1. Mediaite
  2. Gossip Cop
  3. Geekosystem
  4. Styleite
  5. SportsGrid
  6. The Mary Sue
  7. The Maude
  8. The Braiser

Shut Up, People Who Will Freak Out When The Redskins Change Their Name

Welcome to SportsGrid’s Tuesday feature, “Shut Up,” (pronounced: “shut up… comma”) where we add a name after the comma, telling that person to stop saying words, because they’re being stupid. This week, that person is a group of stubborn assholes.

In case you missed it, we’re no longer calling the Washington Redskins the Washington Redskins (except right there, so you could understand me, sorry, I never said I was a good person), instead opting for clever pseudonyms like Washington Machines and Washington Potato Skins. We support the name change, because it’s clear that the word offends a lot of people, for just reasons, and it’s insensitive to keep using it. It’s a very simple concept.

And since the Washington Post’s Mike Wise now feels confident a name change will occur relatively soon, perhaps in the next three years, it’s time to address the people that will freak out about this. It’s time to tell these weirdly-angry people to shut up. Your own “morals” are so important that you can’t concede a fucking nickname?

If you ask any reasonable person what their opinion is, they will typically answer, either:

1) I don’t know enough about the origins of the word to say for sure, but if it does indeed offend Native Americans, they should change it.

2) I know that the word offends lots of Native Americans, so they should change it.

There’s really no other legitimate answer, other than “Fuck Dan Snyder,” which is an incomplete answer yet one that will garner you full credit.

If you are an unreasonable person, you will answer, either:

1) Bro those pussies can just get over it bro, my buddy Mike calls me a gayball all the time and I just sack-tap that pussy. No homo though bro.


3 Oh, my diddly jiggly gosh, I hate people who are so self-righteous!

Number three is the worst kind of person, because as bad as number one and number two are, their idiocy explains their ignorance. Number three thinks he or she is being smart and progressive and a wordsmith, with his misguided use of “self-righteous.” Seriously, if you think that people defending Native Americans’ right to protest the widespread use of a racial slur is self-righteous, go to “dictionary.com” and type in “self-righteous.” This website is like that book thing that tells you when you’re wrong when you claim to know the meanings of big words that you heard the angry Fox News man yell.

self-right·eous [self-rahy-chuhs, self-]


confident of one’s own righteousness, especially when smugly moralistic and intolerant of the opinions and behavior of others.

If you were an idiot, could you argue that pro-name-change people are “self-righteous?” I guess, but if name-change defenders are self-righteous, then Abe Lincoln was self-righteous, Martin Luther King Jr. was self-righteous, anyone with a modicum of testicular fortitude is self-righteous, and anyone with the opinion that people should be treated kindly is “self-righteous.” Any person who has stood up for a different group of people is indeed self-righteous, in this strange, hypothetical world of fluid definitions.

I hope you realize I’m not comparing pro-name-change people to MLK; my point is that if supporting an entire people’s wishes, no matter the magnitude of the issue, is “self-righteous,” then the most important advocates of social change in all of human history are “self-righteous.” And that would really fuck up the meaning of this negatively-connotated word, would it? That wouldn’t make a whole lot of sense, would it?

Even unreasonable people can’t support that. Unless they’re really fucking self-righteous.

Supporting a name change is the opposite of self-righteous, deferring to someone else’s wishes, because their moral wishes of silencing highly-offensive language are far weightier than your “moral wish” to not have to buy a new T-shirt. If you somehow don’t support this, you’re being smugly moralistic with your “opinion,” which is that change that helps people is bad, because it’s different, and you’re being intolerant of the opinions and behaviors of others, and you’re ironically being a self-righteous prick.

And nobdody likes self-righteous pricks. Not even you, you self-righteous prick.

  • Ted Tidwell

    Why should the Redskins change there name, aside from the argument that its offensive…aren’t all football fans that watch the game, buy the merch, buy the tickets etc. complicit in the institutional racism of pro sport teams that co-opt Native Americans as mascots?

    Just wondering how many fans are just too turned off by the name of the team to drop the crack pipe that is professional football. Weigh that against the morality play that is racial injustice and get back to me.

  • Anonymous

    Now who should I believe: Some liberal goof from the Washington Post or…… THE OWNER OF THE TEAM, who has made it perfectly clear he ain’t changing the name.
    And, as long as FedEx stadium stays packed and jerseys and merchandise fly off the shelves, the Washington REDSKINS will remain just that….THE REDSKINS.
    Maybe you should get over YOUR self-righteousness and quit feigning being offended on other people’s behalf (especially when many Native American communities have high school teams with the same nickname).


    check out this high school whose student body is over 90% native american using the redskins nickname… somebody should tell them to be offended:


    self-righteous, indeed…

  • Anonymous

    As soon as you tell the people who are offended to stop being offended.

  • Anonymous

    i don’t think you get it.

    yes, there are native americans who are not offended. there are also native americans who are offended. lots of them.

    the options are:

    keep the name: offend lots of native americans
    change the name: make the offended people happy, offend nobody

    real tough decision, right?

  • Anonymous

    i hope you at least get your irony

  • Anonymous

    interesting point. i’m not nearly knowledgable enough on the subject to weigh in properly.

    however, the way i understood it (and i could certainly be wrong), is that this is one of a fairly small number of offensive nicknames/mascots, as teams/colleges have been changing with the times.

    like, aztecs/seminoles are simply the name of a group of people, like trojans/spartans. nothing wrong with that, from my view.

  • Anonymous


  • Anonymous

    Who said changing the name won’t offend anyone?

    It would offend legions of Redskins fans.

    It would offend the owner of the team, who paid billions for that franchise.

    It would offend “lots” of Native Americans, who are being used by the left to push some political agenda, of which they want no part by falsely feigning offense on their behalf.

    It would offend those who have this dastardly idea that someone who paid his money to buy something can do with it what he likes (within the law).

    You don’t get it. It’s not the NFL’s job or Snyder’s job to make sure you (or a handful of Native Americans) don’t get your feelings hurt.

    You get your own NFL team and you can name it whatever you want.

  • Anonymous

    Snyder is just using the left’s abortion mantra: My franchise, MY CHOICE!!
    But, unlike abortion, no babies (or any color, in or outside the womb) are being dismembered.

  • Ted Tidwell

    My point is this…You keep the name you offend people, You change the name you offend people…Dan Schneider makes money no matter what. However, he probably stands to offend more people who now buy his merchandise as is (die hard traditionalists that have been Redskins fans their entire lives and really have no racially charged attachment to the name), so really I think he has probably done the calculus and determined that this would hurt him financially…you seriously think Dan Schneider, an owner that charges his fans to attend training camp would not jump all over changing the teams name if he knew that the new would sell?

    When he starts to see it as a commercially viable enterprise to change the teams name he will..

  • Anonymous

    You apparently don’t get yours. You’re telling people who’d get offended for a name change to “SHUT UP”. We’re telling people like YOU to “SHUT UP”.

    BTW, the name of the state of Oklahoma literally translates to “Red People” in the Choctaw language. I suppose they should just “shut up” too and the name of the state need to be switched, lest your widdle feewings get hurt.

  • Anonymous

    lol, changing a nickname would “offend legions of redskins fans?”

    yeah, the native americans are really the sensitive ones.

  • Anonymous

    haha i hope this is a joke. if so, it’s really funny.

  • Anonymous

    sigh, you still don’t get it. my feelings are fine.

  • Dapandico

    Go Chiefs!!!!

  • Anonymous

    good points.

    but it seems to me that the media reaction would be ridiculously positive if he changed the name, and that it would be a boon to business. but perhaps it’s too much of a risk at this point. i still don’t think it makes any sense for a fan to be offended if they change the name, but you’re right, plenty will, hence the need for this article.

    long-term, i suspect it would have no impact on finances. but i’m just speculating, and as much of a jackass as snyder is, i think it’s safe to say he knows more about business than i do.

  • Anonymous

    You claimed the name change would “offend nobody”.
    But, that’s not the case. And, it doesn’t matter if they’re “sensitive” or not. If the goal is not to offend, the numbers go with the Redskins fans, who want the name to stay.
    Again, as long as the stadium stays packed and the jerseys, pig noses, and other gear fly off the shelves, the team will remain the REDSKINS.


    it is a tough decision when the likes of forbes estimates a change will likely run in the neighborhood of $15m… but i guess it’s easy for sportswriters to spend other people’s money when owners are seen to routinely drop millions on busted drafted picks and free agents who don’t pan out…

    making the offended people happy in this case is much like the fcc trying to fine cbs for janet jackson’s wardrobe malfunction because of a so called parents organization’s complaint, a notorious one responsible for the vast majority of all the complaints they receive… i find it curious that for the better part of 60 years no one voiced any objection to the name until shortly after the redskins started winning super bowls in the 90′s…

  • Anonymous

    racial slur ≠ breasts on tv

    poor analogy.


    insensitive at best but hardly a slur… a slur would not have been acceptable, even in the 1930′s… particularly in light of tommy yazzie, native american superintendent of the red mesa school district, home of the red mesa redskins, who feels there are more important issues facing native americans…

    nor am i equating a non-existent slur with breasts, i’m equating the fact a few control freaks are offended… perfect analogy…

  • GooberSnotpants

    What if they keep the name but change the mascot to a sunburned white guy or something?

