This doesn't mean a name change is imminent. This would force the networks to take the Phil Simms approach.
I'm wondering why the Saints name isn't being petition for being offensive. It sure is offensive to some out there, namely atheists.
Fighting Irish and Yankees and Panthers, too. I don't understand why they pick out Redskins and not others.
Don't lump us atheists in with those dirty name changers.
But you do bring up a good point. It's clear that the people who want to change the Redskins name are a minority. Most, poll after poll, have no problem with our name. Yet this "issue" persists and the powers that be seem determined to impose the will of the minority onto the majority.
So as someone who hold minority positions on many issues, including being an atheist and a firm proponent of animal rights, I must ask the powers that be "what is the threshold for a minority to get something like a name change to happen?".
I mean I don't care about the name Saints or Angels but just for @@@@@ and giggles lets say I did. How many fellow atheists would I need to get to voice their disapproval of those names before we can try and force those teams to change? Where is the line? If 1 is offended is that enough? Or 100? 1000? 100,000? Where is the line? Or do the powers that be get to decide which offended group of people you care about and which you don't. Does someone being "offended" by Redskins have more right to be offended than I do with the term Angels? If we are both offended what is the difference?
I don't eat meat. I think the idea of eating the flesh of a murdered animal is grotesque in the highest degree. I am genuinley offended when I see commercials for meat products. There is no way to escape them. What is my recourse? Should I have one? What if I find 100,000 other people who feel the way I do, can we then impose our "feelings" on the majority and get rid of advertising for meat? Or how about just getting the Green Bay Packers to change their name?
I suspect the answer is no, as it should be. But why? Is my offense any less real or felt than those who claim to be offended by the word Redskins? What about the word Oklahoma? It means Red People. It was created at a time when the thinking was that Oklahoma was going to be the first predominantly Indian population state represented by an Indian no less to be admitted into the United States. Until we renigged on the idea and started opening it up for settlers (Sooners) and the Indians were moved aside (to put it kindly). Yet the name persisted. This isn't offensive to anyone but Redskins is?
Okay I'm done. Sorry for rant. Just had to express frustration over this completely non issue being championed by people who I likely agree with on other issues (far more important issues) but they are way out to lunch on this one.