Skip to content

If name changes, would Washington logo be acceptable?

Getty Images

Friday’s edition of PFT Live included a question from a caller who focused on an interesting subplot to the ongoing debate regarding the name of the NFL franchise headquartered in Washington.

If the name of the team changes, would the logo remain acceptable?

The logo and the name have at times been lumped together by the opposition.  And while reasonable minds may indeed differ on whether the name is a slur, it would be difficult to make the argument that the logo (if paired with an appropriate name) would be offensive.

As currently constituted, the logo features the largely realistic profile of a Native American with feathers in his hair and a ponytail.  It’s not a caricature or a cartoon, like the Cleveland Indians’ Chief Wahoo.  And if the profile of a Native American represents an acceptable logo for the Chicago Blackhawks, why isn’t the profile of a Native American an acceptable logo for the Washington NFL franchise?

The Blackhawks’ logo doesn’t have the ponytail, but it does have war paint.  It’s also a bit cartoonish, featuring a bemused Mona Lisa-style smirk.  All things considered, the Chicago logo seems to be a bit closer to the line (wherever the line is) than the Washington logo.

So maybe a name change wouldn’t really change much for the Washington franchise.  Sure, the name on the front of the jersey at the neckline would have to change, but the logo and the colors could remain — if the new name refers to Native Americans in a way that reasonable minds would not regard as a slur.

Of course, some could reasonably argue that it’s not as big of a deal to change the logo as it is to change the name, especially since over the years the team has used as its helmet logo a spear and the letter “R” in a circle.  But changing the name and not the logo could be the kind of compromise that would allow both sides to feel better about the ultimate outcome.

Permalink 137 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Rumor Mill, Washington Redskins
137 Responses to “If name changes, would Washington logo be acceptable?”
  1. 700levelvet says: Jun 1, 2014 2:04 PM

    Do you think about this every waking moment or what..

  2. cartrasuma says: Jun 1, 2014 2:08 PM

    Change the name to Washington Warriors, keep the logo. Done deal. Move on.

  3. avbanig33 says: Jun 1, 2014 2:09 PM

    I can’t see how, the Logo represents the “Redskins” name

  4. klutch14u says: Jun 1, 2014 2:10 PM

    And the “bullying” continues….

  5. andreweac says: Jun 1, 2014 2:12 PM

    New name should be the Washington Bureaucrats. The team is run just like DC. Overpaid, underperforming assets are the norm under Snyder.

  6. texansdan says: Jun 1, 2014 2:13 PM

    Washington Warriors. Name would not be offensive and would show respect. Keep the logo and the colors. Done.

  7. jamarcusgabbert says: Jun 1, 2014 2:16 PM

    I’d laugh so hard if Daniel Snyder changed it to the “Red Indians”.

  8. dougouts says: Jun 1, 2014 2:22 PM

    Maybe some sort of open competition (perhaps among the Native American community) to find an acceptable name would hasten the process to a conclusion.
    Also, because the team has done nothing wrong (except delay the inevitable), and because of the external pressures on the NFL by society in general, the NFL should be offering to alleviate some of the expense of switching everything over (a likely reason for the team’s delay in making any switch). This would also bode very well for the NFL to reclaim some prestige in the public’s eye.
    The fan base will not be lost, life will go on and we can get back to football.

  9. jaimelh02 says: Jun 1, 2014 2:22 PM

    The Washington Rebels. Use the old school logo with the R and feathers

  10. ncarolinarn7 says: Jun 1, 2014 2:23 PM

    It has been Redskins for 80 years. All these tender footed people need to get over it. Don’t support them with your dollars and pick another team. Free enterprise should be just that. Catering and being held hostage to a bunch of babies. My Mother was murdered in 2004 shot 5 times, my collie tied to a tree and shot, many things I’ve been through. Why are people so thinned skinned??? It’s just words. Someone has used them a very long time. It’s not even a slur or derogatory People please. Really??

  11. gibbsandflair says: Jun 1, 2014 2:25 PM

    Snyder could have his cake and eat it too. Change the name to the Warriors. Keep all logos. The logos would be protected under the First Amendment. but just like the Virginia Cavaliers are the Wahoos, the Washington Warriors could still be called the Redskins by die hard fans.

  12. MedicFL1 says: Jun 1, 2014 2:28 PM

    If you change the #Redskins name then by the same logic you must change every Indian related town name in N.Y.
    Good luck with that!
    Look at a map and enjoy the laugh.

  13. jayovalentine says: Jun 1, 2014 2:29 PM

    Why would it be offensive ?…. A Blackfeet man from Montana created that logo. And that is a FACT !! Look it up, I’m pretty sure this will be censored !!

  14. charger383 says: Jun 1, 2014 2:32 PM

    I used to hate Dan Snyder and have like Indians, that has now reversed

  15. mantastic54 says: Jun 1, 2014 2:32 PM

    Washington Reds

  16. icewalker946 says: Jun 1, 2014 2:33 PM

    Will keeping the name make the team any better or worse?

    Get away from the controversy and change the name.

    There is no slippery slope here.

    What is the next worst offensive name?

