the use of the name necessarily becomes a major step on the path toward admitting that the name should be changed.  Other than mental illness, that can be the only reason for a strategy that consists of stubbornly sticking to a position and shouting down anyone who would even try to explain the other side of it.

Permalink 140 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Rumor Mill, Washington Redskins
140 Responses to “Costas elaborates on his position regarding Redskins name”
  1. deucedropper says: Oct 24, 2013 1:29 PM

    Okay, the Washington Costases it is.

  2. whentheleveonbreaks says: Oct 24, 2013 1:35 PM

    Thanks for shouting us down.

  3. knowerofallthings says: Oct 24, 2013 1:39 PM

    The fact that it specifically refers to someone’s skin color should be enough for reasonable people to understand that it can be offensive. If it was brownskin, yellowskin or any other color it would’ve been changed years ago.

  4. browns627 says: Oct 24, 2013 1:40 PM

    i used to love watching bob, but like entertainment everywhere today everybody has an opinion which has really hurt sports, movies and tv. I am now at the point if my entertainment gets political i switch the channel. as this story got my attention. i will no longer click on any links that isnt a fun topic. my entertainment and sports is my release from everyday struggles not my way of life.

  5. mrfoozball says: Oct 24, 2013 1:41 PM

    Washington Furloughs it will be then. You could still keep the team colors: surround the stadium and parking lots with red tape and post yellow caution signs at every corner.

  6. ostendpalace says: Oct 24, 2013 1:43 PM

    A sports team is about the city it represents, not some arbitrary name that the owner originally okay’d.

    If we changed the name to the “Warriors”, would that mean every Redskins fan would stop following the team? No, it’s your city team, so you follow them.

    Stop being so emotionally attached to a team name. It’s going to change AT SOME POINT, so it’s probably best to get used that fact now.

    Really, Dan Snyder, it’s never changing? Why is that your line in the sand? What’s really at stake?

  7. erianapolis says: Oct 24, 2013 1:45 PM

    Washington Monacans, in reference to the natives present at the time of the first settlement in Jamestown 1607. The name derives from the term for “people of the land.”

  8. jahsc06 says: Oct 24, 2013 1:46 PM

    Why doesn’t Bob Costas 1) Protest the state name of Oklahoma 2) Work on banning of guns that he hates 3) Worry about a minority group of people being offended by the word REDSKINS. Hail.

  9. spkriegs says: Oct 24, 2013 1:47 PM

    They might as well change the name, because this is NEVER going to stop until they do.

  10. cowboylover says: Oct 24, 2013 1:48 PM

    Sheesh! I’m a blonde female and the amount of derogatory jokes and comedy at the expense of blonde women is astronomical! However, I don’t take any of it personally, even though if I was narcissistic and insecure, I probably could. The Redskins were so-named to HONOR the coach at that time and now political activists are just stirring up controversy and people are too thin-skinned and too easily offended. In the famous words of William Shatner, “Get a life, people!”

  11. tcril says: Oct 24, 2013 1:49 PM

    Costas will never recover from this….Hai To The Redskins!

  12. kadeeu says: Oct 24, 2013 1:50 PM

    Give me a reasonable argument how changing the Redskins name will benefit any Native American in any substantive way then I will listen.

  13. thestrategyexpert says: Oct 24, 2013 1:50 PM

    Well he kind of lost me when he needed to cite the dictionary to explain why this is offensive, but that’s just not getting the spirit of why this is an issue. Yes it’s a valid point, but at this stage of the fight and the way Costas is going about it, pulling a dictionary line to justify why we should believe this is offensive just doesn’t cut it. That’s the weak way to argue for somebody who doesn’t understand the true passion and spirit for why this is a problem.

  14. blackqbwhiterb says: Oct 24, 2013 1:51 PM

    “Third, Costas lamented the fact that anyone who questions the name is dubbed a left-leaning political ideologue.”

    Pardon me, but on every issue I’ve ever heard Mr. Costas opine, he holds the left-wing liberal view….Just an observation, but doesn’t that make him, sort, of, you know, left-leaning? When he starts taking a conservative approach on an issue, ANY ISSUE, call me….

  15. ghostofgilchrist says: Oct 24, 2013 1:52 PM

    I understand that often, the loudest responses to “essays” like Bob’s are from short sighted dopes who feel the need to scream their two syllable thoughts to the world.

    But we’re not all idiots.

    Bob’s essay on the Redskins (oops?) would have been better received, had he not set a precedent of liberal commentary on gun violence. After that “essay”, when I see his mug on the screen, I’m wondering which societal issue he’s going to solve for us today.

    Frankly, this particular issue, for me, is just a lot of noise, with not much substance. Go ahead, change it if people are really upset about it, but the next morning, when folks from the Oneida, Seneca, or other NA nations wake up, they’ll have the same job, the same life. But maybe they’ll be less “offended”.

  16. ratsfoiledagain says: Oct 24, 2013 1:52 PM

    “Other than mental illness, that can be the only reason for a strategy that consists of stubbornly sticking to a position and shouting down anyone who would even try to explain the other side of it.”

    Isn’t this the tactics used by both sides of the dominate political parties in power?

    Costas – If you found it offensive 20 years ago you shouldn’t have waited this long. Seems a bit manufactured to me.

  17. 6ball says: Oct 24, 2013 1:52 PM

    .

    Costas isn’t issuing a mandate. He’s offering an opinion. It’s no different than him saying the Seahawks are playing the best football right now. Another reasonable person could easily disagree, but that doesn’t make Costas a bad guy.

    An opinion plus $1.36 will get you a small coffee at Dunkin Donuts.

    .

  18. flaccodelic says: Oct 24, 2013 1:54 PM

    “They’re trying to turn it into flag football!!!
    Wait, what were we talking about?

    Oh right. Evolution. Nah, don’t believe in that either.”

  19. chris6523 says: Oct 24, 2013 1:54 PM

    Still, anyone who points that out is a left-wing nut job who wants to systematically eradicate all Native American names and logos from American sports

    _________________________________

    I’m calling BS on this one. There are a lot of people who are opposed to changing the name that don’t take that leap.

    Personally, I think the whole thing really is laughable. You’ve got people like Costas, Obama, Peter King, etc. who are leading from behind on this issue. Now that there appears to be somewhat of a groundswell supporting banning the name, they come out to voice their displeasure. Apparently, Costas was just fine with saying Redskins from about 1980 until about 2010. Now all of a sudden it’s offensive? Please.

  20. moss841 says: Oct 24, 2013 1:56 PM

    pi·rate

    1. a person who attacks and robs ships at sea.
    2. rob or plunder (a ship).

    Great argument using a dictionary definition. Since that argument is so strong looks like we have to rename the Pittsburgh Pirates as well, can’t have a team associated with robbers or killers right.

  21. marksopinioncorner says: Oct 24, 2013 1:56 PM

    I have no problem with Bob stating his opinion, but the problem I have is when he did it. He did it in the middle of a game with very little time…and to me at the wrong time in the game. Leave the social comments for his show on NBC sports network..or the PFT show on the NBC Sports Network….Nothing wrong with his opinion or stating it…its his right. Just the place he said was wrong. Just like his gun take last year. It wasn’t the right time.

    If you want to argue on the merits what he said…thats cool too but again it was the place he did it is where I have a problem!

  22. stevent92 says: Oct 24, 2013 1:56 PM

    “Still, anyone who points that out is a left-wing nut job who wants to systematically eradicate all Native American names and logos from American sports…”

    Actually “Left-wing nut job” works just fine.

  23. Deb says: Oct 24, 2013 1:56 PM

    Thanks for a well-written commentary on a difficult topic and for addressing some of my questions about “why now?” regarding Costas. “Redskins”–unlike Braves, Chiefs, or Seminoles–is racist by definition. That’s impossible to deny. On the other hand, surveys show most Native Americans are ambivalent, and this push to change the name appears to be a media-driven effort that came out of nowhere.

    My guess is that the name will change eventually, and it won’t be the end of the world. After all, the team did originate as the Boston Braves. This won’t be the first time a team has changed its name–the Dallas Texans became the KC Chiefs, the Houston Oilers became the Tennessee Titans. But I feel for Redskins fans because it will be a difficult transition.

  24. jojopuppyfish says: Oct 24, 2013 1:58 PM

    Why don’t we change each dictionary’s definition to say its not offensive?

  25. blacknole08 says: Oct 24, 2013 1:59 PM

    I see what Costas is saying and I still disagree with him! Name one time in your life where you ever used the term Redskin in a way that would be deemed offensive to someone else. He definitely can’t, so I would advise Costas to take his fake outrage elsewhere.

    The only time this term is ever used is as a name of a sports team. The name has been used by several schools for many years and NOW people think it is racist? Please.

  26. nutsboltsandotherthings says: Oct 24, 2013 1:59 PM

    As mentioned already, when are the protests to change the name of out 46th State going to start?

    Oklahoma is derived from the Choctaw words OKLA meaning “people” and Humma meaning “red”.

    Hmmm, Red People. Isn’t this just as offensive?? Where is Mr. Costas on this issue?

    This is political correctness gone awry.

  27. moderatelyconservative says: Oct 24, 2013 2:00 PM

    This is actually a clever diversion of the real issue which is the show “F Troop” uses the word “Redskins” in it’s opening song. By throwing the attention of this petty argument to the NFL, no one is making “F Troop” change it’s opening song. Brilliant strategy by Hollywood. I admit that the word “Redskin’s” in the opening of the song does not diminish the show for me…..but that’s just me.

  28. jojopuppyfish says: Oct 24, 2013 2:00 PM

    BTW I went to FEDEX Field last week to watch my Bears lose to the Redskins, and what really offended me were the long lines getting in and out of the stadium, the bathroom lines, and the lines to go anywhere in that place.
    Worst stadium in football

  29. psmith7716 says: Oct 24, 2013 2:01 PM

    I am offended by the word Washington with the way things are. I say let’s change the name to the Capitol Redskins!

  30. bluebongzilla says: Oct 24, 2013 2:02 PM

    Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010

    Word Origin & History

    Indian
    More than 500 modern phrases include Indian, most of them U.S. and most impugning honesty or intelligence, e.g. Indian giver, first attested 1765.

  31. kane337 says: Oct 24, 2013 2:05 PM

    I agree with Mike and Bob

  32. turtlehut says: Oct 24, 2013 2:07 PM

    I’m offended more by “Washington” and since they play in Maryland, lets call them the “Maryland Redskin Potatoes” and not offend anyone outside of Idaho!

  33. bluebongzilla says: Oct 24, 2013 2:07 PM

    Hilarious when liberals get mad about being called liberals. Yes let’s worry about a name and not mention a word about the horrible social and health issues that native Americans face.

  34. proudliberal85392 says: Oct 24, 2013 2:08 PM

    Gotta love Bob Costas!

  35. bklion says: Oct 24, 2013 2:10 PM

    I love how anyone who’s intelligent and open minded is a “left wing liberal” Yup. it’s much better to dig one’s heels in on an issue and “stay the course” even when all rational evidence is to the contrary.

  36. romosrevenge says: Oct 24, 2013 2:11 PM

    How important is brand name recognition to a major FINANCIALLY SUCCESSFUL organization? I would would submit that it is it’s MOST IMPORTANT commodity. Because word usuage, word nuance, and current vernacular has changed in the last 10 years, you expect said corp. to abandon it’s identity? Does a different team also change it’s ID on future winds of change? More fascist thought from the Left. How about letting the free market decide. If enough fans are upset ENOUGH, they won’t buy tickets. Snyder might then make a business decision. Otherwise, maybe in a separate business decision, Snyder might accept say.. 50 million from those offended, the Washington Democrats.

  37. fearthehoody says: Oct 24, 2013 2:14 PM

    “Hey everybody, look at me.”

    - Bob Costas

  38. hebertmw says: Oct 24, 2013 2:14 PM

    I don’t pay much mind to this debate but down here in Tampa Bay we had somewhat of a dustup with the Devil Rays. Yes. Someone from this area of the Bible Belt found the “Devil” in devil rays objectionable. So the owner decided to change the name to the Rays. The world didn’t end and sports commentators still rag on us not supporting the team.

