Skip to content

San Francisco Chronicle dumps “Redskins” name

Chronicle Getty Images

The Washington Redskins aren’t ready to stop using their name, but a major newspaper in another city is.

Per multiple industry sources, the San Francisco Chronicle has decided to no longer print the term “Redskins.”

No announcement has been made, and it’s not known whether an announcement is coming.  It’s possible, we’re told, that the change will be explained in a column.

Regardless, the decision was communicated internally on Friday, October 25.  The 49ers play at Washington on Monday, November 25.

On Wednesday, representatives from the Oneida Indian Nation will meet with NFL executives regarding the opposition to the team’s name.  Team owner Daniel Snyder reportedly told Commissioner Roger Goodell on Tuesday that Snyder has no plans to change the name.

Other media organizations has stopped using the name, including the Kansas City Star, Slate.com, and Peter King’s TheMMQB.com.

Permalink 192 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, San Francisco 49ers, Top Stories, Washington Redskins
192 Responses to “San Francisco Chronicle dumps “Redskins” name”
  1. louy57 says: Oct 29, 2013 9:02 PM

    Washington needs to change there mascot to a potato….everyone just think they are redskin potato then

  2. johnnyjagfan says: Oct 29, 2013 9:10 PM

    Because SF is such a cosmopolitan place that is high society and does not tolerate anything offensive to others. Until you have slightly different opinion and then the knives come out and they filet you. Well, at least this town wasn’t the first to cry foul at “Redskin” but I’m not surprised they’re on the bandwagon.

    City that has seen its better day. Almost becoming a nice overnight before flying out from visits to Wine Country or south to the warmer climates.

  3. basexc9 says: Oct 29, 2013 9:15 PM

    Good.

  4. stoolerz says: Oct 29, 2013 9:15 PM

    Organizations is plural, should be have stopped. Either way, I don’t who stopped using it, except that the city that is home to the Chiefs won’t use the term is ironic.

  5. commonsensedude says: Oct 29, 2013 9:18 PM

    That would be a powerful method of protest – that is, if anybody read newspapers anymore.

    It’s as if the actor who played J.J. threatening not to say”Dy-no-mite!” again. The average persons reaction: “he’s still alive?? Cool!”

  6. thetruthcampaign says: Oct 29, 2013 9:21 PM

    YES!!!

  7. sweetnlow44 says: Oct 29, 2013 9:22 PM

    Aww, how cute. Gotta love those San Francisco bleeding heart libs.

  8. jimthebuilder27 says: Oct 29, 2013 9:23 PM

    Daniel Snyder, one of the worst owners around.

  9. clemenza58 says: Oct 29, 2013 9:24 PM

    “Other media organizations has stopped using the name, including the Kansas City Star…..”

    But they’ll keep printing “Chiefs.” Hypocrites.

  10. wilkisoft says: Oct 29, 2013 9:25 PM

    I don’t have a dog in the fight, but i wish this story would go away. This team has been around how long? All of a sudden “Redskins” is deemed offensive by some overly sensitive people?

  11. saintsredwings says: Oct 29, 2013 9:26 PM

    Why is the name a big issue now and not decades earlier ?

  12. moerawn says: Oct 29, 2013 9:27 PM

    Hold fast, Snyder. Think of yourself as the Reno to Goodell’s Custer.

  13. sanduskyshowerspecial says: Oct 29, 2013 9:27 PM

    Yawnnnnnn, you are still irrelevant San Francisco Chronicle. What are you going to do when the number 48 gets offended by the name 49ers?

  14. brintfatre says: Oct 29, 2013 9:28 PM

    Childish!

  15. steelersaregodsteam says: Oct 29, 2013 9:28 PM

    Notice how Pittsburgh doesn’t attract this sort of drama?

    We are the league’s paradigm.

  16. cooklynn17 says: Oct 29, 2013 9:29 PM

    And so it begins…

  17. thetooloftools says: Oct 29, 2013 9:30 PM

    They will now be know as “The Butt Bumpers” which is totally correct.
    P L E A S E

  18. babyjesus69 says: Oct 29, 2013 9:32 PM

    Oooh… Ignorant people are gonna be pissed!

  19. fedupincleveland says: Oct 29, 2013 9:34 PM

    Whatever. Nobody will get the NFL’s and Dan Snyders attention until consumers stop buying “Redskins” gear.

  20. flik44 says: Oct 29, 2013 9:35 PM

    So, Redskins is NOT OK and Mississippi Rebels is OK. Got it.

  21. dezforprez says: Oct 29, 2013 9:46 PM

    Here we go again…sigh

  22. doctorrustbelt says: Oct 29, 2013 9:47 PM

    In solidarity with the people on the correct side of the issue….. I will no longer be using the word redskins.

  23. partmachine says: Oct 29, 2013 9:51 PM

    Can’t wait to get my kid a new Washington NFL football jersey! Seriously.

  24. jskzoocrew says: Oct 29, 2013 9:51 PM

    I like this idea. If Snyder won’t change the name, everyone else should just pick a name and start calling them that. Post ideas below.

  25. rmavs says: Oct 29, 2013 9:53 PM

    As a fan of the lowly and pathetic Vikings, I say, Dan, don’t give in. This sorry American world of hurt feelings and political correctness has gotten way out of control. It’s a friggn football team for crying out loud. Our country would be better served if we plebians subplanted our anger and frustration on things that truly matter.

  26. blacknole08 says: Oct 29, 2013 9:54 PM

    Meanwhile they will continue to write the “Seahawks” name in their paper well into early February.

  27. jsg1996 says: Oct 29, 2013 9:54 PM

    Peter King must own the paper.

