Skip to content

Joe Gibbs: I heard nothing negative about the name Redskins

Getty Images

Joe Gibbs says opposition to the Washington Redskins’ name must be a new thing, because he never heard it when he was the team’s head coach.

Gibbs, the Hall of Famer who coached in Washington from 1981 to 1992 and again from 2004 to 2007, said that in his years with the team, he heard “Redskins” as a term that unified the community, not a term that gave offense or caused controversy.

Never once did I hear anybody ever say anything negative about the name Redskins,” Gibbs told the Associated Press. “It was always prideful, it was courage involved. We have a song, ‘Hail to the Redskins,’ and so everything, everything about that name has been positive for me and my past.”

But just because Gibbs never heard anything negative, that doesn’t mean nothing negative was said about the name during Gibbs’s tenure as the head coach. In 1988, a group of Native Americans urged the Redskins to change their name. In 1992, more than 2,000 people attended a protest against the use of Native American team names and team mascots before Super Bowl XXVI.

Gibbs may not have heard the word “redskin” as a slur, but many Native Americans do hear it that way.

Permalink 102 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Top Stories, Washington Redskins
102 Responses to “Joe Gibbs: I heard nothing negative about the name Redskins”
  1. mikeyhigs says: Jun 28, 2014 7:47 PM

    “Gibbs may not have heard the word “redskin” as a slur, but many Native Americans do hear it that way.

    But do they actually hear it used as a slur against them? You know, by all of the people who are racist against Native Americans? I doubt it

  2. ialwayswantedtobeabanker says: Jun 28, 2014 7:47 PM

    A lot of people are taking advantage of the opportunity to look like a “do-gooder” or curry political favor — when they now, decades into their lives, very publicly make it known they have magically found a word offensive that never bothered them in their lives — nor do the vast majority of those described by that word.

    And after “Redskins” — where does it end? Should the term “Giants” be abolished because height-challenged individuals feel it demeans their lack of stature?

  3. Punk says: Jun 28, 2014 7:47 PM

    I been thinking this name was rude since I was 14.

  4. pftthoughtpolicemostwanted says: Jun 28, 2014 7:47 PM

    Knock me down with a feather. You posted an article about someone that hasn’t been cornered into saying they pretend the name is racist.

    But then you immediately try to discredit Gibbs to cap it off?

  5. ravensrunthenfl says: Jun 28, 2014 7:50 PM

    POLL: thumbs up to keep the name, thumbs down to change the name.

  6. billscastdotcom says: Jun 28, 2014 7:50 PM

    The Joe Gibbs legacy is 100% tied to the word “Redskins”. Of course he’s “heard nothing negative” about it.

  7. mutohasaposse says: Jun 28, 2014 7:51 PM

    Finish the sentence please …

    and many do not.

  8. jojopuppyfish says: Jun 28, 2014 7:52 PM

    I’ve never heard one person use the word “redskin” in a derogatory manner towards another person.
    Not in the media. Not in public. NEVER

  9. Waxxx4321 says: Jun 28, 2014 7:52 PM

    Yes i bet those same ones complaining about the Redskins name, were the same ones cheering for the hogs when Theisman and Williams won it.

  10. 12444uggg says: Jun 28, 2014 7:56 PM

    I have not once in my whole life heard the word “Redskin” used negatively in any other context than football. IE, The Redskins sure do suck this year.

  11. wwwfella says: Jun 28, 2014 7:56 PM

    hail to the redskins….
    hail vic to ry…….
    braves on the warpath…
    fight for old d.c…….(racial slur???)

  12. rascalmanny says: Jun 28, 2014 7:56 PM

    He’s right. In my 46 years I never heard complaints until the current president came along. Teams choose a name because it sounds tough and cool. You don’t call yourself the Washington Janitors.

  13. corkspop says: Jun 28, 2014 7:58 PM

    Gibbs is as fine a man as has ever been a part of the NFL. I believe him. The “outrage” is a relatively new thing. And not as wide spread as the media would have you believe.

  14. waynesborokennyg says: Jun 28, 2014 8:06 PM

    As a site that reports NFL team news, thank you for doing a report on the Washington Redskins and actually using their name in the article! The past couple weeks’ omission of the team name has been a bit ridiculous and in my opinion does more to discredit the site as a credible NFL news source than any statement the reporters here personally believe.

  15. nickster2k says: Jun 28, 2014 8:06 PM

    I didn’t hear them complaining when we kicked them off our land either

  16. copiouscaffeine says: Jun 28, 2014 8:06 PM

    Good bye tolerance, good bye freedom of speech, good bye objectivity. It was nice having you around….please come back soon

  17. brassknuckles47 says: Jun 28, 2014 8:07 PM

    14 people (native Americans) know that they can get money from Dan Snyder in a settlement. That’s the only reason this is an insane issue.
    I understand that PETA is going to suit: The Bears, the Dolphins, the Seahawks, the Falcons, the Eagles, the Broncos, the Ravens, the Lions, the Panthers, the Colts, the Cardinals, the Bengals, the Jaguars, and the Rams. Settlement lawyers are going to make a killing!

  18. FinFan68 says: Jun 28, 2014 8:25 PM

    Gibbs may not have heard the word “redskin” as a slur, but many Native Americans do hear it that way.
    How many have said they have been called a “redskin”? Not a single one has ever actually heard the term used as a slur. Not one. If they would have, the story would have been plastered all over this site as incontrovertible proof that it is a racist slur used by today’s bigots. Instead, we get an incessant parade of supposition and hyperbole designed to lure the ignorant into some sort of frenzied crusade against a word they have incorrectly defined.

  19. gpenpilot says: Jun 28, 2014 8:27 PM

    This post will get alot of thumb downs I’m sure but it seems to me majority of those in favor of keeping the name Redskins are fans of that team. As a lifetime FOOTBALL fan, and specifically a Tampa Bay fan I have no horse in this race. But if I were Native American I would say this name is blatantly racist.. Redskins.. Native Americans have a reddish hue to their pigment. If not racist it is blatantly lazy; can we all agree with that?

  20. billscastdotcom says: Jun 28, 2014 8:29 PM

    I used to cover sports in southwest South Dakota where several Native American tribes had football teams of their own. Funny how none of them were called Redskins. And if I called them that I may not have left their reservation alive.

    As a reminder: it doesn’t matter what us white people think of the name. Not 1%. It’s the opinion of the people who it mocks that matters.

    Thumbs down as many times you want. I love it.

  21. gpenpilot says: Jun 28, 2014 8:35 PM

    Am I the only one who HAS heard people call Native Americans that as a slur? I remember knowing that as a child.. seriously.

  22. stunzeed5 says: Jun 28, 2014 8:39 PM

    You drag Gibbs into this, and I’ll make your lives miserable. HAIL TO THE REDSKINS

  23. citizenstrange says: Jun 28, 2014 8:39 PM

    That is soooooooooooooooooooo weird! A rich white dude not hearing anything negative about the Redskins name.

  24. teek77 says: Jun 28, 2014 8:41 PM

    Punk says, “I been thinking this name was rude since I was 14.”. “Punk”….. really….. and that’s not a slur??? I am of Native American heritage. I don’t consider ” Redskins” a slur. You call me “Punk” and we’re gonna fight.

  25. juanweiner says: Jun 28, 2014 8:42 PM

    What a surprise, Florio didnt write this one…..hahahaha

  26. wintermute00 says: Jun 28, 2014 8:43 PM

    Just like last time this will end up in someone getting paid off.

    This is all about extortion, nothing more.

    All the PC types on here need to stop and think. If the Redskins were to change their name it won’t end there. This same group has already mentioned the Chiefs as needing to change their name. Won’t take long for someone to get the bright idea that naming your team after murderers and rapists is terrible too so the Vikings, Buccaneers and Raiders will need to change their names…etc, etc, etc.

  27. REDSKINSFOREVER says: Jun 28, 2014 8:43 PM

    Alright it’s poll time.

    I myself living within 2 hrs of 2 reservations and going to them as an adult once a week, have never even heard or thought of the term redskin as a slur. Never once have I heard it even used to describe a person. So let’s get to the polling.

    Thumbs up if you have never heard or used the name redskin used as a slur.

    Thumbs down if you have heard or used redskin as a slur.

    This goes without saying, but only answer honestly not based on your opinion.

  28. dallascowboysdishingthereal says: Jun 28, 2014 8:44 PM

    Being offended is a choice.

    The word offend comes from the Greek word skandalon which we get the word scandal. Referring to a skandalon, small piece of wood in a trap.

    I caution native Americans of falling into the “I’m offended” trap and all the negative emotions with it.

  29. SilentMajority says: Jun 28, 2014 8:44 PM

    I remember the protests back in ’92, and if Gibbs didn’t hear about it then he obviously lives too sheltered a life to comment too much on this topic.

    I just think people need to remember that for the longest time most Indians lived on reservations and didn’t have a means to express their distaste with the Redskins name. That all changed with the Internet and social media, so it’s not just a bunch of white PC liberals making noise.

    Don’t take my word on it though. You’re hooked up to the Internet, search it and find out the truth..if, you know, that kind of thing is important to you. Otherwise keep blaming the white PC media.

  30. grayone77 says: Jun 28, 2014 8:44 PM

    How come no one wants to change the name of the dago sandwich? Isn’t that offensive to Italians?

  31. dynalee10 says: Jun 28, 2014 8:46 PM

    I am a Vikings fan and of European decent I feel dishonored that the team uses a derogatory name that implies killing , raping and sacking other people. I demand that Minnesota change the name to the adventurous people from Northern Europe lol.

  32. kuantan97 says: Jun 28, 2014 8:46 PM

    Why isn’t it far more offensive to have weapons of war called “Apache” and “tomahawk”?

  33. shlort says: Jun 28, 2014 8:49 PM

    Gibbs has a point. He likely never thought the name was offensive, nor had he heard anyone say it was or use it in an offensive manner.

    The reason a few people are suddenly finding the name offensive is because the media is programming the weak of mind to believe it is offensive. People these days don’t even bother to think about issues. If their preferred media source tells them to be offended by something, they are automatically offended. The media has managed to direct people to think a certain way, and that is a real shame.

  34. cesarsmiles says: Jun 28, 2014 8:53 PM

    Let’s think about it. Black people struggled for decades – centuries on this land and so many outcomes, incidents, debates and country changing events because of racist practices against them. Here we have one small group that brings this forth and now do gooders who want to feel the need to look morally right are making an issue out of what they deem a racial slur. Ask the high school in Arizona comprised of nearly 100% native Americans how they feel about theirs score the Redskins. Ask the fans of this team who sing “Hail to the Redskins!” How they feel about their mascot. This is a non issue in my humble opinion. It’s simply those like senator McCain who want to be perceived right or those like a small group of opportunist looking to get something out of nothing. Let’s not think for a second that our freedom of speech will stop here should this succeed in a name change. Next will be the Cleveland Indians and the Kansas City chiefs. There will be small groups everywhere claiming offense to many different mascot. I am a brown skin Hispanic and as one I’ve come to make a difference in the minds of racist by my actions not by claiming I am a victim of something. HAIL!!

  35. heavyjumbo says: Jun 28, 2014 8:54 PM

    You wouldn’t call a Native American “chief” to his face either.

  36. REDSKINSFOREVER says: Jun 28, 2014 8:56 PM

    billscastdotcom says:
    Jun 28, 2014 8:29 PM
    I used to cover sports in southwest South Dakota where several Native American tribes had football teams of their own. Funny how none of them were called Redskins. And if I called them that I may not have left their reservation alive.

    As a reminder: it doesn’t matter what us white people think of the name. Not 1%. It’s the opinion of the people who it mocks that matters.

    Thumbs down as many times you want. I love it.


    Mocking – to attack or treat with ridicule. I don’t see it. Their mascot is a strong proud figure.

    Now if it was a short, fat, aggressive, balding leprechaun you might have a point.

  37. 1phd says: Jun 28, 2014 8:57 PM

    Gee, a former Coach and Front Office person supporting the name. Now there’s a shocker!

  38. edtiley says: Jun 28, 2014 8:59 PM

    Gosh, really Joe? You don’t remember Charles Mann being asked about the name and replying that they may as well call the team the Washington (insert N-word here)?

    Gee, Joe, you know Charles big tall handsome black man? He played some fine defense for you when Dexter was flaking out. Surely you remember….

  39. purpleppleeaters says: Jun 28, 2014 9:00 PM

    Of course it’s a new thing. It’s part of the woosification of America. Political Correctness gone to extreme levels. Everything “offends” someone. “Bullies” are everywhere. You cannot have an opinion unless it is the “right one.”
    Who, on this forum, EVER heard ANYONE call a Native American a “Redskin?” And if such a thing ever occurred, how would a Native American not look at them and just laugh? You called me what??? The term is so archaic (offensive or not) that it is simply a non-factor. (Unless you think “Viking” is also offensive to those of Norwegian descent.)

    Kudos to Coach Gibbs for stating that the Emperor has no clothes!

  40. stew48 says: Jun 28, 2014 9:02 PM

    I started following NFL in the ’40’s when Sammy Baugh fired his bullets and punted better than anyone in the world. From that time until recently, if anyone used the word Redskins, it was only in reference to the Washington team. And, when I thought of the Redskins, it was never with prejudice about the American Indians.
    NEVER! I still don’t, but I am suspicious of some who support the name change. Their motives need investigated.

  41. crackerjackisracist says: Jun 28, 2014 9:06 PM

    Who gets to decide when something is officially considered offensive to a group of people? I’m white. Anything with cracker on it offends me. Don’t tell me it’s not the same. You don’t know how it makes me feel, just like you say to me. You just don’t know what it’s like to be a middle class white man in today’s society. You don’t know the struggles. Yup. Anyone touting the name change sounds as dumb as that did

  42. 88ibis says: Jun 28, 2014 9:08 PM

    I believe that Joe Gibbs never heard about a problem with the name. Joe strikes me as one of those coaches who is unaware of anything happening on earth that doesn’t relate to his players/coaches and game schemes. (I don’t mean that as an insult, it’s the sign of a great coach.)

  43. nobreak1269 says: Jun 28, 2014 9:09 PM

    If you would ALL stop responding to these ridiculous posts about the Redskins name-the left will move on.All they want is controversy-and every post fuels the fire.

  44. gpenpilot says: Jun 28, 2014 9:13 PM

    Joe Gibbs also thought Gregg Williams was a stand-up guy by all accounts and there was no bounty program. Seems like Gibbs’ recollection of certain events always seems a bit fuzzy.

  45. pillowporkers says: Jun 28, 2014 9:15 PM

    gpenpilot says:Jun 28, 2014 8:27 PM

    But if I were Native American I would say this name is blatantly racist.. Redskins.. Native Americans have a reddish hue to their pigment. If not racist it is blatantly lazy; can we all agree with that?


    So who is more racist, those who want to keep the name because they think “redskin” is a sign of pride and honor, or those who want to change the name because they actually believe the name is relating to the made up fact that Native Americans have a red hue to their skin. I am from MN, where there is an abundance of Native Americans. Believe me, their skin is not red, nor does it look anything close to that. If you don’t know this, you clearly have a pre-existing belief that is ignorant in nature. The real reason for the name “Redskin” is due to the use of face paint and body paint.

  46. teal379 says: Jun 28, 2014 9:15 PM

    Punk says:
    Jun 28, 2014 7:47 PM
    I been thinking this name was rude since I was 14.

    Been a long couple of months huh?

    Read an article by a Native American – he said that about 30% of Native Americans find it derogatory. He wanted to know why the 70% who don’t aren’t important enough to have their voice heard.

    He sorta made the point that by removing the terms like Chief, Redskin or Blackhawk was the way white people make the Indians go away, it’s removing references to Native American culture from the collective conscious so they’re further marginalized. Something to think about for sure.

  47. harrisbarton says: Jun 28, 2014 9:17 PM

    There’s an article in today’s NY Times that notes that the Democratic party is making a huge push for the Native American vote. This issue is getting a lot of play from Harry Reid and the Feds right now not because of anybody wanting to do “the right thing”. It’s all about stirring up the ‘natives’ so they’ll come out and vote Democratic. After the election this issue will somehow drift off into irrelevance.

  48. rcali says: Jun 28, 2014 9:20 PM

    Oh boy, a writer for this website is not going to like Gibbs statement.

  49. hailskins94 says: Jun 28, 2014 9:20 PM

    “Gibbs may not have heard the word “redskin” as a slur, but many Native Americans do hear it that way.”

    This is just not accurate at all. Where are all the statistics that show this??? Liberal media projecting their beliefs as fact again…

  50. gpenpilot says: Jun 28, 2014 9:22 PM

    pillowporkers says:Jun 28, 2014 9:15 PM

    So who is more racist, those who want to keep the name because they think “redskin” is a sign of pride and honor, or those who want to change the name because they actually believe the name is relating to the made up fact that Native Americans have a red hue to their skin. I am from MN, where there is an abundance of Native Americans. Believe me, their skin is not red, nor does it look anything close to that. If you don’t know this, you clearly have a pre-existing belief that is ignorant in nature. The real reason for the name “Redskin” is due to the use of face paint and body paint.


    Brother I didn’t make up the slur. I’ve heard it before. I live by a Seminole reserve in Florida, rednecks in the nearby Immokalee often refer to them with different slurs including redskin. I don’t need you to believe me but your wrong when you say it is a “made up fact”. Please give me insight on how this is made up.

  51. skunkgoosefly says: Jun 28, 2014 9:24 PM

    I lived in and still visit Oklahoma. Oklahoma has the largest Native American population of any state, and we all know what the name Oklahoma is translated into. They all know what the name means. You don’t hear a peep out of them concerning it. This is exactly how you break down the fundamental rights of the american people. There are parts of the country where you can’t even fly an american flag because its offensive. We should be talking about that.

  52. packerbackernj says: Jun 28, 2014 9:26 PM

    Oh just change it already so i can stop hearing about it. All danny boy is doing is delaying the inevitable. It’ll snow ball till goodell and the rest of the owners have no choice but force the name change. What is the point? Because he’s rich and delay it in the courts? The term is derogatory. Get over it. Don’t know why you would want a name with a dispicable history like that anyways.

  53. charger383 says: Jun 28, 2014 9:27 PM

    Joe, I liked you better before you started racing toyota

  54. georgegsmiller says: Jun 28, 2014 9:32 PM

    Look up the words of the song Coach Joe Gibbs is referring to… “Hail To The Redskins”. End of argument. No Racism found. He LIVED the Redskins.

    Keep trying NBC. You guys are picking the wrong fight for your PC cause.

    Dare to “dance” with “Sons of Washington”? Bring it on!!

  55. pillowporkers says: Jun 28, 2014 9:33 PM


    Have you met a Native American? Being literal, their skin looks “tan”. Their skin is not red, and has no more red hue than a caucasion does. This term is more similar to the term “redcoat”. The British soldiers wore red jackets, and the Native American warriors wore reddish war paint on their skin.

  56. fromthere2 says: Jun 28, 2014 9:54 PM

    Why not give some American Hispanics a say in this? Many have links to the first people of the North American continent. In fact I would bet that the majority of Mexican Americans and those with links to Central America have a closer genetic tie to their native ancestors than Americans that call themselves Native Americans. Add them into the mix, which we should, and the native American suddenly becomes part of the largest minority in the US.

  57. nosleeptilsb says: Jun 28, 2014 9:55 PM

    Sitting here tonight, watching CNN The Sixties, hearing Dan Rather and others say ‘Negro’. At the time, a non inflamatory name, Dr. King used it describing his own kind. It took time, but it changed. I wish the Indian nation had a better relationship with the team, but they have for some reason found it offensive. Im not Indian, if the Oilers had chosen to become the Tennessee Pale Faces, I would not have been offended. So here I sit, on the fence. Sympathies to both sides. Thank God Ospreys dont protest being called Seahawks.

  58. catquick says: Jun 28, 2014 9:55 PM

    I was at Super Bowl XXVI, and there were about 10 protesters, not 2K.

  59. noffy32 says: Jun 28, 2014 10:01 PM

    It’s only an issue because you knuckle headed losers make it an issue. Lot of white left wing guilt.

  60. theanalyticalkid says: Jun 28, 2014 10:04 PM

    They ought to just change the name to the Washington Political Pale-Faces.

  61. skins1970 says: Jun 28, 2014 10:08 PM

    It’s silly to be offended by a team’s name IMO.

  62. cowboyhater says: Jun 28, 2014 10:09 PM

    I used to cover sports in southwest South Dakota where several Native American tribes had football teams of their own. Funny how none of them were called Redskins. And if I called them that I may not have left their reservation alive.

    As a reminder: it doesn’t matter what us white people think of the name. Not 1%. It’s the opinion of the people who it mocks that matters.

    Thumbs down as many times you want. I love it.

    Mr. Reporter, not sure why you made it point to mention “us white people” as if every racial issue revolves around a Caucasian. I’m extremely offended by your comments and am getting sick an tired of everyone tying the white race as being the only race to subject others in a discriminatory way. Discrimination takes all forms whether your skin color, or gender. It’s not only “whites” that have discriminated in this world. I hope no one on your ignorant post thumbed up.

  63. cfballfan1 says: Jun 28, 2014 10:18 PM

    Gibbs is right, and I’ll take his word for it over the author who penned this entry just to take a shot at him.

  64. ricktractorbolturd says: Jun 28, 2014 10:20 PM

    Here’s food for thought, the term “Redskins” is so demeaning, that it is still cited and said in every single post and article about it. If you want people to believe it is the native American equivalent to the “N Word” then you should probably stop using it in articles and start saying “R Word”. Otherwise you are part of the problem keeping the term alive… Myself, I am not a redskins fan, but hope Daniel synder spends every last cent he has to keep it. The time to complain was when the teams was founded or across the board now. What aren’t the Atlanta braves, Cleveland Indians, FSU, Central Mich, etc etc part of the same discriminatory lawsuit? Hail to the Redskins… on this one.

  65. gaggee says: Jun 28, 2014 10:25 PM

    My name is Yogi Bear, and I find the use of animal team names to be extremely offensive. I am going to lawyer up and get me a big settlement. You humans are such morons. I am also sick of you encroaching on my land, I was here first.

  66. trollkiller55 says: Jun 28, 2014 10:34 PM

    if Gibbs believes this then he is as racist as those on this board who claim theres nothing derogatory about calling another human being “redskin”.

  67. PriorKnowledge says: Jun 28, 2014 10:37 PM

    For the idiot that thinks Native Americans have a reddish hue to their skin: That is absolutely racist. THEY DO NOT. Native American skin is colored by melanin, which is the same chemical that colors all human skin whether they are Black, Asian, Caucasian or anyone. To think otherwise is ignorant and racist.

  68. bucsorbust says: Jun 28, 2014 10:39 PM

    It’s only election year follies. Give it 6 more months, and liberals everywhere will put there Redskins gear back on. Show one time…ONE…a single event…where there was ever anyone who was actually harmed in any way by this team name, by this organization, or one time where it ever used the name in a racist way. Meanwhile, let’s go to the current VP who made open racial jokes about convenience store attendants. Oh yeah, Harry Reid, how many Reservations does Nevada have again? Hmmmm…….

  69. redskinsproud says: Jun 28, 2014 10:40 PM

    Fake offended people telling American Indians how to think and feel. Sounds like the pilgrims are omnipresent.

  70. onbucky96 says: Jun 28, 2014 11:07 PM

    I remember the protests in 1992. Then the R-Words sucked most yrs, and no protests. The R-Words draft RG3, and now its a National Issue, again. Where was the rabble rousing the last 20+yrs?

  71. beachsidejames says: Jun 28, 2014 11:14 PM

    Cowboy fans will do anything to mess with the Redskins.

  72. slim1337 says: Jun 28, 2014 11:51 PM

    I am anti politically correct, just change it!!! this is boring.

  73. therick5000 says: Jun 29, 2014 12:13 AM

    The whole argument about how you would never go in to a bar and call a Native American a Redskin… obviously you wouldn’t. You also wouldn’t call him ‘chief’. Or Indian. You’d call him by his first name.
    I don’t think the term is offensive, rather, it’s irrelevant and possibly outdated. But that does not mean the team should have to change its name.

    Just like you would not go up to an Italian and call him that. Or a black person, ‘black man’. Or even a white person, well, “white person”. It’s the same thing. And I’ll grant you that Redskin has probably been used in a derogatory fashion, but that does not mean the word itself is derogatory. It’s about context and tone of voice. Many Native Americans say the origin of the word and the usage of it is not offensive. It’s their opinion that matters.

  74. govtminion says: Jun 29, 2014 1:01 AM

    I live in the Washington D.C. area, but I’m not a Skins fan. I want the name changed, because at least then I don’t have to listen to all of this anymore. It’s all I hear about anymore when it comes to football- just change it so we can move on!

  75. Matthew Mulbrandon says: Jun 29, 2014 1:42 AM

    NBC do a poll of American Indians. Ask if they want the name changed? Ask if there are offended by the name. Last time it was 9 percent. That was 2004. Redskins as used on people rather than the team is beyond by pay grade but it probably differed by region. Harjo leader of the name change says that IAs that don’t agree with her have internalized there oppression. I think this is just out of the white mans play book telling other people what is good for them.

  76. faithful209er says: Jun 29, 2014 3:44 AM

    It’s not about how anyone feels or how the word is used or not used. The problem is that this team mascot is a generalization of an ethnic group. That’s all that matters. To have a mascot that is a generalization of an ethnic group is wrong, and I would argue that it is fundamentally un-American. “Chiefs” and “Celtics” are not generalizations, but “Fighting Irish” and “Redskins” are generalizations of all people in those groups, based on stereotypes about alcohol consumption and skin color.

    Anyone who uses the “it doesn’t bother the Native Americans” argument is just trying to make an excuse. It’s wrong to generalize based on race. Period.

  77. faithful209er says: Jun 29, 2014 4:03 AM

    Honestly, this thread makes me sick. How can anyone say the name “Redskins” is not racially offensive? What a weak argument that Native Americans aren’t offended!!! It’s purely racist and offensive…. it doesn’t matter what race you are! To generalize about a group of people based on a TRAIT is the definition of racism.

  78. Punk says: Jun 29, 2014 8:02 AM

    Wait wait. So pretending that something isn’t bad because you have never heard it used is now a thing?

  79. 1bigtex says: Jun 29, 2014 8:11 AM

    Joe Gibbs found nothing offensive about the Redskin name that was attached to all those checks he cashed.

    The Joe Gibbs theme song lyrics:
    “Go straight, take a left, take a left, go straight.
    Take a left, take a left, go straight.”

  80. defscottyb says: Jun 29, 2014 8:20 AM

    My Grandmother was 100% Cherokee and she was a huge Redskins fan. She told me she thought the Redskins represented her heritage with Pride, Honor and Respect. That’s the words and sentiments I pass down to my family and Native friends as well. The only people offended are the ones who sit around waiting to be offended by something. Living their lives being perpetual victims and blaming others for their problems. I say start taking some personal responsibility for your problems and stop blaming the Redskins.

  81. reddogdogred says: Jun 29, 2014 8:22 AM

    “Gibbs may not have heard the word “redskin” as a slur” LIAR!

  82. shutupbrees says: Jun 29, 2014 8:52 AM

    As a tax paying citizen, I’m more offended by the term “Washington” than I am “Redskins”

  83. burgandyandgold63 says: Jun 29, 2014 8:52 AM

    I think the whole situation can be rectified by updating the definition of the word Redskin as it is identified by the majority of today’s society. Words change in their meaning over time. In today’s world 2014, no one uses this term as a slur. It is mostly identified with an NFL football team and is a respected term. So I have a question… Is the real problem with the term Redskins, or the use of Native Americans as a “mascot?” If a mascot is a problem, then what about the American military’s Tomahawk missiles, or the Apache helicopter? Are these names also demeaning? SMH

  84. joenick18 says: Jun 29, 2014 9:02 AM

    Wasn’t there a bunch of polls as well as votes where Native Americans were asked if the name was offensive? And more then 80 percent in each one stated they thought it was about pride and that the name was a symbol to their ancestors and in no way offensive? Pretty sure a few stated they thought being called the name Indian was more offensive because they were not from India. Before people make situations racial issues they should look up historical’s not and offensive name…but if they ever change it..the only name I’ll accept is the Washington Sentinels.

  85. greymares says: Jun 29, 2014 9:33 AM

    H T T ?

  86. mauijim805 says: Jun 29, 2014 9:36 AM

    I’ve had enough,Im tossing my Aunt Jmomma syrup and my Uncle Bens Rice in the can…

  87. ytownjoe says: Jun 29, 2014 9:37 AM

    Thank you Joe Gibbs for speaking the truth.

    Why in the name of Geronimo would a professional football team 80 years ago give itself a nickname of derision and ridicule?

    Doesn’t it make sense that in a game of violence, they would choose a name that reflects a warrior class that would fight for victory, right down to the final minute?

    “Hail to the Redskins” says or implies nothing derogatory.

  88. ejmstr says: Jun 29, 2014 9:54 AM

    We are a nation with many problems and elected officials waste time on something so trivial.

  89. gpenpilot says: Jun 29, 2014 10:02 AM

    Hahaha your team is going to force to change its name. Pig nation is upset

  90. gridironjunky says: Jun 29, 2014 10:22 AM

    There was a large Native American protest outside the metrodome prior to superbowl 26 in 1992. This isn’t a new issue brought on by out current government.

  91. tralfaz1127 says: Jun 29, 2014 10:48 AM

    When you wipe out an entire race of native americans to take their land, and then relegate the few who are left to reservations in the desert, it becomes a little difficult to hear on a regular basis people (yes they are people) in their group complain that the name or term is offensive to them. Joe Gibbs being in that great minority, of wealthy, white, American males, has zero credibility as to whether a team name is offensive to a race of people to which he does not belong.
    Change the name and move on. The more Daniel Snyder and any Washington players, coaches etc… try to justify that a “slur” is meant as a prideful reminder to a once great people, the more racist the entire organization looks.

  92. thefox61 says: Jun 29, 2014 11:19 AM

    You cannot hear if you do not listen…

  93. eagles512 says: Jun 29, 2014 1:11 PM

    And many more native Americans do not see it as offensive and many are honored.

  94. banky74 says: Jun 29, 2014 1:50 PM

    “Gibbs may not have heard the word “redskin” as a slur, but many Native Americans do hear it that way.”

    This one doesn’t.

  95. ialwayswantedtobeabanker says: Jun 29, 2014 8:37 PM

    Liberals tend to be all about flag-burning – piously and self-righteously demanding that flag-burning is a constitutionally protected right of free speech to burn a flag.

    They show zero compassion for the fact it may (and almost invariably does) offend the hell out of the wounded, crippled and/or psychologically scarred soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who died fighting for that flag — not to mention their surviving relatives, or anyone else with a sense of decency.

    That’s liberals for ya — and yet they always seem to believe they’re preaching from some intellectual and moral high ground.

  96. gregmorris78 says: Jun 29, 2014 10:00 PM

    I’m vacationing in Cherokee, NC – ON the reservation. Every local I have asked DOES NOT CARE about the use of the Redskin name with sports teams. In fact, a couple are suspicious of the governments intentions in this. One local stated that “if the govt wants to do something for you, then they must want something. They don’t do things just to help you”. Several stated the obvious – politicians and news people seem to be the main people pushing the issue.

    So do freinds of Reid want to frack underneath certain reservations? That would actually make cents…

  97. watermelon1 says: Jun 30, 2014 12:53 AM

    How can you sit there and claim the redskins calling THEMSELVES the redskins is racist?

    Secondly… If you’re that worried about their feelings and “what is right…” Are you prepared to give their rightful land back? Give up your homes since the land it is on really belongs to the native Americans it was stolen from by threat of death?!?

    I’d say that’s more offensive than any group calling themselves a word, and taking pride in that word.

  98. GettingNoRespect says: Jun 30, 2014 7:12 AM

    Congrats 12444uggg , you got redskins fans to thumbs up a post that they suck.

  99. GettingNoRespect says: Jun 30, 2014 7:14 AM

    gpenpilot, you are probably correct, especially considering that a LARGE majority of Native Americans are fans of the name and the team

  100. GettingNoRespect says: Jun 30, 2014 7:29 AM

    We finally have some people admitting that they don’t care what the Native Americans think, they want to tell them what to be offended by. As if Native Americans are too weak or stupid to know that they are being offended. That is offensive.

    Also, we are not generalizing a group of people by a TRAIT, since, as some have pointed out, their skin is not actually red. Your bigotry and ignorance make you think that.

  101. vandy02 says: Jul 4, 2014 12:09 AM

    Honestly, all this name debate is doing is making the racism grow. A majority of the people had no idea that Redskins was a “racial slur” until the debate grew to where it is now. And if the name changes, the racial slur grows on. Put it this way. Lets say they change it to the Washington Indians. Your child or grandchild grows up and finds out they use to be called the Redskins. They wonder why they changed the name and asks somebody. That somebody then says it was a racial slur then the racism in the word will continue. On the other hand if the name doesn’t change, then we can all just move on. Future generations won’t know it was a racial slur and will think its just a teams name. This is only a problem cause we make it a problem. I feel bad to all those who it does actually and truly hurts. But it’s time to move on.

  102. youpeopleareallthesame says: Jul 5, 2014 1:37 AM

    I am neither Native American and I don’t have a sunburn right now so I don’t really have an opinion either way about the name “Redskins” on a personal level.

    But enough people who are of Native American heritage seem to be offended by it that the name should probably change. Even if it’s a relatively small minority (say 20, 30%) who are actually offended by it as compared to the rest of the Native American population, that’s a large segment of people who feel discriminated against by use of the name.

Leave a Reply

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