Crossfire | Weeknights @ 6:30 pm ET on CNN

Join the debate

Jump in the Crossfire by using #Crossfire on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

Jump in the Crossfire by using #Crossfire
on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

In the Crossfire: Change the Redskins' name?
October 18th, 2013
03:36 PM ET

In the Crossfire: Change the Redskins' name?

In the Crossfire: The Washington Redskins. Is the name a tribute to our national heritage or an offensive throwback to a racist past?

D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, who supports changing the team's name, and talk radio host Larry Elder, who opposes it, join hosts Van Jones and S.E. Cupp at 6:30pET.

Join the conversation and tell us what you think by tweeting with #Crossfire.

We want you to weigh in. Do you think the Washington Redskins should change their name? Reply Yes or No below, by replying to our tweet or commenting on our Facebook post.


soundoff (88 Responses)
  1. Sue

    How is the name "Redskins" offensive when it references “The Washington Redskins’ Nation”? It has nothing to do with Indians or anyone else outside “The Washington Redskins’ Nation. Is there a patent on the name “Redskins”? Are Indians “Redskins”? If not how does what we in Washington call ourselves, affect them? We should be able to name ourselves, without fear and complaint. WE ARE THE “REDSKINS NATION” IN WASHINGTON, DC. There is enough Indian blood flowing through Washington DC for us to call ourselves “The Washington Redskins”, just as Indian tribes use their names. How do these tribes get to say that we are not a nation of “Washington Redskins”? I just do not understand how people who do not know get to have a say in how we live in the “Washington Redskin Nation”.

    October 21, 2013 at 1:06 pm | Reply
    • Jeff

      Sue, are you really that dense?? Nothing to do with Indians? Look at the team logo! Native Americans are the only ethnic group so low in America that they have to endure listening to an ethnic slur like this while idiots like you defend it as not being about Indians! It is up to an ethnic group itself to determine its name and what it considers offensive. It is up to the rest of us to accept that and move forward. This team needs to change its name!!

      October 22, 2013 at 11:34 am | Reply
    • Cliff

      I suppose next you'll be trying to say the logo has nothing to do with Native Americans as well?

      October 22, 2013 at 11:58 am | Reply
  2. creedwait

    I support dropping the name "Redskins" if Native Americans find it to be offensive. But that appears to be difficult to ascertain. One Native American being offended is not enough to make the change. This seems to be the solution: if the premier national organization representing Native Americans says it is offensive, then change it. But the sweeping rules of the NCAA go too far. It is my understanding the Utah Utes are honored by the University of Utah's recognition of their tribe by calling the teams the 'Utes'. The same appears to be true for the Florida Seminoles. If a local tribe feels honored by the use of their name and they feel that the name is used respectfully, then no change is warranted and the NCAA's stand that all tribal names must be dropped is as almost offensive as the NCAA's current practice of human trafficking. Let local teams and local tribes make their own choices, with mutual respect. To decide universal names such as "Indians" or "Redskins" we need to turn to the predominant national voice for Native Americans for input, not CNN commentators.

    October 21, 2013 at 12:50 pm | Reply
    • Bill

      Redskins is not a tribal name. It is a reference to skin color as identification. It is offensive. If it were a local tribal name, accepted by the tribe, I would agree with you. It's not. It has to be changed.

      October 24, 2013 at 7:54 pm | Reply
      • Nancy T

        How about you contact the leading Indian organization the National Congress of American Indians established in 1944: http://www.ncai.org/about-ncai/mission-history . They will tell you the the r-word is offensive and should be changed.

        October 24, 2013 at 9:09 pm |
  3. creedwait

    I would not use the NCAA as any kind of standard. The NCAA is little more than an organization engaged in human trafficking. They collect billions in revenue and refuse the workers any compensation. A college player cannot even sign his name on a jersey for five bucks unless the money goes to the NCAA.

    October 21, 2013 at 12:00 pm | Reply
  4. Fred Griswold

    I can never quite figure out why our friends on the left get so tied up in knots over these linguistic issues. "I find that offensive", which is what the arguments against "redskin" all come down to, is not really an argument at all, it's just a statement of how somebody feels. There are no facts there to check, no arguments to analyze. For Van Jones to expect anyone to adopt his opinion just because it's his opinion is not good faith argumentation. I suggest we should adopt higher standards of evidence than that. What we need is independently verifiable evidence. Has the use of the word "redskin" ever kept anyone from getting a job, or getting housing, or getting into grad school? Nice clear evidence, please. And if the Washington Redskins do change their name, is there any metric we can use to find out whether it improves anyone's life?

    There was a passing reference toward the end of the show to some psychological study. That's on the right track, but since nothing more was said about that it's pretty hard to address it. I wish the whole show had been about the evidence, assuming there is any.

    Van Jones did make a reference to the origins of the word, but what he said was pretty misleading. "Redskin" refers to someone with red skin. Many of them do have reddish skin, so it's an accurate description, and there's nothing to take offense at. And as for the dictionary defining "redskin" as offensive, the lexicographers ought to stick to lexicography, and not get into the social issues. Opinion alone doesn't make any difference, and their opinion isn't any better than yours, or mine, or anyone else's.

    October 21, 2013 at 3:01 am | Reply
    • Nancy T

      Why does Fred Griswald get a double post?

      My opinion is neither democrat,Republican or Tea Part, it is an opinion of someone who is offended by the R-Word. Contact NCAI for their opinion too. http://www.ncai.org/about-ncai/mission-history

      October 24, 2013 at 9:14 pm | Reply
  5. Fred Griwold

    I can never quite figure out why our friends on the left get so tied up in knots over these linguistic issues. "I find that offensive", which is what the arguments against "redskin" all come down to, is not really an argument at all, it's just a statement of how somebody feels. There are no facts there to check, no arguments to analyze. For Van Jones to expect anyone to adopt his opinion just because it's his opinion is not good faith argumentation. I suggest we should adopt higher standards of evidence than that. What we need is independently verifiable evidence. Has the use of the word "redskin" ever kept anyone from getting a job, or getting housing, or getting into grad school? Nice clear evidence, please. And if the Washington Redskins do change their name, is there any metric we can use to find out whether it improves anyone's life?

    There was a passing reference toward the end of the show to some psychological study. That's on the right track, but since nothing more was said about that it's pretty hard to address it. I wish the whole show had been about the evidence, assuming there is any.

    Van Jones did make a reference to the origins of the word, but what he said was pretty misleading. "Redskin" refers to someone with red skin. Many of them do have reddish skin, so it's an accurate description, and there's nothing to take offense at. And as for the dictionary defining "redskin" as offensive, the lexicographers ought to stick to lexicography, and not get into the social issues. Opinion alone doesn't make any difference, and their opinion isn't any better than yours, or mine, or anyone else's.

    October 21, 2013 at 2:54 am | Reply
  6. California

    I guess the democrats aren't trying to come up with a budget. They haven't for almost 5 years now anyways.

    October 20, 2013 at 10:46 pm | Reply
    • Nancy T

      The Washington's team's name/mascot has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats who sit in any branch of the Federal Governement. This issue has to do with what is the correct thing to do. I am offended, as are many Indians/native Americans/ indigenous people of this country. Just change the name!

      October 21, 2013 at 11:28 am | Reply
  7. California

    The politically correct wackos are at it again. It only offends the political correctness crowd.

    October 20, 2013 at 10:16 pm | Reply
    • Nancy T

      This has nothing to do with left or right. As a direct descendant of a member of one of the indigenous people of the country, my political view is irrelevant. I am not being political when I say that I am personally offended by the "R-Word" and I would like it changed.

