Changing Washington team's name

[trents]

"The term “redskin” has taken on different meanings in history, but it most often refers to the reddish color of Native American skin. However, according to Time’s John McWhorter, that doesn’t make the term okay to use."

Got the above quote from an article on Fox Sports.


Okay, take the "skin" out of the name and replace it with "men": Washington Redmen. Native Americans referred to Caucasians as "white men". Would turnabout be fair play?

[c_hawkbob]

Why even keep trying to walk that line at all? The name needn't be confrontational for the sake of "turnabout's fair play" ...

The best suggestion I've heard is Red Tails. It a type of Hawk with a nod to the Tuskegee Airmen of the second WW, the first all black fighter squadron. And the silly fight song would still sound a well as it ever did.

[trents]

The problem with "Redtails" is that it honors only the AA element of the team, though granted, it is the predominant element. Besides, there is another association with Tuskegee that some will undoubtedly connect this with, the Tuskegee syphilis experiment.

[c_hawkbob]

Huh? And Huh?

[obiken]

RED Skin, come on guys its a no brainer, its gone!

[RiverDog]

My position has always been that if the majority or at least a significant portion of Native Americans...and not some self appointed representives or other butt hurt individuals speaking on their behalf..feel that the term is offensive that it should go. But all the surveys I've ever seen indicates that the vast majority aren't offended. Indeed, some may actually embrace the term.

That sentiment amongst NA's may have changed over the past few months, but until I'm shown that it has changed, I won't support the initiative to change the name.

[RiverDog]

The problem with "Redtails" is that it honors only the AA element of the team, though granted, it is the predominant element. Besides, there is another association with Tuskegee that some will undoubtedly connect this with, the Tuskegee syphilis experiment.

IMO choosing a nickname doesn't necessarily have to be an all inclusive process. And I think that associating the term "Redtails" with the Tuskegee syphilis experiment would be a real stretch.

Teams have chosen nicknames to honor specific groups before, ironically Native American nicknames like Braves and Chiefs. IMO it's not necessarily the name that could be considered offensive, the graphics and stunts, like the Cleveland Indians Chief Knock-A-Homa, might not be considered to be in good taste.

[trents]

To connect the name Redtails with the Tuskegee syphilis experiment is a strectch. And that is exactly why I started this thread. To point out the absurdity of much of this whole push to change team names. People will see what they want to see in a name . . . or a team jersey color and there is no end to it.

We live in times when people are being indulged in their unreasonable hypersensitivity about anything and everything which has given rise to the label, "the snowflake" generation. Oh, so fragile and offended by anything and everything. And of course, the sponsors have their ears to the ground picking up every sensitivity vibration, putting pressure on owners to change names so as not to offend any of the sponsors' customer base.

Back in the 1990's native Americans were polled about their sentiment concerning teams using native american names in a stereotypical way of the violent savage and the majority were not upset about it. More recent studies show that has changed. Why? In my opinion it's because the media and agitators have told them over and over they should be for long enough that they have come to believe it and there is a peer pressure to this phenomenon that demands you toe the mark and become part of the agitation. The power of suggestion.

Right now, with the COVID restrictions, too many people have too much time on their hands and it allows them to be distracted by petty issues.

[c_hawkbob]

There's a whole thread about exactly this in the off topic forum, read that. I'm not going to rehash all the same material here.

[Aseahawkfan]

I wouldn't want the headache for business reasons at this point. It isn't going to suddenly get easier to do. Keeping the name at this point is just an exercise in futility.

[obiken]

Thats it, its better to get it done now than later, and eventually its going to get done. Sorry, Cbob, is a super smart guy, but his arguments don't hold water. You cannot survey every US Tribe and Native American to get permission to use the name Redskin, its just not doable.

[Aseahawkfan]

To connect the name Redtails with the Tuskegee syphilis experiment is a strectch. And that is exactly why I started this thread. To point out the absurdity of much of this whole push to change team names. People will see what they want to see in a name . . . or a team jersey color and there is no end to it.

We live in times when people are being indulged in their unreasonable hypersensitivity about anything and everything which has given rise to the label, "the snowflake" generation. Oh, so fragile and offended by anything and everything. And of course, the sponsors have their ears to the ground picking up every sensitivity vibration, putting pressure on owners to change names so as not to offend any of the sponsors' customer base.