    Vikings? They were pretty bad and there are some that say they came to North America before Columbus. Maybe they were killing Indians before the real ‘European Invasion’.

    The 49ers? People went West to find gold in 1849 but ended up killing or getting killed along the way. Lots of drinking and shooting and killing.

    Buccaneers were pirates in the Caribbean. They did a lot of damage to Spanish sailing and trading in the 1600s. Killing and looting.

    I don’t hear a peep for the league to change those names and I doubt we will.

  17. dobe420 says: Jun 1, 2014 2:34 PM

    If this name wasn’t a problem for like 75 years, why is it a problem now in the last 2 years or so? People act like Indians just came out of hibernation. They’ve been here for a long ass time before these teams made the name. Doesn’t seem like a problem then when the name first came out. Also why aren’t they mad at the Kansas City Chiefs? Didn’t they get sent that was in the trail of tears, where’s the out cry to change their name?

  18. ialwayswantedtobeabanker says: Jun 1, 2014 2:36 PM

    “Sure, the name on the front of the jersey at the neckline would have to change, but the logo and the colors could remain — if the new name refers to Native Americans in a way that reasonable minds would not regard as a slur.”

    The vast majority of Native Americans do not regard the name, “Redskins” as a slur. Does that mean all those people are unreasonable?

  19. aceakking says: Jun 1, 2014 2:38 PM

    Change the name and change the logo. The name is a slur and the logo is just ugly as hell.

  20. trytobnimble says: Jun 1, 2014 2:41 PM

    The logo isn’t offensive in and of itself. Neither is the arrow logo of a past era. But that isn’t the point. If you’re going to change the name after this controversy, then go the whole 9 yards and leave the Native American theme entirely. Your team represents the Nation’s Capital! There are plenty of appropriately themed names to cull.

  21. avbanig33 says: Jun 1, 2014 2:41 PM

    The name is racially insensitive. There’s a difference between all these other names of Native Americans for teams and a name that used to be used for scalping native Americans and getting their “red skins”

    Anyone who says it’s not an offensive name either has never historically researched the name of never watched Dances with wolves.

    Also, native Americans have had a problem with the name for decades.

    Do some research

  22. thestrategyexpert says: Jun 1, 2014 2:46 PM

    It would just be better to re-brand the team with a new identity altogether.

  23. claimersays says: Jun 1, 2014 2:46 PM

    C’mon Man!

  24. mediasloppy says: Jun 1, 2014 2:48 PM

    Nothing is wrong with the logo. The name would have to fit. I think “Warriors” is one of the names the NFL put on the no no list, so you can scratch that.

    Add another bird. Crows – Probably the smartest bird in the world. Plus a gather of them is called a “Murder of Crows”. That’s a bit more threatening than the 12th man.

  25. bucsorbust says: Jun 1, 2014 2:48 PM

    There is no “if” here. The name’s not changing, period. The liberals revived this ridiculous issue during an election year just to give them a way to pretend they are inclusive.

  26. carpi2 says: Jun 1, 2014 2:54 PM

    No other name, other then “The Washington Albert Hainsworths” would be more fitting for a Dan Snyder owned team.

  27. bucsorbust says: Jun 1, 2014 2:57 PM

    This whole issue is Harry Reid and his fellow liberals trying to trump this fake issue up because of mid-term elections. While Reid himself is not up for re-election, House democrats all over the country are, and what better way to get minorities, especially Native Americans, all over the country to the polls? So shaddup libs, name change ain’t happening, and this will all die down after November for another two years.

  28. claimersays says: Jun 1, 2014 3:04 PM

    Let common sense and reason be your guide.Q:1.What context’ have you heard the term Redskins used in? Q:2.Have you ever heard it used as a slur? Q:3. Have you ever even heard it used derogitorally? The answers are 1: in reference to an NFL franchise based in the greater Washington DC area. 2. Unless you are a 160 year old prospector, no… You haven’t. 3. Possibly even probably… In reference to an NFL franchise based in the greater Washington DC area.
    This issue has nothing to do with the “Slur” argument and everything to do with $$$ and copyright law. If this was a PC issue guys like Florio would be quick to point out that Cheif Wahoo of Cleveland’s Indians isn’t the only problem with that team. I’m pretty sure Indian has been considered insensitive to Native Americans for decades since they are in fact not from India. Truth be told Native American will be considered offensive at some point and will be transitioned to Migratory Asians.

  29. ruffbufffire says: Jun 1, 2014 3:05 PM

    The Washington redman!

  30. avbanig33 says: Jun 1, 2014 3:10 PM

    I thought native Americans have been fighting the name for 2 or 3 decades. This is certainly NOT an election issue, that’s laughable.

    And the more and more the redskins organization does stupid things like they did last week with the hashtag on twitter, the more and more it becomes likely the name WILL change.

    At my job, we represent workers on the Navajo Nation. I’d love for Bruce Allen to go there and try to explain why the Redskins name isn’t offensive to them. I’ve already asked some of them if they think the name is offensive and they said yes, there are no blackskins, white skins or yellow skins. There’s also no team names called the N-words, the Japs, the Spics, the Sand – N’s or anything else like that

    That’d be comical, and he’d probably get beaten up or shoes thrown at him. Like George Bush when he went to Iraq and told the iraqies all the good things Americans were doing for them. Lol

    The name is going to change eventually, it might not be for 5 or 10 years, but the faster they do it, the better it will be for the owner.

