It did more than that; it enumerated some people that are offended. It also corrected Reilly’s unsubstantiated “truism” that white people are the ones offended by the name.
I disagree. Pointing out that “nigger” is offensive regardless of context does nothing to disprove the concept that some words are offensive in some contexts and not others.
Moreover, as Zirin also pointed out, a school in the Oneida-dense region of Cooperstown *did *change the name from Redskin because it’s offensive.
Neither is Rick Reilly, who was respected once upon a time but now specializes in bullshit and repeating stuff from his own columns. Meanwhile Zirin dismantled Reilly’s arguments and showed they were ignorant and shallow, which, again, is Reilly’s stock in trade.
Seems like a stretch to be offended about that, and I say that as a (lapsed) Catholic.
Or a spanish peanut.
I grew up in the DC burbs and now live in DC. I was a Redskins fan when I was younger, but don’t follow the NFL anymore. I used to have a lot of Redskins gear when I was a kid, but I see people wearing it now and I just can’t imagine wearing something like that in public. It’past time to change the name and do it now when they suck (and god, go they suck). Plus Art Monk said it was time to consider changing the name and what Art Monk says is the law, the guy could pretty much tell me how to vote.
The Real in Spanish teams is from having had the sponsorship of a Spanish king - maybe Utah is thinking of seceding?
Who could pass for royalty in Utah?
I’d say the Redskins should definitely change their name (maybe just the Reds?). It’s not an issue I feel very strongly about, but to claim it’s not an offensive term is asinine, to say the least.
Of course, the Blackhawks were named after the team founder’s military division. Which was named after a specific individual, a real badass. So I don’t know if the Blackhawks count.
Reds? It’s already enough trouble trying to use context to figure out which Giants someone is taking about! 
I read an article recently stating that there are a number of Native Americans who don’t find “Indian” names offensive at all. I’d maybe change some logos (especially the Cleveland Indians’ “Chief Wahoo” logo and maybe the redman logo of the Redskins), but if I’m not a member of that ethnicity, who am I to say it’s offensive?
(I’m Irish-American, and I’m also not offended by the Celtics or Fighting Irish. Even the Fighting Irish logo is okay with me.)
Is there anyone who doesn’t find Cleveland’s logo over the line? Why don’t they change it? Do people in Cleveland have less awareness of how stupid it is?
I’ve never understood the fuss. Of course Chief Wahoo doesn’t look like a real Native American. He’s a cartoon character-- Cartoon characters never look like any sort of real person. Is Charlie Brown an offensive depiction of Caucasians? What makes Chief Wahoo any more offensive than Charlie Brown?
Only team name that ever offended me was my Catholic HS team name: CRUSADERS.
Seriously? It was cool before you learned what the crusades really were. Still, our teams sucked. But if we had horses and swords…
I was going to mention something about the fact both Charlie Brown and Chief Wahoo are cartoon depictions of losers but the Indians have nailed down a wild card slot so that’s no longer accurate.
Chief Wahoo brings the “smiling black man with big red lips eating a watermelon” image to my mind, quite frankly. Native American version of that.
I suppose you find nothing wrong with cartoon Asian characters being bright yellow, with slits for eyes, and buck teeth, like Tojo in the wartime shorts? Now consider how Nazis looked in those same reels–either glowering or buffoonish, but still, more human. Their skin was not a primary color. Why the difference, you think?
Charlie Brown doesn’t represent anybody. He’s just Charlie Brown. The whole problem with using stereotyped minority characters (Native Native or anyone else) is that they’re not afforded that kind of individual humanity. The fact that they’re minorities tells us pretty much all we’re supposed to know about them.
You forgot “Dodgers”
This.
And the Redskins, of course. I honestly don’t see how a restaurant chain called “Sambos” could be forced to change its name, but “Redskins” works. I wish an Indian tribe would take some of their casino money and buy a professional sports team and call it the Kikes, or whatever term Daniel Snyder would find unacceptable. Maybe then, he’d change his tune.
The logo could be be a swastika, or just a big ol’ nose on the side of a helmet.
My apologies for not stating outright that my post was just using as an example something a Jewish person would find offensive and not meant to inflame or insult anyone in anyway.
I used a Jewish insult because I believe Daniel Snyder is Jewish. I also realize I may have spelled one of the terms wrong, which should tell you how familiar I am with it. Truth is, I don’t even know what it means.
Cheers,
Oh, and relevant song: If You Own the Washington Redskins, You’re a Cock.