  39. sillec28 says: Oct 24, 2013 2:15 PM

    I wonder how many Native Americans participated in preparing those five dictionaries Costas cited?

  40. veretax says: Oct 24, 2013 2:17 PM

    The issue in using the dictionary, is that definitions can be revised over time as usage changes. One need only look at a handful of other charged words used to describe one group of people or another to realize that. I used to respect Costas, but he clearly appeared to be PUSHING his case, rather than reporting on it and letting us decide who’s right. That makes him an advocate, which frankly, if he wants to do, he should go start a lobbyist group and get off TV.

  41. keysersoze4211 says: Oct 24, 2013 2:21 PM

    The fact of the matter is why does something have to change just because someone else says so. This is a free country (I think). Just because someone says the name needs to be changed doesn’t mean it has to be. Dan Snyder is the owner of the team and if he doesn’t want to change it then he shouldn’t have too. If I dont like the name of a company then who am I to say it has to be changed?. People can be upset all they want, but who cares? Can’t satisfy everyone.

  42. JSpicoli says: Oct 24, 2013 2:34 PM

    hebertmw says:Oct 24, 2013 2:14 PM

    I don’t pay much mind to this debate but down here in Tampa Bay we had somewhat of a dustup with the Devil Rays. Yes. Someone from this area of the Bible Belt found the “Devil” in devil rays objectionable. So the owner decided to change the name to the Rays. The world didn’t end and sports commentators still rag on us not supporting the team.

    __________________________________

    And your esteemed franchise history of exactly 16 years remained sterling.

    Do not take up law.

  43. hanifmiller says: Oct 24, 2013 2:40 PM

    You said “The polarizing debate regarding the Redskins name has caused many on either side of the issue …, to ignore any reasonable explanations of the contrary view…”

    Isn’t Costas ignoring/playing down reasonable explanations of the contrary view.

    And I dont necessarily agree with Costas using definitions from some antiquated dictionaries to advance his argument.

    I’m black and definitions of black range from gloomy; pessimistic; dismal;distressing to threatening; depressing; diabolical etc.

  44. tacowrecker says: Oct 24, 2013 2:43 PM

    When the world goes up in flames we’ll all still be arguing over whether the conservatives or liberals are right, who gets to marry who, who is allowed to smoke what, where, whose god is the best and what words are acceptable as the names of sports teams

  45. leevi98 says: Oct 24, 2013 2:53 PM

    “Perhaps those who support the name realize that acknowledging the existence of cogent, reasonable, and persuasive arguments against the use of the name necessarily becomes a major step on the path toward admitting that the name should be changed. Other than mental illness, that can be the only reason for a strategy that consists of stubbornly sticking to a position and shouting down anyone who would even try to explain the other side of it”….

    So is this what you say to all the OTHER tribes that are for the name? I mean your doing the same thing… your accusing everyone for the name in the same manner, if not worse. How can you only acknowledge the one tribe that says its offensive but ignore the majority of the tribes that are for the name?

  46. juveway says: Oct 24, 2013 3:01 PM

    Somebody called Andy Dalton a redhead yesterday. Where’s the outrage?

  47. mikemucci says: Oct 24, 2013 3:04 PM

    People are too damn sensitive nowadays crying about a team name. If it bothers you that much you shouldn’t be watching football go watch soccer or golf or some other sissy sport

  48. freepretzels says: Oct 24, 2013 3:06 PM

    I didn’t really pay attention to ths issue because I didn’t really care. But Costas makes some great points and it is my understanding that the name has been controversial for decades…this is the just the first time its gotten any proper attention by the mainstream media.

  49. crj202 says: Oct 24, 2013 3:07 PM

    THIS. IS. RIDICLOUS!!!!

  50. Kayne East says: Oct 24, 2013 3:09 PM

    “Somebody asked President Obama about it. He didn’t mention it gratuitously — he answered the question, he didn’t bring the subject up himself. When the President addresses it, then it brings additional attention to it. There have been some columns written of late. So as I said, the issue bubbled to the surface.”
    ===============================

    I am not even getting into the opinion of whether it should stay or go, but this quote is a little bit ridiculous. Just for the sake of argument, what if the President had a question planted??? What if he wanted to give his opinion on it, but didnt want to volunteer his opinion and alienate himself from anyone? So he, or one of his advisors or whoever in his circle tells a reporter to ask a question, so that he can give a “political” answer. Then saps like you go out and say, “well, he was asked about it, so he answered”.

    My opinion on that is, the answer the President should have given is simple. He should have said something along the lines of “It isnt my job as President to dictate to the owner of a football team what he is allowed to call his team. Let the people decide for themselves, and make their opinion known to the owner.” Since that wasnt his answer, it is pretty clear that the Pres wanted his opinion known.

    And I am sure it has nothing to do with the contributions to the Romney campaign by Snyder…

  51. eagles512 says: Oct 24, 2013 3:10 PM

    “Perhaps those who support the name realize that acknowledging the existence of cogent, reasonable, and persuasive arguments against the use of the name necessarily becomes a major step on the path toward admitting that the name should be changed. Other than mental illness, that can be the only reason for a strategy that consists of stubbornly sticking to a position and shouting down anyone who would even try to explain the other side of it.”

    The most hypocritical thing I’ve read in a long time.

  52. ialwayswantedtobeabanker says: Oct 24, 2013 3:12 PM

    PFT: “That’s one of the go-to tactics for those who prefer to cover their ears and cry ‘la-la-la-not-listening’ when someone like Costas is making cogent, reasonable, persuasive arguments against the ongoing use of the name ‘Redskins’.”

    One of the go-to tactics of those who claim to be profoundly offended by the name “Redskins” is to derisively frame opponents of their view in a derogatory fashion.

    The wussification of America continues. Everyone gets oranges slices and a trophy for just showing up.

  53. fafaflunky says: Oct 24, 2013 3:13 PM

    if you are offended, don’t watch, buy merchandise, etc..
    land of the free..haha..not in these PC days..why now
    bc some senator wanted to make a name for himself
    and the liberal media eats this crap up.. tavon martin looked liked he was 12 in the photo of him..cmon..