  28. capn0bvious says: Oct 29, 2013 9:55 PM

    This article has nothing to do with talking about how the Seahawks are going to win the Super Bowl in February 2014. You should talk about that, because it’s true.

  29. broncobrewer says: Oct 29, 2013 9:56 PM

    Stand your Ground Snyder. I’m behind you. Don’t let these PC crazy people change your mind.

  30. usmutts says: Oct 29, 2013 9:57 PM

    The Washington Pejoratives. HTTP!

  31. moelester says: Oct 29, 2013 9:57 PM

    So sick of all these crybabies. Dont like it? Dont support it. otherwise stop telling people what they should do with their privately owned business.

  32. 1phd says: Oct 29, 2013 10:07 PM

    It’s a free country, right name fans? So you should have no problem with this, just like you use that excuse for the team keeping their name. Right?

  33. gtmac21 says: Oct 29, 2013 10:07 PM

    They will ALWAYS BE THE REDSKINS! No amount of pressure will make Daniel Snyder change the name of HIS team! Least of all a Libtard newspaper from the land of fruits and nuts! REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS!

  34. 4ever85 (aka Butch DeadLift) says: Oct 29, 2013 10:08 PM

    Don’t forget the most important figure of all also decided to dump the name: Matthew Berry!

  35. abninf says: Oct 29, 2013 10:09 PM

    So. They didn’t change the name. It will remain.

  36. joe93955 says: Oct 29, 2013 10:10 PM

    They are still the Redskins.

  37. stevent92 says: Oct 29, 2013 10:11 PM

    If only they’d dump Nancy Pelosi too. Then, some REAL problems would get solved.

  38. northstarnic says: Oct 29, 2013 10:13 PM

    Good to hear

  39. gooch2011 says: Oct 29, 2013 10:14 PM

    Redskins

  40. klutch14u says: Oct 29, 2013 10:14 PM

    Well, if I were Dan Snyder I’d demand they not be able to use the term NFL or have any sort of “pictures or accounts of the game” for any NFL. Next you guys are going to get the heavy hand of the government involved. Man I hope Snyder doesn’t cave on this.

  41. serkeljerks says: Oct 29, 2013 10:15 PM

    Yay!!! Bravehearts!!!!

  42. staffordsyear says: Oct 29, 2013 10:16 PM

    And the dominoes continue to fall..

  43. bigbenh8tr says: Oct 29, 2013 10:17 PM

    Sorry logical and redskins82 but this is haplening despsite what you think of Snyder. He is not all powerful and is one of the most widely hated owners even im dc where to cut down hundreds of trees in his backyard and neighbors lots so he could have a better view of the Potomac. He is a scumbag plain and simple.

    The r-words terrible season isnt going to help him get much support either.

    Hahahaha

  44. dondada10 says: Oct 29, 2013 10:17 PM

    More and more, I’m starting to think that this might actually happen.

  45. stopdk12 says: Oct 29, 2013 10:17 PM

    so what?

  46. posidelphia says: Oct 29, 2013 10:18 PM

    Yawn.

  47. crackills says: Oct 29, 2013 10:18 PM

    Oh. No! some dirty hippie might not know what team the newspaper is talking about! Whatever shall we do?!

  48. geniusesq says: Oct 29, 2013 10:18 PM

    Who cares?

    HAIL

  49. skinsfan91 says: Oct 29, 2013 10:19 PM

    “The 49ers beat . . eh, Washington on Sunday 48-7″

  50. braceyourselffor12 says: Oct 29, 2013 10:19 PM

    Really Chron?!!

    Never one to disparage my own City but if there was another reason not to suscribe to this paper it’s to perpetuate that self-fulfilling joke about how PC/liberal we are when in reality less than 15% of us are that.

    And to boot, the clowns who foster that behavior are transplants from across the country who come to San Francisco to live out their freaky fantasy and further an embarrassing reputation.

  51. stopdk12 says: Oct 29, 2013 10:20 PM

    seriously though.. it doesn’t matter how many bleeding heart liberal rags stop using the name redskins, it only matters when Dan Snyder decides to stop using it…and for once, that little guy is on the right side

  52. thestrategyexpert says: Oct 29, 2013 10:20 PM

    Kinda slow to the game, I dropped the name a long time ago in my blog posting activities. Never even explained why I made the change. I guess I just thought if people would notice it would spur some healthy thinking in others. Keep pumping up the brain and make it stronger by filtering out the stuff that carries negative energy with it.

  53. thxelway says: Oct 29, 2013 10:21 PM

    How can you “dump” something that still exists, is legitimate, and is a name of a nationally recognized organization?

    If you wish to disgrace it, do so on your op-ed pages, but please continue to refer to said entity by the name it currently (and according to recent reports, has no intention to change) has.

    Thanks for setting your own agenda, while the rest of us will continue to refer to the REDSKINS as the REDSKINS.

    Newspaper Fail.

  54. beertech says: Oct 29, 2013 10:21 PM

    Seriously, there are still newspapers?

    Plus, is Florio the only one who reports on this?

    #HTTR

  55. joecool16280 says: Oct 29, 2013 10:22 PM

    Easy to dismiss the controversy if you aren’t a minority but you don’t walk in their shoes.

    We are a little too PC these days but really think about that name for a second. RED-SKINS. Wow.

    If it was a derogatory term for african americans there woulda been the Sharptons and Jacksons denouncing it.

    Says a lot about their silence as well.

  56. dirtysouthniner says: Oct 29, 2013 10:22 PM

    I can see both sides to this unfortunate dilema

  57. gadzod says: Oct 29, 2013 10:22 PM

    If you want to change it, pay Snyder the money he wants for the team. Liberals….. It’s a disease…

  58. krabballs says: Oct 29, 2013 10:23 PM

    Please change the name to Foreskins. It perfectly reflects the personality of the owner.