Back in the 1990's native Americans were polled about their sentiment concerning teams using native american names in a stereotypical way of the violent savage and the majority were not upset about it. More recent studies show that has changed. Why? In my opinion it's because the media and agitators have told them over and over they should be for long enough that they have come to believe it and there is a peer pressure to this phenomenon that demands you toe the mark and become part of the agitation. The power of suggestion.

Right now, with the COVID restrictions, too many people have too much time on their hands and it allows them to be distracted by petty issues.

I don't know why you think this is from the new generation. I've know this was coming for years. I've heard this stuff often. People who have been marginalized, wronged, and poorly treated have been waiting and pushing for their opportunity to make these things happen since I was young. I imagine someone like yourself doesn't much follow these types of issues as they are obviously unimportant to you.

I can tell you right now it isn't going to get better. You better look deep into yourself as to how far you're willing to go to resist. It's going to come down to a lot you believe in being torn down as the actions these individuals took are not going to be overlooked any longer or glossed over as "that was just the time."

We'll see what kind of hill people like yourself want to die on as the economic power of wronged folks increases and they exert their will for more accurate and less offensive representation. We'll who the "snowflakes" are as folks like yourself get offended and who will fight harder for what they want.\

You don't like this, step up and fight back. Otherwise you're just another guy getting his butt kicked by "snowflakes."

[RiverDog]

Thats it, its better to get it done now than later, and eventually its going to get done. Sorry, Cbob, is a super smart guy, but his arguments don't hold water. You cannot survey every US Tribe and Native American to get permission to use the name Redskin, its just not doable.

You don't have to survey every single NA. Since it's only an advisory and not some kind of referendum, it's not even required to obtain a majority. The only purpose for a survey is to gauge opinions. A good, well done survey is a very accurate assessment of an issue such as the perception of a term like "Redskins ". If those results come in like those of past surveys, ie roughly 80 percent no, then it would be safe to conclude that the vast majority of NA's don't feel the term is derogatory.

That doesn't mean that Snyder has to keep the name even if the results are overwhelmingly no, that it's not offensive. As some have argued, he may want to change the name despite any survey results simply to put the issue behind him as if he doesn't, it's just going to keep coming up again and again until he changes it. All the survey is for is to get accurate information rather than rely on self appointed spokesman who only represent their own opinion on a matter that is exclusively personal and, as demonstrated in this forum, varies widely from one person to the next.

[RiverDog]

To connect the name Redtails with the Tuskegee syphilis experiment is a strectch. And that is exactly why I started this thread. To point out the absurdity of much of this whole push to change team names. People will see what they want to see in a name . . . or a team jersey color and there is no end to it.

We live in times when people are being indulged in their unreasonable hypersensitivity about anything and everything which has given rise to the label, "the snowflake" generation. Oh, so fragile and offended by anything and everything. And of course, the sponsors have their ears to the ground picking up every sensitivity vibration, putting pressure on owners to change names so as not to offend any of the sponsors' customer base.

Back in the 1990's native Americans were polled about their sentiment concerning teams using native american names in a stereotypical way of the violent savage and the majority were not upset about it. More recent studies show that has changed. Why? In my opinion it's because the media and agitators have told them over and over they should be for long enough that they have come to believe it and there is a peer pressure to this phenomenon that demands you toe the mark and become part of the agitation. The power of suggestion.

Right now, with the COVID restrictions, too many people have too much time on their hands and it allows them to be distracted by petty issues.

I don't know why you think this is from the new generation.

Back in the early 70's there was a movement to change Native American-based mascots perceived by some to be derogatory that resulted in several mascot name changes, the most prominent of which involved Stanford University changing from the "Indians" to the "Cardinal". Around the same time and a year before my arrival on campus, my alma mater, Eastern Washington University, changed their mascot from "Savages" to "Eagles". That name change was not due to a grass roots effort from Native Americans, the student body, or alumni, no public referendum or survey of NA attitudes, rather the result of one African American individual that was on the school's Board of Trustees that none of the other board members wanted to contest that was the main driver of that action. To the contrary, when the Board told the student body to select a new nickname, the winner was overwhelmingly "Savages". The Board rejected those results and demanded that they find a new mascot.

A year later and for 4.5 years hence following my arrival as a member of the student body, we had a significant number of Native Americans in our fold, most of whom were from the Colville and Yakama tribes. I had several friends from that representation, one of which....a John Belushi type guy everyone referred to as "Chief"...was our party information source. They had an intramural basketball team and called themselves...you guessed it...the "Savages". I can honestly testify that there were very few NA students during that time that felt the term was offensive, or if they did, didn't care enough to petition for a change. I will have to qualify my observation as being strictly from the male population of NA's. They carried the nickname as a badge of honor, a macho type of thing.

I'm pretty much with trents on this one. IMO for the most part, this mascot thing is silly and borderline absurd.

[Aseahawkfan]

Back in the early 70's there was a movement to change Native American-based mascots perceived by some to be derogatory that resulted in several mascot name changes, the most prominent of which involved Stanford University changing from the "Indians" to the "Cardinal". Around the same time and a year before my arrival on campus, my alma mater, Eastern Washington University, changed their mascot from "Savages" to "Eagles". That name change was not due to a grass roots effort from Native Americans, the student body, or alumni, no public referendum or survey of NA attitudes, rather the result of one African American individual that was on the school's Board of Trustees that none of the other board members wanted to contest that was the main driver of that action. To the contrary, when the Board told the student body to select a new nickname, the winner was overwhelmingly "Savages". The Board rejected those results and demanded that they find a new mascot.

A year later and for 4.5 years hence following my arrival as a member of the student body, we had a significant number of Native Americans in our fold, most of whom were from the Colville and Yakama tribes. I had several friends from that representation, one of which....a John Belushi type guy everyone referred to as "Chief"...was our party information source. They had an intramural basketball team and called themselves...you guessed it...the "Savages". I can honestly testify that there were very few NA students during that time that felt the term was offensive, or if they did, didn't care enough to petition for a change. I will have to qualify my observation as being strictly from the male population of NA's. They carried the nickname as a badge of honor, a macho type of thing.

I'm pretty much with trents on this one. IMO for the most part, this mascot thing is silly and borderline absurd.

You just illustrated my point. It's not the new generation. This has been something people have brought up for a while. Just like immigration. People act like it's new, but my mother and father were listening to the immigration issue back in the 60s. These issues aren't new. They will keep coming up and even more as time goes on. So no matter how many people try to prove "no one cares" or the "natives don't care", the issues keep coming up. So someone cares and if you're a business, it's best to get it done with now, find a new business friendly name, and move on.

Money talks. That's how it is. If people don't want names like this any more, best to appease them and keep PR problems away. The government isn't forcing these changes, groups of people using their right to protest are pushing it. They been doing it for years. Now they have traction, so they're pushing it through. It's always been the case that a small percentage of people get things done. Even the Revolutionary War had an estimated 5% participation rate, where the vast majority would have been just fine continuing as part of The British Empire. Almost the entire advancement of mankind and the majority of its tragedies are pushed by a powerful minority voice. So that is not a surprise at all that a small number of folks are pushing this through.

If some people like you and trents don't like it, then go counter-protest. That's what always bothers me about this. If you don't like something, then make a strong stand against it, as strong a stand as the people who are pushing for the change. If you're not willing to do that, then you obviously don't care enough to do much about it or you're afraid or repercussions.

[Oly]

I generally think that anything anyone can do to honor Native Americans is a good thing, and I like NA team names because they keep NAs in the public awareness and White people (and I'm White) are living on stolen land, and honoring NAs is literally the least we can do. That said...

1. ...I don't see this as a majority rules sort of thing. Let's say 3/4 of NAs are fine with the name but 1/4 are offended. To me, that's cause to change it. If you're choosing based on preferences, like when Hawks fans erroneously voted for blue helmets over silver helmets during the big rebrand, then majority is fine. But offense and preference are different. Even if it only offends 1/4, that's enough for me. If your attempt to honor NAs is causing the opposite reaction, then you should change gears. And times change, and if it's offending more people today then we should listen to that. Everything about society changes over time; why should we discount protest if it's recent?

