Dan Snyder Starts To Feel The Pressure
I was wondering when the Washington team name would reappear back in popular discussion. It was a big deal for that stretch in the Obama era but as soon as Trump took over and far more absurd things started going wrong the Skins name controversy kind of slipped into the background since it just didn’t seem all that important anymore. Well we are now in a righteous era of removing problematic symbols so it was inevitable that we’d finally come back around to this persistent problem.
It should be changed. The name is pretty blatantly a slur. It might not be a commonly used slur in modern parlance (I’ll get to that) but it feels like stating it is a slur should be a pretty uncontroversial fact. It is a deliberate term to describe someone’s skin color, and the maligned group in question is a group that has received far, far too much oppression already. That it took this kind of societal pressure and sponsors making statements to even begin the discussion process is kind of sad. A name change should not be that serious. It’ll be weird, it’ll be annoying, it will even be hated by some whenever it happens, but people will move on from it and adapt because it just…isn’t that important of a tradition to keep. It is a football team name. It’s not that valuable. Change it. You can even probably find a native themed name that is more respectful to make it work if you need to keep the logo/colors/ all that.
I want to make one thing clear – the name is the problem. I’m actually not bothered by the logo. Granted, I’m a white guy so my thoughts are less important than an actual native american on this, but I always saw the logo as fairly respectful compared to the other native-themed logos out there. It is a dignified head. It isn’t making some stereotypical “BATTLE CRY FACE” like the horrific Seminoles logo nor is it a horrible caricature like Chief Wahoo. Even the Blackhawks seem a bit iffy, though at least it is based on an actual person. The Skins logo seems passable compared to Wahoo and the Seminoles, at least to me. If they did change it however, I would be fine with that.
I think one of the biggest reasons it hasn’t changed is the dreaded cult of tradition and the fact that to a lot of people, it just…isn’t a slur. Let me explain what I mean by that. I grew up in Skins country, in Maryland an hour north of DC. To me, the name never was a slur. To me the term “Redskins” only ever meant one thing: the football team. A lot of people compare the Skins name to someone naming a team the N-word. I can’t quite agree with that comparison because the N-word is still frequently used as a slur to this day. Think about the word “Redskin”. When was the last time you ever heard it used to reference anything other than the football team? Have you ever heard it used as the slur it is defined as in the modern day? I am fully willing to admit my ignorance here and maybe it is still used by racists and hateful people to verbally harm native people, but I’ve never personally seen it myself at any point in my life. To me, it was always just the football team. It took me all the way to adulthood for me to even register that it was a term used to describe someone’s skincolor, that’s how deep and single-purposed the name has been to me. And I’m not even a fan. I imagine the story is very similar to so many other people in the fanbase. It isn’t a slur to them. It is just the name of the team they proudly root for. They don’t want to look at the term as anything other than that, because the team name only has positive connotations to them that feels weird to just write off because some other people say it’s a slur. Nobody has an easy time opening their mind to something that to that point, has always been positive. Nobody wants to feel wrong.
It should probably just change to be respectful and cautious. To some degree it does feel wrong to have white folks deciding the fate of the name and the groups who are in the crossfire should really have a final say. Defenders of the team name like to trot out studies and arguments made by native people who have no problem with the name. Detractors of the name can point to other studies into different native groups who do think the name is racist. Native Americans, despite the term I just used, aren’t some united front of people. They are a lot of diverse tribes and groups with different ideals and cultures with different opinions on the name. So the quandary becomes do we keep the name because some think it’s respectful? Do we get rid of it because some others find it disrespectful? What’s the answer? Frankly, the term should be theirs to own, not ours.