  59. briang123 says: Oct 29, 2013 10:23 PM

    Wow! I had of idea the San Francisco Chronicle was still around. I thought they folded years ago.

  60. gammynomnom says: Oct 29, 2013 10:24 PM

    I bet if stores stopped selling items with the name on it Danny would be quick to change his opinion.

  61. hailvictory says: Oct 29, 2013 10:26 PM

    Will they still be printing the word Oklahoma?!

  62. blackhawks2010 says: Oct 29, 2013 10:26 PM

    Typical liberal West Coast garbage.

  63. maddogcraig77 says: Oct 29, 2013 10:26 PM

    REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS!!!!! Florio is quickly becoming irrelevant!

  64. monkeyhateclean says: Oct 29, 2013 10:27 PM

    Its Synder’s team, so he can’t be forced to change the name to a non-epithet. That said, the NFL is first and foremost a multi-billion dollar business, one overtly concerned about maintaining the most pristine social image.

    As more and more media outlets and non-Washington fans isolate and criticize, the more PR damage this ownership group takes.

    Tick-tock, Mr. Synder. Tick-tock.

  65. vikes69 says: Oct 29, 2013 10:27 PM

    this is so stupid, it is the name of a team. its not offensive, people just overreact and make a big deal out of nothing

  66. fballguy says: Oct 29, 2013 10:28 PM

    Who reads newspapers?

  67. greattastelessfilling says: Oct 29, 2013 10:28 PM

    Liberals are just so stupid.

  68. tfbuckfutter says: Oct 29, 2013 10:28 PM

    Just start calling them the Washington Blackfaces.

    See if that gets the point across.

  69. stopdk12 says: Oct 29, 2013 10:29 PM

    let’s just say than “the Dan” will change it when he’s GD good and ready to do it…go ask Martha Burke how effective she was trying to bully Augusta National into letting women it…it’ll happen eventually…but on “the Dan’s” schedule, not the SF chronicle’s.

  70. brotzelj says: Oct 29, 2013 10:29 PM

    What about the Chiefs, Blackhawks, Redbirds, and Bluejays? ;)

  71. dude1988 says: Oct 29, 2013 10:30 PM

    get over it

  72. norcalmafia says: Oct 29, 2013 10:30 PM

    Ouryoung men in this country are being brainwashed ..Be nice to the kid in your classroom who likes to wear dresses, everyone gets a trophy no hard hitting in football….When will it end? My son will play football, know how to turn a wrench , ride a motorcylce like a maniac and beat the crap out of Seahawk fans!

  73. charge1 says: Oct 29, 2013 10:30 PM

    Irrelevant newspapers and Peter i need a name for myself. Who cares!!!

  74. gooch2011 says: Oct 29, 2013 10:31 PM

    And the Redskins still are not going to change their name……

  75. genericuser8888 says: Oct 29, 2013 10:32 PM

    Political correctness. It’s good for two things:

    1) getting money (in the form of “donations”) out of someone.

    2) censoring someone.

    If Snyder and the NFL mysteriously agreed to “donate” some money to some tribe or Native American foundation, this would all mysteriously go away. Snyder would have proven himself to be entering into a “new era or friendship, sensitivity, and caring with the Native American community” and all would be forgiven. That’s how the political correctness crowd works.

    This whole thing is a slippery slope folks… The next thing you know, some group of white people will be upset about the Cowboys and Vikings names…cause, you know, those names refer to the violent histories of (mostly) white people.

    I’m white. If they want to change the name to “Whiteskins,” I’m totally cool with it. Or, since I’m white, is that racist? I get confused. I need someone in San Francisco or maybe Peter King to straighten me out. /sarcasm.

  76. fballguy says: Oct 29, 2013 10:32 PM

    OH NO! Not Slate.com!

    What is Slate.com?

  77. longtallsam says: Oct 29, 2013 10:32 PM

    I guess it’s time to have a contest to come up with a new name! I’m going with “Blueskins”. Oh, wait…That might offend the smurfs.

  78. charge1 says: Oct 29, 2013 10:33 PM

    In unrelated news people prefer the San Francisco chronicle 2-1 over normal toilet paper.

  79. hark2k says: Oct 29, 2013 10:34 PM

    People are talking themselves into believing the name is offensive. Like the guys on the Porch Night Podcast show said, “the 49ers” is just as offensive. 49% is a minority so their name is essentially the San Francisco Minorities.

  80. coachbeck says: Oct 29, 2013 10:34 PM

    So if you can’t force someone to do as you think they should. You decide to call them as you wish.

    It’s hilarious coming from outlets who make their money “reporting” on the team.

    It’s not like these liberals are going to be calling the redskins like team noname.

    How about those media outlets stop covering the NFL. That will show em …… Oh wait ….

  81. dastevez says: Oct 29, 2013 10:34 PM

    My site started doing this weeks ago! I call them the Washington [Censored] whenever I write up my power rankings every week. I guess it sucks to be a small publication in this world.

  82. asspantz says: Oct 29, 2013 10:36 PM

    The paper’s job is to report the news, not make it.

  83. Dogsweat says: Oct 29, 2013 10:36 PM

    Washington Braveskins 2015!

  84. Foghorn The IKonoclast says: Oct 29, 2013 10:38 PM

    Bunch of panty waste PC morons.

  85. tmcrouch1 says: Oct 29, 2013 10:38 PM

    Not even a Redskins fan but this liberal pc crap is just annoying.