      October 21, 2013 at 11:16 am | Reply
  8. tomahawk903

    Who were These so called 89% of Native American Indians that were polled? Were they Sioux? Lakotas? Apache`s? Cheroikee? as a Native Born Cherokee I can tell you, I never got any phone call or poll question in my mailbox and If I did I would have said no.Redskin is a racial slur like any other name that is used for any other race. I just wish people would understand that. Just because its on a NFL team or Baseball team does not make any difference and finally., Larry Elder does not speak for me or any other tribe if he really thinks that is not a racial slur.It is time he understand for all of us to get past it and the way of doing it is removing the name Redskin from Washington.

    October 20, 2013 at 8:10 pm | Reply
    • California

      Your "opinion" on the poll is noted. Everyone has one.

      October 20, 2013 at 10:15 pm | Reply
    • Nancy T

      All of this nonsense is getting old. You non-Indians just get over it and admit that the racial slur needs to be changed.

      October 20, 2013 at 11:22 pm | Reply
  9. pjoe

    Harry Reid's favorite: The "Washington Light-skinned Backs without a hint of Negro dialect".

    October 20, 2013 at 6:44 pm | Reply
  10. M

    You all missed the easy solution. Don't change the name, change the mascot to a potato.

    October 20, 2013 at 6:08 pm | Reply
  11. Neil in AZ

    Redskins is an angry, tough and awesome name. It fits the football team well. They probably have more fans now.

    October 19, 2013 at 3:03 pm | Reply
    • Nancy T

      What if the team's mascot and name was something like the N##ger, Chin#, spi#e, etc., would you still think is was a cool name? One of the early comments mentioned scalping and the rewards for "r-word=scalps". When the Europeans came to our country they were mistaken about the color of skin. But the point is that the R-word" is offensive and should be changed. We are not mascots for any team. The NFL and the MLB should take
      the same position as the NCAA.... Offensive mascots/team names means NO Bowl games... Ergo no playoff games for the Pros too.

      October 19, 2013 at 5:32 pm | Reply
      • Dan

        One of the early comments mentioned scalping and the rewards for "r-word=scalps". Is a lie/urban legend. The reward did exists, but they were not called Redskins.
        The best paper on the source of Redskins I found was from Ives Goddard, a Senior Linguist with the Smithsonian. http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf

        And even Ms. Harjo, who is a great activist for Native Amercan causes, has put forth a different source of Redskins. In her article in Indian Country Today from Dec 2005 titled Who's making up Indian culture myths? http://web.archive.org/web/20071015000703/http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096412072
        She includes the following quote:

        "The word 'redskin' is strictly from the interpreter," said Means. "The literal translation to Lakota would be 'Ha Luta' or 'Ha Sha,' which I have never heard used. After contacting several family members and one Lakota language expert from Oglala Lakota College, we have all come to the same conclusion: that the word 'redskin' can only be the word of the translator."

        October 20, 2013 at 1:20 pm |
      • Nancy T

        Dan, I note that you certainly have done your research, but do you really support using the offensive and degrading use of the "R-Word." Well, even scholars can be racist. Are you? If not, can you just agree that if we are offended by the use of the word and the mascot that we should have the right to ask that the name of the Washinton team be changed?

        October 20, 2013 at 10:17 pm |
  12. Nancy T

    Crossfire should have a respected member of the National Congress of American Indians as a guest to provide an enlightening view on the R-Word. Suzan Harjo has been a leader to get the name changed for decades, including being a party in the Patent case and wld be a great guest. There were a couple of mistakes or misstatements in the today's show - the clip of a member of one of the Virginia State recognized tribes said that our President has done nothing for them. Only Federally recognized tribes have a relationship with the U.S. Government, ergo no obligation to State recognized tribes. And more... I personally am offended by the R-Word, as well as the mascot for the Cleveland Baseball team. Chief Wahoo!

