The Official ES All Things Redskins Name Change Thread (Reboot Edition---Read New OP)

[Llevron]

4 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

I agree, they're changes for good and bit by bit they work towards good goals, however people do take their eye off the ball.  I'm pro-name change and I'm glad it's happening but it sucks that it took sponsors to twist Danny's arm to do it.  

 

It does suck but the truth is money talks in this country. If you use it to your advantage, you have alot more leverage. And people learning this is almost as good as people learning to take part in local government. Its been a long time coming. I really think if it wasn't for the internet we wouldn't have this kind of action because people wouldn't know their voice matters ......but only half as much as their dollars.  

 

It sucks that Danny is that guy, but we knew this about him anyway. We have said for years the only reason we dont win is because he focuses more on making money than anything else. This is all the proof I need of that. 

3 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

No way they give us 5 prime time games, unless it's against a top tier team and we're essentially their homecoming opponent, ie, doormat.  IIRC, we don't have any prime time games this year and it's because we've been bad to mediocre for so long.  The NFL also doesn't want post commercial break shots of a half empty Fed Ex Field, too.

 

I feel you but I do think there is something to be gained by having the new team name that they changed because they are SO understanding and REALLY care about inequality and social justice getting plastered on national TV a few ts this year. Its good business for them. There is a term people have been using on the internet to describe this. I think its virtue signaling or something. Dont quote me 

[Riggo#44]

11 hours ago, goskins10 said:

In 10 yrs, it will be a faint memory and most no one will care.

 

Like Wizards/Bullets. People may also see it as a massive overreaction too.

[Simmsy]

15 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

This is embarrassing

 

I don't know why we can't have both. People are working on police reform. NBC can't legislate police reform but what they can do is use the moment to be more inclusive. What others can do is use the moment to remove statues and monuments that glorify racism. 

 

I accept all these positive changes but if the ball gets dropped or we come up short on the intended goal, then we pick it up and try again. Doesn't make small minor improvements made along the path bad or comical or ill-intentioned

I know there is already a thread for this, so I won't harp on it too much. So in what, ten years, we have to do this all over again? The politicians and police are going to tell us that we need to review and take the process slow and make sure its done right. How many times are we going to have to start over? Is anything actually being done and reviewed? The next time this happens are we actually going to "start" to do something...again? This reminds me of the "with all deliberate speed" argument with segregation, just a stall tactic. 

[gbear]

I personally want the "Red Tails," but I expect to have about as much luck as I had when I wanted the team that became the Nationals to go for the Washington "Grays."  It would be nice if there was one professional sport team with a name that honors a peace of Black history.  To do that might ease some of the Redskins history (last team to integrate and slight some take at the name).  

[Spaceman Spiff]

29 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

It does suck but the truth is money talks in this country. If you use it to your advantage, you have alot more leverage. And people learning this is almost as good as people learning to take part in local government. Its been a long time coming. I really think if it wasn't for the internet we wouldn't have this kind of action because people wouldn't know their voice matters ......but only half as much as their dollars.  

 

It sucks that Danny is that guy, but we knew this about him anyway. We have said for years the only reason we dont win is because he focuses more on making money than anything else. This is all the proof I need of that. 

 

I should also have mentioned it sucks that it took Fed Ex that long to twist his arm if they really felt that way.  I mean, let's think about it...they're a shipping and logistics company, they don't have a big platform to really reach people and march towards social justice.  Fed Ex shows up and you're happy you got your stuff on time, that's about as far as anyone allows them into their consciousness.  They provide a service but there's no real social justice aspect to their customers.  

 

So in a time where a lot of people (rightly or selfishly, it doesn't matter) want to show show what side of history they're on, this is the best they can do, publicly, to get their name out there and show what a good company they are...twist a football owners arm to change the nickname of the team in which they play or else they end their sponsorship...it's kind of weak.  I mean, they didn't mention any of this 7 or 8 years ago when the name debate kicked up, they didn't think it was a good idea then?  Fed Ex is suddenly propping themselves up in this time we're in as a good, morally virtuous company by putting down Danny and the Redskins and saying "Do this, or else," when they never really seemed to care in the first place a long time ago, hell, even 3 weeks ago.  All of a sudden Fed Ex looks like a good guy in this fight, which is weird.