  86. jeffk89 says: Oct 29, 2013 10:39 PM

    This whole “Redskins” issue is unreal. So why is that name so wrong now and it wasn’t 10 years ago? Give me a break! This sounds like several people reaching out for attention. I think if you’re offended by the name of a football team…you need to get a life.

  87. genericuser8888 says: Oct 29, 2013 10:39 PM

    Funny.

    The most offensive set of words that I read in that article were “Peter King”.

  88. timothyevans7 says: Oct 29, 2013 10:39 PM

    With the bleak future of print journalism, the Redskins name may outlast the SF Chronicle.

  89. anygivensundayfan says: Oct 29, 2013 10:40 PM

    San Francisco is ground zero for self-righteous political correctness, so this figures. Publishing a column to trumpet and bask in their fabulous self-awareness also sounds par for the course.

  90. raidernut says: Oct 29, 2013 10:40 PM

    Liberal, PC rags…who cares

  91. mrplow3 says: Oct 29, 2013 10:41 PM

    So let me get this straight:

    A liberal newspaper in the most liberal city in the country is taking a liberal stance?

    Color me shocked.

  92. dwarftosser says: Oct 29, 2013 10:42 PM

    People still read newspapers? Crazy.

  93. barbasol11111111 says: Oct 29, 2013 10:42 PM

    Hey as long as its safe/popular/trendy we will take a stance!

    Such brave journalists.

  94. sleeper692 says: Oct 29, 2013 10:44 PM

    Does this mean the Chiefs will have to change their name too?

    Arrowhead Stadium?

    No more Tomahawk Chop?

  95. richc111 says: Oct 29, 2013 10:46 PM

    That pretty cool. I guess next will be the 49ers because the gold rush in CA led to the use of Chinese slaves to build the railroads that were a result of the gold rush. Let go SF drop the 49er name out of respect for history.

  96. waterfalldungeon says: Oct 29, 2013 10:46 PM

    Add another one to the IGNORANT list.

    “REDSKINS” refers to WAR PAINT, not skin color.

    Too bad so many people won’t do just a tad bit of origin research before jumping the gun.

  97. jrazz22 says: Oct 29, 2013 10:47 PM

    This country is doomed

  98. jbaxt says: Oct 29, 2013 10:48 PM

    REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS. The REDSKINS are my new favorite NFC team.

  99. cornerstone2001 says: Oct 29, 2013 10:49 PM

    No biggie. I live in the Bay Area and no one reads that liberal rag anyway

  100. cantstopalex says: Oct 29, 2013 10:50 PM

    You should report all the newspapers that HAVEN’T dumped the REDSKINS name too or would that ruin your PC vocal minority agenda?

  101. trollingforjustice says: Oct 29, 2013 10:50 PM

    I guess that makes the team “exclusive” then…who cares

  102. pretense51 says: Oct 29, 2013 10:52 PM

    They should probably eliminate the words “black,” “white,’ “yellow,” and “brown” as well. While they’re at it, they should dump “rich,” “republican,” “income inequality,” “conservative,”and “Harbaugh” too. Pompous, politically correct simpletons. Language is subjective, open to interpretation, and fluid. Didn’t we all learn this in grammar school?

  103. riotpunch26 says: Oct 29, 2013 10:53 PM

    Wow…that’ll show em

  104. jonbeck316 says: Oct 29, 2013 10:53 PM

    Media-manufactured controversy

  105. chicokid1971 says: Oct 29, 2013 10:53 PM

    Not sure why people are offended all of the sudden. Another sign of the ‘softening’ of our country. Lame.

  106. seahawkgoat says: Oct 29, 2013 10:53 PM

    I think the very definition of ironic is for San Francisco to be offended by something.

  107. hailvictory says: Oct 29, 2013 10:54 PM

    Oklahoma: derived from the Choctaw words okla and humma, meaning ” red people”.

    Isn’t that exactly the same? White people didn’t make up the term “Redskin”.
    Native Americans used these terms for themselves. Nobody uses “redskin” as a derogatory term. This whole issue is about politics.

    Why aren’t the Cleveland Indians being protested? In terms of mascots, the Redskins logo is dignified and honorable, while the Indians logo is an incredibly offensive caricature and highly racist. Yet the Oneida aren’t meeting with Major League Baseball.
    Why is that?

    Follow the money and you’ll find the answer.

  108. masterflyguy says: Oct 29, 2013 10:55 PM

    I’m sure the 9th Circuit Court will reverse it…

  109. tribefever says: Oct 29, 2013 10:55 PM

    So a liberal paper from the most liberal city in the US won’t print the team name Redskins? Well that should really influence….no one.

  110. eagles512 says: Oct 29, 2013 10:56 PM

    I hope everyone refuses to buy their paper now.

  111. forbestd says: Oct 29, 2013 10:57 PM

    In unrelated news no one reads the San Francisco Chronicle.

  112. mrwalterisgod says: Oct 29, 2013 11:01 PM

    You mean Native Americans didn’t scalp White men and women/children? Or is that not convienient for the Liberals’ argument?

  113. harrycanyon says: Oct 29, 2013 11:01 PM

    This has gotten beyond silly. I’m not for a rebranding of the team, but at this point it’s only way to shut noisey people up. Everyone being offended only because someone else might be offeneded, not that they are really offended themselves. Not just with this, but with everything. People are way too sensitive these days. As soon as this name is changed, the same people who were offended on the behalf with this subject, will move on to something else to make noise. It never ends.

  114. pretense51 says: Oct 29, 2013 11:01 PM

    And while I’m at it, when did it become the media’s job to protect, censor, and teach us? Aren’t they merely (poorly compensated) vehicles to report the news? It makes one long for the Favre and Tebow stories of yesteryear. And no, I’m not logicalvoice using an alias….that cat is a dysfunctional tool.