    October 19, 2013 at 3:11 am | Reply
    • Mary

      I agree Nancy. I am getting tired of this hate filled journalism. No one truly knows what is offensive to Indians, but Indians. I am Cherokee and our tribe conformed to the point of being lost within our own culture. I will say that no one can force integrity, you either have it or you do not. I will also add I find CNN to be taking part in the Fox bullying attitude that makes me change the station quit a bit over the past two months. May I respectfully add a comment to C.E., Ms. Cup ,your half empty, defensive bullying about everything is not helping CNN, it really sets a negative example to the younger generation watching and taking cues on how they should treat others professionally,your hateful looks at others when they speak is very unprofessional. Ethics? This is CNN right? . It is sad I have to watch Aljazeera to find moderate , truthful, mature news lately.

      October 19, 2013 at 12:46 pm | Reply
  13. creedwait

    Due to the current state of affairs in the United States, the name Washington Redskins is clearly offensive. This name represents the worst of human stupidity, gluttony, immorality, selfishness, arrogance and immorality. Recognizing this offense to all people everywhere, the Washington Redskins have announced a change to their name in a hope to disassociate themselves from this insanity. Henceforth the team will drop the word "Washington" from their name and simply be known as "The Redskins".

    October 18, 2013 at 9:04 pm | Reply
  14. Dnet

    I love Football but we all know its not about that. The other guest was in denial and being quite hypocritical. The name is offensive period. If a small % say it’s okay to use the N word doesn't make it so. Next time try having a 100% Native & Tribal Representation on this debate. America, we are better than this. Don’t trivialize humanity by using irrelevant mascots. Really it’s a mute point.

    October 18, 2013 at 8:36 pm | Reply
  15. Dilbert

    Grow a pair and Get over yourself Our Society is much too PC. I would prefer the Battling V-Jay's in Mud Wrestling Tournaments. Clearly we should throw the baby out with the bathwater and abolish all things offensive. NOT... Media is inflaming the Masses again...

    October 18, 2013 at 8:14 pm | Reply
  16. BrandonT

    I am so sick of all the people who feel they need to read into things that aren't there. Redskins isn't some anti tribe insult or offense. And I don't hear the tribes giving much time, attention or energy to rising up in protest after all these years. Nope, it's just another foolish attempt by weirdos that need a soapbox to feel some kind of validation in life. Maybe people should just shut up about what they think a group of people they've never met feel or think, kay?

    October 18, 2013 at 8:08 pm | Reply
  17. allen

    When are all the white skinned, red haired, freckeled people going to get up in arms over the "fighting Irish." I am Native American and Irish. I take offense to none of the names. It is really silly to get offended by a sporting team name. I don't think anyone can legitimately argue that a team owner would name their team something they intended to be less than honorable.

    October 18, 2013 at 7:44 pm | Reply
    • Gordie

      It's just another typical stupid noise making attempt at taking up a cause that has no need for all the noise. I'm native American and I haven't heard anyone of any tribe making a big deal about the team's name. So why is there always all these other folks thinking they need to speak for others? Getting to be pathetic

      October 18, 2013 at 8:03 pm | Reply
  18. Kipo t. Wales

    I prefer renaming this team "OTHERS!"....that my friends , is the box, we native Americans have to check on census papers!

    October 18, 2013 at 7:30 pm | Reply
  19. Dan

    Lite weight debaters. Words that are solely derogatory should not be used for group names. Words that have been used as slurs and also as a proud team name, not based on the slur, shouldn't fall into that category. Should G"s in LGBT not be able to use the G word. Isn't it used in a derogatory manner far far far more often than Redskins. Come on, stick with your argument. If it "has" a derogatory meaning and some people can be offended by it then it can't be used.

    Should I have blown a gasket when I heard "cracker" being spoken on TV a few months back. If I did so I hope a fellow cracker would slap me silly.

