I think it's horse poop myself.

I've seen too many Native Americans that have stood up for the Redskins then what I've seen standing against them. For Jeebus' sake, their logo was drawn by a Native American, for them to use.

I could understand if it was about changing a name like the "Mississippi Slavers". If the Redskins don't fight through this, a whole lot of other changes in sports is coming. The Braves, The Fighting Illini, The Indians, The Saints; yes, The Saints. The Saints refers to a Christian belief and it's offensive to non Christians.

I hope all sports fans stand with Washington. The Washington Redskins, that is.

I doubt it opens up Pandoras Box. Braves is pretty much a tribute. Redskins is kind of like being the Washington Pale Faces or the Washington Colords. Braves falls along the lines of Seminole or Warriors, or even something like Red Tails or Mayflower. I don't see this being a problem for many other teams. Now that Cleveland Indians logo...idk man. Lol.

Indians logo is about as dumb as "black face" from the early 1900's.

It's that bad.

But Redskins? C'mon man... The Native Americans THEMSELVES voted on this.

I just want to know why it's offensive. I don't see it, I don't get it, and I'm hearing that a lot of the Indian community is either for it, or at the very least they are not against it. So for those who say it IS offensive I want to know why. I'd love to see a team called the whiteskins or the white guys, just for comic relief. I can't imagine being mad about it.

But no matter which side of the fence you're on with the name, I think we can all agree that taking their trademark rights away is the dumbest possible thing they could have done. All it means is that anyone can use the logo without fear of being sued. They think this is going to pressure the Redskins, but in actuality it doesn't matter what it does to the team, because it will only encourage a broadening of redskins merchandising.

I don't care about it. But if you're trying to solve what you think is already a problem then you've just made it worse, almighty government.

Racism imparted on whites was usually imparted by other whites. It was really pretty much nationalism and religious beliefs. There's never been any negativity in America for being white. That's probably why it would just be funny to you. Nothings happened, so it's nothing for you to be sensitive about. When I was finishing up x ray school we watched a video on the origins of the discover of x rays. There was a segment in there where in the early 1900's they were exposing black people to inordinate amounts of radiation because it would burn the melanin out of their skin and make them white as far as complexion goes. This is how the people of the time decided to fix the "problem." So of course they'd die from radiation poisoning. Then being from New Orleans, it's a lot of really light skin people down there such as my self. I've got blonde haired, blue eyed, black cousins who are the exact same color as any average white person. The term is pas on blanc, I'm pretty sure I spelled it wrong, but it means passing for white. People used to do that to try and escape the ridicule of the times. If they were light like that, they'd just pretend. We got a complex man. We're pretty ****ed up off a lot of that. The people who went through that stuff and dealt with that stuff are still alive. So I'm pretty sure their are some over sensitive Native Americans too. That race is pretty much obliterated. Don't take this as an argument though. Just dialogue.

I'm not suggesting redskins is funny. I'm just saying it's a name that state's a color. I personally think whiteskins would be funny, but the overall point is that I don't get how saying a skin color is offensive. I get that minorities have gone through certain things, and I'm not here to dispute any of what you said above. But it still doesn't answer my question of how this name is offensive to anyone. The name isn't suggestive to any intentional changing of skin color, or any other kind of abuse. It's a name that, according to everything I'm hearing, was ok'd by Indians themselves. So whom is offended by this, and why? I'm bewildered by it. I still feel like it's just an excuse to sue the crap out of the Redskins. But if there is any real reason, I would really like to know what it is. This isn't an indictment on every Indian, but I'm not about to believe that there aren't those among them who are just looking for money. Those kind of people are very much in existence, and considering this appears to be a small percentage of people who are complaining, it makes you wonder.

I don't believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt alone. If you want a team to change it's name you have to come with something stronger than "we think it's offensive". Just my opinion.