    I think the Washington Generals, Senators, Presidents or how bout the Bullets?

  31. SparkyGump says: Jun 1, 2014 3:13 PM

    The logo is fine.

  32. lennydpocketqb says: Jun 1, 2014 3:17 PM

    Why is everyone forgetting that a Native American designed the logo?

  33. Robert says: Jun 1, 2014 3:19 PM

    Washington Redbloods, the face of the logo changed to a lighter skin tone.

    Colors stay the same(Burgundy and Gold)


    Washington Reddogs, the face of the logo kept burgundy with a fierce dog as opposed to the current logo.

    Everything stays the same but the name and updated logo on the helmet.

    No harm , no foul.

  34. 700levelvet says: Jun 1, 2014 3:21 PM

    Bob Costas works for the same network as the sell out.. See bobo I like Micky Mantle as well as we are just the same …I hate the Redskin name as much as you… How am I doing bobo

  35. avbanig33 says: Jun 1, 2014 3:24 PM

    mantastic54 says:
    Jun 1, 2014 2:32 PM

    Washington Reds

    I like this idea and have never thought of it before. Just drop the skins. Then, it will be like the baseball team in Cincinnati.

    Washington “Reds” is good.

  36. nomoreseasontix says: Jun 1, 2014 3:28 PM

    Let’s call them the “Washington Politically Correct Liberal Hipsters”

  37. jimmysee says: Jun 1, 2014 3:28 PM

    It suffers from guilt by association — but coupled with the name Washington Americans would be a-ok with me.

  38. avbanig33 says: Jun 1, 2014 3:28 PM

    Who was that? I’ve never heard that before and if that’s true, the Redskins should hire you to run their PR department and fire everyone that came up with the #redskinspride hash tag and bombarding the Majority Leader’s office with phone calls, emails, tweets & Facebook messages when the team is actually winning the argument because the League hasn’t told them to change the name, they haven’t lost any fans, nor any sponsors over the name and most of country could care less about the name.

  39. mutohasaposse says: Jun 1, 2014 3:30 PM

    lennydpocketqb says: Jun 1, 2014 3:17 PM

    Why is everyone forgetting that a Native American designed the logo?

    No one is forgetting, it is just facts that are pro-skins get deleted. Only half-truths, manipulated words, ignorance, and straight up lies get posted on this subject.

  40. In Teddy We Trust says: Jun 1, 2014 3:31 PM

    Although I agree that Warriors is not an offensive nickname by itself, I would point out that Marquette changed their nickname from Warriors to Golden Eagles because of political correctness run amok. So I don’t think Warriors gets you in the clear.

  41. rubicon202 says: Jun 1, 2014 3:31 PM

    I say all the bleeding hearts for lost causes gather their money together, buy the franchise, changed the name so the rest of the world can move past this entire issue…

  42. wave222 says: Jun 1, 2014 3:31 PM


  43. commanderroman says: Jun 1, 2014 3:31 PM

    Washington Americans and that way they can keep the logo and honor the American Indians.

  44. atodaso says: Jun 1, 2014 3:31 PM

    @dobe420. Chiefs got their name when Lamar Hunt moved to KC from Texas. He named the team Chiefs after the mayor of KC (mayor Bartles)whose nickname was Chief. Not sure how that’s racist at all

  45. rubicon202 says: Jun 1, 2014 3:35 PM

    the beauty of it all, when anyone someone thinks something is offensive, it’s offensive. I lean more towards poverty, corruption and crime as offensive. I don’t know, I guess I live on the edge?

  46. mutohasaposse says: Jun 1, 2014 3:37 PM

    “One school that still uses the nickname is Red Mesa High in Arizona, located on a Navajo reservation, and where 99.3 percent of its students are Native American. Tommie Yazzie, superintendent of the school district that oversees Red Mesa High School and a full-blooded Navajo, said he is more concerned with the use of Native American war chants and gestures during sporting events. Do we have your attention, Atlanta Braves and KC Chiefs?”

  47. mutohasaposse says: Jun 1, 2014 3:43 PM

    “”We just don’t think that [name] is an issue,” Yazzie said. “There are more important things, like busing our kids to school, the water settlement, the land quality, the air that surrounds us. Those are issues we can take sides on.”

    “Society, they think it’s more derogatory because of the recent discussions,” Yazzie said. “In its pure form, a lot of Native American men, you go into the sweat lodge with what you’ve got — your skin. I don’t see it as derogatory.”

    Neither does Eunice Davidson, a Dakota Sioux who lives on the Spirit Lake reservation in North Dakota. “It more or less shows that they approve of our history,” she said.

    North Dakota was the scene of a similar controversy over the state university’s Fighting Sioux nickname. It was decisively scrapped in a 2012 statewide vote — after the Spirit Lake reservation voted in 2010 to keep it.

