Should the Washington Redskins change their name?

[7,052,770]

The fascinating thing is that many of the people (not necessarily the ones on this  thread, but in the real world) who say that it's fine to change the name as long as the government doesn't force it, will be the same who shriek the loudest about liberals ruining America if the team decides to change.

If the free market causes a name change rather than government intervention, conservatives should claim victory.  But most of them will howl defeat instead...

[7,052,770]

They probably should, but the free market can and will take care of this issue in its own time.

[7,052,770]

To all the yes voters, what alternative name should they use?

Just about anything. "Washington Warriors" has a nice ring to it and they could keep using tasteful Native American imagery.

[7,052,770]

Thing is, people like Naso are going to whine the loudest when the NFL and Redskins inevitably make a private, free-market business decision to change their name.

[7,052,770]

Thing is, people like Naso are going to whine the loudest when the NFL and Redskins inevitably make a private, free-market business decision to change their name.

So, by your logic, free-market supporters have to support any business decision made by a private company? If a company decided to reduce the quality of their goods, free-market supporters who complain about it are hypocrites? If a company decided to make a terrible investment, free-market supporters would have to support it because it was done by a private business?

Criticism of and reaction to business decisions are just as much a part of the free market as the decisions themselves.

...

No, obviously that's not my point. (...)

When the Redskins change their name, it will be because the free market determines it's the best solution. The Redskins will definitely not change their name without the bottom line saying they need to.

However, Naso will be whining about liberals destroying America again when that day arrives, rather than saying something like "I didn't want the government forcing this, but since it was a smart business decision, I applaud them."

If the Redskins change their name when the market prefers they not, and then the Redskins lose money, fans of the free market should cheer. If the Redskins change their name because the market prefers it, free market fans should cheer. But mark my words, most people who usually love the free market won't be cheering.

[7,052,770]

Have you paid attention lately at all? The Redskins say the name isn't offensive and they won't change. The NFL says the name isn't offensive and they won't change.

If/when the Redskins finally do change their name one day, it will either be because some kind of government forced them to (pretty unlikely) or that the financials simply left them no choice -- it's very obvious from all of the team/league's comments over the last few days/weeks/month/years/decades that they absolutely do not want to and won't do it unless forced.

Obviously companies make poor decisions all the time. (Did you seriously think I was arguing they don't?) But the odds of the Redskins willingly changing their name without being forced to by the market are virtually nil.

[7,052,770]

How does it punish you to rename a football team?

Because it would be giving into the politically correct lovers.

So if Donald Sterling tried to change the name of the Clippers to the N*ggers that would be o.k. because it's anti pc. gotcha.

I think there's the line you don't cross, obviously. Redskins isn't nearly as offensive as the 'N' word.

I think once you begin crossing the line though, you do more harm than good. I don't want a child to grow up 20 years from now in a world reading about how the most free country in the world is just like Europe because we changed what made us unique to please a select few.

What's wrong with Europe? Most of the Western European/Scandinavian countries have higher standards of living and higher levels of happiness than we do.

[7,052,770]

I forgot people like Eazy-E and other rappers use the term n*gger so it's perfectly o.k. 

No it's not perfectly okay, but to claim that redskin is at the exact same level as n in terms of offensiveness is an absurd oversimplification.

Oh God.

As much as I disagree, can we agree it is at LEAST as offensive as "darkie" rather than debating over semantics? Please??

No. It was never intended to be a racist name in any way shape or form. "Darkie" most certainly is meant that way.

Today it would be, in 1932, maybe not. You know the Kentucky legislature removed the line "the darkies are gay" from My Old Kentucky Home a few years ago, right?