 

To your points, I sort of agree with the first...if it wasn't for the internet, we wouldn't have this kind of action, maybe not as much of it.  Dr. King didn't have the internet, he did a lot in spite of that.  But the internet definitely helps exchanging ideas and raising awareness and staying on top of news items.  IMO, where it doesn't do good is someone with 150 followers on twitter posting "BLM!..."  It's essentially peeing in the ocean.  It's also getting to a point now where there's just entirely too much news to consume.  It seems like you could easily take your entire workday to not work and read and watch everything and still not know about everything that's going on.  

 

In regards to Danny caring about money, he does.  He absolutely does.  But it would behoove him to make this team a winner if he wanted to make more money.  The argument of "we don't win because he focuses on making money" doesn't hold water for me, it never has.  If the Redskins had Patriots-like success over Danny's tenure, he'd be absolutely rolling in money.  The team would be worth more, he'd sell more tickets and parking (and be able to charge more for them, too) sell more concessions, gear and all the other added monetary benefits that you get from having a winning organization.  Losing football games year after year, combined with all the other things he's done doesn't translate into being more profitable, IMO.  He's losing attendance, he's losing fans, he's losing overall general interest in his football team...that, IMO, doesn't translate to making money.  Yes, he's still profitable but I don't think he's as profitable as he would be if the team was consistently good to great.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

As I muse on what I personally perceive my teams history and heritage being taken away from me and ending my connection to them, I wonder how, for example,  the good people of Green Bay, who live for their football like arguably no other place in the NFL, and who suffered through some equally dire times like we have since the last of our 3 rings for 2 decades and more from Lombardi to finally getting back to and winning the SB (with their franchise a complete league wide laughing stock); would have reacted had that ownership group wanted to rebrand them for financial gain? Which is the main crux here however it's spun. 

 

Hail. 

[Spaceman Spiff]

30 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

 

I feel you but I do think there is something to be gained by having the new team name that they changed because they are SO understanding and REALLY care about inequality and social justice getting plastered on national TV a few ts this year. Its good business for them. There is a term people have been using on the internet to describe this. I think its virtue signaling or something. Dont quote me 

 

Agreed, it's possible to get a game nationally because of the name change the NFL might want to highlight it and tell the story.  Maybe they could get a flex game later in the season if that's still a thing, but only if the opponent is in the playoff hunt and they need a win against us to either get in or keep their chances alive.  I don't think we outright get a nationally televised game strictly based off the name change.   But their national televised record is so terrible, I don't want that.  They **** the bed in such a spectacular fashion on prime-time games, it's unbelievable. 

 

And yes, virtue signaling is a thing.

[clskinsfan]

On 4/5/2013 at 8:32 PM, Destino said:

Number five in your list is ridiculous. The present outweighs the past whe it comes to language. If times change and the word means something else the history becomes an interesting bit of trivia. I agree that it's not the ONLY thing that matters but current meaning outweighs everything significantly. I'm not sure there is even room for a debate there. I can't think if anyone using an accepted but of hate speech and justifying it by rattling off some history and be taken seriously by anyone.

The question with the redskins name is, is it hate speech? I don't think that's been proven.

Unfortunately "hate speech" has become whatever a pathetic angry mob says it is. 

[KWilliamsAWinfield]

1 hour ago, primetime441 said:

Snyder should leverage this; I would go to the D.C. counsel and tell them they're a huge factor in the name change. If he can somehow void the Landover deal and build a new stadium in D.C. within the new two years, this "new" franchise has a chance. Otherwise, our already dwindling fanbase will continue falling into abyss.  I'd also go to the NFL and try to get at least 5 primetime games. He's going to need exposure.