    Davidson said that if she could speak to Dan Snyder, the Washington team owner who has vowed never to change the name, “I would say I stand with him. We don’t want our history to be forgotten.”

    In 2004, the National Annenberg Election Survey asked 768 people who identified themselves as Indian whether they found the name “Washington Redskins” offensive. Almost 90 percent said it did not bother them.”

  48. jaydeanhcr says: Jun 1, 2014 3:48 PM

    It’s amazing to me how people that don’t have ANY stake in this so called “controversy” keep stirring the flames of the fire….Here’s the deal….If the “opposition” wins and my beloved team has to change their name, the LOGO SHOULD GO TOO…and here’s what else I feel strongly about…If we lose our team name, EVERY OTHER SINGLE NATIVE AMERICAN TEAM NAME SHOULD GO…. You cannot pick and choose…it’s one or all!!!!

  49. avbanig33 says: Jun 1, 2014 3:48 PM

    A Navajo told me personally, he wants the name changed.

  50. fordmandalay says: Jun 1, 2014 4:00 PM

    Simple; change it to ‘Redhawks’ and they can go back to the old Circle R with a feather. Problem solved.

  51. dtr3e says: Jun 1, 2014 4:01 PM

    I wonder if Redman chewing tobacco has gotten any flak over their name and logo? Or if these people only reaching for the most publicity?

  52. swampcannons says: Jun 1, 2014 4:08 PM

    If you call them the Redbloods then you would be offending the Crips. And possibly get shot at. Would make for some interesting tailgating though.

  53. avbanig33 says: Jun 1, 2014 4:09 PM

    I’m a Redskins fan. I think it’s a racial slur. I care about and root for DC area sports teams. The names of the teams don’t matter.

  54. kd75 says: Jun 1, 2014 4:12 PM

    “Hail to The Washington Potomac Basin Indigenous People”

  55. kd75 says: Jun 1, 2014 4:16 PM

    Hail to The Washington Labrador Retrievers”

    I almost want the Redskins to win the Super Bowl so Obama can dance around saying “Redskins” on camera.

  56. foofooface says: Jun 1, 2014 4:23 PM

    They should just change the name to the Braves, as they were originally named. Keep the logo, problem solved. Why haven’t they thought of this already?

  57. blackqbwhiterb says: Jun 1, 2014 4:23 PM

    Remember the commercial from the 70’s where the Redskin was shown with a tear in his eye after watching a car full of White European Invaders litter going down the highway?……

  58. briang123 says: Jun 1, 2014 4:29 PM

    I called the Raiders “Oakland” by habit through their whole time in Los Angeles, and I still call the Rams “Los Angeles. Whether they become the Bravehearts or Warriors or whatever, I think I’ll be dead before I stop calling them the Redskins as force of habit.

  59. jimcarnoven says: Jun 1, 2014 4:38 PM

    Don’t ever give in. I’m Italian American. If I were so mentally ill that I identified wholly with my heritage, I would have lobbed HBO for the cancellation of the Sopranos.

    Hey, you give into this nonsense, you open a can of worms.

  60. dallascowboysdishingthereal says: Jun 1, 2014 4:39 PM

    The name is not changing so no need to discuss the logo. No one wants to entertain some sort of compromise when the name has hurt no one for the past 80 years and will not the next 80.
    Get over it!

  61. ebacaj says: Jun 1, 2014 4:39 PM

    I’ve always thought that the logo was perfectly acceptable. I’ve recently thought that a name change has become inevitable.

    Perhaps the best way to go is to honor the name of a local tribe in the vein of Florida State (Seminoles), Central Michigan (Chippewas) and Utah (Utes). It seems all of these teams got support from the local tribes in keeping them as mascots.

    So, my solution to the name controversy: Washington Potomacs

  62. jimcarnoven says: Jun 1, 2014 4:41 PM

    This is not a “red sambo” as some activists had put on a protest banner. (“Red sambo has to go”). They can go [REDACTED] themselves if they’re comparing this to the Cleveland Indian (now THAT’S a sambo). Even the Atlanta Brave appears happy and well-adjusted.

  63. broncostevenp says: Jun 1, 2014 4:45 PM

    The Washington Law. Nothing scares the crap out of people more than having politicians passaging yet another bill.

  64. jimcarnoven says: Jun 1, 2014 4:46 PM

    As a psychologist, I can tell you this campaign actually meets the criteria for mental illness. At the heart of mental illness is a perception-skewing sensitivity and compulsive behavior.

    If the accused racist says “I didn’t mean what you think I meant” (i.e., I didn’t imply what you inferred), it should end there. Any demands made after that are malicious and encroach on another person’s hegemony as an individual endowed with certain inalienable rights under the Constitution.

  65. mightbegoingtohellforthis says: Jun 1, 2014 4:47 PM

    Change the name and logo but keep the colors. Eliminate all ties to native american heritage. If they don’t like being recognized, then let them live in obscurity.

  66. qdog112 says: Jun 1, 2014 4:48 PM

    Tick tock, tick tock …

  67. juice997 says: Jun 1, 2014 4:50 PM

    I’m not a Redskins’ fan but I hope they do not change the name simply because people are offended. If Snyder wants to change it because he feels it’s offensive then that’s cool.

