They may never lose again.It's using the style of Northwest Coast art.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Coast_art
View: https://twitter.com/LewisSports/status/556544208056889344
They may never lose again.It's using the style of Northwest Coast art.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Coast_art
View: https://twitter.com/LewisSports/status/556544208056889344
The ExCons has a nice ring.Maybe to honor both an important Washington institution, Congress, and an important corporate sponsor, which seems to be the real driver to this exercise,
how about the The Washington ConFeds? .
Yes, they seem to work pretty hard on this front.Oh, I had no idea. I’m not sure that it’s problematic. Have they at least given credit for the inspiration?
Forgot about Trump, but you list the Generals being the Globetrotters joke opponents like its a bad thing.This might be nit-picking but Trump's football team was "The Generals" and for those who still recall ABC's Wide World of Sports, The Washington Generals were the comic foil to the Harlem Globetrotters and always lost.
Yeah, these all get the anti-Boogie Nights treatment. How can you call them Kings when the city is named after the dude who fought against having kings?
This has come up before regarding the Noles wen other college squads were doing the name change.I know it's one thing at a time, and there's obviously some differences with respect to oppressed groups and all. But this raises the question of what other mascots/nicknames ought to be reconsidered. My alma-mater kept "Orangemen" for a long time, even though the mascot changed from a Native American (the "saltine warrior") to, uh, an orange - and believe me, there are no orange groves in central New York - and thanks to Nike, the school nickname is just a color now: Orange.
St. John's changed from "Redmen" to "Red Storm". What about these others though? And no, this isn't me being facetious.
Notre Dame "Fighting Irish".
https://www.irishcentral.com/news/notre-dame-fighting-irish-offensive
New England Patriots
Patriots can be seen in the same vein as Washington and Jefferson - the men who founded this country presided over an era of slavery. July 4, for many African-Americans, doesn't represent "independence" day.
Minnesota Vikings
Another direct reference to a particular people group.
Florida State Seminoles
Reference to a Native American tribe.
Utah Utes
Prior to 1972, the Utah teams had informally been known as the Redskins as well as the Utes.
*Note: FSU and Utah have permission from those tribes to use the names. As a Seminole tribal leader said, "Anybody come here into Florida trying to tell us to change the name, they better go someplace else, because we’re not changing the name." So we get that for a lot of Native Americans, these names aren't offensive to them. But then again...we are discussing how a high percentage of Native Americans aren't offended by the nickname "Redskins" but they should change it anyway. I get that one is a direct name of a tribe and "Redskins" is a derogatory term, and maybe that's enough to make all the difference in the world.
Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians
References to Native Americans
Boston Celtics
https://www.nba.com/celtics/history/Name.htmlWalter Brown (team founder) said the name had tradition and, "Boston is full of Irishmen. We'll put them in green uniforms and call them the Boston Celtics!" So it's a stereotype.
UNLV Running Rebels
Students see Hey Reb! as a "racist symbol of the Confederacy," the Las Vegas Sun reported. UNLV's mascot was originally named Beauregard and wore a Confederate uniform, but switched in the early '80s to Hey Reb!, a "more general symbol of rebellion," as the Sun puts it.
San Diego State Aztecs
Their mascot, the Aztec Warrior, "perpetuate(s) harmful stereotypes of Native Americans, including the notion that Native Americans are innately violent, dangerous, and 'savage,'" according to a resolution filed by the SDSU Queer People Of Color Collective.
Holy Cross Crusaders
Because....the Crusades?
I'm curious what you guys think of changing these names. This isn't meant to distract from the Redskins discussion, and this isn't me defending the nickname. I'm very much on record as saying it should be changed. It's simply that it opens us up for the larger conversation that's worth having. Where do we draw the line on ethnic-type nicknames or nicknames that remind us of terrible events (like Crusaders)?
Because you are naming it after the monument.Yeah, these all get the anti-Boogie Nights treatment. How can you call them Kings when the city is named after the dude who fought against having kings?
I mean those are all food for thought but where do we draw the line? I’m pretty sure it’s somewhere on the other side of nicknames that reference stereotypes of skin color.I know it's one thing at a time, and there's obviously some differences with respect to oppressed groups and all. But this raises the question of what other mascots/nicknames ought to be reconsidered. My alma-mater kept "Orangemen" for a long time, even though the mascot changed from a Native American (the "saltine warrior") to, uh, an orange - and believe me, there are no orange groves in central New York - and thanks to Nike, the school nickname is just a color now: Orange.