Do you really want to see Washington get embarrassed on 5 primetime games? 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

1 hour ago, Simmsy said:

I know there is already a thread for this, so I won't harp on it too much. So in what, ten years, we have to do this all over again? The politicians and police are going to tell us that we need to review and take the process slow and make sure its done right. How many times are we going to have to start over? Is anything actually being done and reviewed? The next time this happens are we actually going to "start" to do something...again? This reminds me of the "with all deliberate speed" argument with segregation, just a stall tactic. 

 

I don't think we need to wait 10 years. There is legislation for police reform that has already passed the house and more being written. We also have Minneapolis abolishing their police force and creating something new in it's place. We may have an example next year (if I recall that timeline correctly) of how we can make this transition that others will follow. Change is coming and if it doesn't happen quick enough, we will need to hold responsible those people who didn't act. 

 

I personally believe that the more things change like the Redskins name, shows being more inclusive, sponsors aka money speaking out, the more likely real change will come as it starts to snowball and becomes more and more difficult to ignore. So I don't view these as easy giveaways to satisfy masses i view them as meaningful reminders of the change that is continuing amid the current movement and momentum toward the systemic change we desire. 

 

But i also understand that my perspective as a 33 yr old white guy is entirely different from those of minorities and their valid frustrations over the speed of this change and the belief that it will fall short again so I respect that and can only hope and act toward ensuring that the change we get meets the moment and the needs we have

[JoeJacobyHOForRIOT]

‘Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.’

[LD0506]

There is a convergence here of current events and long simmering resentments and inept ownership and.....well, all of it.

 

This is a phenomenal opportunity.

 

Change the name, change the team, change the culture and dump the whole dragging media baggage load that has gone on for years now.

 

Just let it go.

 

Remake the franchise, let it be reborn from the ashes into something better. There are a lot of pieces in place right now, having the young roster define a new name, let them feel invested in writing their own history, a new coaching staff that can just play hard n fast n loose and make their own name for what they have built.

 

Gotta demo before you build, same as it ever was

[Momma There Goes That Man]

3 minutes ago, JoeJacobyHOForRIOT said:

‘Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.’

 

You realize none of this applies to the renaming of a ****ing football team, right?

 

Just now, LD0506 said:

Change the name, change the team, change the culture and dump the whole dragging media baggage load that has gone on for years now.

 

Just let it go.

 

Remake the franchise, let it be reborn from the ashes into something better. There are a lot of pieces in place right now, having the young roster define a new name, let them feel invested in writing their own history, a new coaching staff that can just play hard n fast n loose and make their own name for what they have built.

 

Gotta demo before you build, same as it ever was

 

This is why I support an entire rebrand. New colors of red, white and blue to match the other DC teams, new logos, no NA imagery. Just start fresh. 

 

But they want to change as little as possible and are concerned with keeping hashtags and a fight song so they will change the name and that's probably it. They'll completely botch this opportunity like they do everything else and it will feel half assed instead of the beginning of a new era like it should

[MartinC]

2 hours ago, Simmsy said:

As a black person I'm kinda disappointed in this whole thing. Changing the names of things, taking down things and firing idiots who say dumb stuff on camera is great...but I want police reform. Is this what I have to settle for? A Redskins name change and a cancelled, kid's tv show about puppies as cops? I'll say this as nicely as possible: this is what happens when white people get a hold of the narrative...on either side. They set the boundaries and now I'm a racist if I don't fall in line with what the majority of white people arbitrarily decide is now racism.

Let’s hope it’s not either or. And that all these easy symbolic gestures don’t end up being the sum of the change. Because if they are you will have every right to be seriously pissed off.