  54. sopadegato says: Oct 24, 2013 3:20 PM

    If I were the owner, I’d go ahead and change the name..but take the extra step and just move the team somewhere else. I hear LA is pretty desperate. Petty? Maybe, but after that they’ll learn to shut up about it.

  55. johnmdempsey says: Oct 24, 2013 3:30 PM

    This topic is sad. The name’s basically a slur. Comparing it to jokes directed at blonde women is laughable. Bob Costas gets paid for his opinion at this point, and has for years. It’s only because now that you don’t like his opinion that you think he should keep it to himself.

    I’m personally sick of those ‘for’ the name claiming anyone against the name is a liberal, leftwing, nut-job. The people making these claims are basically the trash of the right side. Just to clarify, we’re all waiting for you leave the party so we can focus on fiscal issues again.

  56. weareluckytohavemikeflorio says: Oct 24, 2013 3:33 PM

    costas has gone over the top/well past the edge.
    when he was first on the scene, doing play by play as a really young guy, i was impressed.
    apparently so was he. since then he has taken his egomania to places to new levels.
    who among us really cares what little bobby costas’ agenda is? he, at his age has now gone past his prime.
    he cant see the events for what they are anymore.
    entertainment.
    shame on you bobby

  57. mark0226 says: Oct 24, 2013 3:39 PM

    Here is a logical reason why the name is acceptable and not offensive and therefore why they should keep the name.

    Words have different meanings based on context. Also, those meanings can change over time.

    The word “black” can refer to a color, a music band (Black Eyed Peas), a covert operation (black ops), and someone’s race. In certain situations, black can be used to be racist and offensive.

    The word “frog” can refer to an amphibian, a condition of hoarseness in your throat (frog in my throat), or a frenchman (which is offensive).

    The word “gringo” by definition is often disparaging, but also used as a term of endearment.

    The word “Yankee” can refer to a baseball team, but is often used as an insulting word referring to Americans by foreigners. First definition in the Collins dictionary says “often derogatory”. On Wikipedia, it states: “The Southern American English ‘Yankee’ is typically uncontracted and at least mildly pejorative, although less vehemently so as time passes from the American Civil War.”

    In other words, the term was offensive when used by southerners to refer to northerners, but over time that meaning is becoming less negative since the Civil War.

    I suggest that the term Redskin closely relates to the term Yankee. Both have historically been used as a derogatory word towards a particular population. Both are current names of sports teams. In both cases, the negative meaning is used less and less frequently or maybe not at all. In both cases, the teams have a long standing history and proud legacy.

    Why the disparity? Why is one being singled out and being coerced to change their name? Why are Indians offended and Yankees not offended by a name that has been around for over 80 years? What is the difference between these two groups of people that causes one to be offended by an archaic term that is no longer used with negative meaning?

  58. dbones750 says: Oct 24, 2013 3:41 PM

    No more mascots. No more team names. Take them all away. We, as a society of complainers, deserve none of them. No fun.

  59. ednoclue says: Oct 24, 2013 3:46 PM

    Quick history lesson.. Most Indians were sent to Oklahoma on the trail of tears where many died…. Oklahoma translated means red people… Look it up!!!! No one is complaining about that… Just saying

  60. hyperalgesia says: Oct 24, 2013 3:47 PM

    Well if they want to change their name to Washington Rednecks, I for one, would feel honored. Well, technically I am a hillbilly, but who`s counting?

    Anyway, I will save you some time, you won’t find a kind definition in the dictionary for them either…but as popeye always says `I ams what I ams and that’s alls that I ams’.

  61. 1historian says: Oct 24, 2013 3:49 PM

    Bob – if your delicate moral sensibilities are offended by using the name ‘Redskins’ in describing the professional football franchise in Washington D. C. which was there before I was born (meaning it’s been there a long time) the solution is simple – don’t say the word.

    What word to use? – that’s your problem, cupcake.

    Knock yourself out.

  62. alirli says: Oct 24, 2013 3:55 PM

    Dan Snyder is not running for political office, he’s running a business. You’re asking him to completely eliminate the BRAND that he paid for and that took decades to build. He purchased the BRAND of the Washington Redskins, because it is one of the most popular and profitable in the NFL. Otherwise, he might as well just have bought some expansion team. Why would he do something that his fanbase (i.e. the people that pay the bills) is totally opposed too, in order to appease a small minority of a minority, that probably has never been and never will be a consumer of his product in the first place? It makes no business sense, and is completely self defeating.

  63. ombamokomba says: Oct 24, 2013 4:10 PM

    Really, though, the name should be changed.

  64. skibarbie11 says: Oct 24, 2013 4:33 PM

    I totally agree: the Washington Redskins should definitely drop the word “Washington” from their name – it’s a total embarrassment!

  65. bucsducksipa says: Oct 24, 2013 4:36 PM

    What’s hilarious is how conservatives take so much pride in demonstrating their willful ignorance. There I fixed it for you.

  66. harbourimages says: Oct 24, 2013 4:46 PM

    This little twerp Costas has never met a “cause” about which he didn’t like to hear himself jabbering. And before you jump to conclusions, I’m mostly a Liberal and I do not support changing the name of REDSKINS since it was red WAR PAINT that caused these warrior to be called “REDskins” not the color of their flesh. What part of that doesn’t Costas understand? If he wants to go after something insulting to native Americans, he should try getting rid of that cartoon character used by the Cleveland Indians. Now THAT is a lot more offensive than the name Redskins….

  67. kmart0319 says: Oct 24, 2013 4:54 PM

    The North Dakota Fighting Sioux were forced to change their name by someone offended (NCAA). One needs to look no farther than that as an example of Political Correctness gone awry. Eventually, you will always find someone offended by anything. Next you’ll know is we’ll be asked to name teams after butterflies or birdies or fluffy bunnies.

  68. dalcow4 says: Oct 24, 2013 4:55 PM

    I would have figured there’d be a law by now barring Costas from opining about anything.

  69. seahawkgoat says: Oct 24, 2013 5:00 PM

    The article starts with “The polarizing debate regarding the Redskins name has caused many on either side of the issue to dig in, to ignore any reasonable explanations of the contrary view, and to throw rocks at those who try to reasonably explain the contrary view.”