Well, the thing that really sells me is that I haven’t seen any native groups fighting for keeping it. I’ve seen many reports of people who are fine with it. I’ve seen plenty of people point out that many just aren’t bothered by it. But I never see any of these groups campaigning to keep it. We have native groups campaigning to remove it, but nobody outside the active traditionalist fans seem to be fighting to have the name stay. So why not just change it? Something less controversial? It becomes a step forward for those who oppose it and a sidestep at best for those who were fine with it. In a few years everyone will have generally gotten over it. The history of the name will still exist. The history of the team will still exist. None of this is erased by changing the name. But it does take a very small step forward into progress. I don’t think a team name is worth this much defense. Let it go. With any luck, we’ll be able to decide a new name.
If you are a Native American who happens to read this, please offer me any thoughts you have. I’m sure I’ve gotten something wrong or overlooked something else because at the end of the day, I’m just a white dude with mild experience at best in your history and world, and will gladly listen so I can be a little bit better informed for the future.
I’m opposed to the name change.
Not only do 9/10 of American Indians *consistently* poll as opposed to a name change, the number one word *THEY* use to describe their reaction to the name? Proud.
Why aren’t they fighting to keep it? I don’t know– maybe those who are not offended are too busy campaigning for adequate education, clean water, voting rights, dealing with crippling, widespread abject poverty, recognition of treaty rights, or a whole list of issues that take more importance to the vast, vast, vast majority of the population. I hate catering to the loudest voices, instead of listening and catering to the most reasonable. Someone being offended doesn’t mean it’s offensive– and while the dictionary cites “Redskin” as a slur, historically, it *wasn’t*, any more than white or black are– and sure, some people will use white or black as slurs, but, for the majority of society throughout history, it wasn’t one. Even in the 1800s and 1900s, it wasn’t broadly used as a slur.
Mostly, this issue feels driven by white folks more than representatives of the various nations. White Man’s Burden is a thing that’s real, and that I loathe utterly, and the fact that it seems much more driven by whites than American Indians is the primary reason that I oppose the change. It’s not our position to be offended on the behalf of those who are, by a *HUGE* majority, not offended. 10%– that’s the group opposed. By more than 2:1, the emotional reaction is “Proud” over any variation of “Angry”. In the end, they don’t like the term? Root for the Giants or Eagles (or, if you’re down for some particular irony, the Cowboys).
I apologize in advance, I tried to pare this down as much as I could, but it’s still long. Sorry / Not sorry.
Is your 90% coming from the Washington Post telephone survey of 504 self-identified Native Americans? That is a highly problematic study & grossly non-representative. A PHONE survey is going to give you highly skewed results, and drastically reduce the voices of people living on a reservation.
According to the American Indian Law Journal, 68% of Native Americans on rural reservations have telephone service, compared to 94% in urban areas. Further highlighting how awful reservation conditions are: 50% of reservation residents are not connected to a public sewer, 45% lack complete kitchen facilities, and there are 90,000 homeless or under-housed Native American families.
Recently, a more thorough study discovered that the slur is offensive to a rather large number of Native Americans (over 57% strongly identifying want it changed, of the 1000 polled):
https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/02/04/native-mascots-survey/
This is the kicker to Danny Boy’s ‘proud’ results: “the number of those offended rose for study participants who were heavily engaged in their native or tribal cultures (67%), young people (60%) and people with tribal affiliations such as members of federally recognized tribes (52%).”
Once a group of people are forcibly removed from the table, so is their collective voice. OF COURSE you’re not going to get massive opposition to the use of slurs – the people who would take offense are now dead or lying in a ditch with no phone access. If Hitler successfully murdered every last Jewish person, would Jewish slurs be considered offensive? Probably not.
Dumping this on “white man’s burden” is irresponsible and lazy. I’m not saying you personally should feel guilt or take blame for this, but the facts are these – the Native American nation was the victim of genocide. After scattering their ashes to the winds, America took their little sports puppets and dressed them up like the vanquished. And since few voices were left to oppose them, the masses rejoiced.
The term “Redskin” *IS* a slur. It’s always been a slur. In the same way that Team Confederacy pretends the Civil War was about “states’ rights” (to slavery), Washington can pretend a slur isn’t a slur, because most of the people offended by it were killed or have no internet/phone access to tell them about it.