[Jumbo]

 

 

@JoeJacobyHOForRIOT

 

love your user name

 

i see you in both threads and get that you're upset about a number of things

 

two different mods at minimum to my knowledge have posted on keeping the more general political polemics reigned in and to focus content on the name chance specifically...and anyone paying needed <key word> attention has seen additional mod posts and even bans related to this 

 

so turn it down from 11 to 7-8 so i don't have to use the remote

 

  

 

as always, if anyone having a comment to make on this post  it needs to go in the proper forum and not in this thread, per rule 18 

[RichmondRedskin88]

3 hours ago, Simmsy said:

As a black person I'm kinda disappointed in this whole thing. Changing the names of things, taking down things and firing idiots who say dumb stuff on camera is great...but I want police reform. Is this what I have to settle for? A Redskins name change and a cancelled, kid's tv show about puppies as cops? I'll say this as nicely as possible: this is what happens when white people get a hold of the narrative...on either side. They set the boundaries and now I'm a racist if I don't fall in line with what the majority of white people arbitrarily decide is now racism.

I want to hug you until your eyes pop out.  I’m getting so tired of other white people.  I keep seeing them put posts like we don’t want to be represented by this or we don’t want that while speaking from a position only another race could speak from.  I find myself screaming “Your white stfu. Stop speaking for other races.”  Do I think we have a right to have opinion on things going on? Absolutely though from my observation people are likely not listening unless it falls completely in line with their views right now.  But man I’m tired of it.  Then again it’s no different than rioters that hijack the protests.  I even bet the ones burning the flags over the weekend weren’t even protestors.  They just knew they would end up everywhere for doing something that and that’s what they wanted.  

[SkinsHokieFan]

3 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

 

I don't know much about Qualtrics and how they do their online panels.  But assuming they do a good job at making them, there is no real reason to believe it is wrong vs. the Washington Post survey.  And I certainly have no reason to believe that they do a less good job than the Washington Post at setting up a representative population of Native Americans.

 

@PeterMP Sorry its been a busy day, I do owe you a much longer response

 

1) I have worked closely with Qualtrics for years now and have gotten to know the CEO a bit since I started using the platform in 2016. Mostly for B2B surveys, but they have top notch panels which they draw from many other sources, amongst them SSI (which recently merged with another company I cannot remember) 

 

2) The screener questions the Washington Post used in the "self identification" process prior to the actual survey questions being asked is the big differentatiotor. It doesn't appear the Berkley survey did that, and was in fact building a biased sample by not having certain screeners. Which is why I would use the WaPo's methods over the Berkley methodology. 

 

It is a shame, because in theory they both would have used very similar screeners, methods and sample size. Folks are comparing apples and mangos here 

[BurgundyMalaise]

I like Rivera but I really don't get why a guy in his first year with the organization has damn near top authority to rename an original NFL franchise from 1932, with generations and millions of people vested for probably their whole lives. Instead of a Cowher, Tomlin, Harbaugh, Coughlin, etc. type staying power figure, we have a guy who hasn't proven jack **** to the fanbase making a call like that and the momentum for this hit critical mass in like, what, a week? Geez.

 

I understand why we need to change the name but the reasons for the actual move make me annoyed and angry- phony corporate posturing to sanctimonious white people drinking Pinot and typing on Twitter and Facebook. I understand that there is notable NA groups that have been fighting hard for a change but make no mistake, nobody would even care if it wasn't for the group think of "journalists" and the sudden need to stand on a soapbox for everything from the general public.

 

I've made my peace with it but the amount of phoniness to actually get the tide to change this fast and drastically stinks of some bigger issues for the future of America but that's neither here nor there.

 

I still say the democracy of the Native peoples should decide this issue once and for all. Each chief acts as delegates and the representative of the tribe/area and we do this thing the way we do things within a republic. But ya know..NFL, Nike, FedEx, etc. etc. 

 

Corporations rule this nation.

[Skinsinparadise]

Despite Snyder’s protests, changing the name was going to happen. That it happens at this point in time — with the nation both trying to deal with the pandemic and grappling with intense and emotional issues of racial discrimination — is not just appropriate; it’s absolutely necessary.

 

For Daniel Snyder, it is also an opportunity, whether he sees it or not. It’s an opportunity to initiate a reboot and a rebranding of both his team and his stewardship of it. It’s an opportunity to address the mistakes of the past and articulate how he’s learned from them in hopes of building a better future. It’s an opportunity to re-engage fans who he first took for granted and then absolutely estranged.