  115. meatsweat says: Oct 29, 2013 11:02 PM

    Dead medium

  116. buccaneerjeremy says: Oct 29, 2013 11:03 PM

    A liberal newspaper, why I’m I not surprised? If they don’t get their way they start doing actions like this.

  117. wryly1 says: Oct 29, 2013 11:08 PM

    Snyder has declined multiple opportunities to do what inevitably has to be done anyhow. Eventually he will be forced to.

  118. fballguy says: Oct 29, 2013 11:31 PM

    Love MMQB…But Peter King has always been a little too much of an NFL mommy.

  119. octom says: Oct 29, 2013 11:32 PM

    How do they report on the Golden State Warriors?

  120. flipadelphia says: Oct 29, 2013 11:35 PM

    I am by no means a Redskins fan, as a matter of fact I can’t stand the Redskins….but please, please, please DO NOT fold to this progressive communist tactic.

    This is how they force their progressive ideas of the minority of people on to the majority. Do not give in!

  121. RE LEE says: Oct 29, 2013 11:56 PM

    To honor Obama and the libs.—- Washington Red Ink. Any idea for the mascot?

  122. dbruno5001 says: Oct 30, 2013 12:01 AM

    I’m not a redskins fan , but if you have to change the name then it should be for all professional sports team. Let’s see , Indians , braves, Blackhawks ? What else is there???

  123. scaredhitless says: Oct 30, 2013 12:07 AM

    Meanwhile the Giants are the only team in the NFC East that has won a Superbowl since Snyder bought the Bravehearts.

  124. tinbender2000 says: Oct 30, 2013 12:13 AM

    blackhawks2010 says: Oct 29, 2013 10:26 PM

    Typical liberal West Coast garbage.

    Typical right wing East Coast garbage.

    See how ignorant you sound?

  125. raiderrob21 says: Oct 30, 2013 12:14 AM

    Will they stop using San Francisco when referring to the 49ers in 2014? Since they will be the Santa Clara 49ers? No longer in SF County either, Santa Clara County.

  126. jrebar88 says: Oct 30, 2013 12:26 AM

    Good. Im disappointed I missed the rally in Denver on Sunday. I wanted to sign their petition.

  127. rajbais says: Oct 30, 2013 12:51 AM

    What the hell, the San Francisco Chronicle should actually rid itself of itself.

    After indirectly admitting a mistake by using the word Redskin it should also admit that the book “game of shadows” and the Balco coverage as a way to get fame and relevance rather than take a moral stance.

    We hate it when athletes use illegal drugs, but we will disrespect the government to its face by taking it’s documents to expose athletes who don’t directly affect us.

    Way to Chronicle!!!

  128. coachbeck says: Oct 30, 2013 1:04 AM

    This just opens the door to tall people wanting the Giants to changes names. Animal rights people not liking animals being mocked. This is a road I hope they don’t go down. If this was so offensive every tribe would be together in this. Not just the one. They aren’t all together because none of this matters

  129. NJ49er says: Oct 30, 2013 1:05 AM

    What’s in a name anyway?

    The Washington ……

    The Washington Danskins
    The Washington Capitalists
    The Washington Hypocrites

    Soon to be…..

    The Washington DC PC Football Club

  130. mountaindont says: Oct 30, 2013 1:11 AM

    Since the SF Chronicle is against using the name Redskins then I favor the Redskins in keeping the name. The Chronicle is like George Costanza. Whatever they say, do the opposite.

  131. thebadguyswon says: Oct 30, 2013 1:12 AM

    Oooo…poor widdle liberals are gonna take their ball and go home, huh? Ooohhh.

  132. bryans49ers says: Oct 30, 2013 1:23 AM

    I’m going to start buying this Rag and wipe my rear end with it instead of tp.

  133. akasaintsbaby says: Oct 30, 2013 1:38 AM

    Saints need to change their name too. Might offend the muslims…..

  134. rams1999 says: Oct 30, 2013 1:40 AM

    Cry Babies!!! All these grown people who get hurt by words. So weak!

    Somalian Pirates arent complaining cause they are somehow linked to The Raiders. And thats bad.
    Cmon people, bigger issues out there.

  135. rams1999 says: Oct 30, 2013 1:52 AM

    akasaintsbaby says:
    Oct 30, 2013 1:38 AM
    Saints need to change their name too. Might offend the muslims…..

    ————————————————
    Yup, they the next whiners, then Tall people for the Giant name, then a eagle for association for the stinky Philly team, Jaguars are gonna revolt for Jacksonville using their name and on and on.

    BOO HOO.

  136. jasncondit says: Oct 30, 2013 2:07 AM

    I am waiting for San Fran to be offended at the 49ers name as it implies their citizens “Dig for Gold”- not the metal either and I expect them to be equally offended at the “Packer” name. At least they got the Oilers to change their name. Baby steps…lol

  137. quizguy66 says: Oct 30, 2013 2:28 AM

    Fantasy Football Index hasn’t printed the name Redskins (or Chiefs for that matter) for well over a decade. I don’t recall them every explaining it either, just happened to notice it thumbing through an issue of it years ago.

  138. killxswitch says: Oct 30, 2013 4:16 AM

    I actually think Washington Bravehearts sounds awesome. But Snyder shouldn’t change anything because of some butt-hurt vocal minority that suddenly decided to make an issue where there isn’t one.

  139. ialwayswantedtobeabanker says: Oct 30, 2013 5:15 AM

    Wow. So courageous of them. Rosa Parks, John Brown and Frederick Douglass have nothing on the San Francisco Chronicle.

  140. boyshole25 says: Oct 30, 2013 5:25 AM

    Nobody cares

  141. tomtravis76 says: Oct 30, 2013 5:33 AM

    When NBC, CBS, FOX ,ESPN, DirectTV and NFL Network decide to not broadcast any of Washington’s games nationally over a few seasons then this will start hurting Snyder’s pockets as his franchise will begin to stop drawing new fans beyond the DMV area. The logo will stop being shown during highlights, etc. He will be forced to change the name.

    It all comes back to who are you really supporting, the football team or the team name? Would fans of the Redskins like to keep their name and history while the league uproots the team to LA with a new name? Don’t forget, Snyder is a franchise owner, the league as a whole will do what is best for its league. Snyder can be apart of change or not be apart of the NFL.

    Just support a name change, hold onto your history and build a future with an NFL team in your city. You look stupid supporting a racist term just because your NFL team has had the name for 80 plus years. Its a sports team. Go watch films of the idiots who protested desegregation , look how dumb they looked standing up for “white rights”, “keep our schools and communities white”. The Redskins name and logo will soon be viewed by those outside of DMV just like those who proudly fly the confederate flag. Those who wave that flag are saying one thing, not southern pride, but I am a racist.

  142. TheWizard says: Oct 30, 2013 5:59 AM

    I’ve quit reading any publications refusing to use Redskins.

    See that? Works both ways.

    I actually quit Peter King beforehand, I enjoyed his football writing but couldn’t take the liberalism anymore. Ditto Greg Easterbrook.

  143. jimmysee says: Oct 30, 2013 6:10 AM

    johnnyjagfan says:
    Oct 29, 2013 9:10 PM

    “City that has seen its better day. Almost becoming a nice overnight before flying out from visits to Wine Country or south to the warmer climates.

    ————————————————————

    Ha! Apparently you have not been there in a while. Shouldn’t spout off on something you known nothing about!

  144. bigdaddyraven says: Oct 30, 2013 6:13 AM

    Great Job SFC. The writing is on the wall, the name will be changed, bank on it! Tick…Tock! A Change is Gonna Come!

  145. gsomatt says: Oct 30, 2013 6:16 AM

    Oh no! There goes all revenue the Redskins get from the SF newspaper readers because it’s not like they have TWO teams in that area for fans to like.

    Next thing the SF paper is going to dump is the name NAACP.

  146. weaponx73 says: Oct 30, 2013 6:43 AM

    Funny how a bunch of people crying about freedom of speech are in the same breath blasting a paper for exerciseing their right to do the same. Hail to the hypocrites.

  147. bigjd says: Oct 30, 2013 6:44 AM

    And yet the sun still rises and life goes on.

  148. graphicwolfart says: Oct 30, 2013 7:00 AM

    there’s a quick fix for all of this. Just say “I’m offended by the name change suggestion and name boycott.” and you have just used the Jedi mind trick on the politically correct.

  149. countyk66ers says: Oct 30, 2013 7:07 AM

    Bret will come back and save the team and from that day forward they will be known as the Washington Favreskins.

  150. skinsgal4life says: Oct 30, 2013 7:49 AM

    I love my Redskins, and the name. I’m part Native American (but everyone born in the USA is!) and I find nothing offensive about the team name. It is just a name, after all. There are much bigger fish to fry. I’m still smiling at Calvin Johnson’s performance on Sunday. The CowButts losing is something to get excited about!

  151. patricesw says: Oct 30, 2013 8:10 AM

    We are..the REDSKINS….HAIL

  152. isphet71 says: Oct 30, 2013 8:12 AM

    I wonder how many Native Americans that are complaining and crying foul have actually been called Redskins in real life.

    I didn’t think that name meant anything any longer other than as a logo for a football team.

  153. rgtre10 says: Oct 30, 2013 8:18 AM

    Really:

    dondada10 says:
    Oct 29, 2013 10:17 PM
    More and more, I’m starting to think that this might actually happen.

    ________________________________

    Well that’s because most outlets are only reporting one side and we know who they are…again the majority say leave it alone they find nothing offensive about the name. Again also as one with Native American ancestry I find nothing wrong with it and wish these few who do would just go away. If I find anything offensive it would be with the Braves fans and that lame tomahawk chop and chant now that’s offensive.

  154. billh1947 says: Oct 30, 2013 8:36 AM

    Just because a team uses the word chief doesnt make it racist as chief is used in several different ways in the english language,there is chief financial officer,chief of police,chief executive officer etc. it simply means leader and Native Americans have no exclusive rights to the title of chief so why be upset about KC using it,as for the Washington Redskins,all they have to do is drop the Red and all is well in Oneida Nation,or go with Potomics.

  155. fwippel says: Oct 30, 2013 8:51 AM

    The mistake the SF Chronicle is making is believing that their stance on the Redskins name is relevent, or that it matters to Dan Snyder or anyone else.

    Sounds more like a desperate attempt to draw attention to the paper, especially by letting the news ‘leak’ out prior to an official announcement. Lame.

  156. lombardisshineinfoxborough says: Oct 30, 2013 8:52 AM

    I lived in SF for five years and always found it hard to believe how awful the SF Chronicle was for sports coverage. For an area with 6 professional teams the coverage and commentary was abysmal and the sports section was a joke, so really who cares what they do….idiotic and hypocritical politics will always reign supreme in SF.

    REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS!!!!!!

  157. friendofinnocence says: Oct 30, 2013 8:53 AM

    Unlike the citizens in D.C. who have a permanently left-wing government, those in Georgia can vote against the left-wing politicians who jump on board to change their teams name and toss them out of office.

