Wasn’t there an issue a while back with cartoon character Speedy Gonzales? I seem to remember that Warner wanted to shelve him due to racial insensiytivity, before finding out that he was actually pretty popular among Latinx.
Im not sure it was Speedy himself but rather the entire village of lazy, slow mice in his standalone cartoons, not to mention the bandito cats.
Good example! And, the answer to the OP appears to be that the minority’s views will be respected. Speedy Gonzales returned to Cartoon Network. From the Wiki page:
Despite such controversy over potentially offensive characterizations, Speedy Gonzales remained a popular character in Latin America.[6] The Hispanic-American rights organization League of United Latin American Citizens called Speedy a cultural icon, and thousands of users registered their support of the character on the hispaniconline.com message boards. Fan campaigns to put Speedy back on the air resulted in the return of the animated shorts to Cartoon Network in 2002.[7]
The biggest driver for the name change in Washington appears to be the corporate sponsors. That’s where the real money is these days.
And Washington season ticket holders (and all ticket sales) have dropped considerably in recent years.
Offensive is not a objective reality. Everybody has a different threshold for being offended. The question is who gets to decide what is offensive, should it be the most easily offended, the least or the median. The polls show that most Indians do not consider Redskins offensive. Why should the opinion of the majority be ignored?
The many problems with “the polls” (actually two specific surveys) were already point out, of course.
Those critiques are very weak.
Care to address the points they raise with your own cites?
Ticket sales are actually a pretty small part of the revenue. Much more comes from sponsorships and TV rights.
If it is a matter of pleasing the ticket-holders or the people who actually matter, they will tell the ticket-holders to piss off. They may be die hard fans, but they are an insignificant part of a team’s revenue.
And today’s fans will be dead in 70 years too. What’s your point?
Read the post I replied to: "To heck with the fans. When MLB integrated, some of “the fans” abused Jackie Robinson and so did players on other teams. If the fans want to be racist gits, then that’s on them. The team does not need to–and should not–coddle their sensitive souls."
What the holy fuck does the dead fans of 1947 have to do with today’s fans? Do you think the racism of 1947 is like the racism of today?
Of the several different speculated origins of the name mentioned in Wikipedia, Notre Dame Fighting Irish - Wikipedia , this particular reference does not even get mentioned. The name “fighting Irish” goes back to the Civil War and I would not be surprised to discover a brouhaha involving Catholic Notre Dame kids and the notoriously anti-Catholic KKK, but I do not find the name story persuasive.
I will just put you on ignore if you won’t read my posts before responding to them.
Show your work.
My point is rather obvious. The comment “it’s only the fans that matter” is nonsense.
And how is “today’s racism” different from “yesterday’s racism”? As far as I can see, it’s still the same disgusting, ignorant, dangerous nonsense now as it was then.
It is nice that you think that. Clearly, electing Obama, the 1964 Civil rights act, etc means we havent advanced beyond 1947. 
If you really think that, then I bid you good day sir. there is no use attempting to have a discussion with anyone who has that opinion.
You forgot Oprah and Bill Cosby . . . but I guess I see why you left Bill out.
CMC
@DrDeth: Yeah, right. And all those “put the white back in White House” stickers, signs, etc. had nothing to do with time-honored racism.
While Obama was president, I saw plenty of those while I was in Georgia. A number of posters commented on those back then, too. I’m not the only one posting here who’s seen those.