It doesn't really bother me. Like you said, it's not an actively used hateful phrase, like the others you mentioned. I literally don't know a single person who would take offense to the word "Redskin".

What annoys me is when the media tries to make football political. Leave football alone and focus on all the other nonsense in the world.

This was brought up a while ago here. I'll say here, though, what I said in the other one - if the people truly affected by it find it offensive and voice their concerns about it to those using the term, then those using the term should consider changing it. If it's a bunch of people who don't really have any affiliation with the group in question think it's supposed to be offensive, then they need to butt out.

What a white guy thinks should offend a Native American and what actually offends said Native American are two totally different things that may or may not overlap. And if you're going to be an advocate for a particular group to which you don't belong, then take your cues from the group you're supposedly representing.

changing it to warriors wont help. the goal of the Oneida Nation and other native american groups is to remove all native american imagery from all sports teams. Chiefs, Indians, Blackhawks etc...

and the name doesnt need to be changed. the vast majority of native americans dont want it changed. in fact there are still native american schools on reservations that have Redskins as the mascot.

the good news is that the owner of the Redskins has vowed to never change the name. so we have a few decades before it has a chance at happening.

What about the atlanta braves, chicago blackhawks, and the cleveland indians?

What about the casino's on reservation land provide by the U.S. Gov't? hmmm did they shut down while Gov't screws around?

Every team you just mentioned named themselves after a tribe or race of people sort of like the Minnesota Vikings. It's apples and oranges. Redskins was used as a slur. See the difference. You can name a team the Washington Samurai or the Ninjas or the Zulus or the Trojans or the Minutemen or the Colonials and so on.

But you probably shouldn't name them the Washington Redskins, Japs, Yellow skins, black faces, ******s, spear chuckers, Hadjies, coons, white devils, honkies, gooks, slopes, zipperheads, or stuff like that. It's sort of like wanting the call a team the San Francisco Butt Pirates.

What about the atlanta braves, chicago blackhawks, and the cleveland indians?

What about the casino's on reservation land provide by the U.S. Gov't? hmmm did they shut down while Gov't screws around?

Every team you just mentioned named themselves after a tribe or race of people sort of like the Minnesota Vikings. It's apples and oranges. Redskins was used as a slur. See the difference. You can name a team the Washington Samurai or the Ninjas or the Zulus or the Trojans or the Minutemen or the Colonials and so on.

But you probably shouldn't name them the Washington Redskins, Japs, Yellow skins, black faces, ******s, spear chuckers, Hadjies, coons, white devils, honkies, gooks, slopes, zipperheads, or stuff like that. It's sort of like wanting the call a team the San Francisco Butt Pirates.

Redskins hasnt been used as a racial slur in many decades. all those other terms u listed are still used in an insulting manner. words change over time. Redskins may have been a slur a 100 years ago but now its just a name for a football team.

What about the atlanta braves, chicago blackhawks, and the cleveland indians?

What about the casino's on reservation land provide by the U.S. Gov't? hmmm did they shut down while Gov't screws around?

Every team you just mentioned named themselves after a tribe or race of people sort of like the Minnesota Vikings. It's apples and oranges. Redskins was used as a slur. See the difference. You can name a team the Washington Samurai or the Ninjas or the Zulus or the Trojans or the Minutemen or the Colonials and so on.

But you probably shouldn't name them the Washington Redskins, Japs, Yellow skins, black faces, ******s, spear chuckers, Hadjies, coons, white devils, honkies, gooks, slopes, zipperheads, or stuff like that. It's sort of like wanting the call a team the San Francisco Butt Pirates.

Redskins hasnt been used as a racial slur in many decades. all those other terms u listed are still used in an insulting manner. words change over time. Redskins may have been a slur a 100 years ago but now its just a name for a football team.

Would you call a Native American person that you just met a redskin to their face?

What about the atlanta braves, chicago blackhawks, and the cleveland indians?

What about the casino's on reservation land provide by the U.S. Gov't? hmmm did they shut down while Gov't screws around?

