A new poll found nine in 10 Native Americans aren’t offended by the Redskins name. We dug through our archives to provide you with as many related stories as possible.



Washington Post survey indicates few within demographic support forcing the NFL team to change its moniker.
At least one journalist says the poll has caused him to reconsider his position.
Instead of acknowledging any intricacies, this debate has plunged into the most 2016 of waters: a red-blue politicization that ignores the opinions of actual stakeholders.
Ninety percent of respondents said the name did not bother them.
Polling the Native American population presents its own specific set of challenges.
“Let’s start taking care of our people and quit worrying about names like Washington Redskins.”
“You could put the amount of mail we got on it every year into a little folder.”
“You don’t have to be Native American to be offended.”
“I do think [the] poll will affect the attitudes of some owners,” the owner said.
The team’s former quarterback calls the results of new survey “significant.”
“Do we care about everybody? Or do we care about most people?” Tre Johnson asks of new Redskins name poll.
Hall of Fame ex-coach says, “I can honestly say I do not remember anybody saying anything negative to me about the Redskins name.”
Campaign leaders say the results “confirm a reality that is encouraging but hardly surprising.”
Poll could diminish D.C. politicians’ need for a name change as city competes with Maryland and Virginia to build next NFL stadium.
The word’s origins extend back to the 18th century, long before a football team was named Redskins.


There’s a catch: The team only wants the high court to consider its case if it takes up a similar one involving a band called “The Slants.”
The team’s nickname landed Snyder in an uncomfortable trademark lawsuit and continued to divide — if not turn away — fans.


“By way of example only, the following marks are registered today: Take Yo Panties Off clothing; Dangerous Negro shirts . . . Midget-Man condoms and inflatable sex dolls,” the Redskins’ attorneys wrote in their opening brief.
A new stadium will demand a parcel of land as large as the District’s Tidal Basin, cost up to $1 billion or more to build, and require the buy-in of local lawmakers and taxpayers — all of which is made more complicated by Snyder’s unpopularity and the debate over the team’s name, which some Native Americans say is a slur.


Political leaders, broadcasters, clergy, columnists, former players, coaches, actors and even a federal judge have weighed in.
“A growing number of people weren’t happy with the team I love,” Ian Washburn said. “The discomfort had spread to me. It was contagious.”
Why is Washington’s team name still okay? Because people haven’t met or heard Joe Horse Capture.
We don’t believe that fans who are attached to the name have racist feeling or intent, any more than does Mr. Snyder. But the fact remains: The word is insulting. You would not dream of calling anyone a “redskin” to his or her face.
She knows what people expect her to say: The team’s history matters. She also knows what she believes: The name needs to change.
The Redskins name issue, in fact, drew quite a bit of press in 1972, when the team president, part-owner and point man on this was Edward Bennett Williams, and when many ethnic advocacy groups were in their infancy.


This is more than a mere matter of law. No court can possibly adjudicate the accuracy of all the myths, legends and purported facts that cluster around the word “redskin.”
“If I were the owner of the team and I knew that there was a name of my team — even if it had a storied history — that was offending a sizable group of people, I’d think about changing it,” Obama said.
“That tradition — the song, the cheer — it mattered so much to me as a child, and I know it matters to every other Redskins fan in the D.C. area and across the nation.”