  68. peerjp says: Jun 1, 2014 4:50 PM

    Just keep the spear/arrowhead logo. No need to keep the current logo since there are sure to be varying opinions on whether it is appropriate or not.

  69. skins1970 says: Jun 1, 2014 4:51 PM

    Keep the name change the logo to an arrow I always like the arrow logo. Everybody will be happy with that.

  70. jimcarnoven says: Jun 1, 2014 4:54 PM

    “A Navajo told me personally, he wants the name changed.”

    Should we care? I wish I were taller so I would have more dates. (A man who looks like me but is 4 inches taller would clean up). But I can’t demand Congress create an affirmative action dating program for men under 5’8″

  71. peerjp says: Jun 1, 2014 4:55 PM

    I had never heard Redskins used in a derogatory fashion in my lifetime, however, I recently watched Disney’s Peter Pan with my daughter and watching that movie in the context of how Native Americans are depicted, the term sure seemed to be derogatory. So, at least back in the 50s, it probably was derogatory.

  72. thereyougo2 says: Jun 1, 2014 4:56 PM

    What’s up with honoring Native Americans through the use of a nickname for a professional football franchise? Where do these thinkers come from?

    The team used the redskin nickname thinking it showed power, struck fear in opponents. There never was a thought of slur toward a race of people rather an honor to their strength.

    No matter that this is common sense the PC clan just goes on and on.

  73. thereyougo2 says: Jun 1, 2014 4:57 PM

    Gotta love what Daniel Snyder says about a name change, NEVER.

  74. musketmaniac says: Jun 1, 2014 5:08 PM

    A. Vikings were also farmers, tradesmen. only a small percentage raided.
    B. Pirates/buccaneers have no ethnicity.
    c. 49eers is a reach

  75. purplezimmerpride says: Jun 1, 2014 5:29 PM

    Vikings are NOT offensive! Truthfully we aren’t defensive either. Kind of sums it all up.

  76. purplengold says: Jun 1, 2014 5:49 PM

    Washington Wolverines…
    Washington Wolves…
    Washington Werewolves…
    Washington Weasels…

  77. kev86 says: Jun 1, 2014 6:19 PM

    Washington Skins

  78. coachbeck says: Jun 1, 2014 6:33 PM

    This is beyond ridiculous . Can we have some more articles of agent tampering as well.

  79. mark0226 says: Jun 1, 2014 6:43 PM

    I can’t believe people are still harping on this, but if Snyder ever does change the name, then he should stay as far away from any Indian theme as possible.

    Maybe the Washington Hogs to commemorate they three Superbowl wins.

  80. TheWizard says: Jun 1, 2014 6:45 PM

    Ok, change the name to something totally unrelated to Indians if it’s so offensive.

    Then we don’t risk having to go through this another 20 years down the road.

  81. kenstabler says: Jun 1, 2014 6:59 PM

    White skins. Slap George Washington on the side of the helmet. Get this crap over with.

    Do people read history? The name is respectful, it was about the paint on their face.

    Just because you are defeated by someone, it does not mean your enemy does not have great respect for you. Hence the name, Redskins.

    This is the Indian way.

  82. southpaw79 says: Jun 1, 2014 7:03 PM

    Why change the name but keep the logo to honor the same group of people that have called you a bigot and a racist? I know it is mostly the media and not the real Native Americans pushing this, but Snyder still would be less likely to take the risk and go through this all over again. He needs to pick a name that will not be offended and that the PC crowed and the liberal left will not run to protect… How about the Washington Constitutions!

  83. 34defense2014 says: Jun 1, 2014 7:16 PM

    Just Chang the name!! What’s the big deal?

  84. dd393 says: Jun 1, 2014 7:25 PM

    Do the Elmer Fudd thing. Washington Wedskins.

  85. dobe420 says: Jun 1, 2014 7:32 PM

    @atodaso that’s actually my nickname try not to tarish it. So what, the team from Kansas City has the arrowhead logo and the guy with war paint dressed like a chief riding a horse around the stadium is to honor a mayor with no Indian heritage?! Really.

  86. defscottyb says: Jun 1, 2014 7:35 PM

    No name or logo change Dan, don’t do it or you will Def lose me and many others as a loyal fan. By the way I’m Cherokee. HTTR!

  87. arrooo says: Jun 1, 2014 8:07 PM

    The only ones making an issue about this is YOU! The media is beating this horse to death.

  88. smackingfools says: Jun 1, 2014 8:12 PM

    Funny how 10 years ago NOBODY cared about this issue. Wasn’t even mentioned. Now it’s something about it daily. Gotta love the media and especially American!

  89. smackingfools says: Jun 1, 2014 8:17 PM

    Arkansas State had to change their name and it was just ‘Indians’. They actually talked to one of the leaders of the Indian nation and they were not offended and didn’t mind the name being used. And they still had to change it. America is a joke.

  90. pftcensor1 says: Jun 1, 2014 8:29 PM

    if forced to change the name… do away with all references to original americans… once bitten twice shy, etc.

