Washington Redskins no more

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
mr friendly guy
The Doctor
Posts: 11235
Joined: 2004-12-12 10:55pm
Location: In a 1960s police telephone box somewhere in Australia

Washington Redskins no more

Post by mr friendly guy »

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-14/ ... e/12452140
The Washington Redskins NFL team is changing its name — what does it mean for American sport?
By Andrew McGarry
Posted 9mminutes ago

The Washington Redskins have ended 87 years of history, signalling they will drop the franchise name of the famous NFL team.

But why is one of the most well-known names in American sport having to cut ties with its history?

And could it have a knock-on effect to other sports?

Why are the Redskins changing their name?
The team was originally founded as the Boston Braves. They changed to the Boston Redskins in 1933, and moved to Washington in 1937 where they have been ever since.

The Redskins have won five NFL titles, including three Super Bowls. But original owner George Preston Marshall believed in segregation and the team was the last in the professional football to employ black players.

The team's name has been controversial, with a decades-long campaign from Native American groups who have described it as a "dictionary-defined racial slur".

Redskins owner Daniel Snyder had previously vowed he would "never" change the team's name.

More than a dozen Native leaders and organisations wrote to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell last week demanding an immediate end to Washington's use of the name.

But what appears to have changed the team's mind is the decision of sponsors to demand a shift.

FedEx — who are minority stakeholders in the franchise and have naming rights over the team's stadium in Maryland — plus a string of other sponsors, including Nike, Pepsi and Bank of America, all put pressure on Snyder.

He announced a "thorough review", and the team has now announced it will be "retiring" the name and Indian head logo.

This will be the first name change in the NFL since the late 1990s, when the Houston Oilers team moved to Tennessee and after a year's transition became the Tennessee Titans.

What will the team be called now?
The short answer is — we don't know.

Making the announcement, the team made clear it would be retiring the Redskins name and logo when the review was completed.

"Dan Snyder and coach [Ron] Rivera are working closely to develop a new name and design approach that will enhance the standing of our proud, tradition-rich franchise and inspire our sponsors, fans and community for the next 100 years," the team said in the statement.

The longer answer is — we may not know which way the team is looking for a new name, but there are a number of options that could well gather support.

The team's fight song has been Hail to the Redskins, and there is some early support from fans online to keep a name similar to that which would allow the team to keep its social media hashtag #HTTR.

Some think an animal moniker like Redwolves or Redhawks could work, while others are keen on the name Redtails.

Redtails relate to the Tuskogee Airmen, a group of African-American and Caribbean-born military pilots in World War II.


The pilots became known for painting the tails of their aircraft red, leading to the group's nickname.

If the team moves away from a "Red" name, then there are some other options.

Snyder reportedly held a trademark for "Washington Warriors" for a number of years, although he does not hold it now.

Although the team's name includes Washington, the franchise has not played in Washington DC for some years.

A name change could open the way for a move back.

If the plan was to move home from Maryland, the Washington Presidents would make sense as a name for obvious reasons.

Another possibility would be the Washington Senators, who were a Major League Baseball team for several decades last century, while the Washington Generals are a basketball team who play exhibition games against the Harlem Globetrotters.

When will we know?
It's not clear how long the team's name review will take.

No doubt it will take time to sort out a new name, and secure the rights and trademarks to be used for logos, mascots and the like.

But it is a fair bet that the team will need to get everything done ahead of the team's scheduled opening game of the 2020 season against the Philadelphia Eagles on September 14.

What does this mean for other teams?
There are several other North American professional sports teams with franchise names that have Native American or First Nations links.

The Atlanta Braves play in Major League Baseball, as do the Cleveland Indians.

In ice hockey, the Chicago Blackhawks play in the National Hockey League, and the Edmonton Eskimos play in the Canadian Football League.

So far, the Braves and Blackhawks have said they don't intend to change their team names.

However the Braves have said they will consider ending the "Tomahawk chop" celebration used during games — it involves fans moving their forearms up and down to mimic the action of a tomahawk chopping.

Given that one team has already agreed to make a name change, however, it is possible that sponsor and public pressure could lead to more teams making the move.
I am surprised it took so long given this day and age where people are more culturally aware. Kudos to the sponsors who forced the clubs hand.

On another note, will Redskin memorabilia become rare collectors items in the future? Hey someone had to think that. :D
Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.

Countries I have been to - 14.
Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, USA.
Always on the lookout for more nice places to visit.
User avatar
Solauren
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10199
Joined: 2003-05-11 09:41pm

Re: Washington Redskins no more

Post by Solauren »

Insanely expensive collectors items, probably.
I've been asked why I still follow a few of the people I know on Facebook with 'interesting political habits and view points'.

It's so when they comment on or approve of something, I know what pages to block/what not to vote for.
User avatar
Ziggy Stardust
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3114
Joined: 2006-09-10 10:16pm
Location: Research Triangle, NC

Re: Washington Redskins no more

Post by Ziggy Stardust »

It would be an epic troll if the part of the name they change is "Washington". Say hello to your DC Redskins! The Snyders are such malevolent people I wouldn't be THAT shocked if they did that.

On a serious note, it's about time.
User avatar
Agent Fisher
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 3671
Joined: 2003-04-29 11:56pm
Location: Sac-Town, CA, USA, Earth, Sol, Milky Way, Universe

Re: Washington Redskins no more

Post by Agent Fisher »

Haha, it's long since been the joke that the 'Washington Redskins are dropping the offensive part of their name, they will now be the Virginian/Maryland Redskins.'

If they do go Red Tails, I'd want the uniform redesigned to evoke the markings you'd see on a P-51. It's a huge legacy to carry, if they rename themselves the Red Tails. But I hope they do. Cause I'd love to see a couple P-51s with 332ndFG markings with those beautiful crimson tails fly over the stadium.

Edit:

So, just found a graphic designer fan did a reskin to show a possible look for the Redtails. Damn, yes, just do that as the uniforms, looks great!
User avatar
Solauren
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10199
Joined: 2003-05-11 09:41pm

Re: Washington Redskins no more

Post by Solauren »

Yeah, that works. Definitely a tribute to the team colors and acknowledgement of its past, while embracing the change at the same time.
I've been asked why I still follow a few of the people I know on Facebook with 'interesting political habits and view points'.

It's so when they comment on or approve of something, I know what pages to block/what not to vote for.
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Washington Redskins no more

Post by The Romulan Republic »

Good riddance.

Red Tails would be awesome. Probably too awesome to happen.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.
User avatar
whackadoodle
Padawan Learner
Posts: 256
Joined: 2008-12-26 11:48pm

Re: Washington Redskins no more

Post by whackadoodle »

I think they should've kept the name, and swapped out their logo for this:

Image
I have come to the conclusion that my subjective account of my motivation is largely mythical on almost all occasions. I don't know why I do things.
J.B.S. Haldane
User avatar
Elfdart
The Anti-Shep
Posts: 10646
Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm

Re: Washington Redskins no more

Post by Elfdart »

How about the D.C. Redskins?

Seriously though, as long as Snyder owns the team, whichever nickname they take will be tainted.
Image
User avatar
Civil War Man
NERRRRRDS!!!
Posts: 3790
Joined: 2005-01-28 03:54am

Re: Washington Redskins no more

Post by Civil War Man »

Elfdart wrote: 2020-07-19 06:35am How about the D.C. Redskins?

Seriously though, as long as Snyder owns the team, whichever nickname they take will be tainted.
Probably.

Under most circumstances, Red Tails would be a good pick, since it is evoking a specific group of people instead of a general ethnic group like the Redskins, Indians, Chiefs, Braves, etc. do. However, I am a little leery about it considering that it is still naming the team after a group of black men, since it can go wrong in so many ways.

As one of my co-workers put it when we were discussing it, Red Tails would be a great team name to go with, so long as they don't make the mascot or logo to be some Uncle Ben-looking character.
User avatar
Raw Shark
Stunt Driver / Babysitter
Posts: 7477
Joined: 2005-11-24 09:35am
Location: One Mile Up

Re: Washington Redskins no more

Post by Raw Shark »

Civil War Man wrote: 2020-07-19 10:10amsome Uncle Ben-looking character.
I'm still trying to figure out the Uncle Ben thing. Okay, the brand personification is a Black guy, but it's not like rice is tied to offensive stereotypes about Black people. If it was watermelon I'd get it, but rice?

"Do I really look like a guy with a plan? Y'know what I am? I'm a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it! Y'know, I just do things..." --The Joker
User avatar
Elheru Aran
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 13073
Joined: 2004-03-04 01:15am
Location: Georgia

Re: Washington Redskins no more

Post by Elheru Aran »

Raw Shark wrote: 2020-07-19 10:24am
Civil War Man wrote: 2020-07-19 10:10amsome Uncle Ben-looking character.
I'm still trying to figure out the Uncle Ben thing. Okay, the brand personification is a Black guy, but it's not like rice is tied to offensive stereotypes about Black people. If it was watermelon I'd get it, but rice?
Plantation crop in the South. It would be like if a brand of pillows or thread had a black guy on the logo, because they picked cotton. It's not about the stereotype as much as it is the history, I guess?
It's a strange world. Let's keep it that way.
User avatar
Raw Shark
Stunt Driver / Babysitter
Posts: 7477
Joined: 2005-11-24 09:35am
Location: One Mile Up

Re: Washington Redskins no more

Post by Raw Shark »

Elheru Aran wrote: 2020-07-19 10:27amPlantation crop in the South.
Huh. Goes to show how much time I've spent in the Southeast (ie: Zero). Thanks for clearing that up.

