You aren't answering my question. Does Oklahoma need to change its name? Whether the term 'redskins' is racist or not depends on historical context. As I stated earlier Chinaman is offensive and Irishman or Frenchman are not. This is because of historical context. You seem to suggest 'redskins' is racist despite any knowledge of it origin and history. I simply provided you some, the choctaw Indians wanted their territory called the Territory of the Red People and thus the name oklahoma. How do u know I am white?
The name should be changed if Native Americans feel it's dehumanizing. However, I do think the name change could actually negatively impact the franchise. The team will most likely not have on the field success any time soon. They've been hemorrhaging fans the past two decades, and it has really accelerated recently. If you symbolically sever that link with a new name, some of the old school die-hards might even start losing interest, and then I don't know what you even have left. Maybe it will financially ruin the team enough, so that Dan Snyder is forced to sell. Could be a silver lining. I'd say avoid Disney names (not another Wizards-like name), and avoid copying a generic name from some other league (Washington Warriors sounds cool and would work without significantly changing the logo...but the Golden State Warriors, ugh).
The context was Whites description of Native Americans, using it as a slur in the 19 century. Redskins and logo are OVERTLY racist. Oklahoma name change is irrelevant to Redskins. Oklahoma name has a disputed meaning. That would be a discussion for the Native Americans who live there and the residents of that state. You would never hear Chinese people call themselves “Chinamen”, Ive heard many people call themselves “Irishman”. Chinamen was used as a slur, as a was “Japs”.
this may have been posted previously, but the Washington Post reported in 2016 about a poll of Native Americans on the subject, claiming 9 out of 10 individuals polled were not offended by the name. This polling result obviously may not be the case today. https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...a11cfa-161a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html excerpt: Nine in 10 Native Americans say they are not offended by the Washington Redskins name, according to a new Washington Post poll that shows how few ordinary Indians have been persuaded by a national movement to change the football team’s moniker. The survey of 504 people across every state and the District reveals that the minds of Native Americans have remained unchanged since a 2004 poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found the same result. Responses to The Post’s questions about the issue were broadly consistent regardless of age, income, education, political party or proximity to reservations. Among the Native Americans reached over a five-month period ending in April, more than 7 in 10 said they did not feel the word “Redskin” was disrespectful to Indians. An even higher number — 8 in 10 — said they would not be offended if a non-native called them that name. The question remains if there is a threshold re: "Native Americans feel it's dehumanizing" beyond which the name change should occur? and where would that threshold be?
I know in MN which has had a large Native population there have been m protests led by. native Americans the last few years when the DC team has played in Minneapolis
Have they been hemorrhaging fans because people are upset about calls to change the name or because of poor on field performance and front office mismanagement? I would guess the latter. it’s also possible that a name change would attract new fans. At the minimum it would be a good branding opportunity. This is the first time I’ve heard of DC Red Tails but that seems like a great name. It’s too bad they didn’t consider it a few years ago when the movie came out. Also with very few Tuskegee Airman alive if they want to change it should do it sooner than later
Yes, they've been losing fans because of the on-the-field performance. More casual, relatively recent/younger fans have been the first to go, and the die-hards who were around for the glory years are still hanging on. I'm just speculating that a name change could be the final push the older fans need to also abandon ship as the symbolic link to the past no longer exists. At that point, I don't know what they really have left. Without improvement in on-the-field performance the fanbase is going to continue to diminish no matter what. I just wouldn't be surprised if a name change accelerated that a bit.
Living in DC it is amazing to me how many people here have such a total blindspot on the obvious just... ick factor of the name 'Redskins'. Even if the name doesn't bother the vast majority of American Indians, even if the context of its usage in the NFL was never meant as derogatory or a slur... It's still uncomfortable at best.
Exactly, I’m embarrassed as a white man. It’s like bringing a friend from up north or introducing a foreigner to your residence. “Oh yeah my area commemorates an army that went to war against the United States to preserve slavery...and if you go a few states over there’s a football team in the nation’s capital that is named after an ethnic slur referring to the skin tone of indigenous people that we slaughtered.”
When I hear Washington Generals, all I think about is the team that gets made a fool of by the Harlem globetrotters. That's really a serious option?
Washington Pigskins It's ridiculous, funny, unique, memorable, kitschy. One might even say, "bad" (in the so bad it's good way). I'll take that over some generic name. Can keep 'Skinz nickname. Can re-use Hail to the Redskins with slight mod Has an obvious football connotation Contains a reference to the 80s/90s historic offensive line (The Hogs)
I know you were making a joke, but I looked up Pigskin for the heck of it on wikipedia. Someone was quick on their feet and made an edit today. The first bullet: A derogatory term for white people I lol'd. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigskin
