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.

137 responses to “If name changes, would Washington logo be acceptable?

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

  2. 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.

  3. 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??

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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 !!

  7. 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.

  8. 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?

  9. “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?

  10. 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.

  11. 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

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

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

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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?

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

    Colors stay the same(Burgundy and Gold)

    or

    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.

  19. 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

  20. 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.

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

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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…

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

  27. @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

  28. 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?

  29. “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?”

  30. “”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.”

  31. 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!!!!

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

  33. 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?

  34. 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.

  35. 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.

  36. 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.

  37. 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?

  38. 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?……

  39. 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.

  40. 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.

  41. 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

  42. 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.

  43. 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.

  44. 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.

  45. 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.

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

  47. “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″

  48. 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.

  49. 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.

  50. Washington Wolverines…
    Washington Wolves…
    Washington Werewolves…
    Washington Weasels…

  51. 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.

  52. 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.

  53. 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.

  54. 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!

  55. @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.

  56. 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!

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

  58. 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!

  59. 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.

  60. 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?

  61. 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.

  62. 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.

  63. 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.

  64. 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.

  65. 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?

  66. 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.

  67. 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.

  68. 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”.

  69. 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.

  70. 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?

  71. 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.

  72. 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?

  73. 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.

  74. 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.

  75. 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?

  76. 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”.

  77. 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.

  78. kelsocarpenter

    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).

  79. 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.

  80. 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.

  81. 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.

  82. 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.

  83. 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.

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

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

  86. 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.

  87. 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?

  88. 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.

  89. 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.

  90. 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).

  91. 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.

  92. 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?

  93. “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!