Should the Washington Redskins change their name?

[traininthedistance]

Yes, to a name befitting their DC heritage and standard of quality- the Senators.

No, Cowboys need a good rival.

The only thing the Cowboys need is to be nuked from the face of the earth.  Whenever it's Cowboys vs. Redskins, I root for the meteor, like any good American.

[traininthedistance]

I saw that this was back in the sports news. Not only does Snyder not want to change it, neither does the NFL, and we know how tuned they are to sensitivity and so forth. Football people largely don't have an issue with the "Washington Redskins," their logo, or their colors. As an epithet, I don't think the name even applies this century. And it's not used that way. But I'm a football guy.

"Cleveland Indians" and their logo is far worse.

In any event, what about the Fighting Irish? Or the Vikings and their logo? The FSU Seminoles and that guy who comes out on a horse and throws a spear into the ground? A university uses that! How about the WVU Mountaineers? You know, at some point this just. . . becomes tedious and a regress.

There's a huge difference in intention, severity, what have you between the R**skins and the Fighting Irish, or really any of those other names. 

Fighting Irish can fairly be compared to "Braves" or "Chiefs".  If you wanted to come up with an equivalent to the R**skins, they'd have to be the "Notre Dame Drunk M**ks" or something like that.

The Washington football team really is offensive in a way that other Native American names, or names of any other ethnicity, aren't.  It's in a class by itself.

[traininthedistance]

The Washington football team really is offensive in a way that other Native American names, or names of any other ethnicity, aren't.  It's in a class by itself.

How is Redskin any more offensive a term than White, Black, Brown, or Yellow?  I just don't see it being anywhere near the level of N****r that some opponents of the term would argue it is.  About the only thing beyond beyond "it's offensive because it's offensive" that I've seen opponents of the name bring up is that the term has connotations of savage warriors.

There isn't any Platonic form of offensiveness out there; the fact that people find it offensive in our culture at large is, in fact, a main part of what makes it offensive.  It's a legit argument.  And as far as I can tell it's pretty universally acknowledged that it's more offensive and/or derogatory than other terms for Native Americans, so I don't really think this objection really holds water.

To all the yes voters, what alternative name should they use?

I've said it before, I'll say it again: the Washington Senators.

[traininthedistance]

Regardless of whether they should or should not change it, yes, the decision should be overturned. It overreaches, and to me, there is too fine a line here. To me, the Cleveland Indians and their logo is worse, but I can't separate "Fighting Irish" and their logo, Yankees, WVU Mountaineers, and the Seminoles and their spear logo concept - as well as others - from this. I don't think the Patent Office took into consideration the NFL's argument (that it's not being used offensively), and I don't think the Patent Office should be arbitrarily making decisions like this.

It continually surprises me how someone as smart as you really can't (or doesn't want to) see the MASSIVE difference in scale and offensiveness between "R**skins" and all those other examples.