American Indians look to high court

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Coff

So the offensive level of a term is dependent upon the number of people who are offended by it? That's interesting. So therefore a derogatory term would no longer be derogatory following an effective genocide of those people? Worth considering when we refer to the "few" who are offended by the term Redskins.

Let's stop being foolish. Redskins is an unfortunate nickname. As lifetime fans of the team, we don't want to see a name change, but lets not try to justify our selfishness by denying the derogatory nature of the moniker.

Who exactly are you speaking for?

[Zerohero]

We used to have to go to the Super Bowl to get all this fuss, miss those days.

[Coff]

Originally Posted by Hog1

Who exactly are you speaking for?

Lifetime fans of the team, as in "As lifetime fans of the team, we don't want to see a name change." Maybe I'm being presumptuous, but I just assumed that no die hard fans ever want to see a name change. The bigger point I'm making is that to approach this topic from an objective standpoint rather than as Redskins fans may give us a different outlook, but that's not going to happen if people are more concerned with defending the team's nickname than discovering the true meaning of the word. Whether or not the term is offensive is hardly an argument. Redskin fans and many other people may not think it is, but lexicographers are pretty much in agreement. From Webster's to the American Heritage Dictionary, the term is labelled "offensive." I haven't been able to locate the definition through the OED, the be all and end all of English language dictionaries, but according to Wikipedia (admittedly not a credible source), the OED also considers the word offensive.

Look, I'm just being honest with myself; I can accept the opinion of objective experts who consider the term offensive while at the same time defend the team in keeping the name.