  • Lew

    It seems there are Native Americans who are offended by the term, and it also seems there are Native Americans who are proud of the moniker. Not sure the “fifth estate” has the moral high ground to decide which side has it right.

  • Anonymous

    have you seen any native americans speaking out against a name change? i would love to see that information, if it’s out there

  • Lew

    There are numerous local reports (hint: use Google) that cite individuals (key word) from Native American tribes who say this is complete nonsense and support it wholeheartedlty. I know that doesn’t fit the agenda bandwagon you ride so high, but I guess their opinions don’t matter because they don’t have lobbyists in DC shining a money-making spotlight on the issue. The business of being “offended” is getting quite old, and that’s sad because it takes away from issues that deserve scrutiny. Read this (http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/opinion/redskins-not-so-black-and-white-145172), written by an actual Native American, full of facts on the origin and history of the term, and oh my gosh, some support for the use of the term.

  • redskins forever

    tell me how many of you have actually EVER lobbied for Native Americans for ANYTHING, even know of their issues, or take up other causes on their behalf? Stupid tools. The logo was designed by an Indian chief in the 70s, not going all that way back to when many racial slurs were considered OK. Get over yourselves and do something to actually help Native Americans if you want. Lobbying to change a name; wow, what a good heart you have. Tell me, did this offend you before the press took it up as their newest PF movement? Do you know that poll after poll shows that a large majority of the Naive Americans polled feel more honored by the team name and logo than offended?

  • Anonymous

    that was an excellent article, thanks for that. however, it doesn’t change my opinion in the slightest. as the writer wrote, it’s valid for people to be offended by the term.

    if lots of native americans are disturbed by it, then it should be changed. it’s such a small thing. why is it worth upsetting the people that care?

    saying: some native americans aren’t bothered by the name has no relevance. we are all aware of this.

    two excellent excerpts:

    “In Montana last year, a Gros Ventre friend of mine, Nona Main, was invited to speak at a high school as they debated the fate of the Red Lodge Redskins mascot. To support the successful bid to retire the mascot, she spoke eloquently, “We are not asking you to change your religious beliefs or the language you speak. The change we ask for is minimal compared to the changes we have gone through.”

    “However, I still respect opinions that are against the term redskin, as it’s hard to imagine a white person seriously saying it without at least some condescension. So protest if you feel it collectively demeans Natives.”

    i do have one more genuine question: what do money-making lobbyists in DC have to do with this issue?

  • Lew

    The issue wouldn’t have the visibility it has right now if not for the heavily-paid lobbyists who brought it to the fore–the Native American mascot issue gets brought up every year or two to no avail, but this time, K-Street lobbyists are being heavily compensated to keep it in the public eye. Here’s some inside baseball: they don’t care if the name gets changed or not as long as they get paid.

  • Cherokee Pride

    Your talking about the draft dodging coach who stole another Native American’s identity to avoid the draft? Blah Blah stories…..The Washington Franchise is rooted in racism throughout its “Hallowed History”. Racist Owner(see his Will), Racist History and Racist Name…..see the pattern here? In the 30′s racism was king and your an idiot for stating otherwise.


    the only pattern i see is one of ignorance on your part… because actually, no, i’m not talking about the alleged draft-dodging ID-thieving coach, whose name would be lone star dietz… tommy yazzie, the aforementioned superintendent of the red mesa school district, is just that…

    idiot, indeed…

  • Young Kim

    I think they should consider changing the name. I did not care at all for a long time but a friend of mine who is American Indian felt really insulted by it. He changed my mind.

  • John Alexander

    Go Redskins. This whole article is offensive B.S.

© 2014 SportsGrid, LLC | About Us | Advertise | Newsletter | Jobs | Privacy | User Agreement | Disclaimer | Power Grid FAQ | Contact | Archives | RSS RSS
Dan Abrams, Founder | Power Grid by Sound Strategies | Hosting by Datagram | Sports Statistics Provided By Rotowire