  158. bunjy96 says: Oct 30, 2013 8:54 AM

    asspantz says: Oct 29, 2013 10:36 PM

    The paper’s job is to report the news, not make it.

    ….
    Someone please tell the NY Times that.

  159. mrwhitethunder says: Oct 30, 2013 9:17 AM

    I don’t think the name should be changed. That’s my opinion. However if people are truly offended why is it coming up after 80 years. Is this really coming out because it’s a racist term or is it coming out because of the ease of voicing your opinion these days. The original coach was a Native American. I do however offer a simple solution….change the name back to braves….the name was originally braves….still shows the intended respect of redskins….and you wouldn’t have to change anything as far as mascot…..until someone deems braves offensive…and if the NFL wants to throw in the first overall pick to sweeten the pop I’d accept (last comment is a joke relax people)

  160. mvp43 says: Oct 30, 2013 9:18 AM

    What’s a newspaper?

  161. eagles92 says: Oct 30, 2013 9:47 AM

    I hate the redskins with a passion and with that being said I’m behind them on this one. Don’t give in Danny boy don’t give in!

  162. brianjoates says: Oct 30, 2013 9:51 AM

    If Snyder moved the team to another city, would you still support the redskins or would you support a team that eventually replaced them with a new name?

    So many cities have lost and regained teams with new names, who cares about the name. It’s is about having a team and supporting the players on the field.

    Just change the name and get back to playing football.

  163. freeamerica77 says: Oct 30, 2013 10:44 AM

    Diehard Eagles fan…

    Don’t change the name. It is a sad time in our country for us to even be wasting time having a discussion on this. Again, the name does not refer to skin color, but the color of paint that the natives used to apply to their faces prior to battle. However you try to twist it today to meet your liberal agenda is bs.

    This is America and even though you may not like it, every business owner in this country has the right to name their investment whatever they choose to. If you are offended by the name, you are not forced to patronize that business.

    I don’t remember anyone publicly having any issues with this name prior to the last 12 months. Where was all the outrage from the posters that agree then? Do you not think independently enough to have been offended prior to someone pointing out a name that has existed for 80 plus years?

  164. draftazoid says: Oct 30, 2013 10:51 AM

    The football team is no longer in San Francisco. They should “change their name” to the proper city: THE SANTA CLARA 49ERS.

  165. toddm6d says: Oct 30, 2013 11:22 AM

    But what do the Chronicle’s 5 subscribers think about this?

  166. yomommmma says: Oct 30, 2013 11:32 AM

    Redskin referred not to the natural skin color of the Delaware, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint when preparing for battle.

  167. kevjones75 says: Oct 30, 2013 11:34 AM

    Advancing the liberal agenda one day at a time…

  168. draftazoid says: Oct 30, 2013 11:52 AM

    The 12 (actual number) protesters at the Green Bay/ Redskins game are winning this battle.

  169. pftcensor1 says: Oct 30, 2013 12:12 PM

    In 50 years from now when full contact football is banned we will wonder why we even had this discussion.

  170. pftcensor1 says: Oct 30, 2013 12:30 PM

    @tomtravis76

    How can you have a name change and have a history. It would seem to me that any change would need to occur retroactively … meaning any Intellectual Property in the league’s possession would need to be changed. After all we if the name is offensive to see then clearly a rebroadcast of the 1983 Super Bowl would also be offensive.

    However digital technology would allow us to voice over or beep out the term “Redskins” and obscure the logo from all historical footage.

    In addition if the league forces a change I would think they would need to offer to “buy back” merchandise. After all if it is offensive why should there be a t-shirt with said offensive term and the NFL logo on it.

    Really to claim that the name can be changed but the history can remain seems to be a cop out. Either it is offensive and must be changed completely (i.e. historically) or it is not so bad or not really offensive and can remain.

    Anyone that advocates a change without maintaining that the change occur retroactively is not really offended by the name.

  171. weepingjebus says: Oct 30, 2013 12:31 PM

    Careful, San Francisco. After all, your team is named after a bunch of crazed white prospectors that ravaged the environment and destroyed Native American tribes.

    “The human and environmental costs of the Gold Rush were substantial. Native Americans, dependent on traditional hunting, gathering and agriculture, became the victims of starvation, as gravel, silt and toxic chemicals from prospecting operations killed fish and destroyed habitats. The surge in the mining population also resulted in the disappearance of game and food gathering locales as gold camps and other settlements were built amidst them. Later farming spread to supply the camps, taking more land from the use of Native Americans. Native Americans also succumbed in large numbers to introduced diseases such as smallpox, influenza and measles. Some estimates indicate case fatality rates of 80–90% in Native American populations during smallpox epidemics. By far the most destructive element of the Gold Rush on California Indians was the violence practiced on them and their environment by miners and settlers. Miners often saw Native Americans as impediments to their mining activities.”

  172. imas084 says: Oct 30, 2013 1:43 PM

    I don’t understand why people are automatically equating the “Chiefs” to the “Redskins”, they’re two totally different types of words.

    ONE is a derogatory, racial slur.

    Chief is a term used for a person of status.

    Blackhawk, Seminole, etc… are names of tribes. How is that distinction not being made?

  173. NoHomeTeam says: Oct 30, 2013 1:45 PM

    flik44 says: So, Redskins is NOT OK and Mississippi Rebels is OK. Got it.

    *****

    Nope. Not OK either

  174. Mr. Wright 212 says: Oct 30, 2013 1:48 PM

    This is getting to be ridiculous.

