Skip to content

Washington name controversy keeps picking up steam

Malvo

A day after the out-of-the-blue ruling that the name of the Washington NFL team no longer enjoys the protection of federal trademark law, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell should look in the mirror and execute his best Lorne Malvo impersonation.

Is this what you want?

Goodell needs to keep asking himself that question.  Continuously and repeatedly until Goodell finds a way to persuade, cajole, and/or force owner Daniel Snyder to give up the name.

It had seemed that Goodell hoped to wait for a lull in the debate to find a way out of the maze, creating the impression that the league and the team are making the change because they want to, not because the NFL has yielded to any official or unofficial external uthority.

In that sense, The Shield really is a shield.  The powers-that-be are hiding behind a warped sense of tradition and old-fashioned hard-headedness in refusing to do now what the trend clearly suggests inevitably will happen.  The facts are irrelevant; the position flows from the belief that the NFL is too big to be told what to do by anyone who doesn’t own a team or occupy a prominent corner office at 345 Park Avenue.

A change inevitable will happen, because regardless of where anyone and everyone stands on the issue, the debate will continue.  Through the same passage of time that transformed the term to unacceptable, more and more people will become uncomfortable with the word.  Eventually, supporters who don’t feel strongly about the name will become weary of the controversy.

Until then, Goodell needs to keep coming back to Malvo’s mantra.

Is this what you want?

Does the NFL want ongoing major mainstream media coverage of the controversy?  Does it want A1 placement in the Washington papers of the issue?  Does it want countless radio shows and interviews throughout the country to feature ongoing discussion of this issue in lieu of commentary about, you know, football?

Does Goodell want his long-term legacy to be that he lacked the foresight or the ability to do what history will scream should have been done?

More and more publications decline to use the term.  The Seattle Times has abandoned the word in an editorial posted last night.  Others have simply stopped using it without commentary or fanfare — despite the taunts and insults and not-so-subtle threats from those who strongly oppose a name change.

On that point, one of the primary arguments the supporters of the name advance flows from the perception that concerns about the name have arisen only recently.  Where was the outrage, they’ll ask, over the last 70 years?

As noted on Wednesday by Dan Steinberg of the Washington Post, the issue has lingered for more than 40 years.  Should the media and the politicians have concluded far sooner that the name needs to go?  Absolutely.  Does ignoring the matter in the past compel that it continue to be ignored?  Absolutely not.

Regardless of whether Wednesday’s ruling survives an appeal, the decision from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office represents validation of an effort that has gotten far more organized, far better funded, and far more motivated in the last year — thanks in large part to the team’s misguided decision to engage the issue.  And so the debate will continue, indefinitely.

Through it all, Goodell needs to keep asking himself the key question.

Is this what you want?

Permalink 146 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Top Stories, Washington Redskins
146 Responses to “Washington name controversy keeps picking up steam”
  1. rritter72 says: Jun 19, 2014 9:49 AM

    This is crazy. You need to look at the intent of the word and not the word itself. How about looking at all the schools that use the name Redskins…like Paw Paw High School in Paw Paw Mi…or Nokomis High School. Oh but I guess media attention doesn’t come from complaining about them.

  2. remyje says: Jun 19, 2014 9:49 AM

    i want to see the name change so i can see all these tuff mericans, who always use the same recycled arguments, get so mad they can’t stand it..

  3. wnbasuperfan says: Jun 19, 2014 9:51 AM

    I think the ruling is exactly what he wants.

  4. pdmjr says: Jun 19, 2014 9:51 AM

    Goodell is trying to play Lorne Malvo, but his acting skills are not as good as Billy Bob Thornton’s are. “Is this what you want?”

  5. quickdraw85 says: Jun 19, 2014 9:52 AM

    Politics politics politics. Maybe if Snyder donated to the parties in power he would have avoided this. What a stupid discussion to be having anyway. It’s not a racist team so get over it crybabies.

  6. greenbaydean says: Jun 19, 2014 9:54 AM

    Here’s a thought… Let the market place decide if the name Redskins is racist… FYI, in my opinion 70,000, mostly white fans doing the Tomahawk Chop at a Florida St home game is FAR more racist. I don’t see the media and Native American outrage there…

  7. notan9ner says: Jun 19, 2014 9:54 AM

    keep the name!

  8. kylexitron says: Jun 19, 2014 9:54 AM

    The name doesn’t offend me personally but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t a derogatory term. What does offend my is Snyders child-like attitude about the whole thing.

    He’s also hosed himself. He will inevitably be forced to change it. The writing is on the wall. The problem is that rather than pro-actively changing the brand and embracing it as a new era for his team (and consequently a huge sales and marketing win) it will instead be a punishment and gear with the new name on it will seem more like a punishment than a re-envisioning of the brand.

  9. cleminem757 says: Jun 19, 2014 9:54 AM

    Too bad the LAW is on the Redskins side huh Florio?? The only steam is the steam coming out of your ears when the federal judge upholds the argument that the name is not and has never been used in a disparaging way as far as the team name is concerned. You are on the wrong side of history my friend and the wrong side of the aisle.

  10. hendawg21 says: Jun 19, 2014 9:55 AM

    Only on and in the liberal PC markets…and that ruling doesn’t mean the name has to change…just means that if the Skins lose the battle others then could use the Redskin name and logo for profit. The Skins in the long run would still be able to use the name they only lose the trademark rights.

    And honestly I don’t care if the likes of Bob “little man” Costas and Peter “I think I know Everything” King plus the 50 senators and small minority of Native Americans claim it’s offensive the majority of Native Americans have no problem with it, and yet none of you want to report on that…Why?

  11. ninetysixer says: Jun 19, 2014 9:55 AM

    So we want that word banned….yet MTV, BET et all continuously play music that uses the “N” word and nobody has anything to say about that?

  12. choknugget says: Jun 19, 2014 9:55 AM

    No need to worry about losing the trademark and other “sellers” making money off of the name. You keep telling us everyone’s offended by it. If it’s so offensive, no one will buy merchandise anyway, right?

  13. thefiesty1 says: Jun 19, 2014 9:55 AM

    So, does this mean that due to NO federal trademark protection that anyone can use the word without getting sued by the Redskins. Cluster F.

  14. kylexitron says: Jun 19, 2014 9:55 AM

    Saying its not a racist term is ignorant. It is. Read a book.

  15. bitw44 says: Jun 19, 2014 9:55 AM

    This article essentially comes off as a threat/warning to Goodell

    “We will relentlessly wear you down until you agree with us and give us our way. We control the media and will continue to drag this topic out until our demands are met.”

    This is print terrorism.

