I Think if they took Buffalo's name (The Bills) it would accurately reflect their city (Bills being passed by law). Buffalo could then be the Hot Wings.
There was once a Scrabble tournament airing on ESPN. There were a list of legal scrabble words players were not allowed to use because they were on TV. One of the words was: Redskins. I'm of two minds on this issue. On the one hand it is the most offensive name in all of sports by far. On the other hand people my age and younger (32) don't really associate the word redskin with a native American. I think a decent compromise is to keep the name but disassociate itself with any Native American connotation.
FedEx (stadium name sponsor) has asked for a name change; Nike removed their products from online store
[QUOTE="DonnyMost, post: 7519486, member: [/quote] It's like having a team named the "Darkies" or "Crackers".[/QUOTE] Except it isn't. Teams are named after things thst are respected and honored, not after things that are denigrated. So, you'd never see the examples you cited, nor are they good comparisons.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...a11cfa-161a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html That being said, if 1/10 natives do see it that way, I can see why there's a push to change it.
I'm still skeptical that this is going to happen, but we'll see. The name change debate has been happening for decades...decades, lol. There's even a book written in 2001 titled, "Redskins: racial slur or name of honor" or something like that and presents both sides. Different polls have shown different results, but the two biggest arguments for me as as follows: -Many pro-Redskins have been using that name in an honorable way their entire lives (though it's not like the NFL has been around for centuries, lol), but intent does have value -Expansionist settlers were paid by local governments during the Extermination era (I mean, that alone is just wow. Policies regarding Indians: Assimilation, Removal, Extermination) like $250 per Redskin scalp. You have to prove you killed an Indian by having red skin on the scalp. Many Mexicans were mistakenly killed during this policy. So it's an interesting debate. Agreed that it's not exactly like the N word, but similarities can be drawn to those who argue that the word should be dis-empowered by using it normally. I first read that argument in a Slam magazine in the early 2000's, and more recently it was a joke Donald Glover told about Charlie Sheen calling Denise Richards the N word. Redskin started off as worse than a slur in my opinion, as a policy reference to how to properly claim your reward for killing an Indian. Over time though, the meaning evolved and got muddled and some saw it as a slur, while others revered it in only positive light In the grand scheme, it's the right thing to do to change it, but it's not like 80/20 right/wrong for me. Ultimately though, Snyder has the right not to change it, but if the market forces his hand, then that's the world we live in. All the old codgers who fall under the Trump spell of hate and see this as a bigger part of destroying history - those jerks should direct their anger towards the market. Because if your money is big enough, the tides will change again.
It's like having a team named the "Darkies" or "Crackers".[/QUOTE] Except it isn't. Teams are named after things thst are respected and honored, not after things that are denigrated. So, you'd never see the examples you cited, nor are they good comparisons.[/QUOTE] There was a high school in Chicago that were the Fighting Chinks..... and their mascot was called Bamboo. Should they have kept their team name and mascot?....... was this done out of respect and honor? Have you ever considered that maybe these team names dehumanize the groups they are named after? No one would stand for the Washington "Shylocks" or the Washington "Coons"....... yet we are to believe that calling a football team the "Redskins" is an honor to Native Americans? GTFO....... the term even in the late 1800's was used as offensive. It is humiliating that in the year 2020 we still have a major professional American sports team named after a clearly racist slur.... and don't tell me it is tradition, because it was tradition to call black people ******* too and we stopped allowing that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_Whites eta: Wahepton Wops, Dickinson State Savages...I particularly like this one: 1975: St. Bonaventure University drops the name Brown Squaws for its women’s teams when, as one former player put it, “a Seneca chief and clan mothers came over from the reservation and asked us to stop using the name, because it meant vagina.” Seventeen years later, men’s and women’s team names are officially changed from the Brown Indians to the Bonnies. https://www.motherjones.com/politic...ory-offensive-sports-mascots-redskins-snyder/
I don't know about that, or any, high school team. Can you provide any evidence that the name Redskins was chosen out of any attempt to denigrate or dishonor them? Do you disagree that mascots are chosen to represent desirable qualities, with perhaps rare lower level exceptions such as the one you mentioned? Can you name any professional team, or even college, team in the US whose mascot was chosen to ridicule or denigrate anyone? This is all important in answering your question. Yes, I understand that the term 'Redskins' was used derogatively in the past...although I'm not sure that in the context that happened that ANY name used to refer to Indians at that time wouldn't have been used the same way..it was more the view of Indians by many at the time moreso than the name they were given. ie, I'm not sure that Redskins was created to denigrate, like coons or crackers, or was merely more descriptive. In any case...were names such as the Indians, Redskins, Seminoles, etc. chosen to denigrate those groups, or to represent positive things, like fighting spirit, etc. I'm assuming the latter, as that's what mascots are chosen for. If you have any evidence of the former, please do provide. Given that, I think it is at least discussable whether that does dehumanize those groups. The Irish was denigrated pretty much everywhere they settled in the US, and were known for being a cantankerous, fighting lot because of it. They were usually the group the other groups chose to separate themselves from, and look down upon. Does The Fighting Irish denigrate all Irish? Or does it proudly proclaim Irish heritage and fighting spirit? if late 1800's is the best you got, you mostly have nothin'. Also, see above...what makes Redskins different than Fighting Irish? Or any of a host of other names with similar backgrounds? Humilating is a strong term, given the discussion on how mascots are used and named, but I am aware of the history of the name. But many names have history like that...which doesn't change that it is actually used as a term of honor in the context of the mascot. At the very least, the overall context should be part of the discussion.
Hey look, here's one we forgot to massacre who we can use to defend a team who's founder wouldn't sign black players while Jim Brown and Deacon Jones were in the league.
Hey it only took the President of the USA threatening to pull the stadium on federal land to get the Redskins owner to bring in a black player. The owner died being a strong segregationist and referred to his players as “my negras”. So calling them the Redskins through July of 2020 just fits the narrative.... but remember they were named the Redskins out of respect...
I know a similar story about Jerry Jones when they had camp in Austin - which of course would surprise absolutely no one.