    The article ends with “Perhaps those who support the name realize that acknowledging the existence of cogent, reasonable, and persuasive arguments against the use of the name necessarily becomes a major step on the path toward admitting that the name should be changed. Other than mental illness, that can be the only reason for a strategy that consists of stubbornly sticking to a position and shouting down anyone who would even try to explain the other side of it.”

    Your opening paragraph is in direct contrast to the name calling you exhibit in the closing paragraph.

    That is all

  70. broncfanwa says: Oct 24, 2013 5:01 PM

    Shoot me if i’m wrong, but wasn’t the original usage of Redskins not referring to the color of the Native American’s skin, but the color of the paint they applied to said skin? So, being Scotch/Irish, if i put the same paint on my face to go to war, i’d then be a “redskin” and how would that be derogatory toward Native Americans? I’d look like a dork, but that has less to do with the paint, and more to do with me, i think. those dictionary definitions are most likely the result of changing politically correct climates, and less that when the term originated the ones using it thought “hey, let’s insult the natives!”

    oh, heck. change the name to the Washington Hacks. they’ll match Congress and be just as effective.

  71. justsayin' says: Oct 24, 2013 5:10 PM

    If the Native American’s wielded an economic or political base, this name debate would be over. Done.
    Sadly, that’s where the sensitivities live and die.

  72. cospgsmadman says: Oct 24, 2013 5:11 PM

    The lil creep did make some good points but that’s just his opinion. There’s a time and place to make such an opinion.

  73. ftldflguy says: Oct 24, 2013 5:18 PM

    OK first the name was decided by an incredibly racist owner who fought allowing african americans into the NFL for years. Washington was the last team to integrate and it was only because the federal government forced him to or he’d lose his stadium to play in.

    The “been fine for 80 years” argument believes that if something is right for a long time, then it is fine. Well that same arguement has been used to stop women from voting and a hundred other things. I also grew up in a family that used to call one type of nut by a nickname for years until it was pointed out how wrong that was, and asians by a name that is only meant for rugs. Because of being said for years is no excuse for being wrong.

    I love Washington football. I was in DC for one of Theisman’s supers and one for Doug Williams. Ironically, Williams would never have been allowed to play when the original owner ran the team.

  74. mocanic says: Oct 24, 2013 5:22 PM

    When I watch Football, I don’t need some dimwit giving his commentary on PC subjects. This is the 2nd time you’ve done this Costas. Knock it off. If we want your opinion Costas, we will give it to you. Either stay a sportscaster or go to work for the Today show or Dateline. I’m sure Lauer needs someone to polish his shoes.

  75. bluebongzilla says: Oct 24, 2013 5:24 PM

    Well there you go. Disagree, and you’re obviously mentally ill. Or a racist. Getting kinda tired of that narrative.

  76. cometkazie says: Oct 24, 2013 5:28 PM

    Well said, Bob.

  77. dudeareno81 says: Oct 24, 2013 5:29 PM

    Since you and Costas feel the name is so horrible, why don’t you stop cashing the paychecks you get for covering the League. After all the league allowed the name. You have no problem covering the team and making money doing it. Either take a stand and stop covering the League that allows such a “horrible” name. Or shut up. But, doing both just makes you a hypocrite. Nobody likes a hypocrite.

  78. seahawkgoat says: Oct 24, 2013 5:30 PM

    ftldflguy -

    Woah, now wait a minute. I think we can all agree that women shouldn’t be able to vote. Let’s not get off on a tangent.

    Thank you

  79. mypoint02 says: Oct 24, 2013 5:30 PM

    Costas should have stuck to his silent protest. Not everyone appreciates politics being injected into every aspect of our lives. Some of us have an apparently unrealistic expectation of being able to tune into Sunday Night Football and not be lectured to about gun control and Indian mascots. Costas’ opinions carry no more weight than the average American. As such, we should treat them that way. One can agree or disagre, but disagreeing doesn’t make anyone “mentally ill”.

  80. bluebongzilla says: Oct 24, 2013 5:36 PM

    There’s probably hundreds of millions of dollars tied up in the Redskins brand. You can bet that was part of the equation when Snyder decided to buy the team.

    I hope you people stop using the descriptors “white” and “black”, because they are surely nothing but a description of skin color. And using them would make you hypocrites.

  81. bluebongzilla says: Oct 24, 2013 5:39 PM

    dudeareno81, asking a liberal to put his money where his mouth is isn’t going to accomplish much, as they prefer to use others’ money to get what they want.

    It’s the same mentality and greed that allows a guy like Michael Moore to make a video like “Roger & Me”, while outsourcing his web design and server needs to Canadian companies.

  82. dallasstars9 says: Oct 24, 2013 5:51 PM

    Then buy the team Bob and change the name, or just shut your hole. This issue has popped up several times over the years and still to this day, not one complaint from the Native American community about it.

  83. kemp3 says: Oct 24, 2013 5:51 PM

    Costas has stepped into it now.

    The World English Dictionary defines “Redskins” as:

    an old-fashioned informal name, now considered taboo, for a Native American [so called because one particular tribe, the now extinct Beothuks of Newfoundland, painted themselves with red ochre]

    Not sure how you get ‘derogatory” out of that, Bob.

  84. bluebongzilla says: Oct 24, 2013 5:53 PM

    “Really, though, the name should be changed.”

    so buy the team, change the name.

  85. mrrusss says: Oct 24, 2013 6:01 PM

    Damn liberals. If someone had named teams the NY Kikes, Oakland Spooks, Notre Dame Small-Weiners, Minnesota Honkies, Miami Landscapers, Tennessee Inbreds, etc. those crazy liberals would be complaining. What’s wrong with a derogatory term associated with a genocide being involved in a multibillion dollar national pastime?

  86. samshobotnik says: Oct 24, 2013 6:03 PM

    I think the problem is that Florio and Costas think that their political opinions really matter in this world.They surely don’t matter in my world,not at all.

    I say,if you want the name changed,buy the team and do it.Otherwise,stick to doing what you were hired to do and don’t try to inflict your political opinions on the football watching public.It’s not welcomed,no matter how important you think you,and your opinions, are.