TL;DR – A phone survey eliminates the majority of Native Americans living on reservations, and is thus highly skewed towards people with presumably fewer connections to their heritage. New and inclusive studies show 57-67% of Native Americans think the name is offensive and should change.
There is a slight problem with the Berkeley study. It is only one. Science demands results be repeatable. The phone polls, for all the problems you have rightly pointed out, give consistent results. Berkeley’s study contradicts them. This is a good data point and tells us a lot. But until other studies following their methodology corroborate them, it should not be used as definitive proof.
You have an excellent point. It was not my intent to imply it was definitive, so my bad if I came across as such. For the purposes of science, yes, I agree with *everything* you just said.
But for the human purposes of this topic, I think the important takeaway is that some Native Americans *are* offended – there are public protests and rallies about this regularly enough to show that a sizable group of actual Native Americans are insulted by it. Isn’t that enough? Even if we take D. Snyder’s 90/10 as the ‘de facto’ result, isn’t 50 out of every 500 enough to rethink this?
Maybe let the Native Americans come up with a collective name that they can all be proud of, or at the very least, not feel insulted by.
“Maybe let the Native Americans come up with a collective name that they can all be proud of, or at the very least, not feel insulted by.”
I think this is the only solution that makes sense and I fully agree with you, but I’ll address the other points because I’m an insufferable pedant. According to the other studies, the most common answer to what the name makes Native Americans is “proud”. Incidentally, the second most common one is “annoyed” (this is probably what people who study racism term “microaggressions”, small instances of racism that minorities respond with “oh this again” rather than take offence). I don’t remember whether the percentages of annoyed and offended added up to more than proud, but if they’re less, is it right to change a name that more Native Americans feel proud of than attacked by in some capacity? And is it right to dismiss the findings of studies that show this based on just a single study?
It’s a point worth contemplating, and I don’t think you’re being a pedant by bringing it up. Like you said above – we need to continually challenge our positions to see if they hold water.
In this case, the surveys have been all over the place based on how they’re conducted – a different web survey from early 2019 showed only 68% were ok with the name, so the 90/10 isn’t a rock solid result by what’s come so far. So… I would openly advertise some kind of online forum for the Native American community to talk it out. I don’t know the logistics of that, whether it’s representative bodies or individual people, but however it happens, let them reach consensus and/or bring it to a vote. That way, whether the name is kept or not, you can honestly say the Native American community had direct input and final determination on the decision.
For me, personally, if the name wasn’t *objectively* a racist slur, I could be convinced to go with the majority if – as mentioned above – we can get some confidence in the #s. BUT. Since it’s a derogatory appellation to begin with, I’m of the mind that if you’re marginalizing some here, you’re marginalizing all.
Example: If I have a dinner party for 20 friends, make a demonstrably racist joke that 18 people find hilarious while 2 are personally offended… should I chalk that up as a success and move on? I would probably apologize to the 2 people, and then change the joke so it’s no longer offensive, even if the majority ignored the offensive bit and laughed anyway. That’s part of the responsibility that comes with trying to be a decent human being, to me, at least.
i cant believe i have to say this, but
its not. about. you.
its not even about us. so please stuff it with the white man’s burden crap
it just so happens that all the plebs in charge at the nfl are white so it kinda falls to them to pull their heads out of the collective asses from time to time and actually try to be decent human beings. often with a lot of prodding from people who arent white (god but if there was ever a cynical summary of usa history)
just stop
you acknowledged its seen as a slur. just change the fuckin name and move on. yes i realize every time facebook changes its layout everyone has to yell and scream about how much it sucks but within a month or two its all gone so lets just change the fuckin name and get on with our lives instead of catering to vapid, devil’s advocate, “well actually” arguments from people who clearly dont know what theyre talking about
https://apnews.com/a6ddd9b0244e6d480eb796edcaa0d387
I’m still voting for the Piggers.
https://theoatmeal.com/pl/working_home/piggers
Washington Natives
there. solved.