  16. missingjimmyjohnsonsince1994 says: Jun 19, 2014 9:56 AM

    Watched a patent/trademark attorney on Olbermann’s show last night and this is completely different timeline and scenario from the 1999 ruling.

    The defendants are younger and they were smart about the way this suit was filed. Snyder needs to have the foresight about his lasting legacy if he continues to refuse to accept reality that there is a change in culture in America and more people are accepting that this is in fact a racial slur (regardless of intentions) and that it should not be the team’s name.

    It is common sense and I’m sorry if you are a life long Washington fan but the fact that you have cheered for this team since your childhood and never considered it racist does not change the fact that is it a racial slur. It is unfortunate that this is happening to a team with a storied history (before 1991) but you have to adapt to change in social norms.

  17. calicokiller49 says: Jun 19, 2014 9:56 AM

    the government forcing itself upon a private organization, is that what you want, mikey?

  18. steincj36 says: Jun 19, 2014 9:57 AM

    I can’t wait for the day when the Irish don’t want to be associated with the low paying poor quality food peddlers at McDonalds.

    Big Government = no freedom.

  19. crabcakesfootball says: Jun 19, 2014 9:57 AM

    Aces

  20. kane337 says: Jun 19, 2014 9:57 AM

    Washington Warriors

  21. screamin2012 says: Jun 19, 2014 9:58 AM

    Florio must be jumping for joy like a 2 year old on this ruling that means nothing. NONE of the tradmarks are open game until the appeals process is completed which could take 2 years. Hopefully by then Florio will have a new bone to pick with another teams name. Try doing some reporting on actual teams and the sports and stop spewing your hate to a team that uses the name as honor and not as a derogatory remark.

    Just change put a space between the Red and Skins and they’ll have nothing to stand on.

    I vote for Red Skins, Red Skins, Red Skins. Sounds perfect and nobody can be offended.

  22. unlimitedcriticism says: Jun 19, 2014 9:58 AM

    While I think the name should be changed, you have to ask yourself: If I were to encounter a Native American on the street and s/he did something to get me mad, would the word “redskin” even cross your mind? Probably not, because no one has used that word in a sentence unrelated to the football team in about a hundred years.

    Still, it WAS a derogatory term, however long ago. Can’t change that.

  23. jm91rs says: Jun 19, 2014 9:58 AM

    I just don’t understand the hold up on the change. Change the name, change the jersey. If you can find a native american tribe that would allow it, name yourself after a tribe and keep your logo similar to what it already is (Florida State has huge support from the seminole tribe). The new jersey sales and new name would be a gigantic influx of cash for Snyder and the NFL. Everyone that supports the team now will support them under a different name.

  24. remyje says: Jun 19, 2014 9:58 AM

    welp there we go…. first comment… the ol “high schools use the name” argument…. that’s a new one…. does it make it any less offensive though?????

  25. NoRespect says: Jun 19, 2014 9:58 AM

    I believe I honor the term, which was coined by Native Americans themselves. Racists have twisted the term to mean something bad or less than whatever they think they are.

    If racists use a word incorrectly and to disparage, that doesn’t mean that we should discard the word or accept their definition. In fact, we should fight to honor the original intent and remove their power altogether.

  26. jackn2482 says: Jun 19, 2014 9:59 AM

    People who want to change it: “It’s racist and antiquated. It offends a significant portion of the U.S.”

    People who want to keep it: “Doesn’t offend me. It’s always been this way.”

    Who has the better argument?

    Everyone who wants to keep the name and bases their argument on “Where do you draw the line?” is making excuses and basing their opinion on fear.

    Watch all the thumbs down I get for this. All based on fear and stupid arguments.

  27. delmonte55 says: Jun 19, 2014 9:59 AM

    No….but it is what Florio wants!

  28. thestrategyexpert says: Jun 19, 2014 9:59 AM

    When somebody asks you “if this is what you want”, you say yes. Unless it’s Billy Bob Thornton or somebody else that could pose a danger if you don’t know how to gain the upper hand of a given situation. In which case “the answer’s no, Griff.”

  29. dmretrogames says: Jun 19, 2014 9:59 AM

    *sigh*

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2013/12/18/redskins_the_debate_over_the_washington_football_team_s_name_incorrectly.html

    Redskin, he learned, had not emerged first in English or any European language. The English term, in fact, derived from Native American phrases involving the color red in combination with terms for flesh, skin, and man. These phrases were part of a racial vocabulary that Indians often used to designate themselves in opposition to others whom they (like the Europeans) called black, white, and so on.

  30. jm91rs says: Jun 19, 2014 10:00 AM

    rritter72 says: Jun 19, 2014 9:49 AM

    This is crazy. You need to look at the intent of the word and not the word itself. How about looking at all the schools that use the name Redskins…like Paw Paw High School in Paw Paw Mi…or Nokomis High School. Oh but I guess media attention doesn’t come from complaining about them.

    ___________________________________

    They’ll be changing their names eventually too. Just because it was acceptable at one time does not make it so now.

  31. thegenoatkinsdiet says: Jun 19, 2014 10:00 AM

    Been saying it for a few years now, but now it is passing the tipping point. There is no other way this will end but with a name change.

    #HTT?

  32. bender4700 says: Jun 19, 2014 10:00 AM

    Fargo was such a good show. Nice reference.

  33. scoops1 says: Jun 19, 2014 10:00 AM

    seems to me that NBC has already made up their mind on this issue….considering Redskins isn’t even posted no one at all in this article

  34. 700levelvet says: Jun 19, 2014 10:00 AM

    Just give it a rest, why do pundits act as if this is the worst thing ever… Even if they are forced by the PC police to change the name, I always refer to them as the Redskins..

  35. calicokiller49 says: Jun 19, 2014 10:00 AM

    how about forcing the black panthers to change their name. their history of violence and intimidation offends me. how about forcing the religion of Islam to change their name, all the death associated with them offends me, oh that’s right we only force our hands on evil white men

  36. ravensmike410 says: Jun 19, 2014 10:00 AM

    I’ll add Red Mesa High School to the mix. If schools on land and run by Native Americans don’t feel the term is racist, why do we cower to a small group that thinks it is?

  37. lemmetalkwouldya says: Jun 19, 2014 10:00 AM

    It would have been nice if Dan Snyder and the NFL had decided on their own a while back that the PC thing to do was to change the name.

    Now you’ve got all this outside pressure, and they cannot look like they’re giving in to it, because it will only encourage future challenges on who-knows-what issues.

    The NFL thinks it cannot cave to pressure.

  38. pftcensor1 says: Jun 19, 2014 10:00 AM

    One name down — Packers you are on deck. The English language changes – what was once an occupation is now only known as a hateful slur that needs to change.

