They wouldn’t have even put this out if they had no intention of changing

Granted, their hand is being forced financially from Fedex, Nike, etc....

Dude, I don't want the Chiefs name to change, but the fans have very little power in deciding this shit.

Snyder and the fans thought they were in charge with Redskins. And then the money arrived at the party, and then they had nothing.

DC is different. Period.

Latest news from the Redskins.
https://babylonbee.com/news/redskins...n-better-in-dc

I don't think that's true at all. They can't say nothing in this day and age - they have to give the appearance that they're taking it seriously. I wouldn't be surprised if this ends in the standard "We talked, they're cool with it, and we gave them a bunch of money."

Braves, Indians and Chiefs don't directly refer to someone's skin color, nor were they used as a slur in the 1800's-1900's to summarize a type of people.

It's a pretty damn important nuance.

It's very simple to me: Society wouldn't tolerate a "Blackskins" team. Most of us would agree it's in poor taste.

Society would go ape shit over a "Whiteskins" team.

Why is Redskins any different?

Texas Rangers: brutal racists, the klan of the border.

Washington Sentinels please.

Yeah, the interesting part of this is that people on all sides become so entrenched that there's no reasonable discussion. I have misgivings about replacing names like Braves and Chiefs. I don't think they're inherently disparaging terms, and I view with skepticism the notion of "embracing diversity" by deleting public references to a culture. I think people view the Redskins name as the opening salvo of a larger war and they want to hold the line, but defending the name "Redskins" is a folly.

It would appear to me that the line of reasonableness falls somewhere between Redskins and Braves. Redskins is clearly over the line. Maybe Indians is as well, though I find it hard to view it as a racial thing when we've also got the Vikings and patriots that are the same concept. I think Braves is under the line because it's not about Indians, it's about warriors and it's clearly honorific. Braves is equivalent to Cowboys and Oilers and Packers.
It's not racially motivated, but rather is vocationally oriented. Chiefs is closer to the line than Braves, but still under it for the same reason. As others have noted, I think the issue lies with the tertiary activities like the chop and the horse and that sort of thing.

Others may have different opinions about where the line is, of course, but our challenge is that we don't know what the rule is for changing. Does it change if more than 50 percent are offended? Or do we change if one person out of our 300 million is offended?

Or are the only opinions that count those of the population being portrayed? I'd be fine with that as a decision rule, but if that's the case then I don't want to hear the opinions of the non-portrayed population. We put the question to our population of Native Americans and let them decide. And then we go to our Scandinavian population about Vikings and our tiger population about Bengals.

Stephen A. Smith says live on ESPN that a source tells him the name is going to be changed.

If they change the name then Synder will lose any respect he had among the Skins fans. They will be flying banners calling for him to sell the team. Defending the name is the only thing they praised him for and the only thing keeping from a full out fan revolt.

I am betting the fanbase doubles and triples down on the Indian iconography.

This is what happens when you allow things that will start a slippery slope

Would the name “Allskins” be offensive?? You know they are coming for the Chiefs next.. Hopefully having the new face of the NFL keeps them at bay for awhile..

Renaming the team to Washington Generals would make the most sense but then I see there is a basketball team with the same name who exists only to play exhibition games against the Harlem Globetrotters.

I was talking to a friend of mine who is very knowledgeable about the history of the NFL and who is no liberal by any means. He said that the term Redskin was used back in the day as a slur to refer to Indians similar to how the use of the N word refers to Blacks.