    Since it is, apparently to the left, only a racial slur why aren't they calling it the R word? The worst part of this whole society trend is that if you took a poll of Native Americans I'll bet few had ever been personally insulted with the term "Redskin". By making it a big deal and "educating" everyone how horrible the word is under any circumstance then this very act will turn it into another N word. The N word has been made so charged, and it is a bad word, that people who often swear up and down won't even use it in an academic discussion. This is when we cross the line into absurdity. How can an oppressed people turn things around if you teach the young not to just think the guy that insults them is a jerk but that they have delivered the most hurtful thing to them imaginable. They might just believe it.

    October 18, 2013 at 7:26 pm | Reply
    • Nancy T

      Changing the name has nothing to do with left or right, Democrat , Republican or Tea Party. It has to do solely that it is an offensive racial slur and should be changed. It is just as hurtful as the N- word..

      October 21, 2013 at 11:32 am | Reply
  20. Okwachawe

    Let's see... Washing Gooks/Chinks? Washington Ni66ers, Washington Himeys, Washington Spics, Washington Dotheads, Washington Honkeys, Washington Towel Heads. Acceptable?

    No... then why is REDSKIN?!

    October 18, 2013 at 7:23 pm | Reply
    • Dan

      Perhaps. If it was the case that Honkey was used for decades for some team and few Honkey's grew up having encountered "personal" attacks with it, then a Honkey might actually be a fan of the Honkey Polo team even if they have some dim recollection of Grandpa telling them they were insulted with the word in the past.

      Grandpa is dead. I personally don't need to revisit someone else bad experiences and make them my own.

      October 18, 2013 at 7:55 pm | Reply
  21. carson494

    I'm actually NOT for changing the name. However, I'm not so ignorant as to not acknowledge the term is a slur. There aren't many Native Americans left, so there really isn't a group of people that can stand up and say they are offended. I think this actually shows how egocentric our society has become- if it doesn't hurt us, we don't care. If it was the name "blackskins", people would be up in arms. If it isn't directed towards them, then they don't care. Same with all the races. However, I still am not for changing it... we are too sensitive. I wouldn't even care if there was still a "crackers" team around in sports, even though I'm white.

    October 18, 2013 at 7:18 pm | Reply
    • Okwachawe

      Not a lot of us left? LOL... per capita where you live perhaps... but we do number greatly. Probably over 3 million in the US alone. Then if you count Canada... Mexico, South America... MILLLIONS! Just because a bird sings a different song does not mean it is not a bird ;P (Spanish Speaking and French Speaking Indian People indigenous to The Americas)

      October 18, 2013 at 7:29 pm | Reply
    • Dan

      Carson, it isn't that we don't care. It is that I can make my own judgement how big a deal this should be even if I'm not in the shoes of the other person. If some kids kept calling a schoolmate Retard over and over again till they committed suicide, do I have to categorize this the same as using some word which is rarely used as an insult anymore NOR is even being used as an insult in some specific usage.

      Can the rest of you speak about my stress level and pain I feel when I see what the "right" did to the country recently. I find a hard time believe that the average Indian goes into great pain when he hears a Washington Redskins score. I can acknowledge the historical facts. I just don't think the degree of relevancy is there.

      October 18, 2013 at 8:10 pm | Reply
  22. Quinn

    First, I am 25% Choctaw so I feel I have a right for my opinion to be heard. How about we call them the Washington Greedy Jews (after the owner)? Maybe we call them the Washington Ni%%ers? Maybe we can rename the 49ers to the Fags? Oh that's right, those are all offensive words. Well, redskins is offensive to me and it should be changed.

    October 18, 2013 at 7:16 pm | Reply
    • allen

      Well I am also Choctaw and Cherokee. My great great grandparents died on the "Trail of Tears." I am not offended. The term in this context was never meant and is not an insult to the native peoples of America. It is a term that was used to represent a fighting spirit and strength, something we has a nation should be demanding more of.

      October 18, 2013 at 7:49 pm | Reply
  23. Sammy Baugh

    Everyone in Washington is embarrassed over this and wants to see the name change. They should be the Los Angeles Redskins.

    October 18, 2013 at 7:15 pm | Reply
  24. juniper

    Yes... if it offends anyone it needs to be changed... that goes for all athletic teams (highschool to National teams), corporate logos, products. This country needs to wake up to the ongoing repression and psychological impacts of cruel, and often planned, ignorance... the ugly history of this country cannot be erased, but reparations and apologies for the crimes of invading this country, slaughter of Native people, slavery, discrimination against anyone who doesn't look like Uncle Sam – are past due! The Constitution has failed to protect ALL people...

    October 18, 2013 at 7:15 pm | Reply
  25. getalife

    with congress just reopening there are biggger things to worry about besides the name of a football team. im indian and it dosent offend me. most of my tribe dosent care. i grew up in maryland thru the 60's 70's 80's 90's and it dosent matter all the people are going to call them the redskins for the next 2 or so generations. so people there are more pressing matters to discuss. washington redskins........who cares

    October 18, 2013 at 7:13 pm | Reply
  26. Steven

    Please... Aren't there more important things to debate. Things must be getting pretty thin over at CNN to debate such a ridiculous topic.

    October 18, 2013 at 7:13 pm | Reply
  27. Michael Joseph

    Has anyone ever heard someone call a Native American the "R" word?

    October 18, 2013 at 7:13 pm | Reply
  28. FG

    You can not change a name without changing the logo. I would advise that the owner put into his Will, Trust or Contract that it is okay to sell and move of the team once he is no longer the owner. That a new name should be provided for the team with a new logo. People keep saying to call this team the " Warriors", which would probably be okay, but you still need new artwork, logo. I think the logo is probably more offensive than the name.

    October 18, 2013 at 7:09 pm | Reply
  29. jeff

    Change the name but pay Dan Snider (owner of the team), the current market value of the team- $1.5 Billion. Have the private federal reserve send him a wire transfer. Otherwise, to those that disagree- quit whining.

    October 18, 2013 at 7:09 pm | Reply
  30. JMF

    Why was there not a representative or two from the Native American community on the Crossfire panel?
    If "Redskins' is offensive to the community, then rename the team after one of the tribes that occupied the Washington area. The sad thing about this whole issue is that NO ONE has addressed the more serious transgressions that have occured against Native Americans through the centuries. If only the worst thing that happened to the population was being called 'Redskins'...

    October 18, 2013 at 7:08 pm | Reply
    • Kipo t. Wales

      I noticed that too, problem is, no one will address that one either! We're only a 2% part of American society, so why get a real Indian to represent us? CNN is an acronym for Fox News. Like, last night for instance cnn puts on Convicted money launderer Tom Delay & fool Anthony Wiener to get their opinion of the government shut town. That my friend shows where their brains land on the cnn floor!

      October 18, 2013 at 7:38 pm | Reply
  31. Quinn

    First, let me state that I am 25% Choctah. Next, let me ask exactly what JC said before me. What would the reaction be if the name was the Washington N%%%ers. (Sorry to even type that much but the point is valid). How about the San Francisco Flaming Fags? Or maybe the New York Greedy Jews? All are horrible names that are depository, racial, insensitive, and shouldn't be tolerated. So why isn't redskin treated the same way? I find it very offensive and I feel it should be changed.

    Name like Seminoles, Warriors, and Chiefs are not offensive because they don't say all Native Americans are a certain stereotype. Caricatures like Chief Wahoo is offensive, but that is a different story.

    October 18, 2013 at 7:08 pm | Reply
  32. Brad

    Washington Indigenous Peoples of the Northwest

    October 18, 2013 at 7:08 pm | Reply
  33. NorCalMojo

    They should change it. Modern NA's whine too much to merit teams named after them. When they picked the name, Native Americans still had some grit.

    October 18, 2013 at 7:08 pm | Reply
  34. Aaron Craig

    The current name is quite offensive and does a disservice to all Americans. We must also understand that it is an economic decision for the team owners. Surely there is room for compromise. Keep the color scheme modify the emblems and names to some that are not offensive. It is imperative that we continue to embrace change if we are to honor the principles woven into the fabric of this great nation. I want to be part of this process, you only need to ask.