    #PACKERSCHANGETHENAME

  39. abninf says: Jun 19, 2014 10:01 AM

    George Soros has taken over PFT.

  40. enkay85 says: Jun 19, 2014 10:01 AM

    Couple of facts and comments for people to think on:

    1.) Being a supporter of the Redskins name does NOT make someone a racist. To label someone a racist because they like the name/don’t want a name change is a huge misstep. As stated by so many people already, the fans and supporters of the team name never looked at it as a disparaging term or slur.

    2.) The Redskins are worth $1.7B, and only $170M of that revenue comes from the trademark of the logo.

    3.) The CURRENT* Redskins logo was not included in the ruling, so if they keep the logo no one else can legally use it. They can use the name.

    4.) Knock off gear already exists – people choose not to buy it for various reasons. Just because it can now be made without repercussion doesn’t mean much.

    5.) All names and logos are still protected while this is under appeal…the last appeal took 4 years.

  41. iamkillerfin says: Jun 19, 2014 10:01 AM

    Goodell is an idiot & probably gonna just let the lying politicians get what they want!!! I’m not a Redskins fan but Goodell don’t give a hoot about history & that’s why he’s a hated comissioner!!! LEAVE THE NAME ALONE!!!

  42. bouldereagle says: Jun 19, 2014 10:01 AM

    I guess we should ban all native American Indian names from sports teams, so we don’t offend anyone, and while we are at it, ban any books that don’t use the phrase “native American Indian”.

  43. countmahdrof says: Jun 19, 2014 10:01 AM

    He’s still awaiting word from his European contacts as to attitudes over there. American fans will buy anything. We no longer matter.

  44. eagleswin says: Jun 19, 2014 10:01 AM

    From the 1972 letter : They have heretofore registered protests with other teams using either Indian names or Indian symbols; for example, Stanford University, Dartmouth College, Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves and Kansas City Chiefs.

    ——————————

    So much for the people who say that the Indians, Braves, Chiefs, etc. aren’t being targeted because they aren’t “racial slurs”. The term Redskins was coined by the Native Americans, look it up.

    The Redskins are just the tip of the iceberg. What are you going to say when they come for the Indians, Chiefs, Braves, and Blackhawks?

    What are you going to say when they tell you that those team names are disparaging to Native Americans?

    Come to think of it, the Native Americans should be the only people called Americans. What should the rest of call ourselves? I wouldn’t want to offend anyone.

  45. trollhammer20 says: Jun 19, 2014 10:02 AM

    Hail to the Potomac Basin Indigenous Persons!

  46. guachosporlife says: Jun 19, 2014 10:02 AM

    I’m amazed at how ignorant people are. Yankees, Warriors, Vikings, Choc Taw, etc. DO NOT have the deragotory meaning as “Redskin”. Then again that ignorant mind is what permits some to see no negative meaning in the name.

  47. NoRespect says: Jun 19, 2014 10:03 AM

    Yes, if the people who you are trying to protect are telling you it isn’t offensive and they don’t need your protection, then it does make it less offensive. Absolutely.

  48. valentino8100 says: Jun 19, 2014 10:05 AM

    …steam in the recesses of the minds of the few, or is that smoke from trying to think too hard. The appeal will be in favor of Snyder, period. As far as public opinion, well, you know what they say about opinions.

  49. qdog112 says: Jun 19, 2014 10:06 AM

    To supporter of the continued use of the name, facts and history don’t matter. It has become a cause celeb to fight any change that moves us into a future of respect for all.

    It follows the same pattern as those who opposed desegregation of schools, integration of public facilities and voting rights and workplace equality.

    Typically, the mantra is that government is forcing something down their throats.Goodell is waiting on the clock to run out and public appetite for the controversy to wane, dissipate and disappear.

    It would be wise for Goodell to just say”we are forming a committee to study …” That way he buys some time, while Snyder comes to grip with the inevitable. Doing nothing conjures up images of the southern politicians, who swore defiance and resistance to change.

    Washington, the first southern franchise, symbolizes that last grasp at holding onto tradition whose time has pasted.

    Good question: Is this what you want?

  50. rainponcho87 says: Jun 19, 2014 10:06 AM

    I am 47 and I remember as a kid people talking about how calling them the “redskins” sounded wrong. This is not at 2014 observation. If the had exactly the same logo and called themselves the Cherokees or Iroquios or some other legitimate tribe name or part of Native American culture that would be fine. Look at the KC Chiefs. Name and logo are fine. It just sounds weird to call any race by (color)-skins: whiteskins, yellowskins, blackskins, etc.

  51. arwiv says: Jun 19, 2014 10:07 AM

    Well there is one good thing about this issue that is pretty reassuring. Apparently there are a LOT of people in this world who are doing pretty well with life in genera….and truly dont have any real problems going on….being as they have this much time to dedicate towards the name of a football team. Good for them.

  52. ghjjf says: Jun 19, 2014 10:07 AM

    If you don’t like the name, don’t use it and don’t watch their games. Not gonna matter when the Supreme Court finds that the patent office violated the redskins first amendment rights.

  53. nosleeptilsb says: Jun 19, 2014 10:09 AM

    Change it to the Washington Natives, you could keep the logo, a small victory in something that will change eventually.

  54. ogbobbydeas says: Jun 19, 2014 10:11 AM

    what about momentum and steam to change the Atlanta BRAVES, Cleveland INDIANS with that awful racial logo, Chicago BLACKHAWKS, Florida State SEMINOLES with their indian CHOP. , I suspect an owner in the NFL is behind this to profit and also force Synder and the team to be distracted. I am sure that some benefit to the Indian Nation will be attained even with the name change.

  55. ravens2xworldchamps says: Jun 19, 2014 10:14 AM

    Washington Warriors

  56. pastorbobs says: Jun 19, 2014 10:15 AM

    I think the Redskins can keep the name, just change the logo on the side of the helmet to a potato. Redskin potato that is…

  57. baddegg says: Jun 19, 2014 10:16 AM

    It is a sign of the times when a slim minority can hold a belief (e.g. that the name is offensive) and arrogantly act like:

    1. Their belief is right no matter what anyone else thinks.

    2. The fact that their minority believes it makes it an overwhelming trend.

    3. The fact that their minority believes it means that the majority should bend to their will.

    Hubris.

  58. bobleblah says: Jun 19, 2014 10:22 AM

    Cowboy – an occupation
    Patriot – an attitude
    Seminole -the name of a tribe
    Redskin – derogatory name for native americans

  59. fahcue says: Jun 19, 2014 10:27 AM

    Why isnt anybody offended and crying about the Vikings or the Irish?

  60. campcouch says: Jun 19, 2014 10:37 AM

    I’m buying a t-shirt just in case…

  61. mrniceinvenice says: Jun 19, 2014 10:39 AM

    D. Sterling just had his team taken away over a racial slur. We have evolved. Take away D. Snyder’s team and let’s keep moving forward.

  62. daburgher says: Jun 19, 2014 10:39 AM

    if people researched this topic, they would find that the overwhelming majority of american indians do not find the term offensive… however some rich white dudes in dc do

  63. hsteacher says: Jun 19, 2014 10:42 AM

    The term Redskin is the English translation of a Native American term. So, if it goes then I would think Viking is next.

  64. matiberio says: Jun 19, 2014 10:42 AM

    I believe that Snyder hired the PR firm, not to fend off the impending name change, but to tell him how to best save face once he has to do it.

  65. tooz72 says: Jun 19, 2014 10:46 AM

    Washington Riggins sounds good

  66. greymares says: Jun 19, 2014 10:57 AM

    H T T ?

  67. trytobnimble says: Jun 19, 2014 11:02 AM

    I, for one, see a big difference between Chiefs, Braves, Seminoles, Warriors, etc, and… R-E-D-S-K-I-N.

    Is it just me, or is it easy to group these into a set and choose which one doesn’t belong? There’s only one that is intentionally disparaging, directly references Race with an insulting undertone, and has a centuries old tradition of being used to humiliate.

  68. altajo3 says: Jun 19, 2014 11:04 AM

    This is ridiculous, the united state government will calling for Marshall law next. 80 years and now it’s an issue. Obviously Snyder rejected some secret society member what they asked for. We all know the government is corrupted and for some reason we just sit and allow them to abuse their power. Keep the name and fire Harry.

  69. urbusted2 says: Jun 19, 2014 11:04 AM

    When did the Federal Trademark commission or whatever it’s called begin to make value based calls on a name being derogatory or not?

  70. gregt13 says: Jun 19, 2014 11:06 AM

    If you think Redskins fans will ever get tired of fighting a name change, you don’t know us.

  71. t8ertot says: Jun 19, 2014 11:13 AM

    Redskin fans just need to admit they don’t want to buy new gear

  72. weepingjebus says: Jun 19, 2014 11:13 AM

    If everyone is so offended, it should be easy to put together a coalition to buy the team. Apparently it only took the plaintiffs 3 years to find 5 “offended” people to file suit against the trademarks, so maybe you’ll get somewhere in 600 years.

  73. doctorofsmuganomics says: Jun 19, 2014 11:16 AM

    Just change the name so people can get on with their lives

  74. azjam says: Jun 19, 2014 11:16 AM

    Argue all you want but the bottom line is that Redskins is a a very derogatory name. Its time it be changed.

  75. channelguy says: Jun 19, 2014 11:23 AM

    The fact that a far left paper like the Seattle Times will no longer call the team by their name doesn’t mean much. The trademark decision will also be overturned, because it is UNREASONABLE, so that doesn’t mean much either,

    There’s no point in giving in to appease the leftists on this issue, none whatsoever. They can’t be appeased. Give them their victory and they will just move on to new and more extreme demands. The only thing to be done is fight them and stop them in their tracks. They DON’T have majority opinion on this, only their tactic to try and shame away opposition by the insinuation that if you oppose them, you are a terrible person.

  76. ampman13 says: Jun 19, 2014 11:24 AM

    So, when are we going to change the state, city, and schools that have Oklahoma?

    The state’s name is derived from the Choctaw words okla and humma, meaning “red people”.

  77. casurferho says: Jun 19, 2014 11:24 AM

    I have a solution:…. I have an uncle through marraige , so actually he is a second cousin twice removed (not at all but always wanted to use that in a sentence)
    His name is Uncle Red, and he has a lot of family or Kin, so you could keep the name but the meaning is entirely different!!!
    Washington Reds Kin!!! Simple

  78. gacoltfan says: Jun 19, 2014 11:33 AM

    I thought we started using the term Native American because Indian wasn’t politically correct. Why isn’t there any outrage over Indians as a nickname.

    Frankly, I’ve never heard the word redskin used to disparage Native Americans. Obviously it never was or all these schools would have never had it as a mascot.

  79. 82288boys says: Jun 19, 2014 11:33 AM

    Next the NY Giants will have to change their name because people with gigantism will be offended………

  80. t500000t says: Jun 19, 2014 11:35 AM

    I don’t think the namechangers have a legal leg to stand on anyway but to make the matter bullet proof, the Redskins only need to find one NA tribe or nation or whatever to give them approval to use the name “Redskin” and all of this will be done with.

  81. tennesseeoilers says: Jun 19, 2014 11:36 AM

    I don’t believe Washington’s franchise in any way intends for the name “Redskins” to be degrading to themselves or anyone else … same with the second-most promoted moniker in the team’s history: HOGS. It wasn’t meant to be demeaning to themselves … or pork.

    This history is the answer. Ladies and gentlemen the future name of DC’s football team:

    The Washington Hogs.

    Does it get any more down in the mud and truly football than that? Rock it and rock it proud!

  82. beachsidejames says: Jun 19, 2014 11:42 AM

    Harry Reid needs to change his name 1st, step down from office with no pension, clean all the bathrooms at the indian run casinos in a Redskins uniform while on live video for the rest of his life and then we can about a Redskins name change.

  83. russrpm says: Jun 19, 2014 11:44 AM

    As someone who lived just outside a reservation for several years, I can promise you that none of my Native America friends would have allowed anyone to call them a redskin to their face, although, much like the n word, it may be used within the group. Ask yourself this: would you be comfortable walking up to a stranger on the street and asking for directions by saying, “Hey, redskin, where’s the post office?” Times change, and out attitudes about certain things should change with them. Time to move on from this name. Besides, think how much money Snyder will make when all the fans buy the new logo merchandise.

  84. lowlifenebula says: Jun 19, 2014 11:46 AM

    I don’t understand how some people can use the argument ” not all native Americans are offended by the term ” as an argument. If a team was called the moon crickets I bet only a small majority of the population would even still remember what it meant but it would still be a derogatory term. The problem isn’t about political correctness, it is about being fair. No other derogatory terms as far as racial matters are concerned are allowed in professional sports, college sports etc. Ignoring the native Americans because they are a smaller population who don’t complain as much is not the right way to do things.

  85. drs76109 says: Jun 19, 2014 11:49 AM

    Washington Pigskins

  86. baddegg says: Jun 19, 2014 11:50 AM

    If they do change the name I honestly hope that it is a clean break with NO reference to native americans. No to Braves. No to Warriors. If all these folks don’t want you to honor them, just leave them behind and go with something totally new.

    Washington Monuments or something like that, unless you think that’s going to offend stone masons, lol.

  87. billsfan says: Jun 19, 2014 11:57 AM

    Washington Redskin Potatoes

    Oh wait, that would be offensive to Atkins dieters.
    Go Spuds!

  88. jeanoroid says: Jun 19, 2014 11:57 AM

    In the end I believe Snyder should be able to call his property whatever he wants. If that choice causes a storm of backlash and hellfire and what have you that is just fine too. He can deal with all the fallout from that if he wants. Maybe the district starts pulling support too – fair enough. Maybe the NFL decides the name must change or Snyder must go a-la Sterling. That’s fine too.
    How important is making a stand a keeping a stupid name that is ticking people off? Snyder’s call.

  89. carljr13 says: Jun 19, 2014 11:58 AM

    Let’s recap for a moment:

    The term Redskin is derived from Native American phrases involving the color red in combination with terms for flesh and these phrases were part of a racial vocabulary Indians used to designate themselves.

    So we should be led to believe that the use of Redskin is by an NFL franchise is considered a derogatory name for Native Americans when it was Native Americans who developed and used the term to refer to themselves.

    Well if that isn’t an ignorant position to take then I don’t know what is and it is definitely a slap in the face to those of us who actually apply common sense in situations like this.

    I guess that begs the question: Does that mean that Native Americans were/are racist and disparaging to themselves because they developed and use/d the term in referring to themselves?

    More importantly if the term is so offensive and disparaging then where is all the statistical data that suggest that Native Americans find it so. Oh wait there is very little data to support that position and in fact the overwhelming majority of Native Americans don’t find the use of Redskins for Washington’s football team offensive at all.

  90. b3nz0z says: Jun 19, 2014 12:06 PM

    there in fact is plenty of data suggesting that plenty of native americans are offended

  91. rascalmanny says: Jun 19, 2014 12:08 PM

    Remember in November.

  92. alonestartexan says: Jun 19, 2014 12:11 PM

    Stick it to DC…

    Name them the Maryland Marauders!

  93. xbam1 says: Jun 19, 2014 12:14 PM

    Change is a coming Red$&!n fans…and no not the kinda change that would transform your pathetic team into a consistent winner…does anyone know where i can find a list of the football team in Washington’s sponsers?…id like to start boycotting them and encouraging others to do so as well….

  94. lightofkolob says: Jun 19, 2014 12:18 PM

    Why not name them after a tribe or use some term that honors NAs?

  95. bigdaddy44 says: Jun 19, 2014 12:29 PM

    The name of the football team was never meant to denigrate native Americans, but has been used to honor them. Society is changing and those who are offended by the name are gaining a voice. How about this as a compromise. Keep all the uniforms and logos just the same as they are now. Change to a name that is acceptable in today’s society, while still showing honor. The Washington Americans.

  96. dublindemonszfl says: Jun 19, 2014 12:46 PM

    They play to honor the name, flip a coin, and move on.

  97. radiofriendly420 says: Jun 19, 2014 12:47 PM

    Chicago Blackhawks, Cleveland Indians, Notre Dame “Fighting Irish”, Vancouver Canucks, New York Yankees, Atlanta Braves, Montreal Canadiens, Kansas City Chiefs, Florida State Seminoles…

    Some might find these offensive?

    “No way…a “Yankee” is not a derogatory term!”

    Some might say it is, my friend. Should it be changed if a few people say it is?

  98. hurricanes88 says: Jun 19, 2014 12:50 PM

    Some points:

    1. YES, politicians have much bigger fish to fry and should leave it alone.

    2. I am a Redskins fan since the days of Jurgensen.

    3. The name was ever intended to be a slur (I think that is obvious).

    4. The name is offensive to some people – how many I could not guess.

    Because it is offensive to some, it will change. It is not a matter of if, but a matter of when.

  99. fissels says: Jun 19, 2014 1:01 PM

    I believe this the time to make a stand against the PC crowd.

  100. indians4evr says: Jun 19, 2014 1:04 PM

    How about the Washington Oklahomans.

  101. NoRespect says: Jun 19, 2014 1:05 PM

    People want to compare the N-word to the name “Redskins”. Ok

    Of Non-African Americans using the N-word, what percentage of the uses are meant derogatorily? more than 90%? I would say that is probably a low estimate.

    Of Non-Native Americans using the term “Redskins”, what percentage of the uses are meant derogatorily? less than 1%? Seeing as a vast majority use it in reference to the Washington Redskins, I would say that is probably a high estimate?

    Tell me where you think I am wrong?

  102. boosteddart says: Jun 19, 2014 1:12 PM

    I SAY KEEP THE NAME AND CHANGE MASCOT TO A POTATO

  103. dryzzt23 says: Jun 19, 2014 1:16 PM

    WHERE is all of this data that liberal PC police always cite about “Native Americans” being “offended”? Who obtained this data and whom did they obtain it from? Or did they concoct this data themselves (I wouldn’t put it past liberals since for them the ends always justify the means).

    Are these “Native Americans” all liberal voters/donors? That would be biased IMO.
    Oh and they are American Indians, NOT “Native Americans” b/c “Native Americans” could mean anyone who was born anywhere on the North or South American continents.

    I call BS on this whole thing.

  104. sidepull says: Jun 19, 2014 1:19 PM

    Banning team names to appease upset people is a lot easier than giving them something they deserve, something of value, such as, their original lands, for example.

  105. kush118 says: Jun 19, 2014 1:21 PM

    They have handled this so poorly. They should have just acknowledged the racism, and then worked with Naive American groups and the public to choose a name that truly honors Native Americans instead of dancing around and trying to convince everyone that the name is not racist.
    By doing this they would have been respected for their honesty and for working with Native Americans. Then they could truly represent instead of being frauds.
    You should pay me to be your public relations firm, Dan.

  106. nite2al says: Jun 19, 2014 1:25 PM

    If a group of people tells you a certain name is offensive, and you, not being part of the group, can tell to them it’s not offensive. Really? Is that how it works now?

    The only way we know a word is offensive is when the offended tells us it is…but now, we are just supposed to ignore that? Amazing…

  107. SeenThisB4 says: Jun 19, 2014 1:27 PM

    So, if they lose the trademark, any Joe Blow can use it to make a buck; and you know they will be lots of people trying to make that buck.

    The PC crowd has to ask themselves: Is this what you want?

  108. raaz227httr says: Jun 19, 2014 1:29 PM

    In Wisconsin there are two Oneida Nation casinos. The Oneida Nation issued a press release stating a planned protest during the REDSKINS/Packers game this past fall. Can you tell me why only 6 members showed up?? Yes, SIX! That really tells me that there is overwhelming Native American support for a change.

    There are numerous footballs teams on Native American reservations named the Redskins. We need to see proof (like polling) that this is an issue. Why hasn’t Ray Halbritter provided further proof to support his actions???

    There is a long road a head…

  109. russrpm says: Jun 19, 2014 1:31 PM

    Re: Everyone who makes the argument that “The term Redskin is derived from Native American phrases involving the color red in combination with terms for flesh and these phrases were part of a racial vocabulary Indians used to designate themselves.”

    Many words in the English language have changed meaning over the years including:
    harlot: which used to mean a man of good cheer, moot point, which used to mean something really important that everyone needs to discuss; and an apology, which used to be a defense.

    Since we don’t say, ” The Washington apology just gave up a 50yd touchdown” (even though that might be appropriate), we can see that meanings of words do change, so, even if the term was commonly used without issue in the past, its’ meaning today can be and is offensive to a fair number of people.

  110. morr24 says: Jun 19, 2014 1:35 PM

    There was a time that I could not care less about the name of the Washington NFL team. I now care greatly.

    PLEASE keep the Redskins name. Do not allow yourselves to be unduly influenced by an absurdly vocal minority who peddle their sophistry (someone is offended therefore I am offended. As such, you should be offended and do as I say) as wisdom from on high.

    The drum beats of political correctness will never cease until the enough people start to say enough is enough.

    The term derives from the use of “red” color metaphor for race following European colonization of the Western Hemisphere, and one of the earliest known citations of its use is by a Native American called Chief Black Thunder in which he stated: “My Father—Restrain your feelings, and hear ca[l]mly what I shall say. I shall tell it to you plainly, I shall not speak with fear and trembling. I feel no fear. I have no cause to fear. I have never injured you, and innocence can feel no fear. I turn to all, red skins and white skins, and challenge an accusation against me”.

  111. janvanflac says: Jun 19, 2014 1:37 PM

    The team was named by an avowed racist (George Preston Marshall). Google him…

    And I think it’s hilarious that some are crying about “Big Government” when said government refuses to enforce the team’s patent. In other words, government is keeping its hands off, and some are complaining about it. It’s about as dumb as when TeaBaggers shout “Keep the government out of my Medicare”.

  112. b3nz0z says: Jun 19, 2014 1:38 PM

    of all the arguments defending the name, none is more specious than “it isn’t/wasn’t intended as a slur,” because at this point there have been plenty of native americans speaking against it. so whether you or the owner “meant” it a certain way, you are unable to deny that it is taken that way by many people. in other words, defenders of the name are now well aware that it offends people. to continue using it means that your intent is, in fact, to offend. otherwise your argument could be compared to the following: “i don’t intend to hurt you by standing on your foot.”

  113. blackqbwhiterb says: Jun 19, 2014 1:38 PM

    Be very careful about jumping for joy over the fact that the federal government has weighed in on this…. It is a clear overstepping of their boundaries and their authority, Whether you like the name or hate the name is insignificant to the point…. They will not stop here and this will establish a precedent by which they can punish anyone they don’t like….. In the future when the government happens to be controlled by people of the opposite political persuasion all of a sudden everyone on the left will start to bear the brunt of punishment at the hands of government, and those on the right will not be able to help….. Lobby the Washington football franchise to change their name all you like, But being forced by government to change their name will enable the government to force anybody to change almost anything the government doesn’t like…..beware

  114. tied2thetracks says: Jun 19, 2014 1:39 PM

    All of you trying to be PC, the proper term is American Indian. I lived outside a rez, worked for a tribe for 12 years and have a American Indian daughter. Most natives I know favorite teams are the Chiefs and the Redskins. This is being pushed by politicians to be a distraction. Are some AI offended? sure. I’m guessing if you look hard enough you will find people offended by every team name. PETA may say using animal names is exploiting them, Browns my be interpreted as dark skinned people, the Brewers may promote drinking and offend groups such as MADD.( I belive they had to do away with the original Bernie Brewer because the character portrayed a drunk in the 80s)

    If you are offended by the name don’t support the team, boycott sponsors until your hearts content, but do not take away peoples rights. Somwhere along the line people got it in their head that they have a right to not be offended. I’m pretty sure that law isn’t on the books.

  115. metalman5150 says: Jun 19, 2014 1:45 PM

    Nothing but love for the Redskins (football team).
    All the respect in the universe for our Native American brethren.
    Did you see how I used those terms?

  116. cubano76 says: Jun 19, 2014 1:45 PM

    You bastards!

  117. politicallyincorrect says: Jun 19, 2014 1:47 PM

    This whole situation in unAmerican and offensive. The level of ignorance and antiAmerican thought is astounding.

    Redskins is not a slur, nor in it meant to conjure up a derogatory image. Vastly more Native Americans approve of the name than the few (almost all politically motivated w/ casino interest tied to democratic politicians). There are many names right w/in the NFL that are based on poor images (Vikings, Buccs, Raiders), Redskins is not one of these.

    The disturbing part is how gullible some are to false media slants and attempts by the politically motivated to tell others how they should feel and to create a controversy and issue that is simply not there.

    Native Americans are probably the most wronged group in our country and they deserve real help (not this casino nonsense where guys like this Halbritter tool can benefit). Native Americans should be outraged at this attempt by liberals and politicals to use them and to, in fact, attempt to erase Native American images from the public. Vastly (over 90% Native Americans do not have any problem the the name, if fact, there are many schools in Native American areas that use this very name). The Redskins name refers to war paint laden warriors and promotes a positive image; to think a sports team would use its name to slur a people is so far beyond absurd it is incomprehensible. And to Mike G from Mike and Mike… of course you would not use name to refer to Native Americans… as that is not what the name is…. your argument actually supports the keep the name argument. It is time for Native Americans to support the Redskins and get involved. Speak for yourselves and DO NOT allow the libs to use you for their purpose and vacate your existence in the process. Get onboard and actively fight the libs… demand real help.

    And we should all be alarmed by the left preying on ignorance and destroying the freedoms that made America great. I hope this absurdity is a tipping point. This past election, and the consequences of that election, should illustrate for all the danger of doing things for appearances and not understanding qualifications or issues for yourselves.

    I have been a Redskins fan for over 40 years (yes I’m old), I am an opinionated person, but I have never ever used, associated, or heard Redskins used in a derogatory fashion referring to people. I take great pride in my team and our name and I will not let ignorant “clowns” tell me different because it suits their purpose.

    We are losing our way… our freedoms and the values that made this country…. as I said, let this nonsense be a tipping point in the war against PC and political crap… and let’s begin to see the danger in how the liberal group w/in the Democratic party operates.

    Long live Native Americans! Long live the Redskins!

    Enough!

    Hail to the Redskins!

  118. bunkmcnulty says: Jun 19, 2014 1:59 PM

    Jun 19, 2014 1:56 PM
    Blah, blah, blah…oh how painful the same old defenses to keeping the name.

    Two simple observations (these aren’t new):

    1. if an expansion team started today, would Redskins be an acceptable choice?

    2. in 2014, in a country that has a history of bigotry based on the color of a man or woman’s skin, why in the world would anyone, defend the use of a name that refers to skin color?

    There is not one acceptable answer to support continuing that name to either of those questions.

  119. bjsdad says: Jun 19, 2014 2:12 PM

    Mark Levin corrects the record today on all the misinformation he’s heard on the news today regarding the cancellation of the federally registered trademark ‘Redskins.’

    Levin argues that despite the Obama administration ruling, the Redskins still own their name and logo and still own the use of their name and logo because of Common Law. And if you try and use their name and logo, Levin says the Redskins will sue you and will win because there is not a court in the land that won’t uphold Common Law.

  120. bucsorbust says: Jun 19, 2014 2:17 PM

    Some people need to get a life. Show me one instance where this team name and/or its actions have harmed anyone or ever acted out of racism. Don’t like the name? Don’t support the team. It’s your right. This is a privately owned organization. Dan Snyder can call it what he wants–not to mention that’s the nick for 80 years. It’s no one’s right to make him change it anymore than he’d change the name of his dog. Yes, the NFL can suggest, but even then it’s the team’s name.

  121. tied2thetracks says: Jun 19, 2014 2:17 PM

    Would an acceptable answer be Snyder is the owner and has the right to do what he wants with his property? A few moths ago there was a court case where a judge tried to make a mother change her son’s name from Messiah because it offended him as a christian. Snyder isn’t trying to name your kids so don’t try to name his team.

  122. ydousuk says: Jun 19, 2014 2:17 PM

    Tick, Tock
    Tick, Tock

  123. bucsorbust says: Jun 19, 2014 2:21 PM

    Show us where this team name and/or its actions have ever harmed anyone or where the team has EVER acted out of racism. Don’t like the name? Don’t support the team. It’s your right. This is a privately owned organization. Dan Snyder can call it what he wants. This isn’t a public entity. The NFL can suggest a lost, but even then, after 80 years, not like they can point fingers.

  124. leatherhelmets says: Jun 19, 2014 2:21 PM

    What do the folks in Joyzee think about the devils?
    Is that offensive to them?

  125. skins1970 says: Jun 19, 2014 2:40 PM

    The people who claim to be”offended” aren’t really offended, if they were they would say how the name has hurt them and affected their lived badly.

  126. douchebigelow says: Jun 19, 2014 2:41 PM

    “I’m taking it back”- Randall Graves

  127. lanman11 says: Jun 19, 2014 2:43 PM

    Redskins.

    There, I said it. What are you going to do to me?

    What you are saying is that the beta supporters of every little whiny thing that comes down the pike will continue to annoy the rest of us until they get what they want. What does that sound like? Think real hard….

  128. just2040 says: Jun 19, 2014 3:11 PM

    Another example of the Obama administrations lawlessness. Legislating through executive fiat. It’s not the Trademark Office’s job to determine if in their opinion that what is being Trademarked is offensive. This is a very scary precedent. I’m sure if we went through all the Trademarks, we would find thousands that were offensive to someone or group. Are we going to start cancelling trademarks left and right?

  129. dryzzt23 says: Jun 19, 2014 3:29 PM

    American Indian…NOT “native American”.

    American Indian = a person whose ancestry is from one of the many tribes in North America.

    Native American – anyone who was born in either North or South America.

    these 2 terms are NOT the same but Native American was dreamt up by the PC police and they use it ad nauseum instead of the correct terminology.

  130. eagirlsnextfatcoach says: Jun 19, 2014 3:35 PM

    As a Redskins fan, I say change the name. Snyder could change my stance on that if he’s willing to take a crotch shot on national TV. Your move, Dan.

  131. Ed Bandell says: Jun 19, 2014 4:59 PM

    dryzzt23 says: Jun 19, 2014 3:29 PM
    American Indian…NOT “native American”.
    American Indian = a person whose ancestry is from one of the many tribes in North America.Native American – anyone who was born in either North or South America. these 2 terms are NOT the same but Native American was dreamt up by the PC police and they use it ad nauseum instead of the correct terminology.”

    Thanks for trying to clear this up, but you forgot to mention the fact that “Indian” is a false name as well and not what Native Americans call themselves.

    Columbus goofed when he got here and thought he had landed in INDIA. He saw the people of this land had darker skin like INDIANS from INDIA and thus called them INDIANS, wrongly of course.

    There is no such thing as an “american INDIAN”

  132. bondo42 says: Jun 20, 2014 12:31 AM

    Washington Warriors and go back to the spear. Warrior can be any ethnic group.

  133. thirdistheworrd says: Jun 20, 2014 11:03 AM

    Here’s the biggest logjam in the whole process: the snag no one seems to be discussing. Snyder and the NFL posit that the name is OK because it’s not intended to offend anyone–there is no active, targeted bigotry. If the name is changed, it means Snyder and the NFL were lying: the name is intentionally racist, and specifically designed to demean the Native community.

    The fact is, no matter what the new name would be, we would know they are really the Washington “Redskins”; our children will know they were the Washington “Redskins”; and our grandchildren will know they are in actuality the “Redskins”.

    Essentially, until the end of time, the Washington franchise would be crippled by the stigma of being that racist, evil “team formerly known as the Redskins”.

    Don’t just thumbs down– discuss–If anyone on either side can think of a solution to this issue, please post it below.

  134. mogogo1 says: Jun 20, 2014 12:02 PM

    Goodell is destined to be remembered for all the wrong reasons even without the Redskins issue. He’ll be remembered as the guy who was in charge when all the concussion problems boiled up, as the guy who made many unpopular rule changes, and if he gets his way, he’ll be the mastermind behind a failed franchise in London.

    And his record of standing up to owners couldn’t be any worse. He’s not going to do anything to Irsay, Haslam will likely be indicted for his involvement in his business’s fraud case and Goodell won’t likely take a stand on that, either. No surprise he isn’t going after Snyder because that simply isn’t what Goodell does.

  135. redsghost says: Jun 20, 2014 3:40 PM

    Would y’all simply grow up! It’s JUST A NAME! FSU with the tomahawk, Atlanta Braves with the tomahawk, the Indians etc….. stop being so freakin PC !! Call me Whiteskin all day long and see if I cry myself to sleep (not!). Just grow up! Mike, you should be better than this. Don’t feed into it.

  136. higheriqthanyou says: Jun 20, 2014 9:20 PM

    Tick tock

  137. natgbz says: Jun 20, 2014 10:37 PM

    I have a question for everyone to ponder:

    How often do you here the word redskin used with a derogatory intent, as opposed to in reference to the football team?

  138. discosucs2005 says: Jun 21, 2014 6:42 AM

    Rubes who don’t understand this isn’t the government taking action, it’s a private entity suing another private entity.

  139. redsghost says: Jun 21, 2014 1:53 PM

    Are we now going to do away with “Hail to the Chief”?

  140. jimcarnoven says: Jun 21, 2014 3:19 PM

    Nope. No steam. The Redskins will begin the next season as the Redskins, and some of you will keep bloviating that a name change is imminent — tick tock tick tock — and yet …

  141. stuvian says: Jun 22, 2014 8:18 AM

    why is it OK to say Redneck but not Redskin?

  142. cards32 says: Jun 22, 2014 9:47 PM

    thirdistheworrd says:
    Jun 20, 2014 11:03 AM
    Here’s the biggest logjam in the whole process: the snag no one seems to be discussing. Snyder and the NFL posit that the name is OK because it’s not intended to offend anyone–there is no active, targeted bigotry. If the name is changed, it means Snyder and the NFL were lying: the name is intentionally racist, and specifically designed to demean the Native community.

    The fact is, no matter what the new name would be, we would know they are really the Washington “Redskins”; our children will know they were the Washington “Redskins”; and our grandchildren will know they are in actuality the “Redskins”.

    Essentially, until the end of time, the Washington franchise would be crippled by the stigma of being that racist, evil “team formerly known as the Redskins”.

    Don’t just thumbs down– discuss–If anyone on either side can think of a solution to this issue, please post it below.

    ———————————————————-

    So they say the name is not INTENTIONALLY racist, and that it wasn’t meant to offend anyone. Let me tell you why that is true and why that is a huge part of why it should be changed. The name is not meant to “honor” natives. The original name was the boston braves an alliteration capitalizing on the western movies of the time characterizing Indian Braves as fearsome and horrible warriors (sounds like a good name for a football team right). And it was except the Racist owner, I mean just look up George Preston Marshall, changed the name to Redskins to match up with Redsox while they played in their stadium and the name stuck. But right there the Racist owner changed the name from braves to Redskins and it still means indians and everyone knows it and It is not because one tribe may or may not have referred to themselves as Redskins ( and we are talking about the translation from one indian language to English here it is not like there is a common root language here) no it is because we as white people used to refer to them as the red man, at the same time we called them savages and heathens and systematically genocide the entire race. It is exactly the blatant racism that Marshall always showed ” I named my team after those vicious redskins and I don’t none of that damned black skins on my team”(not a real quote.)
    ———-> All Snyder and the NFL would have to do is say: “George Preston Marshall was a Racist and we denounce him and split from HIS team name. This name should have been changed many years ago and we will work tirelessly with the Native American population to find a name that truly does honor our native american brothers. Until that time the team will be called Washington Football Team. We regret this unfortunate situation.”

    As for you teaching your children and grandchildren that racism is ok as long as the tradition of a football team is stubbornly upheld well that is between you and your Jesus bro. (plus how many kids these days actually know that the Wizards used to be the Bullets, or that the Ravens were the browns, or Titans the Oilers, or Coyotes the Jets and so on

    Again if you handle it properly you aren’t the team that was racist (you already are that BTW) instead you are the team that did everything they could to not be racist (then again that seams like a great way to lose a large portion of the fanbase if you are Washington apparently)

    And lastly you still get a thumbs way down.

  143. fmc651 says: Jun 23, 2014 1:30 PM

    We want to keep our racist nickname, we will fight to keep our racist nickname. Why? Because …. and because it has been that way for like 80 years thats why. Yeah.
    This isn’t going away this time. The name will change and you will still watch your terrible Washigton team play football regardless of the next nickname.

  144. jacksprat57 says: Jun 25, 2014 1:47 AM

    trytobnimble
    June 19, 2014 11:02 A.M.:

    “I, for one, see a big difference between Chiefs, Braves, Seminoles, Warriors, etc, and… R-E-D-S-K-I-N. Is it just me, or is it easy to group these into a set and choose which one doesn’t belong? There’s only one that is intentionally disparaging, directly references Race with an insulting undertone, and has a centuries old tradition of being used to humiliate.”

    Personally, I’ve got no dog in this fight, but it’s an issue which I’ve anticipated for roughly a quarter of a century now. Near as I can make out from my research, which has included dozens of conversations with Indians from varying nations, there are probably far more of them who take pride in and feel an affinity for the Washington Redskins, on account of the name and the fact that it’s held by that team which is in the nation’s capitol, than there are those who claim to find it offensive.

    Two other things which I’ve concluded from my conversations: First, the majority of Indians would rather the subject had never been raised, mostly because they regard the entire issue as a distraction from things which actually matter to them. That makes them neither supporters nor opponents of the name. Second, the agitation on this issue has long come from Indians who’ve been radicalized by college Leftists. The attitude towards them on the Res tends to be one of resigned patience, when they start channeling their inner white Liberal.

    As to your specific claims, trytobnimble, not one of them holds water. The phrase is a faithful translation of words which were used by Indians themselves, so as to capture the difference between these new Peoples and “their” own, since they previously had no conception of unity with one another. Since Indians are not actually red, it refers to the consequences of a then-longstanding European practice of covering the skin from the Sun’s rays. (They were all pasty white, without exception.) I rather doubt that the Indians themselves intended the word either to be “disparaging” of themselves or “insulting” of their “Race”.

    Further, even after the settlers adopted the phrase, there was no “centuries old tradition of (it) being used to humiliate.” You Leftists INVENTED that so-called “history” out of whole cloth, just as you lot invented the pernicious myth of the so-called “Noble Indian”, which, truth be known, offends a hell of a lot more Indians than does your current tempest in a teapot.

  145. jacksprat57 says: Jun 25, 2014 2:06 AM

    stuvian
    June 22, 2014 8:18 A.M.:

    “(W)hy is it OK to say Redneck but not Redskin?”

    Let me parse that for you: Most of the people to whom each phrase refers do NOT regard it as disparaging, many of them even feeling an affinity for it. A relative handful feel otherwise. (Each group tends to be a little bit estranged from its fellows, mostly because they’re conscious of a distance which has opened up between themselves and their fellows.)

    So, why then isn’t “Rednecks” now widely viewed as supposedly being “disparaging”? The short answer? Because Liberal propagandists have yet to take up their pitchforks and build a fire for those who use the word. Will they ever? Who knows? Right now, it would seem a stretch to imagine your typical Progressive even regarding the typical Redneck as being human, but one can never tell what contortions of logic that lot will indulge themselves in next.

Leave a Reply

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