Put aside the errors of the past two decades. They are part of this franchise’s history. What lies ahead is a chance for a better future. Where the local football team is concerned, will Daniel Snyder take it?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/07/06/daniel-snyder-can-view-this-moment-an-ultimatum-or-an-opportunity/?utm_campaign=wp_redskins&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

[Mr. Sinister]

Snyder and learning don't really seem to jive with each other.

 

I can easily recall all the times he's said he'd "Learned" from one of his screwups, only to find new and inventive ways to fail spectacularly 

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, SkinsHokieFan said:

 

@PeterMP Sorry its been a busy day, I do owe you a much longer response

 

1) I have worked closely with Qualtrics for years now and have gotten to know the CEO a bit since I started using the platform in 2016. Mostly for B2B surveys, but they have top notch panels which they draw from many other sources, amongst them SSI (which recently merged with another company I cannot remember) 

 

2) The screener questions the Washington Post used in the "self identification" process prior to the actual survey questions being asked is the big differentatiotor. It doesn't appear the Berkley survey did that, and was in fact building a biased sample by not having certain screeners. Which is why I would use the WaPo's methods over the Berkley methodology. 

 

It is a shame, because in theory they both would have used very similar screeners, methods and sample size. Folks are comparing apples and mangos here 

 

I'm not sure what you mean.  How do you think they found the people that they are considering Native Americans without a question about it?  Qualtrics did the screening for them (and apparently Qualtrics originally screened for "Native American Heritage", but all of those people then didn't self-identify as "Native American" racially so they had them go back and redo the screening.)

 

"During initial data collection, Qualtrics recruited participants who identified as having “Native heritage”. Some of these participants, however, did not self-identify as Native Americans. When we learned about this targeting strategy, we asked Qualtrics to only target individuals who self-identified as Native American. Because we did not intend to recruit individuals who identified as having Native heritage but did not identify racially as Native American, we did not include these participants in the main manuscript. In this appendix, we report analyses that include these participants."

 

https://osf.io/b89xq/?view_only=b6a148dd892e4619bf61fcd0ea2e8918

 

The study included people screened by Qualtrics as being Native American.

 

And I suspect that's actually the biggest difference between the two polls.  As somebody else suggested, I suspect that the Washington Post polls do end up pulling in people that like Elizabeth Warren, while I suspect the Berkely study actually weeded out many of those people (and that jives with their results in that while a very small sample size people that identified as having a Native American heritage, but not being Native American don't care about the Redskins names.)  

 

And realistically, that sort of issue isn't surprising.   About 18% of people that self-identify as atheist will also say they believe in God or a higher power.  So in a very large population of people that aren't atheist polling the attitudes of atheist is going to heavily depend on whether you pull those people out or not.

 

I suspect by asking if you have Native heritage and then asking if you are Native American (as Qualtrics appears to have done (though the Berkely study doesn't give you data on the Qualtrics screening process really), you do get a different sample set.  Though, I'm not sure I'd include one set as biased vs. the other.

 

(I do feel like looking at this more, the Washington Post study did find 21% say that the term Redskins is disrepectful.)

[Boss_Hogg]

So yeah, we are 100% changing the name now

 

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

What's the fable of the Cleveland Indians?  Not winning a World Series since 1948?

[Llevron]

Dumb ass basically cemented it himself lol. What a trash human. His mother must be so proud. 

[Dissident2]

Long post, but I just need a place to vent, so ... whether this is read by anyone or not, I have helped my mental state this day by putting my feelings into words. Bravo, me. 

 

Times like these often remind me of a saying I once read that has resonated strongly with me ever since: "Revolutions have a way of becoming institutions." 

 

This was said by Bono, of all people, but he was describing the punk rock movement of the late 70s. Punk started as a pure, emotion-driven response to what was then seen as the "elitist" nature of rock and roll and its star system. You had to be a master of your instrument to be considered a "real" musician ... you had to write bloated, 10-minute songs with numerous solos throughout ... you had to have long hair ... you had to have a huge spectacle of a stage show ... you had to indulge in illicit drug use, orgies and money-sucking activities that flaunted your obscene wealth. Punk was a natural, pure reaction to this, as well as to a lot of the societal issues that young people felt weren't being addressed by the music of the day, music they felt was out of touch with their daily lives and struggles.

 

And so, punk became a way for the once "misfits" and "outcasts" to get their voice heard, a way for people who wanted to express themselves musically to do so without having to fit into a pre-ordained "uniform" or cookie-cutter image, a way for the ones not invited to the party to throw a big party of their own. It was freedom of a sort. And what happened? Once there was a hint of popularity (meaning $), record companies swooped in. Bands were signed left and right to big corporate labels. Suddenly, a set of rules on what it meant to be "punk" came into play: you couldn't have long hair ... you couldn't play certain types of instruments ... couldn't hold your instrument in a certain way ... you couldn't write certain types of songs ... you couldn't sing about certain types of subjects ... you couldn't like certain bands ... Cross the new "punk aristocracy," and you could expect to be ridiculed, marginalized and demonized. In short, punk became the same restrictive institution it had once set out to topple. 

 

I've always felt that example to be analogous to so many social issues. Take what we now call "political correctness" for example. Those initiatives sprang from ABSOLUTELY important and noble motives, and they fought against practices and demeaning stereotypes that ABSOLUTELY hurt groups of people and needed to be abolished. But when someone gains a measure of social currency and power, it's human nature - no matter what race you represent - to potentially abuse it. In my opinion, that happened in many cases. People losing entire careers for things they may have said as teenagers ... people being forced to adhere to a new and very specific lexicon or be branded "racist" or "misogynist" or a variety of other labels that end in "ist." In short, the revolution became the institution. I think we're seeing the backlash to that in our nation's current state, i.e., an extreme reaction from one side to extremism from the other side. 

 

I naturally lean toward the left in most things.  However, I pride myself on being a centrist when and as often as I can. Some people falsely equate that to "fence-sitting" or not being brave enough to have a strong opinion. Nonsense. To me, it's being brave enough to express what you consider to be the RIGHT opinion, even if that opinion isn't taken from the playbook you usually draw from. So many people seem so incapable of seeing the intricacies of an issue, of painting with a detailed brush rather than with a broad, broom-sized stroke. 

 

And now I get to the name change. I believe the name "Redskins" should be changed. I've felt that way for awhile now, although I've never taken that belief to activist levels. I simply think the word is no longer relevant in our society, and I would never use the term in daily life outside of referring to the football team. In other words, I would never feel comfortable casually referring to a Native American as a "Redskin," and that's become my personal measuring stick for where I stand on the issue. It just doesn't feel right. That said, I never thought the name was given to this team as an overt attempt to disparage or mock Native Americans. After all, who would buy a team and name it after a race of people they despised? That said, original intentions aside, I understand how the name can be seen as a slur and cause pain/hurt/insult to a substantial group, even if there are many others from that same group who love the name and have no issues with it. But when does everyone agree on a subject wholly? Sometimes, you have to listen to the arguments on both sides and then make what you consider to be the best decision. That's how I view the name. It's time for a change. 

 

Many of my "woke" friends (usually younger) would applaud this stance, but so many don't stop there. For them, the logo/mascot is also "racist," an assertion that just drives me nuts to no end, especially considering it was REALISTICALLY based on the image of Chief Two Guns White Calf (one of the coolest names ever). For me, it's always been a beautiful, noble, inspiring image. I mean, this isn't "Chief Wahoo" territory we're in here.  Not even close. I never understood that criticism. To me, that's where things that originally began based on pure and thoughtful motives become warped, where the revolution begins to approach institution status. So once I school people on the origins of the logo, who it was fashioned after, the fact that a Native American actually inspired its creation and that it was unanimously approved by Native American leaders in 1971, then it turns to, "Well, it's racist to have a race of people represent a football team." 

