It's not that offensive a term. This situation is really about whether the PC crowd can get their way on this issue, because if they do, then what's to stop them on calling on all kinds of renaming projects for other teams, companies, logo's etc? It's actually an attack on free speech and the beginning of the thought police.
Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
If we are going to break out the definition of "redskin" why don't we do the same for "slur?"
"an insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation."
I'm going to say that some key words are "About someone." The connotations of the word redskin when used in a sports context is not a slur because there is no insinuation or allegation made about native americans that is likely to offend them (sports nicknames are chosen for positive reasons, not negative ones). I've yet to hear what insinuations or negative allegations are associated with the word "redskin" when used in a sports context that can apply to native americans and is likely to offend them or damage their reputation in some way. In today's day and age where everything offends someone, everything can be a slur depending on usage.
In many ways, the hubbub around this nickname is more damaging to their reputation than the nickname itself. It gives them a reputation of foolishness in that they are willing to spend gobs of money fighting a trivial sports nickname while they have much more serious problems they should be focusing on.
So here it is a third time, courtesy Perotista and Wikipedia.
The Washington Redskins were originally known as the Boston Braves. In 1933, co-owner George Preston Marshall changed the name to the Redskins, possibly in recognition of the then–head coach William Henry "Lone Star" Dietz, who claimed to be part Sioux. On July 6, 1933, the Boston Herald reported that "the change was made to avoid confusion with the Braves baseball team and the team that is to be coached by an Indian (Dietz)... with several Indian players." Dietz's ancestry has been questioned by some scholars, as a birth certificate and census records recorded his parents as white. This does not preclude his having had Sioux ancestry as well. In 1933, the Boston Braves moved from Braves Field, which they shared with baseball's Boston Braves, to Fenway Park, already occupied by the Boston Red Sox. John F. Banzhaf III, Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University Law School, cites a newspaper article from 1933 in which Marshall is quoted as saying the name was selected only to save money by not having to change the logo of the Braves, and not to honor Dietz or the Indian players. There was however, no logo on the Braves football uniform of 1932. The Washington Redskins current logo, which was inspired by Native American, Walter Wetzel, former president of the National Congress of American Indians, was introduced in 1972.
For those of you who dont think Redskins is a slur, what if you had a team known as the Chinks?
Apparently, the PC era began in 1981, when they were forced to change the name to the Dragons.
And the arguments against it sounded EXACTLY like the arguments I'm hearing above. "its not offensive!", "its a tribute to Peking, China!", "Its a tradition!" "Chinks isnt derogatory - I just think of HS basketball when I think of Chinks!". I remember the furor well. the Chinks had a celebrated basketball championship in the 60s. To this day when you walk into some Pekin, IL, restaurants, you'll see shrines to the team. (not a whole lot of asian people eating in those places, natch).
Many Trump supporters have lots of problems, and those deplorables are bringing those problems to us. They’re racists. They’re misogynists. They’re islamophobic. They're xenophobes and homophobes. And some, I assume, are good people.