  175. pftcensor1 says: Oct 30, 2013 2:02 PM

    I used to think Mountaineers were people that settled Appalachia — now that I’ve seen Deliverance and now know what a Mountaineer is I am offended by this name — this would be like naming a team the West Virginia Sanduskys.

  176. gohawks7 says: Oct 30, 2013 2:58 PM

    Printed newspaper? What’s that?

  177. biggins94 says: Oct 30, 2013 3:46 PM

    Having a professional, college team with a Native American name and logo should be almost as good as an honor. I know we honor more important things in life like the great spirit, Mother Earth, our elders, and also our children. But what are we fighting for. To be forgotten like most nations that already are. Some tribal nations have their names on sports uniforms and travel all over the country sporting their tribe their nation. We should be proud to be out there and not forgotten

  178. hark2k says: Oct 30, 2013 10:28 PM

    booyah

  179. rams1999 says: Oct 30, 2013 11:06 PM

    tfbuckfutter says:
    Oct 29, 2013 10:28 PM
    Just start calling them the Washington Blackfaces.

    See if that gets the point across.
    ————————————————-
    No dont do that!!!! Cause unlike native Americans, basically all races, African Americans will DEFINITELY loot, random violence to anyone who has nothing to do with it, and they will burn their own city down.
    Yes i know the whiners gonna cry “racist”. But its not. Its a fact. Just look at history and it says it all as far as certain peoples reaction.

  180. nzaz says: Oct 30, 2013 11:11 PM

    I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. I’m leaving comments the encourage level headed conversation with no name calling or curse words and they get deleted!!! Meanwhile there are people on here acting like children, leaving nasty comments yet theirs stay untouched. What gives?!?!?

  181. wclark22 says: Oct 30, 2013 11:52 PM

    This is only a topic because the REDSKINS stink this year. Wait until they start winning again and NOBODY will care. Also I haven’t seen any notable native americans complaining.

  182. skrunks says: Oct 31, 2013 12:28 AM

    here’s the deal. I’m a Delaware. When I visit my relatives we don’t hang around and say to each other “Hey redskin how are you doing?” unless you want to start a fight. Just like you don’t say “hi there yellow chinaman how’re you?” The fact is, many of my native brethren don’t like the term. It carries no respect, its not an honor, its a white mans word, not ours.

    How they determine the outcome of the issue is up to the organization but don’t pretend to speak for native americans and how we feel about this.

    Honor? thats a bunch of crap.

  183. prezmtdewcamacho says: Oct 31, 2013 2:05 PM

    Many people including large groups of Native Americans see the redskin term as one of pride and respect. Some high schools with a majority of Native students have even resisted pressure to change their name.

    There was a small piece of history where the term was primarily used as derogatory in mainstream forms of communication… however there is also evidence many Natives were so prideful they weren’t going to let others tarnish their own ideas of their own image. Did many native tribes not refer to themselves as the red people as well?

    I understand the desire to end the mockery that is the Cleveland Indian or the Tomahawk Chop, but this Washington Redskin is an image which envokes pride and respect. Much like the Saxon mascot of my high school.

    Political activists have a choice. They can either let racism of the past (late 1800s to early 1900s) define the term or they can allow the term to natually be nuetered via people’s present day ideas of the term.

    I have friends that have either lived on the Rez or live there part time. I’ve never heard the term Redskin spoken about in a negative manner. Though there is enough mistreatment and bad history to apply almost a political cause to most any term used to describe a Native American.

  184. BringBackTheFlex says: Oct 31, 2013 5:47 PM

    “Chief” is a title or position, like “King”. It is not a slur.

    “Brave” is a title or position, like “Private” or “Corporal”. It is not a slur.

    “Redskin” is not a title or the name of a position. There is nothing flattering or honorable about it.

  185. lance19 says: Nov 1, 2013 1:41 AM

    A) Time marches on. Period. Even if bigots resist.

    B) Every guy who keeps making excuses for it, by saying he knows a native American who doesn’t mind, should back that up by going to a Res (we have plenty here, east of San Diego) and slinging’ the word around. Try it out for size, forked tongue. :)

  186. geefan1 says: Nov 1, 2013 8:40 AM

    The decision makes perfect sense. Most publications use the city name and team name interchangeably in articles anyway, so if their editorial board thinks the term is offensive it’s easy to just stop using it.

    For those who complain about censorship: it’s the Chronicle’s free speech right not to use a term it considers offensive, and also to decry what it considers to be an insult to Native Americans.

    And for those who feel Snyder has the right to call his privately held business anything he wants: the Chronicle as the right not to use the term if it so chooses in articles published by its privately held media products.

  187. mannyicey says: Nov 1, 2013 11:18 AM

    Tradition. History. Hypocrites. Rights infringement.

    These are the words that are used to defend calling a football team the Redskins. And these same words were used to defend other stances that we have agreed to be bigoted. So why is this different?

  188. osbdav says: Nov 1, 2013 2:43 PM

    Awesome.

  189. dschminck says: Nov 1, 2013 5:49 PM

    Answer this: can you see a Canadian hockey team named the Edmonton Blubber Eaters? Eh?

  190. racistredskins says: Nov 2, 2013 2:09 PM

    Name change opponents are another example of conservatives/rednecks thinking of no one but themselves.

  191. mijum says: Nov 2, 2013 5:42 PM

    If tomtravis76 has his way then the NFL will blackmail Snyder into changing the teams name. That is a sad and fascist way to to make a change. I hope he does not use that tactic on his kids. If the name change goes through other teams better look out including the Dallas Cowboys after all they did to the American Indians.

  192. shawna05 says: Nov 3, 2013 6:21 PM

    I think they should leave Redskins and remove Washington.

Leave a Reply

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