Every team you just mentioned named themselves after a tribe or race of people sort of like the Minnesota Vikings. It's apples and oranges. Redskins was used as a slur. See the difference. You can name a team the Washington Samurai or the Ninjas or the Zulus or the Trojans or the Minutemen or the Colonials and so on.

But you probably shouldn't name them the Washington Redskins, Japs, Yellow skins, black faces, ******s, spear chuckers, Hadjies, coons, white devils, honkies, gooks, slopes, zipperheads, or stuff like that. It's sort of like wanting the call a team the San Francisco Butt Pirates.

Redskins hasnt been used as a racial slur in many decades. all those other terms u listed are still used in an insulting manner. words change over time. Redskins may have been a slur a 100 years ago but now its just a name for a football team.

Would you call a Native American person that you just met a redskin to their face?

only if they played for the Redskins since that what the word refers to now.

But it is obvious by the imagery of the team is referring to Native Americans. So, Neo, stop dodging the question.

Redskins hasnt been used as a racial slur in many decades. all those other terms u listed are still used in an insulting manner. words change over time. Redskins may have been a slur a 100 years ago but now its just a name for a football team.

Would you call a Native American person that you just met a redskin to their face?

only if they played for the Redskins since that what the word refers to now.

But it is obvious by the imagery of the team is referring to Native Americans. So, Neo, stop dodging the question.

I can't speak for the other person, but I wouldn't, simply because it wouldn't occur to me to use that outside of the context of the football team. Native Americans aren't "redskins," they're...well...Native Americans (or Navajo, or Cherokee, or whatever other tribe, if I happen to know it).

Also, this may be of interest to readers here:

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/Downloads/Political_Communication/naes/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr.pdf

Yep, the ol' Annenberg survey is the life preserver that everyone reaches for. But there are some issues with that survey and its methodology. This analysis from a writer on a Native American website:

http://newspaperrock.bluecorncomics.com/2012/12/annenbergs-redskins-survey.html

Perhaps a bigger problem is the nature of the question asked: "As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn’t it bother you?" Among its problems:

The two options aren't symmetrical. Respondents could think the name is offensive but doesn't bother them, or it bothers them but it isn't offensive. Better would be to ask, "Is it offensive or not offensive?" or "Does it bother or not bother you?"

Offensiveness is only one aspect of the name. One can object to it on other grounds besides its being offensive.

As an example, I'm not offended when people use swear words in public. But I don't think these words are good, and I wouldn't name a sports team after them. So a name can be objectionable without offending me personally.

As another example, I'm not offended when people recite the Pledge of Allegiance at events. But I think it's silly at best and a mild form of brainwashing at worst. It's objectionable because it serves no rational purpose even if it's not offensive.

The same applies to the "Redskins" name.

Consider the poll's headline: Most Indians find "Redskins" acceptable. That's not what the question asked. It asked if the name bothers them, as in personally--a somewhat different attribute.

It's easy to imagine people's ambivalent feelings toward a stereotypical name or mascot. For instance, "It doesn't bother me personally, but if others find it offensive, I think it should go." Or, "It doesn't bother me personally, but I think it's biasing people's perceptions, so it should go."

In other words, the poll could've asked about more than just the "offensive/not bothersome" duality. It could've asked if the name was good or bad, right or wrong. The actual question is flawed because it doesn't probe the potentially nuanced feelings about "Redskins."

In addition to methodology, a moral question was raised by a relevant observer--one of the people in charge of administering the Annenberg poll:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/redskins-name-goes-before-federal-trademark-board-but-for-this-writer-theres-no-debate/2013/03/10/6e64c508-8906-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_story_1.html

Adam Clymer, a former New York Times reporter who was in charge of the Annenberg poll, laughed out loud when told the team was using his polling results in their media guide at the time. He then gave me perhaps the best reason of all for changing the name:

“Look, let’s suppose my numbers were 100 percent right, that 90 percent of American Indians were okay with it and that the people on the other end of the phone were actually what they said they were,” he said. “Given that, what if you had a dinner party and you invited 10 people. And by the end of the night it’s pretty clear that nine of them have had a tremendous time and really enjoyed the food and company. But one of them you managed to completely insult and demean, to the point where people around them noticed and it was uncomfortable. So, ask yourself: Were you a social success that night?”