"Do I really look like a guy with a plan? Y'know what I am? I'm a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it! Y'know, I just do things..." --The Joker
User avatar
Civil War Man
NERRRRRDS!!!
Posts: 3790
Joined: 2005-01-28 03:54am

Re: Washington Redskins no more

Post by Civil War Man »

Elheru Aran wrote: 2020-07-19 10:27am
Raw Shark wrote: 2020-07-19 10:24am
Civil War Man wrote: 2020-07-19 10:10amsome Uncle Ben-looking character.
I'm still trying to figure out the Uncle Ben thing. Okay, the brand personification is a Black guy, but it's not like rice is tied to offensive stereotypes about Black people. If it was watermelon I'd get it, but rice?
Plantation crop in the South. It would be like if a brand of pillows or thread had a black guy on the logo, because they picked cotton. It's not about the stereotype as much as it is the history, I guess?
I was also speaking more generally as to the specific idea of using a depiction of a racial minority, in particular when it's of a black person, as a mascot, and Uncle Ben was the name that popped up when my coworker was talking about it. It's not that it's impossible to do respectfully, but it is tough to pull off and there is absolutely zero margin for error.
User avatar
Solauren
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10199
Joined: 2003-05-11 09:41pm

Re: Washington Redskins no more

Post by Solauren »

The only way you could really pull it off was if the owner of the company was of the minority being pictured, AND he was doing is as a tribute to a family member.
I've been asked why I still follow a few of the people I know on Facebook with 'interesting political habits and view points'.

It's so when they comment on or approve of something, I know what pages to block/what not to vote for.
User avatar
Civil War Man
NERRRRRDS!!!
Posts: 3790
Joined: 2005-01-28 03:54am

Re: Washington Redskins no more

Post by Civil War Man »

We've got our new team name, people!

This actually isn't The Onion
Effective immediately, Washington will call itself the "Washington Football Team" pending the adoption of a new name, the NFL franchise announced Thursday.

This is not a final renaming and rebranding for the team; this is the name it wants to use until the adoption of a new name at some point.

The team will continue the process of retiring the former name and hopes to be entirely rid of it on physical and digital spaces in the next 50 days, by the Sept. 13 regular-season opener against the Philadelphia Eagles.

Washington will not have any change to its color scheme. It will still use burgundy and gold, and the logo on the helmet will be replaced by each player's number in gold. The Washington Football Team will debut its home uniforms in Week 1 against the Eagles, and its road uniforms in Week 2 against the Arizona Cardinals.

While the Washington Football Team uses these uniforms and helmets for the 2020 season, it will be seeking the feedback of players, alumni, fans, sponsors and the community for the team name it will use in the future.

Terry Bateman, the franchise's new executive vice president and chief marketing officer, said the team wants to include fans, business partners and alumni in the process. That takes time.

"You're doing a rebranding process that correctly takes 12 to 18 months. If you want to do it right, you have to take a deep breath, take a step back and go through the process," he said. "We want to do it right, we want something thoughtful and inclusive and smart and bring a lot of points of views into this and come out the other side with something everyone is proud of and can rally behind.

"It feels organic and natural to do this. I love the look of what we've done. It's really strong. I like the logo and the uniforms and the colors. ... There's a tremendous amount of work to do for the next 50 days to do all this. It's a tremendous amount of work to go through this. The new will go up and the old will go down."

Fans will be able to purchase "Washington Football Team" merchandise from Fanatics and NFL Shop in the coming days.

When asked if they were ever close to a new name, Bateman said, "You can argue what close is. Everyone's got a different opinion. The conversations have been, 'This is great, I like this one. No, I don't like that.'

"There are a number of names people like. I probably had a thousand names submitted. I'm getting long letters why one name is the right name for us. It's funny and it's fun. It's interesting. Everyone has an opinion. My wife has a strong opinion. My kids have an opinion. A lot have an idea, but it's much bigger than that. Even if we had the name 100 percent locked in, to physically get it done before the football season starts would be between hard and impossible."

Bateman said there is no end date in mind.

"The process is going to be completed whenever it's right," he said. "I don't know when that will be. Whenever we feel like we've got the best solution for the organization, for the community, for the fans, for everybody involved."

