I don't think the original owner's intent is really that important to the issue. Language evolves, society evolves, opinions evolve, sensitivities evolve. What is taboo or wrong today maybe ok 50 years from now and vice versa. I'm not sure how many who are arguing on either side of this issue are American Indian (the preferred term by indigenous peoples of North America) or have regular contact with American Indians (who typically refer to themselves as simply Indians or their specific tribe, i.e. Choctaw). I have had a pretty good bit of contact with this segment of the population. American Indians typically are not cool with a white person calling them a redskin. In places like Oklahoma and Mississippi, that term still gets used. But it is antiquated. It's sort of like calling a white person a honky today instead of the preferred more updated cracker or white boy. I've seen many on here say they are not offended or don't get offended ever. I find that almost impossible to believe. Perhaps those posters are stating this in terms of they find it impossible to be offended racially. Well, if you're a white American, you probably don't have the same degree of systematic discrimination as part of your background as say a black person or American Indian. You certainly should be less likely to get offended by racially derogatory comments or names. As for the name of the team, if the overwhelming majority of American Indians say they don't care, then I guess I don't care. But it surely should be their call. Not those who are driving the PC wagon or the ones who find it their personal vendetta to admonish all causes directed at sensitivity. As for the racist owner who named the team, I don't think his intent matters much either way regarding a decision in the here and now.