I don't think it should be OK. Why can you have the "Washington Redskins" and not have the "New Orleans Negroes"? I think there just aren't enough Indians/Native Americans in the country to successfully protest such names.

Its just a team name, get over it. The PC police are gone for the day.

I actually asked a similar question a while ago, regarding the Cleveland Indians logo, and a similar "Cleveland Blacks" logo done in Blackface. Interestingly, most people didn't find either one offensive...

Not everyone think it is okay. 1) "Some people consider the namesake and logo of the Washington Redskins insensitive towards Native Americans. There has been movements by certain groups to change the name, but the attempts have been unsuccessful. Others make the case in defense that the The Redskins name is intended to honor the bravery and dignity of Native Americans and that, regardless of past usage, the word "redskins" today refers to the football team. Notwithstanding the protests of activists, a 2002 poll commissioned by Sports Illustrated found that 75% of those Native Americans surveyed had no objection to the Redskins name. However, the results of the poll have been criticized due to Sport's Illustrated's refusal to provide polling information (i.e. how participants were recruited and contacted, if they were concentrated in one region, if one ethnic group is over represented and the exact wording and order of questions). But in 2004, a poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania essentially confirmed the prior poll's findings, concluding that 91% of the American Indians surveyed in the 48 states on the mainland USA found the name acceptable and setting out in detail the exact wording of the questions. In 1992, a group of Native Americans led by Suzan Harjo filed to have the United States trademarks associated with the Redskins name cancelled under statutes which prevent registration of disparaging terms. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in 1999 ruled in favor of the petition and cancelled the trademarks. Following appeals, in 2005 the D.C. Court of Appeals in Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo reversed the cancellation, ruling that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding of disparagement and holding that the majority of the petitioners were barred by laches from maintaining the suit. Had the cancellation of the trademark been successful, the team could have still used the name, and it still would have had enforceable trademark rights under state and local law. It would thus have been able to prevent others from using its marks on promotional goods, such jackets and caps. It would, however, have lost various benefits of federal trademark registration, such as the ability to enlist the aid of the U.S. Customs Service to seize infringing imports at the border. On May 15, 2009 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed an earlier ruling that the Native Americans had waited too long to challenge the trademark. The trademark was registered in 1967. Native Americans successfully got the court to reconsider based on the fact the one of the plantiff's Mateo Romero was only one in 1967 and turned 18 in 1984. The court decision affirmed that even accepting the 1984 date, that the Native Americans had still waited too long for the 1992 challenge." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins#Native_American_Mascot_Controversy Further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_Mascot_Controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang%29 2) "Harjo and several others challenged the legality of the logo of the Washington professional football team, but after several years a judge ruled against them and the one case that might have hit a professional team ownership in the pocketbook, a target that would cause irreparable harm, is gone and probably gone forever. Twenty five years ago when Native Americans like Haney, Harjo, Charlene Teters, Vernon Bellecourt, Bill Means, Floyd Westerman and I wrote about and spoke out against using Indians as mascots, we were thoroughly and soundly vilified. I was told by a caller on a radio show I did for a Los Angeles station, “What in the hell are you complaining about? We kicked your Indian butts from the east coast to the west coast so why don’t you whiners go back to where ever it is you came from.” How does one argue against such redneck stupidity? And speaking of “red” what exactly is a “redskin.” When I talked about the Washington professional football team that uses this name as its motto and logo, I stopped at using the “R” word, because I find it disturbingly racist. What is a “redskin?” It is the pigmentation of the skin of an ethnic minority. Americans might use “brownskin” for example when talking about Mexicans or Pakistanis. For years they used “black” to describe people of African descent. Even the Spanish word “Negro” literally meant “black.” When the white Americans were running roughshod over Indian country they chose many colorful names for the indigenous inhabitants. They called the indigenous people redskins, red niggers, prairie niggers, savages, and worse. The name redskin was never intended to be a word to honor Native Americans. It was a word intended to insult and to put the Indian people in their place. The word made a clear distinction between the master race, the white people, and the inferior people, the redskins." Source and further information: http://nativetimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=502&Itemid=33

It's the same. So....what should the new name be? What would be a name honorable to the Native Americans of Washington?

I don't think either term is racist - but my skin isn't brown or red either.