2. ...Just because a group adopts a name or word for itself doesn't mean that I'd use it. The n-word is the clearest example, but I've heard my Hispanic friends use "vato" and I certainly wouldn't call one of them that. My cousin's family is all pretty fat, and once they arrived for Thanksgiving by announcing that the fatties were there, and I sure as hell would never say the same thing when they arrived. And on and on. I'll admit that at an intuitive level I don't always get it--there is a NA high school with the Redskins nickname so why can't the DC football team use it?--but I don't need to understand why to play it safe and speak and act in ways that are respectful to everyone.

[RiverDog]

You just illustrated my point. It's not the new generation. This has been something people have brought up for a while.

The point I was making is that the nickname move was never as a result of a grass roots effort by Native Americans, then as today. As a matter of fact, most of the complaints back then were not of the nicknames themselves but of the symbols and behavior by some of those representing their mascots. For example, some Native Americans were not amused by the teethy grin sported by the Cleveland Indians logo and some objected to Chief Knocka Homa that would come out of his teepee and do a war dance in left field after the home team hit a home run. Recently, the Atlanta Braves have reaffirmed that they will keep their nickname but will probably do away with the foam tomahawks given to fans so they could do the tomahawk chop that has become a mainstay with several college teams with NA based nicknames, most notably the Florida State Seminoles.

The complaints over icons, depictions and representations, I can understand. A number of years ago, one of our local high schools with the nickname "Braves" wanted to erect a totem pole in their center commons area, so the students reached out to members of the Yakama Indian Nation for their advice and consent. The Yakamas responded magnificently as representatives of the tribe helped them design the pole and also appeared in front of the student body to give a talk on NA history and culture. It was a very respectful, educational process.

This nickname thing doesn't have to be a divisive issue if teams will treat it with due respect and others, mostly non NA's, quit getting insulted over even the mention of a NA nickname.

[RiverDog]

1. ...I don't see this as a majority rules sort of thing. Let's say 3/4 of NAs are fine with the name but 1/4 are offended. To me, that's cause to change it. If you're choosing based on preferences, like when Hawks fans erroneously voted for blue helmets over silver helmets during the big rebrand, then majority is fine. But offense and preference are different. Even if it only offends 1/4, that's enough for me. If your attempt to honor NAs is causing the opposite reaction, then you should change gears. And times change, and if it's offending more people today then we should listen to that. Everything about society changes over time; why should we discount protest if it's recent?

I agree that it shouldn't take a majority in surveys to make a determination that a term is offensive. It's not an election and even if it was, surveys aren't completely accurate and could vary depending on how the proposition is worded. But 75% is pushing it. You're hardly ever going to get that many people agree on anything. 3 out of 4 is a significant if not overwhelming majority. I'd move your threshold down into the 60's, below 2 out of 3.

2. ...Just because a group adopts a name or word for itself doesn't mean that I'd use it. The n-word is the clearest example, but I've heard my Hispanic friends use "vato" and I certainly wouldn't call one of them that. My cousin's family is all pretty fat, and once they arrived for Thanksgiving by announcing that the fatties were there, and I sure as hell would never say the same thing when they arrived. And on and on. I'll admit that at an intuitive level I don't always get it--there is a NA high school with the Redskins nickname so why can't the DC football team use it?--but I don't need to understand why to play it safe and speak and act in ways that are respectful to everyone.

Sometimes it's the tone of voice or manner in which the name is used. When I was on a guided trip to Machu Picchu in Peru, I had a female guide and referred to her in front of a few other Peruvians as a "mamasita", which is a Spanish slang that I picked up from work that means a good looking or "hot" female and taken by most women to be a compliment. Everyone laughed, including my guide. But one of the other Peruvian males took me aside and told me that it's not always a compliment and could be considered offensive, as if I were calling her a whore, and advised me to be careful as to how I used it. It taught me a lesson.

[obiken]

Eventually CB, River, the League and the other owners will vote to change it he will have to change it.

[c_hawkbob]

It's already happening Obi, no vote required. They'll never play another game as the Foreskins, er, Redskins.

[obiken]

I was Right for once!!

[Aseahawkfan]

The point I was making is that the nickname move was never as a result of a grass roots effort by Native Americans, then as today. As a matter of fact, most of the complaints back then were not of the nicknames themselves but of the symbols and behavior by some of those representing their mascots. For example, some Native Americans were not amused by the teethy grin sported by the Cleveland Indians logo and some objected to Chief Knocka Homa that would come out of his teepee and do a war dance in left field after the home team hit a home run. Recently, the Atlanta Braves have reaffirmed that they will keep their nickname but will probably do away with the foam tomahawks given to fans so they could do the tomahawk chop that has become a mainstay with several college teams with NA based nicknames, most notably the Florida State Seminoles.

The complaints over icons, depictions and representations, I can understand. A number of years ago, one of our local high schools with the nickname "Braves" wanted to erect a totem pole in their center commons area, so the students reached out to members of the Yakama Indian Nation for their advice and consent. The Yakamas responded magnificently as representatives of the tribe helped them design the pole and also appeared in front of the student body to give a talk on NA history and culture. It was a very respectful, educational process.

This nickname thing doesn't have to be a divisive issue if teams will treat it with due respect and others, mostly non NA's, quit getting insulted over even the mention of a NA nickname.

I'm still glad you pointed out it wasn't something that started with this generation. People like to attack this generation for a variety of reasons, but it's false.

[RiverDog]

Eventually CB, River, the League and the other owners will vote to change it he will have to change it.

Although they have a lot of influence, the league doesn't have the authority to force a name change so as C-bob noted there won't be a vote. The decision is in the hands of one person, Dan Snyder, the owner of the team. And I agree that the team has played their last game as the "Redskins".

[Uppercut]

The way its going they may have to name the teams #1 through #32

[Aseahawkfan]

The way its going they may have to name the teams #1 through #32

You think Animal Right's Activists are going to try to get name changes due to exploitation of animals?

[RiverDog]

The way its going they may have to name the teams #1 through #32

You think Animal Right's Activists are going to try to get name changes due to exploitation of animals?

Nope. They don't appear to be too concerned with team names as they seem to recognize how silly it is to get preoccupied by a nickname. It's pretty hard to imagine how they could tie the Philadelphia Eagles to a poacher or the Chicago Bears to the destruction of the furry animal's habitat. But they are a force that will wield some influence on sports franchises, the Michael Vick incident being a prime example.

[trents]

The Navajo Nation has now suggested the name "Code Talkers" to the team ownership in order to honor the WWII Native Americans who used their native languages in communications that could not be decoded. Perhaps you have seen the movie based on this factoid.

Anyway, IMO, a team name for a football franchise needs to conjure up images of strength, aggressiveness, speed, ferocity, cunning, etc. (like Bears, LIons, Raiders, Giants) or alternatively, something that the city or the local area is noted for (like '49ers, Packers, Jazz in basketball). And it needs to be something that the general population can identify and not just a certain racial subset of the population. It needs to represent everyone, not just African Americans or Native Americans. "Code Talkers" and "Red Tails" just don't seem to measure up in either regard. Now we've moved from trying not to dishonor some group with the team name to being obligated to honor some group that originally felt dishonored.

[RiverDog]

The Navajo Nation has now suggested the name "Code Talkers" to the team ownership in order to honor the WWII Native Americans who used their native languages in communications that could not be decoded. Perhaps you have seen the movie based on this factoid.

I saw the movie and have read/seen documentaries on the subject. Great true story line but in true Hollywood fashion, the movie over dramatized Nicolas Cage's fictional character. Cherokee code talkers were also used in the European theatre.

Anyway, IMO, a team name for a football franchise needs to conjure up images of strength, aggressiveness, speed, ferocity, cunning, etc. (like Bears, LIons, Raiders, Giants) or alternatively, something that the city or the local area is noted for (like '49ers, Packers, Jazz in basketball). And it needs to be something that the general population can identify and not just a certain racial subset of the population. It needs to represent everyone, not just African Americans or Native Americans. "Code Talkers" and "Red Tails" just don't seem to measure up in either regard. Now we've moved from trying not to dishonor some group with the team name to being obligated to honor some group that originally felt dishonored.

I disagree. The Los Angeles Lakers, for example, derived their mascot when they were the Minneapolis Lakers (Minnesota's nickname is Land of 10,000 Lakes) and retained it when they moved to LA. Not too many lakes in the LA area. Their baseball team, the Dodgers, acquired that nickname in Brooklyn as people would have to 'dodge' horse drawn street cars. Few fans know the origination of those nicknames, and even fewer care. Same goes for the Utah Jazz, which started out as the New Orleans Jazz. The Big Easy's football team, the Saints, doesn't exactly conjure up images of strength and aggressiveness. Same goes with the Packers. The Cleveland Browns don't really have a mascot. The team was named after their original coach/owner.