St. John's changed from "Redmen" to "Red Storm". What about these others though? And no, this isn't me being facetious.
Notre Dame "Fighting Irish".
https://www.irishcentral.com/news/notre-dame-fighting-irish-offensive
New England Patriots
Patriots can be seen in the same vein as Washington and Jefferson - the men who founded this country presided over an era of slavery. July 4, for many African-Americans, doesn't represent "independence" day.
Minnesota Vikings
Another direct reference to a particular people group.
Florida State Seminoles
Reference to a Native American tribe.
Utah Utes
Prior to 1972, the Utah teams had informally been known as the Redskins as well as the Utes.
*Note: FSU and Utah have permission from those tribes to use the names. As a Seminole tribal leader said, "Anybody come here into Florida trying to tell us to change the name, they better go someplace else, because we’re not changing the name." So we get that for a lot of Native Americans, these names aren't offensive to them. But then again...we are discussing how a high percentage of Native Americans aren't offended by the nickname "Redskins" but they should change it anyway. I get that one is a direct name of a tribe and "Redskins" is a derogatory term, and maybe that's enough to make all the difference in the world.
Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians
References to Native Americans
Boston Celtics
https://www.nba.com/celtics/history/Name.htmlWalter Brown (team founder) said the name had tradition and, "Boston is full of Irishmen. We'll put them in green uniforms and call them the Boston Celtics!" So it's a stereotype.
UNLV Running Rebels
Students see Hey Reb! as a "racist symbol of the Confederacy," the Las Vegas Sun reported. UNLV's mascot was originally named Beauregard and wore a Confederate uniform, but switched in the early '80s to Hey Reb!, a "more general symbol of rebellion," as the Sun puts it.
San Diego State Aztecs
Their mascot, the Aztec Warrior, "perpetuate(s) harmful stereotypes of Native Americans, including the notion that Native Americans are innately violent, dangerous, and 'savage,'" according to a resolution filed by the SDSU Queer People Of Color Collective.
Holy Cross Crusaders
Because....the Crusades?
I'm curious what you guys think of changing these names. This isn't meant to distract from the Redskins discussion, and this isn't me defending the nickname. I'm very much on record as saying it should be changed. It's simply that it opens us up for the larger conversation that's worth having. Where do we draw the line on ethnic-type nicknames or nicknames that remind us of terrible events (like Crusaders)?
Could go with Potomacs, which comes from the Patawomeck. I wouldn't hate that, but I really think they're much better off completely moving away from the theme.Could bring in Native American leaders and come up with a name to respect their culture and history. I wouldn’t even begin to guess what that would be tho.
Well for sure it includes derogatory ethnic slurs. I think for most of us, that’s obvious.I mean those are all food for thought but where do we draw the line? I’m pretty sure it’s somewhere on the other side of nicknames that reference stereotypes of skin color.
I’m confused. Naming it after the monument?Because you are naming it after the monument.
ED: your objection is one part of what, to me, makes it clever.
So, basically, every year?Washington Monuments would be a self own any time they have a terrible defense or a weak offensive line / QB who stands in the pocket like a statue and gets sacked all the time.
Had a beautiful day on the Beaverhead today. Definitely like to fish.something something "libural" "murrica" "sports and politics" "I like to fish." Is there a Montana Fan Mad Libs post generator?
The King Monument? MLKI’m confused. Naming it after the monument?
Just out of curiosity, what percentage of Native Americans have to find the name offensive for you to believe that requesting a name change is acceptable? Apparently 10% isn't enough. How many does it have to be? 20%? 30%? 50%?Had a beautiful day on the Beaverhead today. Definitely like to fish.
Agree to disagree on the name changing. You and other posters have every right to be offended on behalf of NA’s. When the decision was made to remove Squaw from all place names in Montana, that made sense as it was an indigenous people’s initiative and they found the descriptor offensive. This ain’t that.
But why do you care? Clearly you do or you wouldn't be posting in this thread.Soxy, why care = exactly my point. I’m embarrassed for SoSH’s noble VS’ers. They're the awesomest. And I’m done in this thread until the Pats sign Eli.