  87. joshedindenver says: Oct 24, 2013 6:07 PM

    Geez Bob help me out. I am a white person and I have a very good friend who is a black person. Unfortunately, his name is Whitehead. If I were offended would you make him change his name? Perhaps you, Mr. Costas, could remain even more relevant if you took up this issue as well. I’ll still like the guy even if his name stays Whitehead.

  88. seahawkgoat says: Oct 24, 2013 6:08 PM

    I don’t think I’ve ever been so frustrated by a “journalist’s” take on a subject like this before.

    You constantly accuse those opposed to a name change as ignorantly ignoring, or not even considering, the argument the other side (you, Bob, NBC, POTUS) makes. However, in your final paragraph, you also state that if the other side were to even acknowledge that there is some merit to the fact that some may find the issue offensive, then that side would essentially be waving a white flag and admitting that the name SHOULD be changed.

    Please clean it up

  89. seahawkgoat says: Oct 24, 2013 6:11 PM

    I have heard absolutely ZERO comments or suggestions from people who fear that “animals, minerals, plants” will be next. This is a fallacy based on an extremely small sample size, or an egregious attempt to misrepresent the facts to support your side of the argument.

    Either way, please clean it up

  90. whatamaroon says: Oct 24, 2013 6:14 PM

    I’d be offended too if my team were name “Washington”.

  91. mackie66 says: Oct 24, 2013 6:16 PM

    Who gives a rats zzz what Bob Costas has to say or not say? Costas is a typical sports media type “Commie” liberal.

  92. seahawkgoat says: Oct 24, 2013 6:16 PM

    Disagree and you are mentally ill

    That is very offensive to a much larger group than Native Americans, and doubly offensive to retarded Native Americans

  93. seahawkgoat says: Oct 24, 2013 6:21 PM

    Sooo….You and Bob are standing up to Daniel Snyder, literally protesting and preaching to your audience about what a travesty the name is. And this undoubtedly makes you feel as if you are fighting for something you believe in.

    Opponents of your view and opinions speak out respectfully and intelligently (for the most part), and feel passionately that the name should NOT be changed. These people feel they are fighting for something they believe in – that our country has become over sensitive and that we shouldn’t cow-tow or force a private business owner to make a decision based on the protests of an extremely small minority of the population.

    Your argument makes you feel moral, just, and allows you to sit high on a horse.

    Opponents arguments make them ignorant and mentally ill.

    Niiiccceeee

    Clean it up

  94. bluebongzilla says: Oct 24, 2013 6:29 PM

    Have you ever disagreed with Costas on ANYthing?

  95. bluebongzilla says: Oct 24, 2013 6:30 PM

    “an egregious attempt to misrepresent the facts to support your side of the argument”

    This.

  96. bluebongzilla says: Oct 24, 2013 6:34 PM

    If you give a liberal a forum in which to whine but don’t give him what he wants just because he wants it really bad, he’ll eventually show you exactly how nasty and intolerant he really is.

  97. bluebongzilla says: Oct 24, 2013 6:36 PM

    “Snyder will change the name, but you have to pre-approve it to find out what he’s changing it to” – Nancy Pelosi

  98. frankiesweep says: Oct 24, 2013 6:36 PM

    Name the team the “Obamas”

  99. Tom in Desoto, TX says: Oct 24, 2013 6:37 PM

    Well, here comes Bobby come lately. Seems Bob is attempting, but is decades late in “the higher correctness”, to “get it right” (whatever that is) So Bob, what around renaming the Cleveland and Atlanta baseball mascots? Is redskin more offensive than Braves or Indians? Let’s hear from Expert Bob. How about the Florida State University Seminoles, is that offensive? How about other schools with similarly named mascots? How about the Vikings in Minnesota? Isn’t that disparaging to decent hard working honorable Norsemen? You’re too late for this bandwagon Bobby. Pull back the curtain “The Great Bob has Spoken”

  100. slimmer007 says: Oct 24, 2013 6:45 PM

    This story has to be a joke. NBC must have copied and pasted a story from the onion. This country can’t possibly be this big of softies… Just can’t. Unbelievable.

  101. moodyblue2013 says: Oct 24, 2013 6:49 PM

    The Washington Redskins established 81 years ago….1932!!!! I don’t think the name chosen back then was to offend anyone……

    It sure didn’t bother Costas when he was a Newbi announcer calling them the Redskins. gain a little senority next thing you know you want to be politically correct and/or always want to be with the in crowd.!!!! Time for someone to retire.

    Leave sports out of your liberal ideas please. Was not sports invented for fun. You politians stay in your hood and out of ours…………

  102. justlovethegame says: Oct 24, 2013 6:49 PM

    It very evident that the author’s definition of a “cogent, reasonable, persuasive argument” doesn’t align with everyone’s definition of the same. Yet another piece of journalistic drivel…..wow, what a surprise…..not. Unfortunately, it’s consistent with much of the published material in today’s media. Ironically, I used to think Costas was one of the better sports commentators out there. Now, his downward spiral into liberalism nothingness has destroyed his appeal and credibility. If a person doesn’t recognize that every franchise choses it’s mascot as a symbol of honor (be it heritage, skill, or whatever), then they are simply and sadly misguided….or just an idiot.

  103. bbadbob says: Oct 24, 2013 6:49 PM

    OK……I acknowledge that there are people that are reasonably offended by the name Redskins. Now that being said, I still don’t think the team should change it’s name. Why? Because that is clearly not the intent of the word, and that by a large margin, most native and non-native Americans don’t find it offensive either. In fact native Americans past and present embrace the term. I have a native American friend who confirms my view. If I’m wrong NBC, then get off your lazy behinds and run your own research or poll and enlighten me. I’m happy to learn what you find, but suspect you already know the answer doesn’t fit your narrative, so I won’t hold my breath waiting for responsible or informative reporting from your so-called news organization.