 

Is it? While it COULD be if done in a certain way, I generally reject that viewpoint when it's presented in that broad, generalized brush stroke, and I totally reject it in the case of this team. Plus, let's take that logic to its ultimate conclusion. What about vehicles with NA names? Will you have to turn in your "Jeep Cherokee," "Dodge Dakota" or any and everything made by Pontiac because your vehicle is guilty of cultural appropriation? Is it time for the military to ground the Apache Helicopter? States need to rethink their names as well. Oklahoma (which means "Red People"), I'm looking at you. 

 

So here we have that example of an inability to appreciate the detail of an issue, using a grenade to fish rather than a carefully baited hook. It's quite possible to think the name should change while the NA imagery and tie-ins should not. 

 

I live in the area, but I was originally a Colts fan. BALTIMORE Colts. Yes, I'm getting old. When I was a kid, I became obsessed with NA culture. I mean, totally obsessed. I bought NA toys, I read book after book on the subject, I could tell you about all the major qualities of almost every tribe. Something about the way they carried themselves, the way they lived (speaking in generalities here), the things they believed in, the way they valued nature and saw beauty in so many of the things we take for granted, the way they FOUGHT when necessary ... it just connected with me. I specifically remember the joy I'd feel reading about the Battle of Little Bighorn and seeing how Custer finally got his comeuppance. Never wanted to be a cowboy in the back yard. I'd always be the Indian. One day, I heard a song called "Please, Mr. Custer," and I became obsessed with that. I played it over and over, and it had a line that said, "There's a Redskin waiting out there, fixin' to take my hair." 

 

I realized that "Redskin" referred to American Indians. I then realized that was the name of another local football team and that THEY must represent American Indians, too. At that point, buh-bye Colts. I was six. I was too young to understand the issues with the name "Redskin." To my young brain, it was interpreted simplistically: "Yeah, they have a reddish skin tone, makes sense to call them that. Cool." As I got older, I learned more about the injustices and utter horrors experienced by the American Indians - just unimaginable cruelty that hurt greatly to associate with my home country (far from the only example of that). Moving from the "lore" that had excited me as a little kid and into the real flesh-and-blood experiences of the American Indian in our society past and present only strengthened my emotional connection. And it all made me start thinking about the name "Redskin" even more seriously. Still, just when I thought I'd come to definitive conclusion, I'd see something like I did when I attended the opening of the American Indian museum in D.C. awhile back: a group of American Indians wearing Redskins t-shirts with pride. 

The point of this long diatribe (is that word still OK to say?) is that the Native American ties to the team are THE most important reason why I became a fan in the first place, and that part of the team's heritage is still vitally important to me. I've always viewed it as a way to recognize that culture with respect and even love. Sports were such a huge part of their culture that it fits in that regard as well. "Play up to that standard" is how I've seen that association. I agree that this opinion, coming from a white person, would and should mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING if NAs as a whole found such imagery attached to a sports team hurtful, disparaging or demeaning. But I believe that's simply not the case for the vast majority, and I think changing the name alone will satisfy the complaints of most. 

 

I see many comments calling for a total rebranding. Something dull and "inoffensive" that no one could possibly find fault with. Even a change in color scheme. I hope this doesn't happen, and I'm at least heartened by the team comments so far that whatever they choose will still retain those NA ties. Plus, if they're planning to change the name before the season starts, there's no way they'll change much more than that. There just isn't time.

 

It is time to change the name, though. I believe that and have for some time now. I support it. While I don't consider it to be a cut-and-dry issue based on so many factors that I'm tired of discussing by now, I think it's right to let it go. But the group of people that the imagery attached to this team celebrates and attempts to honor? That should not be dropped based on some sort of knee-jerk fear and panic of causing offense. Nor should it be dictated by some self-appointed judge and jury of cultural sensitivity. 

 

Keep the colors. Keep the NA ties. Change the name. Make it clear that this team wants to honor, shine a light on and lift up the best qualities of the true founders of this country. Embrace the revolution. Resist the institution.