It therefore was a welcome development to hear this recent and more thoughtful response from Mr. Goodell: “We have to do everything that’s necessary to make sure that we’re representing the franchise in a positive way . . . and that if we are offending one person, we need to be listening and making sure that we’re doing the right things to try to address that.” It’s unclear if Mr. Goodell’s nuanced pivot was directed toward team owner Daniel M. Snyder, but we hope Mr. Snyder was listening. We hope, too, that Mr. Snyder finally understands that the team’s name — no matter its storied tradition or importance to many fans — is a racial slur of Native Americans so offensive that it should no longer be tolerated. Imagine, as we wrote in 2006 advocating a name change, Mr. Snyder, or anyone else for that matter, sitting in a room with Native Americans and calling them “redskins.” Not likely. The name is offensive to a great many more than Mr. Goodell’s hypothetical one person.Get the Story:
Editorial: Roger Goodell calls an audible on the Washington Redskins name (The Washington Post 9/13) Related Stories:
NFL commissioner appears to shift position on racist mascot (9/12)
Oneida Nation council member backs protest against R-word (9/11)
Tribal members in Wisconsin to protest R-word at next game (9/10)
History: R-word took on negative connotations in late 1800s (9/10)
Join the Conversation