  104. seahawkgoat says: Oct 24, 2013 6:51 PM

    bluebongzilla says –

    “Snyder will change the name, but you have to pre-approve it to find out what he’s changing it to” – Nancy Pelosi

    _______________

    That is absolutely brilliant. Kudos, mate

  105. grumpyoleman says: Oct 24, 2013 6:57 PM

    Need more rocks

  106. bluebongzilla says: Oct 24, 2013 6:57 PM

    “Williams would never have been allowed to play when the original owner ran the team.”

    Maybe because Doug Williams was about 8 years old when George Preston Marshall died. It’s not like Bobby Mitchell DIDN’T play for George Preston Marshall, though.

  107. bauldrdash says: Oct 24, 2013 7:08 PM

    I’m part Cherokee like about everyone from Oklahoma and don’t think “Redskin” is an insult.

    Go Broncos!

  108. acdc84 says: Oct 24, 2013 7:14 PM

    I’ll never understand this site’s arbitrary methods of deleting clean inoffensive comments just because they disagree with the author’s PC agenda…

  109. lance19 says: Oct 24, 2013 7:18 PM

    The old “it’s like Oklahoma” meme?
    F-Troop?!! Really? That desperate?

    Okay, I give the pro-racism crowd credit for dogmatism to defend this nickname until the 21st Century takes its seat at the table…but really, I think F-Troop has been off the air for about 46 years before 2013…

    Let’s be honest, many now know it’s derogatory and just don’t care…

  110. charger383 says: Oct 24, 2013 7:20 PM

    Name stays

  111. bucsducksipa says: Oct 24, 2013 7:30 PM

    No conservative cogent arguments here…..or anywhere else for that matter. Setting aside the name calling, the longing nostalgia and all the other Saul Alinsky tactics said to be loathed by conservatives, I just can’t figure it out. What makes someone so intellectually obstinate? Is it so ingrained you your psyche to you must be right it would shatter your self image to see something from another perspective? Do you teach your children that what you’ve indoctrinated them with is the end all be all infallible truth? Perhaps that is the problem, that in fact it is you who have become to sensitive. From what I’ve witnessed on this forum alone, most supporters of keeping the nickname are somewhere in the first two stages of loss or grieving, denial and anger. Tell me I’m wrong.

  112. GenXJay says: Oct 24, 2013 7:41 PM

    Redtails sounds about right. Good luck fighting the libs Redtails.

  113. seahawkgoat says: Oct 24, 2013 7:56 PM

    bucsducksipa –

    You are wrong.

    You also have poor grammar and sentence structure. I honestly can’t follow your point, and I’m not sure you even know.

    Clean it up.

  114. cwon14 says: Oct 24, 2013 7:56 PM

    Just fire Costas already and be done with it.

  115. prospero63 says: Oct 24, 2013 8:16 PM

    Costas is considered a leftist nut case because, well, he’s a leftist nut case. It’s pretty simple really.

  116. seahawkgoat says: Oct 24, 2013 8:19 PM

    I feel like I’m writing to Dikembe Mutombo. Getting blocked left and right

  117. nrae73 says: Oct 24, 2013 8:21 PM

    Just press mute when Costas is on…..or buy the network and fire him. What a bunch of whiners commenting

  118. dlr4skins says: Oct 24, 2013 8:33 PM

    Bob who?

    Must be an Olympic year for that guy to be “relevant” again……………………

  119. rvb1223 says: Oct 24, 2013 8:33 PM

    Maybe Bob’s hair coloring is off….its too Red…

  120. GenXJay says: Oct 24, 2013 8:34 PM

    “Bob Costas pees sitting down”~SNL

  121. seahawkgoat says: Oct 24, 2013 8:52 PM

    nrae73 -

    You called out those who oppose a name change as a bunch of whiners. That immediately hurts your credibility.

    However, you are correct that people can mute Costas, or buy NBC and fire him. That is a very valid point, and one that you won’t hear argued from the side of keeping the name. Until ownership changes, Bob can keep talking, and Daniel Snyder can keep the Redskins name.

    Who says compromise isn’t possible? Psshht

  122. seahawkgoat says: Oct 24, 2013 9:03 PM

    Does anyone work in a kitchen? I find it mind blowing that it’s still acceptable to say “china cap”. Not only is it acceptable, but that’s what product guides list them as. MIND BLOWING

  123. bobc74 says: Oct 24, 2013 9:05 PM

    If the Native Americans who are currently complaining about the name would like to make Dan Snyder a reasonable offer to purchase the team, then they could change the name to whatever they want. Otherwise, it’s not their decision to make. Secondly, if the NFL tries to force Snyder to change the name, he should do it with the condition that he gets to move the team to the new stadium that is supposed to be built in LA. Then those Native Americans can buy their own NFL franchise in Washington, D. C. and call it whatever they want.

  124. greenmtnboy31 says: Oct 24, 2013 9:30 PM

    We’ve changed the definition of marriage to please Bob and his ilk, so let’s just keep going and change the definition of Redskins if that’s what bothers Bob so much.

  125. jelliot1978 says: Oct 24, 2013 10:15 PM

    In the early 90s and late 80s when I first got into football I remember watching games at Arrowhead stadium where the crowd would do the tomahawk chop. Then came a request from multiple tribes to KC, the Atlanta Braves, and Fla State to please stop. At the same time there was mention of Chief Wahoo and the Redskins being offensive. KC and FSU made conscious efforts to stop the chop. Atlanta, Cleveland and Washington made no efforts. Atlanta has since stopped but it took considerably longer. To believe that this is a new issue is flat out false, it is just so much louder now do to the internet and social media.

    The word has a negative history. It isn’t as commonly used today and that is mostly because of the massive destruction of the tribes that once roamed this land. Since we annihilated their culture already what does it matter if we continue to use a term that once was extremely racist.

  126. defscottyb says: Oct 24, 2013 11:24 PM

    Who cares what Bob Costas or anyone else thinks. All that matters is Dan Snyder’s opinion as the owner of the team period. Redskin is not racist or disparaging and to be frank, all those dictionaries should delete that and correct it with the actual meaning not a made up one. Redskin was a term coined by Native Americans in the 1700′s not by the white man. Get your fact straight please.

