Jan 9, 2014; Ashburn, VA, USA; Washington Redskins head coach Jay Gruden is introduced by general manager Bruce Allen during a press conferences at Redskins Park Team Auditorium. Mandatory Credit: Brad Mills-USA TODAY Sports

U.S. Senators call for Redskins name to be changed

The use of Redskins as the mascot for Washington’s football team is racist and offensive. It has been debated countless times over–especially in the last year or so–but there is no real debate to be had. It is an offensive and hurtful term that has no place in the world–let alone as the nickname of a football team in the nation’s capital.

Ask anyone who supports the nickname if they would walk up to a Native American and call them a “redskin” to their face. Those people would most likely tell you no, and that’s all you need to know about whether or not it’s offensive to use the word as a nickname. If you don’t feel comfortable using the word in front of the people it represents, then that’s a dead giveaway that the word is offensive!

This morning, U.S. Senators have taken the first step to getting rid of the nickname once and for all.

This is a fantastic development, and I applaud the Senators who stood up against the name and the power the NFL wields in this country. Getting rid of the name has long been overdue, and I’m glad it’s finally on the way out.

Damn, U.S. Senators, stunt on them haters.

Dick's Sporting Goods presents "Hell Week":

Tags: NFL Washington Redskins

  • DDApe

    Most people wouldn’t call someone a Redskin because they
    don’t think of it as a derogatory label. Walk up to someone and call them a Jew
    with disdain in your voice and it takes on your intended meaning. It becomes hateful only in the mind of someone if they intend hatred. What initially comes to mind when I hear the word Redskin is a football
    team – as do most in our society.

    If your goal is to lock in the word as a pejorative in our culture, then continue
    to lobby for it to be removed as a beloved and inspiring representation of a popular
    sports franchise. Then it will be always associated with hate – is that the goal here?

    No one supports the nickname because of hate; to the fans it is a respectful symbol of honor and bravery.
    Isn’t that something we should all support.


  • Domenic Vadala

    Last time I checked, the first amendment says that Congress shall not abridge the right of freedom of speech. So…does that not appear to be what they’re doing by trying to get rid of the name? Now in fairness they only sent a letter, however if they were to take it a step further and attempt to legislate the name out or pull tax exemption from the NFL, that might be a different story. If it got to that point Daniel Snyder would have a very legitimate “Freedom of Speech” case in constitutional law.

  • Marc Rutledge

    Jack GET A CLUE and stop trying to act as if you have a true understanding of this issue. This issue of the Redskins name isn’t about racism. If you and others who feel the name Redskins is racist, where is the outcry to give the Native Americans their land back that was stolen from them? Where is the outcry for the millions of African-Americans who are perpetually treated as second-class citizens? Where is the outcry billions of dollars the U.S Government wastes every year on programs that don’t do what they’re intended to? The team has been called ‘Redskins’ for more than 80 years, now all of a sudden, people have an issue with the name. Those who know the truth behind this issue, know what this is really about, and you’re not one of them. So stay in your lane and write about something else.

  • http://packer-madness.com/ Packer-Madness

    I agree, yes, it can be offensive, but if the government forces them to change the name, free speech is dead. If the government can regulate free speech, where does it up the rest of the country?

    The constitution does not say you have freedom of speech except if it offends anyone. It strictly prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.