[AvengerRam]

I get all the "slippery slope" and "corporations having too much influence" arguments, but let's be honest here...

"Redskins" is not an appropriate name for a sports team.

That doesn't mean that every objection to a team name will result in a change. This one, though...

[St. Loser Fan]

If you're going to expand the NFL's international presence and have games outside of America nearly every week of the season, how do you keep sending the Redskins to play in Europe, Mexico or Asia with that name?

[Will0120]

The irony here is that while some people stated they don't want to accept the positive changes only because they are scared/wary of changes being "strong armed" to them, they fail to realize that they are nothing more than a vehicle serving exactly for the purposes of those actual so called "special interest groups" working hard as hell to preserve their current advantages as long as things stay status quo.

Who is really the sheep here?

[Hacksaw]

I get all the "slippery slope" and "corporations having too much influence" arguments, but let's be honest here...

"Redskins" is not an appropriate name for a sports team.

That doesn't mean that every objection to a team name will result in a change. This one, though...

Exactly, not all names are created equal. ...

[moklerman]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/ ... me-change/

NBC sportscaster Bob Costas declares the Redskins name “an insult, a slur, no matter how benign the present-day intent.”

I still wonder if disassociating all Native American iconography is what "Indians" want? Snyder will likely comply but it will also likely mean erasing all representation and connection to anything Indian related. Even though the team has long celebrated that representation, moving forward it will just be gone. No more burgandy and gold, probably an all-new color scheme and look. Probably red/white/blue and something like Generals, Senators, etc.

Was the team trying to be offensive or were they celebrating Native Americans? I know, that doesn't matter to most but I'd say it's pretty important to the conversation. Especially considering that the word Redskins isn't automatically a perjorative.

[rams74]

Was the team trying to be offensive or were they celebrating Native Americans? I know, that doesn't matter to most but I'd say it's pretty important to the conversation. Especially considering that the word Redskins isn't automatically a perjorative.

The word "negro" has an even more innocuous origin. It's simply the Spanish word for the color black. So, given everything that has gone on with that word and its mutated variants, should we stick with it when referring to a race of people, just because it wasn't originally intended as a pejorative?

The answer is obvious. Things change. The original intent is not germane to the conversation. It's completely immaterial.

[moklerman]

The word "negro" has an even more innocuous origin. It's simply the Spanish word for the color black. So, given everything that has gone on with that word and its mutated variants, should we stick with it when referring to a race of people, just because it wasn't originally intended as a pejorative?

The answer is obvious. Things change. The original intent is not germane to the conversation. It's completely immaterial.

I think that's actually a good question. If someone calls someone "white", is that offensive or descriptive? In terms of your example, if a Spanish speaker called someone "blanco", would it be descriptive or a pejorative?

With the term "red skin", it is not universally used as a pejorative. As opposed to say, "nigger". Redskin is offensive to "some", but not all. So, how many have to be offended, regardless of intent, to warrant a change?

I know very few Indians but other than the NFL team, is there really much usage of the word Redskins? I find it very unlikely that this would be an issue at all if it wasn't tied to an NFL franchise.

[St. Loser Fan]

I think that's actually a good question. If someone calls someone "white", is that offensive or descriptive? In terms of your example, if a Spanish speaker called someone "blanco", would it be descriptive or a pejorative?

With the term "red skin", it is not universally used as a pejorative. As opposed to say, "nigger". Redskin is offensive to "some", but not all. So, how many have to be offended, regardless of intent, to warrant a change?

I know very few Indians but other than the NFL team, is there really much usage of the word Redskins? I find it very unlikely that this would be an issue at all if it wasn't tied to an NFL franchise.

So what exactly are you arguing? That the name shouldn’t be changed because it doesn’t hit a threshold of proper outrage?

[moklerman]

So what exactly are you arguing? That the name shouldn’t be changed because it doesn’t hit a threshold of proper outrage?

What's the line? 1 person is offended and that's enough? What about 50/50? Isn't it reasonable to ask just how many people are actually offended or being hurt by the name? Can someone be hurt by a franchise having a particular name?

[moklerman]