Solved for 30 years tops. By then the term natives will be highly offensive and will have to be changed to the Washington Guys What Crossed A Land Bridge A Few Thousand Years Ago.
You might find the book Mascot Nation by Billings and Black an interesting read. It does a deep dive into the issue of mascots, appropriation and objectification as it relates to Native Americans.
I feel like America is one of the few countries that consistently honors oppression, racism, slavery, and hate in our society. Confederate flags, statues of slave owning traitors, cities named after a horrible racist/rapist/murderer/slaver (and I fricking live in Columbus), sport teams named after oppressed cultures, people proudly bearing Nazi flags while simultaneously proclaiming to be these amazing nationalist America-first heroes, etc.
Like, shit, get rid of all of it. Christopher Columbus was a complete asshole. Yeah, he “discovered” America (not really). Teach the history. Don’t honor the man. We fought a civil war to stop slavery, stop honoring the side that lost–you know, the ‘slaves are OK with me’ side? Native Americans have been horribly oppressed, slaughtered, abused, and just generally shit on since Columbus landed. Stop using derogatory terms and horrible images of them for our team names. You want to name a team the Oklahoma Cherokee? Fucking awesome. That’s legitimate, you’re honoring the people of that region.
Just, fuck, stop promoting hate everywhere.
Oh no, other countries have their own highly problematic historical biases as well. John Oliver did a bit on Thailand’s weird obsession with Hitler https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FdKXiYnFbw . The current ultra-right government of Hungary is trying to SEGREGATE THEIR SCHOOLS because most Hungarians are racist as shit against gypsies. In China it is illegal to promote any version of human history that does not have the Han Chinese as either the progenitors of all other humanity or a separate line of descent. You can be put in jail for bringing up the ‘out of Africa’ theory in an official capacity.
America has its problems to be sure. A lot of those problems are sorely overdue to be addressed in any capacity, to be sure. But having societal ills is not unique to America. Possibly what is unique is our willingness to ‘air our dirty laundry in public’. America seems to have more problems than other places because we are more likely to be critical of our country in public discourse.
We also have a lot of civil liberties that protect shit-heads’ prerogative to be terrible people if they want, and boy howdy do those shit-heads take advantage of the privilege.
Regarding Florida State, I think I remember reading that the school has close ties with the Seminole people who generally like their representation. And apparently the school is willing to alter the name if things ever change. I think the Blackhawks are in the same boat?
Redskins though? Yeah, that should probably go at this point. I’ve seen support for the name Redtails, which seems pretty neat.
Same with the Utah Utes. Reportedly good relations with the tribe, and they get free tuition if they choose to enroll at Utah for college.
As someone who graduated from Florida State, I can confirm this is the case. The Seminole tribe and FSU have worked closely together for years now and the tribe supports every aspect of the team name, logo, war chant, and even the Osceola/Renegade character they use. If they had a problem with any of it, it would be changed, especially given the rules the NCAA have made regarding usage of such names/logos. Where many other teams were forced to change their names and logos, the Seminoles were allowed to continue, due to the relationship with the tribe.
my understanding was that the “chop” was the one component the local natives were uncomfortable with
At least we won’t have to worry about the similarly problematic Edmonton Eskimos much longer
https://globalnews.ca/news/6875807/edmonton-eskimos-cfl-layoffs-coronavirus-covid-19/
Malachi Jones has killed another league
As someone who lives in an area that has both a heavy black population and is home to an Indian tribal headquarters, this is my simple take. The local Indians are very, very proud of their heritage. I would not walk up to any of them and refer to them or their ancestors as “redskins”. Why? Because I feel it would be disrespectful. Just like walking up to a black individual and using the N word. One of the biggest problems our country deals with isn’t necessarily racism or ignorance. It’s just a basic lack of respect. Does the Redskin name bother me? No, mainly because I’ve become desensitized to hearing it, which is a real shame.