  91. demstopper says: Jun 1, 2014 8:41 PM

    Why does this article refer to the “Chicago Blackhawks” and the “Cleveland Indians” but not to the “Washington Redskins” and only “the Washington NFL franchise”? Other commenter was right this whole issue is just about firing up the Democrats base for the midterms. How about the Congress and the President spend more time, oh, I don’t know, giving veterans proper health care?

  92. dcwarpath says: Jun 1, 2014 9:17 PM

    The Redskins and The NFL Front office have made it 100% clear that they are not going to change the name. The truth is Snyder knows that this controversy isn’t going to impact his pocketbook so why would he bow down to a recent swell in PC bullcrap. If you think for one second he going to publicly swallow his pride and make the change you are mistaken. Especially since he grew up a Redskins fan.

    Keep in mind either way he wins… Changing the name would bring in TONS of marketing/merchandise money.

  93. mutantman87 says: Jun 1, 2014 9:34 PM

    I like the logo and think that’s a pretty good compromise, given that you would never call any Native American a “redskin” to their face. I’ve suggested this in a couple online posts myself. In my opinion, the logo is a respectful image of a Native American. Keeping the nice logo and changing the name would simply make the mascot a “Warrior” who also happens to be native. No big deal there.

  94. ytownjoe says: Jun 1, 2014 10:12 PM

    Landover Redskins or

    FedEx Skins

  95. meetnickthomas says: Jun 1, 2014 10:18 PM

    It’s not happening Florio, give it up already! Enough, we are tired of reading your chest thumping on this topic. To take a page out of your own agenda-driving book – “clearly, with the admission that keeping the logo would be acceptable, the Redskins opposition in this name change debate fear they are grasping at straws. If they can’t win the war, they may as well try to win the battle…and if the battle can’t be won, well, we expect football to kick off in September in Washington just as it would without this unjust scrutiny.”

    When the media stops forcing this a real issue, it will fade away, and the few folks who really do care will forget about it too.

  96. mzim2756 says: Jun 1, 2014 10:21 PM

    The logo is fine, think Chicago Blackhawks and Cleveland Indians

  97. skins1970 says: Jun 1, 2014 10:42 PM

    Really this story is old the name isn’t going to change I really doubt anyone is really offended. If they are offended then they wouldn’t click on a story about the Redskins if they were so bothered by the team or the name.

  98. nonnieynonniey says: Jun 1, 2014 10:47 PM

    Why is every time someone mentions Ives Goddard and/or shows that it is the actual change the name group that is on the side ignorance, that post disappears?

  99. hooockey says: Jun 1, 2014 11:31 PM

    I have an alternative solution…

    Keep the name “Redskins”.

    Change the logo to a redskin peanut.

  100. Robert says: Jun 1, 2014 11:31 PM

    1.Washington Warlords.

    2.Washington Warlocks.

  101. NoRespect says: Jun 2, 2014 7:10 AM

    I like the idea of leaving it up to Native Americans to vote, but limit it to Native Americans who are fans of the team. Get ideas from them for a respectable name, in which we know they would include the Redskins name, and let them vote. I’m sure the original name would win. Then, lets see the people who want to empower racists to destroy words, fight that battle.

  102. kelsocarpenter says: Jun 2, 2014 8:46 AM

    I think everyone’s missing the point here. It’s not just that the word “Redskin” is an offensive slur, it’s that most of the Native Americans who are upset simply don’t want to be represented by a sports team at all. Redskins, Warriors, Braves, Blackhawks, Indians, etc. It doesn’t matter. They didn’t ask to be “honored” or associated with a billion dollar sports product that doesn’t benefit them at all.

  103. NoRespect says: Jun 2, 2014 8:52 AM

    It interesting you use the word “most”, when polls have suggested that up to 90% of Native Americans support the Redskins name. I guess we just have different definitions of the word “most”.

  104. hiflyer1 says: Jun 2, 2014 9:08 AM

    new name old logo, name bb riders–

    bareback riders–problem solved

  105. kelsocarpenter says: Jun 2, 2014 9:13 AM

    First of all, notice I said “most of the Native Americans who are offended.” I didn’t say “most Native Americans are offended.” See the difference there? Second of all, the 90% number being pushed by Snyder and Roger Goodell comes from a poll run by the Annenberg Institute in 2004, of around 750 Native Americans. If you think that’s good enough and all-encompassing, let alone accurate 10 years later, fine. I just said above what the “10%” are saying. That’s all.

  106. NoRespect says: Jun 2, 2014 9:26 AM

    I did miss that. I do see the difference. However. unless you have a new or more encompassing poll, we will have to stick with the one we have. Where are you getting your information about what “most” want? Are we asking to remove Notre Dames name and mascot? Most of the Irish who don’t like being referred to as “fighting”, or are not catholic and don’t like a catholic university using their nationality as their mascot, want it removed because they were also never asked. I’m just making that last part up, but doesn’t it sound as authoritative as your unsupported claim?

  107. kelsocarpenter says: Jun 2, 2014 9:36 AM

    I’m referencing an interview on local radio here in DC from a few months ago. A couple spokespeople for the Oneida Nation (I can’t remember their names) said the bit about not wanting to be represented at all, mascots, team names, etc. I’ve heard the Notre Dame argument before, but I think it’s a bit different because one deals directly with race and has an inherent negative connotation (as referenced in numerous historical documents), and the other deals with religion (a choice) and a region of the world. Notre Dame is also owned and operated by Irish Catholics so they’re making their own choice. But hey, if enough Irish Catholics had a problem with it, maybe it would change. Although, I don’t think people care. And even though thousands and thousands of Native and non-Native Americans don’t care about the Skins name, some do.

    I agree a more recent and expansive poll would be very beneficial.

  108. wand813 says: Jun 2, 2014 10:03 AM

    Washington Natives… short for Native Americans. Everybody wins!

  109. NoRespect says: Jun 2, 2014 10:40 AM

    So, “A couple spokespeople for the Oneida Nation … said the bit about not wanting to be represented at all” is the support for your position, but 750 people is not enough to support mine? Do I have that correct?

  110. nonnieynonniey says: Jun 2, 2014 10:50 AM

    Kelsocarpenter states:
    “I think everyone’s missing the point here. It’s not just that the word “Redskin” is an offensive slur, it’s that most of the Native Americans who are upset simply don’t want to be represented by a sports team at all. Redskins, Warriors, Braves, Blackhawks, Indians, etc. It doesn’t matter. They didn’t ask to be “honored” or associated with a billion dollar sports product that doesn’t benefit them at all.”


    You have some things right and some things wrong in what you wrote. First Redskins is not a slur. In order to be a slur it had to have been commonly (again commonly) used as a slur. Historically it was rarely used that way (just about any word can and has been used as a slur so I can’t say never) . Additionally, Redskins was a Native-American invention. Now you can say the word is offensive to a very small minority of Native-Americans but that doesn’t make it a slur just like Oriental to East Asians, may be offensive to some but is not a slur. Just because a word falls out of use doesn’t mean it did so because it was a slur.
    You are correct in that this small group wants all native images and mascots banned. This includes names such as the Seminoles which that tribe actually fully supports, but that still doesn’t matter as this groups position is all images and mascots. Redskins is just an easy target because to the ignorant it sounds like a slur invented by racist white-men as opposed to a name given to themselves by Native-Americans. So the core name change group uses the ignorance of the vast majority of their supporters to push the issue.

  111. NoRespect says: Jun 2, 2014 10:59 AM

    nonnieynonniey, I wish I could give you more thumbs up. This is exactly what I have trying to say. We need to stop giving racists to power to destroy words through collective ignorance.

  112. kelsocarpenter says: Jun 2, 2014 11:00 AM

    The spokespeople I’m referring to our the ones leading the charge. The ones behind the lawsuits over the years. I just can’t remember their names. They’re not random people though, they’re the leaders of the movement.

    @nonniey, regardless of history, origin, or intended use, the word is widely regarded as a slur now. It doesn’t offend me because I’m white and uninvolved. My argument from the beginning has been even if a couple people say “this word is racist to me and offends me and my family,” then what’s the point of keeping it? Why not get it over with.

    It’s going to change. There’s no question about that. As more and more politicians, celebrities, and highly-visible people get involved, the pressure is only going to increase. Why drag it out?

  113. NoRespect says: Jun 2, 2014 11:15 AM

    Being the “leaders of the movement” in no way supports the term “most”. How about you use the term “some” or “a few”? I believe you are referring to Halbritter. Check out the wikipedia page on him, not everyone supports him, not even in the tribe to which he is the “leader”.

  114. NoRespect says: Jun 2, 2014 11:16 AM

    It is only a racist slur to racists and people ignorant of the actual meaning. In which group do you want to put yourself? I put myself in the group of those informed of the term and the fact that it isn’t racist.

  115. nonnieynonniey says: Jun 2, 2014 11:21 AM


    Again there is a difference between being offensive and being a slur. The only way to make a word a slur is for people to commonly use it as a slur and no matter how many people take offense to a word if the word wasn’t commonly used derogatorily by people as an insult to others it can’t be a slur. Bottom-line it is the offending party that creates a slur not the offended party.

    As for being widely regarded as a slur now – no it is not either in the Native American community or in the community at large. A very small minority, tiny actually, take offense and not only to Redskins but to the use of all Native American mascots and images (As you pointed out in your earlier post).

  116. draftazoid says: Jun 2, 2014 11:33 AM

    The funny part is the name and logo are not changing.

  117. kelsocarpenter says: Jun 2, 2014 12:14 PM

    Both of you seem to be very well informed, and have taken time to formulate good arguments, and I applaud you for that. I’m a die hard fan of the team and have been since birth. I’m just giving you the argument from the minority, yes I said minority, of people that want it changed. We can argue semantics until we’re blue in the face, but the fact remains that the minority is growing and the organization is getting more and more negative attention. It’s going to change, it’s just a question of when. I just think they should go ahead and do it now, rather than later.