They're pretty bad. Of course, outsourcing it to fans or the general population would give:
So you're saying Redskins fans would object to their team being named after a comic foil/perennial loser?and for those who still recall ABC's Wide World of Sports, The Washington Generals were the comic foil to the Harlem Globetrotters and always lost.
Not to answer for him, but he's not defending the name or protecting anything, I don't think anyway - he's saying a bunch of white middle aged guys from NE - or further anyone not in the group in question - probably shouldn't be the ones that tell a minority group they *should* be offended. To flip the question you ask, why do you care? Are you NA? If the answer is no, then you're taking some kind of high ground or some battle that might not be yours and further might in fact be just as offensive to the group in question. It not being a civil rights issue and instead a nickname for a football team, he does have a point; without agreeing or disagreeing with it, I see where he's coming from. Perhaps vicarious offense isn't the answer and in possibility actually a continuance?Just out of curiosity, what percentage of Native Americans have to find the name offensive for you to believe that requesting a name change is acceptable? Apparently 10% isn't enough. How many does it have to be? 20%? 30%? 50%?
Even if we take that one poll as the gospel truth and only 10% are offended and 90% are like "who cares about a dumb sports team" than why not just change the name anyways? Why do you care? What are you protecting, exactly?
You're completely missing the point. Nobody is telling anybody that they should be offended. People are offended.Not to answer for him, but he's not defending the name or protecting anything, I don't think anyway - he's saying a bunch of white middle aged guys from NE - or further anyone not in the group in question - probably shouldn't be the ones that tell a minority group they *should* be offended. To flip the question you ask, why do you care? Are you NA? If the answer is no, then you're taking some kind of high ground or some battle that might not be yours and further might in fact be just as offensive to the group in question. It not being a civil rights issue and instead a nickname for a football team, he does have a point; without agreeing or disagreeing with it, I see where he's coming from. Perhaps vicarious offense isn't the answer and in possibility actually a continuance?
Again, even if we pretend those numbers are the absolute gospel truth that truly represent the opinions of the entire Native American community (which I don't), that would still mean that 9% find it offensive. Why is that acceptable? Why shouldn't we want to change it to something that 0% find offensive?Always amuses me when the virtue signalers advocate on behalf of the Native Americans who apparently aren't smart enough (woke enough?) to know that they should be offended by the name of the football team from Washington DC.
90%
I think this take is fair, and may apply to the Indians, Braves, Seminoles, etc. as well.Soxy, you keep framing this (in terms of Native American feelings on the matter) as either they are offended or they don’t care one way or the other.
In the recent Washington Post story I cited, some of the reasons the vast majority of Native Americans weren’t offended included “it is just a name, it honors or represents their heritage, and people are overly sensitive."
Notice that some (don’t know the actual numbers; could be small or it could be a significant number) are proud because it honors or represents their heritage.
That’s quite a bit different than not caring one way or the other.
It’s entirely possible that the number of Native Americans who actually LIKE the name (and aren’t just indifferent) and feel honored by it is greater than the number who are offended by it.
In such a case, changing it would actually offend more Native Americans than keeping it.
I don’t know the actual data but it’s clear from that poll that it’s not just a case of either they’re offended or they’re indifferent. Some percentage of Native Americans aren’t indifferent; they’re pro “Washington Redskins”.
Of all the hot takez, this is perhaps the shittiest. Do you also think that allowing for gay marriage will eventually lead to the marriage between man and animals?So you're saying Redskins fans would object to their team being named after a comic foil/perennial loser?
Sometimes the jokes write themselves.
The NFL should go after the Chiefs next, then the NHL should go after the Blackhawks, then the NBA should go after the Warriors to complete the circle.
Then every team named after any sort of animal, if the animals can speak for themselves, someone has to.
How about if we get rid of every team name, it will just be "And today the Bostons beat the New Yorks 5-1", then while we're at it, let's get rid of every logo, let's just make it real simple, every NFL helmet should be just plain white.
Oh wait................
Indians said they’re considering a name change as of last nightI think this take is fair, and may apply to the Indians, Braves, Seminoles, etc. as well.