And lastly, here is a much more detailed examination of a similar poll, one commissioned for a 2002 Sports Illustrated story defending the use of Indian mascots:

http://aistm.org/fr.2002.of.polls.htm

There is a lot there, but to me the most relevant lines are:

Oddly absent from "The Indian Wars" is any mention of how its findings fit with those of other surveys of public opinion about mascots. In fact, at least a half-dozen polls have examined how Native Americans, EuroAmericans, sports fans, students, and/or citizens in general feel about the continued use of Indian symbols in sports.

In this case "The Indian Wars" refers to the SI story. Following that sentence, the authors list a number of references of polls and other research studies whose results differ widely from the Annenberg study. So it would seem at the very least incomplete to claim any authority on this subject by just quoting one study alone without placing it in its proper context.

In the end, it doesn't make any difference. You can parse this stuff from now until February 30th, but it won't change the essential fact:

The term is a racial slur. There is no moral justification for its use in general conversation and there is certainly no justification for its continued use as a name for a football team, in Washington or anywhere else.

Anyone with an ounce of moral fiber would leap at the chance to remove this ongoing insult from the public eye (and that goes for the Cleveland and Atlanta caricature "mascots" as well). There is an unlimited supply of names and symbols that can be used as a team mascot--just pick one. (And spare me the arguments about "history" and 'tradition" --esp considering the history and tradition that name represents--it's a f*cking football team).

Resistance to this change on the part of Snyder is nothing more principled than a juvenile temper tantrum of saying "no, you can't tell me what to do".

I can't speak for the other person, but I wouldn't, simply because it wouldn't occur to me to use that outside of the context of the football team. Native Americans aren't "redskins," they're...well...Native Americans (or Navajo, or Cherokee, or whatever other tribe, if I happen to know it).

Also, this may be of interest to readers here:

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/Downloads/Political_Communication/naes/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr.pdf

Yep, the ol' Annenberg survey is the life preserver that everyone reaches for. But there are some issues with that survey and its methodology. This analysis from a writer on a Native American website:

http://newspaperrock.bluecorncomics.com/2012/12/annenbergs-redskins-survey.html

[snip]

The term is a racial slur. There is no moral justification for its use in general conversation and there is certainly no justification for its continued use as a name for a football team, in Washington or anywhere else.

Anyone with an ounce of moral fiber would leap at the chance to remove this ongoing insult from the public eye (and that goes for the Cleveland and Atlanta caricature "mascots" as well). There is an unlimited supply of names and symbols that can be used as a team mascot--just pick one. (And spare me the arguments about "history" and 'tradition" --esp considering the history and tradition that name represents--it's a f*cking football team).

Resistance to this change on the part of Snyder is nothing more principled than a juvenile temper tantrum of saying "no, you can't tell me what to do".

The paper was more a talking point. If you'll note, I didn't comment on it either way, and as I mentioned before, if the people affected by a given term find it offensive, then the person using it should reconsider doing so. I wasn't intending to hold it up as evidence or a "life preserver." I don't feel it's my place to say whether "redskins" is offensive or "a racial slur," particularly when not used as such. That's for the Native Americans to decide. Have they decided? I don't know (most likely, there isn't a unified consensus on it, as there are probably about as many who do care as those who don't).

I take more issue with "white knights" or so-called "advocates" - the people that aren't actually members of the group, themselves, but for whatever reason, feel the need to speak for them. I find that more offensive than a word, particularly if the white knight's actions run counter to the group's wishes, because that's often actively belittling those people and working against their goals.

That said, I find the whole idea of words, in an of themselves, being offensive as quite odd. A given word is only offensive because someone has decided it is. Just like anything else that's taboo is only so because someone has decided to be a prude about it. Unfortunately, it often takes longer for a word to lose its offensive connotation than it does for that connotation to pick up steam once it's been used as such.

so to everyone saying Redskins is a slur and it's offensive.....just explain to me why there are many reservation schools that name themselves Redskins. Also 90% of native Americans polled said they don't find it offensive. Bob Costas can suck it.