  118. NoRespect says: Jun 2, 2014 12:31 PM

    The problem is, as I see it, the minority that is growing is being led by ignorance. I don’t think we solve a problem like this by giving in to that ignorance. The best way to fight ignorance is by disseminating the truth. Racism isn’t solved by powering the ignorant, but by educating the masses.

  119. kelsocarpenter says: Jun 2, 2014 12:39 PM

    Our difference is objectivity. You think the word is objectively innocent and that, with education, everyone should agree. My argument is that, again, regardless of history, perspective, intended use and origin, and despite any (poor) efforts by the NFL and the team to educate and persuade to the contrary, the impact of the word “Redskin” is quite subjective, and even a subjective movement can cause change. It may not be a scientific, consensus decision, but a decision can still result from it. The court of public opinion, although still decidedly in favor of keeping the name, has moved in other direction over the last decade and will continue to do so. The rightness/wrongness of that can be debated, as you’ve shown, but it’s still going to change. Maybe not next year, maybe not this decade, but it will.

  120. NoRespect says: Jun 2, 2014 12:51 PM

    Many say that this is a fight against racism, and I agree. However, I believe the supporters of the name are not the racists. We look at the term with pride and respect. Those who want us to change it are those that look at it with ignorance and/or derision. This term originated with Native Americans and we believe we are honoring them, and an awful lot of them agree.

    I was a fan of the Bullets when they wanted to change their name. Even though I thought the reasoning was a stretch, I understood the thought behind it and was OK with it. I am not standing firm on this one out of stubbornness or team loyalty. I stand firm because I believe the words I am writing.

  121. NoRespect says: Jun 2, 2014 12:55 PM

    I should clarify. I am not calling you or all who oppose the name, racist. I am saying that those defending the name and the pride we feel for it, are not.

  122. defscottyb says: Jun 2, 2014 2:24 PM

    Pro sports are not slaves to public pressure and funding like high schools and colleges.

  123. mcconne77 says: Jun 2, 2014 2:38 PM

    In a land of freedom we are being held hostage by the tyranny of political correctness.

  124. thejimthorpejamsession says: Jun 2, 2014 3:06 PM

    How about they change their name to “The Washington Warriors,” keep their logo, and we all move on with our lives?

  125. littleredfeatherdesign says: Jun 2, 2014 6:59 PM

    Not its not we are a people #notyourmascot

  126. 10and46httr says: Jun 2, 2014 10:35 PM


  127. criticaldsj says: Jun 3, 2014 1:51 AM

    I’m with some of the commenters above. Use Warriors as the nickname. Jettison the primary logo in favor of the alternate spear with the burgundy and gold colors ala Florida State.

  128. thrstr says: Jun 3, 2014 8:58 AM

    anyone that has a problem with the Redskins team name needs to take a hard look at themselves and their preoccupation with race. Redskins fans do not think in those terms at all. If you are constantly thinking in terms of race, the dictionary would define you as a . . . what?

  129. nfldskin says: Jun 3, 2014 9:39 AM

    Change the logo to a picture of the children and descendants of Red Skelton.

    The Washington Red’s Kins.

    Problem solved.

  130. dobe420 says: Jun 4, 2014 3:07 PM

    The term itself it’s racist if you allow it to be, words are only offensive in context. I’m an American citizen born in Chicago, off parents who are from Peru with no Incas in our family history. So when people call me Chief it’s racist in context because it’s toward one individual not a group.

    The context the Washington Football Club uses their nickname isn’t racist, as it’s not directed towards anyone, it’s to name their group.

  131. lawson1974 says: Jun 4, 2014 4:01 PM

    I’ve said from the beginning the team should strike a deal with a local tribe , use that name and keep everything else the same.

  132. lawson1974 says: Jun 4, 2014 4:06 PM

    Washington Cherokees

  133. revelation123 says: Jun 4, 2014 10:25 PM

    Disney’s Peter Pan has an entire song in it about indians which consists of them singing “What makes the red man red?”. They also call them “redskins”.

    How horrible! That’s completely racist too, right? Time to ban a children’s classic. Along with every other book, movie, and free speech someone could possibly get up in arms over (which is literally everything).

  134. jon11x says: Jun 6, 2014 11:15 AM

    Washington Rastas, just change the Indian guy to a Rastafarian.

    or Washington Rednecks. I am from the South and I promise not to be offended.

  135. BigAlHeBDMan says: Jun 7, 2014 2:45 PM

    Let’s see, The Charlotte Bobcat just became the Hornets, The New Orleans Pelicans used to be the Hornets, The old Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore and became the Ravens, The Washington Bullets were changed to the Wizards, so I don’t understand Dan Snyder’s objection to changing an obvious racial slur, Tradition? He could change it to the Washington African Americans since there’s a lot more of us there than Native Americans. Would that be considered racist also?

  136. jimcarnoven says: Jun 7, 2014 5:25 PM

    “Just Chang the name!! What’s the big deal?”

    Just RESIST changing the name. What’s the big deal?

  137. jimcarnoven says: Jun 7, 2014 5:26 PM

    “He could change it to the Washington African Americans since there’s a lot more of us there than Native Americans.”

    Yeah but who’d root for THAT?

Leave a Reply

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