    October 18, 2013 at 7:08 pm | Reply
  35. Brad

    Negro league. Thankyouverymuch.

    October 18, 2013 at 7:07 pm | Reply
  36. Sonic10158

    Just change all team names to whatever city they play in. Maybe then the names won't make people cry

    October 18, 2013 at 7:05 pm | Reply
  37. John Moore

    Change it to something tied to native Americans but is not thought to be demeaning.

    October 18, 2013 at 7:04 pm | Reply
  38. jan44

    I am tired of "political correctness" when it is trivial. The Redskin name is trivial. Some people just look for something to rant about!

    October 18, 2013 at 7:04 pm | Reply
    • California

      Agreed completely.

      October 20, 2013 at 10:45 pm | Reply
      • Nancy T

        It is not trivial, it is offensive and a racial slur.

        October 21, 2013 at 11:39 am |
  39. Name*John Katsha

    I don't think e Redskins should change their name because of some people don't like it. Most people want it,its the 1% of people have to put there two cents in. Leave the name alone. I was born in dc and raised on Md and don't want the name changed. If your not a dc native,then you shouldn't have nothing to say about it.

    October 18, 2013 at 7:03 pm | Reply
  40. Lucy

    Here is a prime example of the ignorance people have towards Native Americans. Larry Elder is trying to compare Native Americans with slaughter animals when he referred to "The Packers". So what he has done is calagorize human beings (Native Americans) with animals? He just justified why there is still such IGNORANCE out there regarding Native Americans. And the other Imcompitant, SE Coop who bring up the social injustice that we suffer...well I got news for her, that has continued to the case for decades....nothing has changed, she need to read Native American History!! One more thing...why isen't there a Native American on this panel to provide and Educate on the word?????

    October 18, 2013 at 6:59 pm | Reply
  41. George

    What is a poll that requires a twitter account when you have a fully functional website to run a poll. I have discriminated against as the poll only is for twitter users. Get a life

    October 18, 2013 at 6:59 pm | Reply
  42. ryan c

    Really? THIS is more important to focus on rather than the US economy and infrastructure??? Morons...

    October 18, 2013 at 6:58 pm | Reply
    • JakeF

      It would be a pretty boring world if we all talked about the same thing.

      October 18, 2013 at 7:12 pm | Reply
  43. Bill

    Better change the Chiefs and Cleveland Indians

    October 18, 2013 at 6:58 pm | Reply
    • glauber

      Let's make it "Chieves."

      October 18, 2013 at 7:09 pm | Reply
    • FG

      Those are groups of people, not a skin tone. I LOVE MY CHIEFS!!!!. But, I never did like the tomahawk chop. That needed to go.

      October 18, 2013 at 7:14 pm | Reply
    • Nancy T

      Yes, change Clevelands mascot first. chief Wahoo is so dispicable and offensensive. It is very stereotypical and it is objectionable.

      October 21, 2013 at 11:21 am | Reply
  44. martin

    No leave it the same its been that way for along time why should we change it for what happened two hundred years ago .Get over it

    October 18, 2013 at 6:57 pm | Reply
  45. The Stugatz

    America has become a second rate nation of whiners and victims. PC everything is way out of control. Quit whining.

    I hope Dan Snyder keeps the name for eternity. Go Skins.

    October 18, 2013 at 6:55 pm | Reply
  46. The fact of the matter

    The real story is that the Redskins want to drop "Washington" from their name as it's embarrassing.

    October 18, 2013 at 6:54 pm | Reply
  47. Willis

    Change the name to "Yellowskins". No? If "Yellow" isn't ok, then why is "Red"? Change it to "Palefaces" then.

    October 18, 2013 at 6:52 pm | Reply
  48. Lou45

    No, leave it as is. The destruction of this countries has to stop. That is one of the first moves to destroy a culture by the communist.

    October 18, 2013 at 6:49 pm | Reply
    • Okwachawe

      You're absolutely right! Hell if the name was the Washington Ni66ers... I'm sure changing that name would be destruction of your racist culture. Indeed. LMAO @ communist! What are we living in McCarthy times again? You right wing people are a weee bit out of touch! Hence why you keep losing elections (unless you purchase one... Bush part 2) So a little history for you.. Redskin is not a term because Native Americans were red-skinned... we actually resemble more of a brown tone than red... no read on: The claim often centers around a proclamation against Penobscot Indians in 1755 issued by King George II of Great Britain, known commonly as the Phips Proclamation.[14][15] The proclamation orders, “His Majesty’s subjects to Embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing and Destroying all and every of the aforesaid Indians.” The colonial government paid 50 pounds for scalps of males over 12 years, 25 pounds for scalps of women over 12, and 20 pounds for scalps of boys and girls under 12. Twenty-five British pounds sterling in 1755, worth around $9,000 today. "redskin = scalp" for all you readers. Now tell me... does that sound like something "Honoring" to use for a team name?

      October 18, 2013 at 7:17 pm | Reply
  49. Tom

    If name Washington Redskins has to go. Then the name Dallas Cowboys has to go.

    October 18, 2013 at 6:47 pm | Reply
  50. Dr, Heidi Hill

    EXACTLY what I was thinking!

    October 18, 2013 at 6:46 pm | Reply
  51. Saint Augustin longorua Ruelad

    Native American are not week remerber wound keep 1970

    October 18, 2013 at 6:46 pm | Reply
  52. Saint Augustin longorua Ruelad

    Why is are black and white talking about the mane with out a Native American
    there to place there in put. If one want to know ask thoses who are of the race.

    October 18, 2013 at 6:44 pm | Reply
  53. Kipo t. Wales

    I disagree with your whole program here tonight! I am a Native American...OTHER is what the government calls me on each and every sensory file I have ever written on for the last 50 years of my life here in America. I am today 61 years old and still fill senuss. My problem is you cnn, can't even call upon a Native American to be on your show! , you have 2 black people to represent us? Why & where are you native Americans to speak up for us on this show, with out having other peopl e out words in our mouths!!!

    October 18, 2013 at 6:41 pm | Reply
    • CodePerson

      It DOES seem a little odd that this so-called 'Crossfire' doesn't include a Native American... What's up with that CNN?

      October 18, 2013 at 7:15 pm | Reply
  54. JC

    Could you imagine the response if the team was called the Washington "Blackskins?"

    October 18, 2013 at 6:01 pm | Reply
    • Lou45

      not really since that term would not be part of our history. Maybe PETA will start complaining about the teams that use animals. Especially like the Ravens that are always losing!

      October 18, 2013 at 6:52 pm | Reply
    • vegas

      How about washington whiteskins. White people wouldnt even care and we wouldnt even be discussing it. This nation is so worried about b.s. and has become a cry baby nation. Our nation is crumbling right before our eyes and our government is telling corporations to change a branded name. Incredible.

      October 18, 2013 at 6:58 pm | Reply
    • stoptheinsanity

      Oh good god lets be more dramatic besides we already have the "blackhawks" i guess change the name of anything that identifies anything of any color race creed religion better yet..just drop all mascots all together...rolling my eyes with sarcasm here

      October 18, 2013 at 7:03 pm | Reply
    • Amalgamate

      that doesnt make any sense

      October 18, 2013 at 7:04 pm | Reply
    • Dr, Heidi Hill

      EXACTLY what I was thinking JC!

      October 18, 2013 at 7:12 pm | Reply
    • Nancy T

      The NFL should just institute rules like the NCAA. Chnageyour name or no post season games or SuperBowl .

      October 21, 2013 at 11:37 am | Reply

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.