So is it actually frequently used as a slur towards the tribe people? That’s one thing that’s always eluded me since I don’t live too close to a native community so I’ve never actually heard it used as actual hate speech, mostly just the theory of how it could be used.
But the fact that even many people who like the name and think it is a respectful term are still afraid to use it to a Native person’s face really says a lot that we just…shouldn’t have it as a team name.
If you called a tribal member a redskin here, you’d be beat down. Then beat down again by their police department. then beat down again by OUR police department.
Then beat down by the judge.
Unless they change the mascot to a potato. I have no problem calling those dirty root vegetables, redskins to their face.
Red skinned potatoes are delicious
I agree with you Dave. I never thought about it as derogatory UNTIL I put it side by side with the N word. I HATE the N word with unbridled passion. It’s not that it’s racist. It’s just unbelievably disrespectful. I never realized that the term redskins is pretty much the same thing. I would never call any of the tribal members in my area that, whether I liked them or not. And I have not heard it said around here ONCE. I can’t say that they view it as an insult. Even in my post….look how i freely use the term while referring to the other word as the N word. I have a long way to go to get right on a lot of things. But when I see my faults and understand them clearly, it gives me hope that others can do the same. That we can all grow and get better together.
Also, Cowboys name change? Why? I say why not (this is a joke, except to Cowboy fans)
Speaking from my experience in the southwest (particularly the four corners area, and then SE New Mexico on around the Mescalero), yeah it’d be regarded as a slur.
Calling an Indian that would be about as smart and likely to start a fight as calling a black guy the N word. You did hear it used some when I was a kid, as a slur.
“local indians”?
dont you mean local indigenous folks
Injuns.
Why don’t you make a comic about nascar? I mean soon you are going to run out of comic ideas.
I’ve raised this point on a few pages and forums this week, and the sheer rush of people to defend the Redskins name as “Not Racist” has amazed me. I never thought I would live in an era where people rushed to defend Dan Snyder of all people, but what got me was the same, tired argument of “Well guess what team most Indians support” or “Well its not the Indians who are trying to make us change the name ,its all these Woke Snowflake people”.
I think the Redskins debate says a lot about whats rotten in the US these days. There’s no actual debate these days, its straight into name calling and trying to lessen the importance of something. And that, unfortunately, comes from the top.
You don’t hear the term outside of football because native Americans were so thoroughly hunted and exterminated in the 19th century.
There have been many other black and Jewish stereotype brands that have been removed over the decades because they were all over modern media or advertising of the time in the much more populated east coast.
Areas with any sort of a native population didn’t have sports teams until the 1960s and 70s. And reservations to this day border on third-world countries with the complete lack of money or infrastructure.
See above comments where less than 70% of homes on reservations even have phone service.
“I’ve never heard a complaint” is not a good reason to keep being wrong.
Once all the sponsors pull out, Snyder is going to be able to massage his bruised ego with the millions in profits he’ll make when the fans have to buy all new gear.
Chainsaw Dan wins again!
I don’t actually like the idea of a name change, but if it does come to pass they should call themselves the Washington Corruption and change their logo to an outstretched hand receiving a bribe/kickback.
If they change the name I’m gonna miss the announcers desperately trying NOT to say ‘Redskins’… It WOULD be funny if he changed the name to the Washington PaleFaces just to screw with people.
But really who cares? At best you’ve removed something that “offends” or annoys a few people (most of whom are terminally-offended and don’t watch your team anyway). And the downside is that you’ve encouraged them to move on to another target – because they will never be satisfied. In the big scale of things its a zero. I guarantee that even if you change the name that life on the reservation will still suck for the Native Americans who live there. Go ahead and change the name if you want Dan. Or don’t, and tell everyone ‘it’s my team and you can suck it’.
You’re right. If the name changes people will move on to another target. That’s called social progress. You win a battle, you move forward. This fight will not be won all at once. The poor quality of life for native Americans is another battle that will likely require even more effort.
Yeah, better not fix the burnt out in my house that my gf always complains about. If I do, she’ll just move on and start complaining about the leaky faucet. It’s better to just sit in the dark and say “it’s my house and you can suck it”
“My house is the best one on earth!”
“What about all the things wrong with it?”
“If you don’t like it get the hell out of here and go live somewhere else!”
The Only group that really comes off as “perpetually offended” in this country are entitled white people. Why does the smallest inch of progress always have to be resisted like this? And for what? Because you are kind of annoyed by “PC Culture” and “SJWs”? What does it cost you to take a second and think about the impact our culture and social structures can have on marginalized people? How does the advancement of minorities negatively effect *you*?
I know the term would still be offensive because of history and all, but I like the idea of just changing the mascot to sunburnt white people. Specifically Mike Shanahan’s face. The color of Mike Shanahan’s face in rbg hex would be #FF0000.
Or orange faced people maybe…….? The Washington Loompas lol
Wondering when the outcry for the Patriots to change their name will start, because the team is heavy into Revolutionary War symbology, and everyone knows the founders of our country were all slave-owning racist white guys with no other redeeming features. Plus if you are “woke” enough, these days being a patriot is offensive because our entire country is just a racist oppressive cesspool.
I mean, their mascots carry and fire guns during the games! Surely all right-thinking people are offended by that.
I say we just disband the Patriots altogether
We should change the name to “the strawmen”, you could really get behind that one.
hooo boy, you chose a bad team to illustrate your bad-faith argument
literally no one outside boston would be disappointed if the pats were wiped off the face of the planet
try again fred
also
snowflake alert, why dont you qq for me little victim
Fred, you should try some serious introspection.
It sounds like your definition of patriotism is “my country can do no wrong”, my personal definition is “I want my country to do no wrong”
Can you really, honestly, look at how:
Our police force treats black citizens
Our border security treats children from other countries (and how much we’re paying to do it)
we’ve responded to the Corona virus
we just roll over and let Russia hire assassins to kill our troops in Afganistan
can you really look at those recent events and be *proud* of the way the US has handled them? If the answer is “no”, then the most patriotic thing you can do is ask your country to do better.
For the record, I think Redskins is a slur, even if it has lost much of its pejorative power these days, and should be changed. As should the Indians (Cleveland Lakemen!) – that term as applied to Native Americans makes no sense, but the name stuck even though Christopher Columbus was a dumb-ass. And Chief Wahoo is absurdly stereotypical and racist, at least the Redskin’s logo is dignified.
Where do you draw the appropriation/pejorative line, though? Braves, Blackhawks, maybe Chiefs (not fully a Native American term but their logo is appropriated), Canucks, Eskimos, or religious-based ones like the Angels, Saints, Padres, etc. I’m sure there are groups that are offended by these. Where’s the protests?
As for being a strawman – the wave of statue removal has now reached Washington and Jefferson. Yes they owned slaves, our heroes are flawed, but their positive contributions to our country (IMO) far outweigh the flaws. Yes I was being tongue-in-cheek, perhaps the sarcasm was not obvious enough, but is it that farfetched right now to think that anything in our past cannot be targeted for removal? Where do you draw the line?
“Redskin” has a long history of being used in a non-pejorative context and is probably better placed alongside other antiquated and now little-used descriptors such as “Eskimo”, “Oriental”, or “Negro” than with the N-word, which has never really been used in a non-pejorative context. It is, like those other three quoted terms, basically a word white people used to label an ethnic group without consulting said group on what they would like to be called, which is precisely why it has become antiquated and offensive.
None of this, of course, is a good reason to retain the name for the football team, but it is a big reason why many folks don’t see it as a slur. Even so, most of those same folks would never consider using it in any context outside of the name of the football team, because they know it will not be well-received.
All three of those are considered slurs. “Eskimo” is considered pejorative, as in, it’s a slur regardless of context, same as “Redskin.”
