The debate over the Washington Redskin's team name remains a controversy that heavily catches my interest. I am a big sports fan, especially when focusing on the NFL. I follow sports very closely, therefore, current sports news is right up my alley. This particular research question affects me because I have been a Redskins fan all my life. But after researching this question, I began to consider both sides of the debate to decrease my bias. I have many personal experiences pertaining to the Redskins anywhere from going to games with my father to attending training camp for years on end. On the other hand, I don't have many experiences with the controversial name. The majority behind the name change are Native Americans and I do not have any connections or experiences to them. I feel that I have the credibility to write about this because I have a personal interest in the topic and with ample research, I can create a great research project using both sides of the debate. 

This first article argues that the Redskins should not have to change their name. He supports Dan Snyder, owner of the Redskins, emphasizing that you cannot ignore over 84 years of history and one of the best franchises in the NFL. The values at stake in this source are the rich 84 years of this franchise. Also at stake are the mass amounts of fans and supporters. The author of the article, Scott York, has served on the Loudon County Board of Supervisors for 20 years. The Redskins have stayed headquartered in Loudon County, Virginia for years. The article was written on October 30, 2013 when the controversy was at an all time high. 

This next article argues the opinion that the Redskins name has remained an offensive racial slur. The author claims that there should not be such a racial slur in a big league such as the NFL. He argues that a name change would be harmless and only would be the right thing to do.  The values and interests at stake here are those of the Native Americans. Many see the name as a derogatory term and therefore a name change would make them feel more represented. Also it seems like they have no negative stakes, a name change would only be a positive change. The author Arthur Raymond Halbritter, the current Nation Representative and CEO of Oneida Nation Enterprises, has credibility because he speaks for the vast majority of the Native American public. 

The third article informs us about The Red Cloud Indian School in South Dakota responding to the Redskins team owner Dan Snyder. Dan Snyder sent a letter to Redskins fans regarding the name controversy. He defends the name and shows no intent to change the name. The school responded by criticizing Snyder saying the name has a racially offensive meaning. The values and interests at stake are those of the Native Americans. They claim that no one can rewrite the history of the oppression the Native Americans faced and it's now time to finally change it for good. The author Maya Rhodan, a very respected writer, writes for many publishers. Since this article informs rather than argues a point, she doesn't really have many connections to the topic but gathered information from the responses by the school in South Dakota. 

This research question remains a very arguable topic today. The NFL stands as the most popular sports organization in the nation so everyone that follows are aware of the controversy. From one side of the argument, defenders of the name recognize the 84 years of history and the other side sees the name as a racial slur that needs to end. It seems as though all the defenders of the name agree with Dan Snyder and honor the rich history of the Washington Redskins. Now for the supporters of a name change, they disagree and explain that the Native Americans have been oppressed for hundreds of years while the Redskins have only been around for 84 years. After researching both sides I definitely got a feel for the Native Americans. I can see both arguments very well. But with that said, I still defend the Washington Redskins and Dan Snyder. I have seen that the Redskins honor many Native Americans in the Washington D.C. area. This then brings up the question of why change it now? 