What you want to avoid is something stupid or laughable. We have a WHL hockey team, the Tri Cities Americans, but the last time I looked at their roster, every single one of them was a Canadian. The mayor of Seattle wants to name their expansion NHL team the Kraken, which is a mythical creature that supposedly lived in the north Atlantic. Let's go Crack!

That's one of the reasons why I personally think this nickname stuff is a bunch of foolishness.

[c_hawkbob]

There's also the "Banana Slugs" which is pretty obviously a thumb of the nose to such preconceived conventions regarding what a mascot "should" be ... I think it should be whatever you want it to be as long as it's not a slap in anybody's face.

[Uppercut]

The DC Bureaucrats

[Hawktawk]

I'm conflicted. Whats next? the indians? chiefs? that said it was just a matter of time. Washington Warriors

[Aseahawkfan]

The DC Bureaucrats

They set the record for most delay of games because they can't decide what they will do until they get a consensus and discuss it endlessly to ensure they don't offend anyone.

[trents]

I disagree. The Los Angeles Lakers, for example, derived their mascot when they were the Minneapolis Lakers (Minnesota's nickname is Land of 10,000 Lakes) and retained it when they moved to LA. Not too many lakes in the LA area. Their baseball team, the Dodgers, acquired that nickname in Brooklyn as people would have to 'dodge' horse drawn street cars. Few fans know the origination of those nicknames, and even fewer care. Same goes for the Utah Jazz, which started out as the New Orleans Jazz. The Big Easy's football team, the Saints, doesn't exactly conjure up images of strength and aggressiveness. Same goes with the Packers. The Cleveland Browns don't really have a mascot. The team was named after their original coach/owner.

What you want to avoid is something stupid or laughable. We have a WHL hockey team, the Tri Cities Americans, but the last time I looked at their roster, every single one of them was a Canadian. The mayor of Seattle wants to name their expansion NHL team the Kraken, which is a mythical creature that supposedly lived in the north Atlantic. Let's go Crack!

That's one of the reasons why I personally think this nickname stuff is a bunch of foolishness.

Yeah, the Lakers and the Jazz should have changed their names when they moved as they make no sense now. At least "LA Lakers" has some alliteration going for it.

[NorthHawk]

It seems something else is going on with the Washington franchise.
I hope it means the end of Snyder as the owner.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... franchise/

[c_hawkbob]

It seems something else is going on with the Washington franchise.
I hope it means the end of Snyder as the owner.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... franchise/

"Dysfunctional teams do dysfunctional things"

Yup.

[Uppercut]

Just saw a news item about 14 or so WA staff people accused of sexual harassment of women working there..

Maybe that will spawn a new name "Gropers"

[Oly]

Just saw a news item about 14 or so WA staff people accused of sexual harassment of women working there..

Maybe that will spawn a new name "Gropers"

Who could have ever predicted that an organization with Dan Snyder at the top would have systemic problems?

Shocked, I tell you. Shocked.

(Pending the legal process, of course)

[NorthHawk]

According to PFT, and investigation is being done by outside lawyers and being paid for by Snyder.
Reading their article, don't expect anything to result in the rot getting exposed at the top even if it
actually does exist.

[RiverDog]

Weren't the Redskins involved in a similar scandal 5 or 10 years ago?

[RiverDog]

I'm going to answer my own question. A couple snippets from In a story a little over 2 years old:

In 2013, when the Washington Redskins took their cheerleaders on a weeklong trip to Costa Rica, they were paid nothing other than transportation costs, along with food and lodging. But the New York Times reports some of the women who went to the photo shoot at the Occidental Grand Papagayo, an adults-only resort, were told to pose topless and others only wore body paint, even though the calendar would not show nudity.

A group of sponsors and suite holders from FedEx Field were granted "up-close" access to the photo shoot. All were men.

Nine of the 36 cheerleaders were hand-picked to be "personal escorts" at a nightclub for some of the sponsors who made the trip, the newspaper reported.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/redskins-c ... es-report/

No wonder the minority owners are running for cover. Snyder is going to end up like Jerry Richardson, disgraced and forced to sell the team.