Correct, pretty much anyway.Not to answer for him, but he's not defending the name or protecting anything, I don't think anyway - he's saying a bunch of white middle aged guys from NE - or further anyone not in the group in question - probably shouldn't be the ones that tell a minority group they *should* be offended. To flip the question you ask, why do you care? Are you NA? If the answer is no, then you're taking some kind of high ground or some battle that might not be yours and further might in fact be just as offensive to the group in question. It not being a civil rights issue and instead a nickname for a football team, he does have a point; without agreeing or disagreeing with it, I see where he's coming from. Perhaps vicarious offense isn't the answer and in possibility actually a continuance?
It was posted before, but how about the National Congress of American Indians asking to change it?Is it okay if a bunch of white middle aged guys are the ones who decide that the name is acceptable?
I want the name changed because it will stop this conversation.
How about making a positive statement about what you think is appropriate in these cases, or where you'd draw the line, instead of this sarcasm aimed at nobody-and-everybody. If you have no respect for the rest of us, don't post here, if you do, maybe think about how this conversation would go in a room with a dozen of us, and try playing that out. You finish the above statement, everyone blinks, and someone says "...so what are you saying?". So what ARE you saying?The NFL should go after the Chiefs next, then the NHL should go after the Blackhawks, then the NBA should go after the Warriors to complete the circle.
Then every team named after any sort of animal, if the animals can speak for themselves, someone has to.
How about if we get rid of every team name, it will just be "And today the Bostons beat the New Yorks 5-1", then while we're at it, let's get rid of every logo, let's just make it real simple, every NFL helmet should be just plain white.
Oh wait................
Because there is a valid line of argument that offense by proxy is narcissistic. Again, I'm not taking a side on that (without at least taking some time to think about it), but it is a valid philosophical concept. "If you're being offended for me, I assume you think I can't handle myself....and that offends me."Why do you have to be Native American to be offended by the name? Red skins. It’s a fucking slur for crying out loud. I’d be offended if the name was the Washington Blackies too.
I understand that and in very many cases, it can be true. But, to me, that is sort of a much more one-on-one type thing. As RalphWiggum said, it is unfortunate, but societal changes happen when the majority of people (white people) call for it. The Civil Rights Movement takes longer if white America doesn't see children bitten by police dogs and thrown down the streets by firehouses. It isn't about me taking personal offense, its trying to use white privilege for good and to change the many wrongs done to minorities. It is not right, but they need allies to stand with them because many times they HAVE been fighting for themselves but we have a racism problem in our country and too many people in power gives zero shits about minorities.Because there is a valid line of argument that offense by proxy is narcissistic. Again, I'm not taking a side on that (without at least taking some time to think about it), but it is a valid philosophical concept. "If you're being offended for me, I assume you think I can't handle myself....and that offends me."
I don't think that's true? My understanding has always been that the team played at Braves Field in 1932 and thus were the Boston Braves. The team then went to Fenway in 1933 and switched to Redskins for the sake of symmetry with Red Sox. (Not that that necessarily precludes Dietz from being involved, although it's important to remember he was not actually an American Indian.)The reason for the name change was simple: Boston's new coach, Lone Star Dietz, and several of his Native American players disliked the name Braves and lobbied for the team to change its name to the Redskins.
Could elements of both stories be true?I don't think that's true? My understanding has always been that the team played at Braves Field in 1932 and thus were the Boston Braves. The team then went to Fenway in 1933 and switched to Redskins for the sake of symmetry with Red Sox. (Not that that necessarily precludes Dietz from being involved, although it's important to remember he was not actually an American Indian.)
There's a lot of shaky stuff reported as fact on the history of the brand (including quite a bit by the team) so I'd take everything with a grain of salt unless you're reading it from a primary/really trusted source.
I was responding to the post I quoted, which specifically said "why do you have to be NA to be offended?". The bolded is just rationalization for it in this regard.I understand that and in very many cases, it can be true. But, to me, that is sort of a much more one-on-one type thing. As RalphWiggum said, it is unfortunate, but societal changes happen when the majority of people (white people) call for it. The Civil Rights Movement takes longer if white America doesn't see children bitten by police dogs and thrown down the streets by firehouses. It isn't about me taking personal offense, its trying to use white privilege for good and to change the many wrongs done to minorities. It is not right, but they need allies to stand with them because many times they HAVE been fighting for themselves but we have a racism problem in our country and too many people in power gives zero shits about minorities.