Keep Digging That Hole, Redskins

A brief response to the latest dumb shit the Redskins have posted on their official site about their team name.

Good news, Redskins fans

The team has finally realized its nickname is horribly offensive and racist?

A new Associated Press-GfK poll shows that nationally, 79 percent of Americans approve of the Washington Redskins name.

This is not good news.

The last time this poll was conducted was in 1992 following the team’s Super Bowl championship. Twenty-one years have passed with only a four percent change in disapproval.

First off, 21 years have passed without the Redskins winning a Super Bowl. That’s probably not worth highlighting. Second, the disapproval has gone from seven to 11 percent. One way to present this information is to say it’s only a four percent change. Another would be to say it’s a 36 percent increase in disapproval.

While much of the world has changed over the last three decades, the loyal support for the Washington Redskins remains unwavering.

Indeed, much has changed, including the racist nicknames and mascots of many sports teams, such as those at Stanford, Marquette, Miami (which, coincidentally enough, was the “Redskins), St. John’s, Seattle University, and countless high schools. What has not changed: Racism still exists all over the place, specifically in Ashburn and Landover.

It is also suspected that at least 50 percent of those in dissent are Dallas Cowboys fans.

This is a horrible joke, but mostly because it suggests that Cowboys fans are intelligent enough to understand the name needs to be changed.

14 thoughts on “Keep Digging That Hole, Redskins”

  1. Yours is a minority opinion. Face reality: the only thing that would cause Dan Snyder to change the name is financial impetus. It isn’t happening.

  2. I find with each stupid statement defending the name I want it changed more. Here is the argument I’d use for keeping it:

    “While the term Redskins has been considered a ethnic slur in the past, the modern meaning of it has evolved to mean WASHINGTON football team.”

  3. expecting anything less than the moral and intellectual lowest common denominator from the united states will result in disappointment.

  4. Brian is dead on; Danny will not be changing anything unless it costs him some coin. If you guys are so offended by the name then stop cheering for them. This country was built by robbing Native Americans of their land and putting them on reservations to live out their tax free existence. Changing the name would only make guys like you happy to say “We won” and “Go Redhawks, or Redtails”. It would not change the fact that we stole this land. That’s my opinion. All that said, you guys are awesome and I dig Mr. I. Go Caps.

  5. If Jacksonville moved their team to Vegas would Native American owned casinos or companies not offer up MILLIONS of dollars to secure naming rights of the new stadium/field? Could you imagine if the Skins were forced to change their name and then all of a sudden you end up playing at “Indian Casino Field” in Vegas?

    Also, Redskins is what Native Americans called themselves with honor before any “racism” was attached to it.

    What ever happened to that thing called context?

  6. Ignorance appears to be bliss. Racist names are not racist DESPITE history but BECAUSE of history. And the meaning of those historically racist terms is not determined by majority consent of those not directly affected, so polls are useless in determine the racism of the word. As for Snyder having a financial incentive to change the name and logo, imagine the cash flow resulting when Redskins fans have to buy new jerseys and rebranded paraphernalia. The Washington Capitals changed their logos and jerseys three times in the last 20 odd years and the Wizards completely changed their name. I see no reason the Redskins can’t do the same.

  7. “Also, Redskins is what Native Americans called themselves with honor before any “racism” was attached to it. ”

    This might, in fact, be the stupidest sentence ever written.

  8. If redskins was considered an ethnic slur “in the past” why would the team be named after this slur? Slurs are, by definition, demeaning, but I’m supposed to believe that a team wanted to give itself a demeaning and degrading identity?

    The only past in which “Redskins” was considered to be an ethnic slur was the recent one. A past in which grievances, victimization, identity politics, and (God, I hate having to write this) political correctness became the dominant part of our national discourse.

    And I’m pretty sure this all occurred well after “Redskins” came to mean Washington football team.

  9. Doesn’t the simple act of “banning” the word, i.e. censorship, make it more powerful and taboo? It helps it to gain notoriety.

    Also, words change their meaning. I don’t think that Redskin means the same thing today as it did 100 years ago. I can’t remember the last time I was walking around, and someone pointed out “those dirty redskins”

  10. Since people who believe that it should be changed feel they are 100% right and the rest are idiots perhaps they can bring their wisdom to another confusing issue where people seem to be divided on correct usage. Is the correct phase, “Could care less” or “Couldn’t care less”?

  11. “Could care less” implies a degree of caring that can be made smaller, “couldn’t care less” implies a degree of caring that cannot be made smaller.

  12. I love it when non-native people tell me I’m being offended. As a Native American, I’ll let you know when I am. I’m more offended when people assume my family lives on a reservation or in tipis.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *