Detroit News Bans Use of 'Redskins' In Football Coverage

Maybe you're less sensitive about these things than others, although I hypersensitive is incorrect. Regardless, the context is completely different. Obviously Polish people have faced (and maybe still do face; I don't know) bias and prejudice in this country, but it is different than the Native American experience. Beyond the fact that the above poster has just linked a newspaper offering state bounties for killing Native Americans while referring to them as "red-skins" and then claims the killing the collective population of Native Americans is worth less than $200, the US has a long history of killing (intentionally or unintentionally) and displacing Native American populations, under a variety of broken treaties, all under the collective mindset of them being "redskins" or inferior people. 

Furthermore, your argument isn't a good one. Your reasoning reads: because you, personally, don't mind Washington using a biased and offensive term about your country of origin or ancestors, then Native American population should be fine with Washington using the term "Redskin." If they aren't, then they are hypersensitive. Well, your subjective feelings that Native Americans should tolerate the name because you could tolerate the hypothetical situation where the Washington renames its team to the Polacks have little to no bearing on whether the term is offensive and should be changed. If Native Americans want the name changed because of its derogatory reference to their history and culture, a valid defense to keeping the name isn't we could change it to another offensive term, with an entirely different history and context, and some people affected by the offensive term wouldn't mind. 

Additionally, I'm sure some people of Polish descent or who are Polish would not like the name "Polack."

Finally, if it seems an unnecessary change to you or it seems unfair the Washington fans have to change their team name, ask why is it so essential that Washington keeps the name Redskins? Because of the franchise history of a professional football team? First off, the history and tradition of the team comes from the players, fans, and coaches. Obviously the name Redskins is a placeholder symbolizing that, but the larger placeholder is that it is the Washington professional football team, not the Redskins. Second, are we really willing to continue using an offensive term with centuries or racism and oppression behind it and that completely ignores the tradition and heritage of a people indigenous to this country just to allow a professional football team to keep its name? It would seem more important to change the name to respect the Native American population's history and remember Washington football's history as the moments its players excelled and its fans showed their loyalty.

Totally.  I mean come on, when are white people finally going to get some advantages in society?

... think it's dangerous to compare racism towards minorities by a majority to racism towards the majority by the minority.  Yes, all racism is bad, but the two shouldn't be viewed as exact substitutes.  

That being said...  a great example of your point is the horribly xenophoic and offensive comments Wilbon made towards Klinsmann on that stupid show on ESPN.   Imagine if this comment was made by a white broadcaster towards a minority coach.  I'm offended that Wilbon still has a job after this rubbish (and I'm not even white).  

Define substantial, Mr. Slippery Slope. Because, yes, it does have historical roots as a slur. As does Yankee. What you mean to say is if a group of weak minded, hyper sensitiveindividuals, with nothing to actually contribute get toghether in a dirth of self-pity to exploit a non issue and that issue happens to fall nto the liberal media's, cherry picking narrative and thought police then look out.

Are you representing all Irish people? And, all aboriginal (the actual term you're all looking for) Americans?  Huh.