The team retired the name it had used for 87 years on July 13 after launching a thorough review 10 days earlier.

Team owner Dan Snyder had, for years, resisted changing the name; he told USA Today in 2013 to "put it in all caps" that he would never make such a move. Some who worked for Snyder said they believed then that he would rather sell the team than use a new name.

The controversy surrounding the name predated Snyder's purchase of the team in May 1999. When Washington played at Super Bowl XXVI following the 1991 season, there were 2,000 protestors outside the Metrodome in Minneapolis. Jack Kent Cooke, the team owner at the time, said of any possible change, "There is not a single, solitary jot, tittle, whit chance in the world. I like the name, and it's not a derogatory name."

But Snyder and the franchise have been under more pressure after the protests following the death of George Floyd in May while he was in police custody in Minneapolis. Within a few weeks of Floyd's death, multiple sources said Snyder had been discussing the name change with NFL officials for several weeks already.

During this time, a letter signed by 87 investors and shareholders who hold a total worth of $620 billion was sent to sponsors FedEx, PepsiCo and Nike, asking them to stop doing business with the team unless the name changed. When that news came out in an Adweek.com story on July 1, multiple people -- including current and former team employees -- echoed the same thought: It's over. Most, if not all, were unaware that a possible change was in the works.

On July 2, FedEx issued a statement saying it had told the team it wanted the name changed. The other sponsors later released statements saying the same. Amazon said it would stop selling the team's merchandise. Walmart and Target said they would stop selling the gear in stores. And, according to The Washington Post, FedEx said it would remove its signage from the stadium if the name was not changed by the 2021 season.

FedEx signed a 27-year naming rights deal for $205 million in 1998. The company's owner and CEO, Fred Smith, has been a minority shareholder in the Washington franchise since 2003. However, according to multiple reports, he and the other minority investors, Dwight Schar and Bob Rothman, want to sell their stakes. Snyder, his sister and his mother own 60% of the franchise.
Image

Yes, I know it's a placeholder name, but the comedy writes itself.
User avatar
Khaat
Jedi Master
Posts: 1034
Joined: 2008-11-04 11:42am

Re: Washington Redskins no more

Post by Khaat »

I dunno, soccer teams in the US go by "[insert name] FC (Football Club)".
Only trouble is the inevitable "what happens when the team is moved? They have to pick a new new name?" :lol:
Rule #1: Believe the autocrat. He means what he says.
Rule #2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule #3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule #4: Be outraged.
Rule #5: Don’t make compromises.
User avatar
Zaune
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7455
Joined: 2010-06-21 11:05am
Location: In Transit
Contact:

Re: Washington Redskins no more

Post by Zaune »

Khaat wrote: 2020-07-24 01:00pmI dunno, soccer teams in the US go by "[insert name] FC (Football Club)".
Only trouble is the inevitable "what happens when the team is moved? They have to pick a new new name?" :lol:
I never understood how that made more business sense than just starting a new team anyway. Your existing supporters (50% of your customer base for tickets and 100% for your merch) are not only now inconveniently far away but feel personally betrayed by your leaving, so you're not just going to have to start from scratch but have everyone remember you as the club that kicked all their fans to the kerb for financial gain. That strikes me as somewhat counterproductive.
There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)


Replace "ginger" with "n*gger," and suddenly it become a lot less funny, doesn't it?
-- fgalkin


Like my writing? Tip me on Patreon

I Have A Blog
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Washington Redskins no more

Post by MKSheppard »

This bullshit might be what finally unseats Dan Snyder from the Redskins and a new regime can replace his incompetency.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
Khaat
Jedi Master
Posts: 1034
Joined: 2008-11-04 11:42am

Re: Washington Redskins no more

Post by Khaat »

Zaune wrote: 2020-07-24 01:27pm I never understood how that made more business sense than just starting a new team anyway. Your existing supporters (50% of your customer base for tickets and 100% for your merch) are not only now inconveniently far away but feel personally betrayed by your leaving, so you're not just going to have to start from scratch but have everyone remember you as the club that kicked all their fans to the kerb for financial gain. That strikes me as somewhat counterproductive.
It comes down to the owners: they *like* being an exclusive club, with a finite resource (teams). S'why Trump failed to join them, then failed some more with his attempted "make my own league!" United States Football League for three years (of money laundering?) before going bust.
Dissolving one and creating another team in the NFL is also administratively messy (and likely costly). But like Trump himself, the team/property isn't *itself* worth money, it's the licensing that has value (somehow, to somebody).
Rule #1: Believe the autocrat. He means what he says.
Rule #2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule #3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule #4: Be outraged.
Rule #5: Don’t make compromises.
Post Reply