And like leftists normally do they rely on and propagate ignorance. The term "Redskin" was adopted by the tribes themselves when they first started participating in joint negotiations with the Americans. Prior to that, they had no term that was all inclusive because they identified by tribe. It was used for almost 100 years before it ever was used in a derogatory manner. From the mid to late 19th century, the term Redskin was only used by white people in newspapers and by the government.

Certainly many newspapers were less than kind since during this period we were in the process of exterminating all of them and most white newspapers sided with the white pioneers. However, there is no evidence that the term Redskin was widely used as a perjorative any more than the term "German" was a perjorative during WW2. When someone wanted to be deliberately insulting they were far more likely to use terms like "injun" "heathens", or "savage". The tribes continued to use the term "redskin" to describe themselves throughout this period.

The term became widely portrayed as a perjorative about 40 years later in Western novels and later movies which portrayed the white cowboys using the term to put down the natives who were almost always portrayed as the antagonists. It was popular culture that made people believe it was used as a perjorative even though it never really was.

I find it incredibly ironic that the term adopted by the people themselves is considered a perjorative, while the term "Native American" is the politically correct term. "Native American" was a term assigned to them by the elitist white fuckers who wanted to pretend to be all compassionate and ignore the ugly history of what we did to them (it was adopted in the 1960's). I think it is incredibly insulting that we call a people anything-"American" when they only became American through extreme violent force. 

Of course, a good leftist would never let a little thing like history and reality get in the way of being offended. And that ignorant imbecile Suzan Harjo has devoted some 20 years of her life to trying to get the Redskins to change their name. It is unlikely she will give up anytime soon. 

http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf

Furthermore, it is exceedingly obvious that the name was not meant to be a perjorative when the Redskins adopted it. At the time they made the change they were coached by Lone Star Dietz who was Sioux and had several players who were Indians. It wouldn't make much sense to name a team something that was offensive to the coach and the players would it? Indeed, many racists at the time were quite upset with the number of teams adopting names that were a tribute like "Braves", "Indians", "Redskins" and "Chiefs" which were quite common because the names were associated with being a warrior and warriors are good for sports.

It was this practice which inspired Earl H. Emmons to write the book "Redskin Rimes" which was an explicitly racist book to "remind" people and the "savages" and their terrible "crimes". Emmons' favorite racial slur in the book was "injun".   

https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=T_UpAAAAYAAJ&rdid=book-T_UpAAAAYAAJ&rdot=1

Gay is actually a really good comparison, like Redskin, the term "gay" was adopted as slang by gays long before it was used as a perjorative. Although, it is a bit misleading to say that gay meant happy. By the 19th century the term was tied to promiscuity, lasciviousness and immorality. It was "happy" but it was a certain type of happy. The word was usually associated with brothels, vagabonds and womanizing men. Which is probably why it was adopted by gay men because they were outside of societies moral standards. "Gay" generally wasn't used to imply a family friendly type of happy, that idea is a relatively modern one, probably adopted in an attempt to take the word away from homosexuals. 

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=gay

Agreed. See we can agree on something. I am not a complete dip shit. I just play one most of the time.

Last week, I was listening to the radio, and they were discussing this topic. At the end, someone emailed the show and said "Guys! The team doesn't have to change their name! They just need to change their mascot to a potato!"

That would solve everything!

Until some whiny lib decided to get offended at naming potatoes after native americans. There are people who live to be offended and nothing you do will make them stop whining.

Laugh it up funny guy. If they called them the Foreskins, I will admit it would reflect our dick of an owner.

*Attempts to picture the ramifications of such a move*

*Chuckles*

Btw, in the 60's gay was a family friendly type of happy. Just watch The Flinstones if you don't believe me.

 COME ON you guys! You are so full of crap! I am an atheist and I've shown how Jesus is Judeo Christian MYTH but Redskins is clearly offensive! So what if some Native Americans don't find if offensive? Some blacks don't find nigger offensive so why not call them the Washington Niggers? Bob Costas was right on how if you apply skins to another race it is obviously offensive like Blackskins or Shitskins.

Get used to a name change because it WILL happen eventually!

LOL..I got it PDW. I used to watch NFL but now I'm just sick of it!

Why anyone likes football has always eluded me. It's as boring as golf.
Actual football (soccer) is better, but it still doesn't compare to hockey.
Too bad the NHL had to ruin hockey.

I never really understood vehicular 'sports' either. It just makes me want to be behind the wheel. Or it would, if you weren't just going in circles most of the time.

UFC, WWE, etc I can understand. In UFC/etc you have real fighters with great skills who tell each other off for weeks until they get to put their money where their mouth is. In WWE/etc you have amazing stunts done by people who you'd never tell by looking they could do them. Like an action movie with a story often better than action movies have (though sometimes so shitty a 2 year old could write better, action movies often have the same flaw).

COME ON dude! Soccer only puts you to sleep! It is boring as hell! At least in football you have all these set plays and there's more drama and strategy involved but I will give you that baseball is beyond boring as hell and even more boring than soccer but for some inexplicable reason baseball is still popular in America although its national popularity is greatly fallen since its peak in the 1970s.

Baseball: ball...strike...foul...ZZZZZZZZZ

No soccer is always moving. Football is a bunch of guys standing around for 5 minutes before a 10 second burst of action leading directly back into 5 minutes of boredom. Even baseball is more entertaining, and baseball sucks ass.

If I want tactics and strategy I'll watch some Starcraft or chess games.

In soccer they always move but nothing is happening! In baseball they rarely move and nothing is happening! Both games are snoozefests!

Back to the Redskins. A name change will happen but it's just a question of when.

I'm not really a fan of hockey, I simply don't have the understanding of the sport to know what is going on so to me it is more or less random. However, of all the major sporting events I have attended live, hockey is by far the most exciting, the energy that the crowd had was unbelievable and you couldn't help but get caught up in it even though I didn't give a fuck which team won and my beers were ridiculously overpriced.

Yeah the NHL is a shadow of its former self. But the NHL isn't the only source of hockey. And it's still better than any other team sport I've ever seen.