Commanders or Redskins?

[Anonymous]

Redskins

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Forever baby!

[Anonymous]

Would love to see the results if only fans of the team voted. Most that objected were fans of other teams or didn’t care about the sport.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, we're still going to call people Redskins? And are we going to call them Orange skins and Pink skins and brown skins and white skins and black skins and yellow skins?

Why pick such an offensive mascot named for some physical characteristic that no person can change? Just choose some animal like wolves or lions or falcons or sharks etc and be done with it.

My grandmother said that they used to refer to people of European decent as white and of African descent as black. So demeaning. Redskins is a relic of that time.

[Anonymous]

We are never going back to Redskins so I don’t even know why we’re having this discussion.

Commanders sucks it’s a terrible name.

I like the Washington football team. Our nickname should be the team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are never going back to Redskins so I don’t even know why we’re having this discussion.

Commanders sucks it’s a terrible name.

I like the Washington football team. Our nickname should be the team.

Nickname could be "pigskins" --kind of goes with the Hogs.

[Anonymous]

Commanders all I can ever think about is The Handmaid's Tale (which was still an active show when they came up with the name).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would love to see the results if only fans of the team voted. Most that objected were fans of other teams or didn’t care about the sport.

I don't see why that would change anything.

A racist slur doesn't stop being a slur because fans like it. Especially when the vast, vast majority of the fans are not Native and have zero authority to speak on the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Redskins. No has an issue with Vikings or Fighting Irish, but they'd prefer to have Native American history fade away. If they are going to change anything they should have removed Washington, that name is associated with slavery and the massacre of Native Americans.

You don’t see the difference between Vikings, which is the name of a group of people, and Redskins, which is not the name of any tribe that I know of.

[Anonymous]

Let’s poll Native Americans. If a majority are fine with it then the pale face liberals can slink away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s poll Native Americans. If a majority are fine with it then the pale face liberals can slink away.

The endless grievances of the anti woke cancel culture.

[Anonymous]

Redskins means “proof of kill”. It is offensive and a slur. Imagine the nation’s capital football team being named after a term that represents the bounty and death/skinning of your people.

[Anonymous]

This is a big issue for a few 55-65 year old maga white men. They are the same ones want to use the n-word and call people fags.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not interested in returning to a time when newspapers called it "the Washington football team" because the official name was a racial slur.
I wouldn't have picked "Commanders" either but it works and it's done.

Newspapers, wha’s that ? Go Skins !

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not interested in returning to a time when newspapers called it "the Washington football team" because the official name was a racial slur.
I wouldn't have picked "Commanders" either but it works and it's done.

What if the overwhelming majority of Native Americans don’t find the Washington Redskins name offensive, but a small minority of White people do?

There is no right not to be offended, that’s where this all went wrong. They need to get over it.