I did not intend to suggest that none of these terms are slurs, I only intended to point out that their histories of being used in a non-pejorative context makes some people relatively comfortable seeing them in use even today.
Little reminder they were the last team to integrate.
The name I think would work is one that is not derogatory (I think) and keeps the heritage of the team.
I propose The Washington Natives
That could work but I’d prefer Foreskins.
daaaaaaaaaaaveeee
mahomes has beaten the nba gods
we better get one hell of a money fort comic
*everyone else* comes here for vitriolic political discussion
*me an intellectual* wants to see how mahomes breaks the money saga wise open
in times like these we have to remember what’s truly important
Once he receives the ring that he had won, he will become the ultimate life form!
Redskins needs to be changed.
It sounds like the Indians are going to change their name too, which I have no strong feelings about. I’ll root for them either way. I just hope they pick a good one. The leading contenders right now are two historical ones: the Naps (the name they had right before they changed it to Indians), which I don’t like despite its history because it invites a lot of obvious jokes about sleeping and is a little too close to Nats; and Spiders, which I don’t get, because why would you name yourself after a team that got screwed so bad by its owners before dying a slow death that they had to put a rule in place preventing people from owning multiple teams?
My favorite is Guardians, after the designs on the stanchions of the bridge that runs past Jacobs Field. I also wouldn’t mind seeing them pick up the Barons name, since the hockey team doesn’t ever plan to use it.
Emmitt Smith had the best compromise.
Just
Call them the Skins
and their logo can be a peg board in hannibal’s freezer with a bunch of faces dangling from it
Their mascot can be Leatherface!
I think The way to do it is to lean into it. The Powhatan tribes were the natives that lived in the area before European settlers arrived. There are still several tribes that have retained their original Reservations in Virginia from the 17th and 18th Centuries. Those tribes have Elders and Spokespersons. Talk to the actual representatives of the group you’re trying to use as a mascot and see how they feel. the “Washington Powhatans” doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, but it’s a thought. maybe they have a term in language for a warrior or hero that would be appropriate. And then you give them *100%* design authority over the mascot, so its actually representative of the culture, rather than being a racist stereotype. American Girl did something similar, put in the effort, and made a product and story that is well-liked by the people in question.
You can lean into the theme in a way that is respectful, you just have to care enough to put some effort into it
Apparently “Potomac” is Algonquian for “River of Swans,” so how about the Swans?
We could cause all sorts of chaos and tell newer generations that the Buffalo Bills were named after a movie character who was inspired by a serial killer. You could tell them how he would skin his victims. Hell, for that matter, Buffalo Bill could be the Bills mafia leader who then skins the name (and possibly more) away from the Redskins. That would be a….weird comic idea. Too weird.
Keep the logo and colors.
Rename the team the Washington Americans.
PS: I thought I was brilliant when I came up with this a few years ago; apparently Olbermann beat me to it in a tweet…
It’s just weird to use a group of human beings who exist as a vulnerable or historically discriminated-against minority, as a team mascot. Imagine:
Washington Immigrants
Washington Paraplegics
Washington Poors
Washington Jews
Washington Women
They all seem really odd, right? OK you can have an asterisk and then explain in the footnote how you totally intend to honor and support the rights of your chosen minority with this team name, but… team names shouldn’t need footnotes.
So basically: the argument about whether or not the specific term “Redskins” is offensive is a red herring. It’s just weird and wrong to reference some term for a minority, to which your team members or owners do not belong, as a mascot. It’s appropriation.
The Washington Redskins are not native americans, they’re not owned by any tribal organization, and their locals and fans are mostly not native americans either.
I’m in favor of the name suggested in The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt: the Washington Gun Takers. Fans burning expensive team jerseys is good for business.
Considering the ‘Skins use the term “‘Skins” often and their linemen were famously called the hogs, why not just call them the Pigskins and/or Hogs? They could use all the same stuff outside the Native American logo.