  127. stuartscottslazyeyeball says: Oct 24, 2013 11:24 PM

    Redskins. Redskins. Redskins. Redskins. Redskins. Redskins. Redskins. Redskins. Redskins. Redskins. Redskins. Redskins. Redskins. Redskins. Redskins. Redskins. Redskins. Redskins. Redskins. Redskins. Redskins. Redskins. Redskins.

  128. burnzido says: Oct 25, 2013 1:36 AM

    Perhaps those who support the name change realize that acknowledging the existence of cogent, reasonable, and persuasive arguments for the use of the name necessarily becomes a major step on the path toward admitting that the name shouldn’t be changed. Other than mental illness, that can be the only reason for a strategy that consists of stubbornly sticking to a position and shouting down anyone who would even try to explain the other side of it. – works both ways ;)

  129. defscottyb says: Oct 25, 2013 2:32 AM

    knowerofallthings says: Oct 24, 2013 1:39 PM

    The fact that it specifically refers to someone’s skin color should be enough for reasonable people to understand that it can be offensive. If it was brownskin, yellowskin or any other color it would’ve been changed years ago.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Ummmmm, NO. Red in Redskins refers to Red War Paint worn it battle NOT skin color. Do some research please.

  130. defscottyb says: Oct 25, 2013 2:40 AM

    spkriegs says: Oct 24, 2013 1:47 PM

    They might as well change the name, because this is NEVER going to stop until they do.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    So…… And…….. who cares how much people complain? Our fanbase is huge and the name won’t change. Who cares what non-Skins fans or non-sports fans in general think? Doesn’t matter one bit what they think. Lots of people picket, protest things all the time but doesn’t mean that will change anything.

    The only name I’ve ever heard that almost sounds OK with me is “Washington Americans” Touchdown Washington Americans sounds almost ok to me. But, the name won’t change as long as Dan owns it.

  131. defscottyb says: Oct 25, 2013 2:51 AM

    ftldflguy says: Oct 24, 2013 5:18 PM

    OK first the name was decided by an incredibly racist owner who fought allowing african americans into the NFL for years. Washington was the last team to integrate and it was only because the federal government forced him to or he’d lose his stadium to play in.

    The “been fine for 80 years” argument believes that if something is right for a long time, then it is fine. Well that same arguement has been used to stop women from voting and a hundred other things. I also grew up in a family that used to call one type of nut by a nickname for years until it was pointed out how wrong that was, and asians by a name that is only meant for rugs. Because of being said for years is no excuse for being wrong.

    I love Washington football. I was in DC for one of Theisman’s supers and one for Doug Williams. Ironically, Williams would never have been allowed to play when the original owner ran the team.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    What the heck does the original owner of the team have to do with anything? He doesn’t own the team now so your argument is totally invalid. Plus a black player DID play for the Skins under his watch. I’m not saying he wasn’t a racist, maybe he was but doesn’t have anything to do with this. 1st head coach under Marshall was a Native American and it was his idea to name them the Skins.

  132. nolliabed says: Oct 25, 2013 8:26 AM

    It’s only offensive because the media keeps telling me it is. I’ve have watched football for 35 yrs. now and not once have I heard anyone refer to that name as offensive. It’s this PC world we live in today where kids aren’t allowed to loose because it might hurt their feelings. Now we have to change everything about anything if it offends just one person. Where does it stop? Will they change the name back if a group of people or just myself get offended that the name was changed to begin with? Now that’s offensive!

  133. adarlak says: Oct 25, 2013 12:56 PM

    saying “mental illness” is equal to stubbornness, demeans anyone suffering from an actual mental illness. if you’re writing an article about offensive terms, then best to use care how you use all of your words. true?

  134. pauleky says: Oct 25, 2013 1:02 PM

    Heh…looks like Bob and the author are talking about a good number of the posters here. Redskins is simply offensive. There are no cogent arguments to refute that. The argument should be whether or not you care enough about the Native American population to want it changed. Obviously, many of you do not and that’s OK – you’re allowed to have that view. Just don’t argue that it’s not offensive to those it describes. It absolutely is.

  135. casey1299 says: Oct 25, 2013 1:59 PM

    All Dan Snyder needs to do is change his logo from a red Indian to a red Potato.. the potato could be carrying a football ready to stiff arm someone and maybe put a football helmet on it.. A red potato AKA a redskin! problem fixed and think of all the revenue on new merchandise sales, Not to mention sticking it to the small amount of people crying over such a ridiculous thing.. I have heard on numerous occasions that 97% of native Americans do not find the name offensive..

  136. pftcensor1 says: Oct 25, 2013 3:54 PM

    Wow the “shout down” continues.

  137. pftcensor1 says: Oct 25, 2013 7:00 PM

    Some people say that proponents of the Redskins name resort to “shouting down” the other side.

    However those folks should also realize that deletion of an unemotional, reasonable, respectful, but contrary comment is the ultimate form of “shouting down.”

  138. claimersays says: Oct 26, 2013 5:01 PM

    Perhaps those in opposition of the name realize that acknowledging the existence of cogent, reasonable, and persuasive arguments defending the use of the name necessarily becomes a major step on the path toward admitting that the name is nothing more than an NFL franchise representing our nations capital. Other than mental illness, that can be the only reason for a strategy that consists of stubbornly sticking to a position and shouting down anyone who would even try to explain the other side of it.

    Back at you Florio.
    BTW, referring to those who oppose your POV by calling them “Mentally ill” demonstrates your inability to shed Bias or be objective

  139. RE LEE says: Oct 26, 2013 5:26 PM

    Don’t blame Costas… Obama’s opinion is involved and he has to deliver the talking points. Tow the line. As usual Obama saw a race card the he can’t refuse to play. Race cards for the libs. Are always a winner. — do these morons really think that a team would identify itself with something it means to disrespect? Redskins has grown to be a source of pride in this country. It’s part of our history and it’s connotation has evolved. Businesses proudly use Native American names on their products. We are all Americans now and we take pride in our heritage. Leave it to the the libs to insist and to incite dividing this country.

  140. rrthomasxyz says: Oct 26, 2013 7:39 PM

    For those who favor a name change from the Redskins, let’s simply refer to the team as “Washington.” Simply omit any reference to the name “Redskins.”

Leave a Reply

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