Discussion for article #223116
A letter signed by 50 Democratic Senators means nothing to the racists. The owner of the Washington NFL team would walk across the bones of Native Americans to win a Superbowl, without blinking.
It’s not that difficult. The Warriors or Potomacs would honor the local American Indians and they wouldn’t even have to change the logo.
Abe Pollin did it with the Wizards, who used to be the Bullets. Not a big deal.
1 Like
So…uh…couldn’t the team still be a positive force in the community WITHOUT a racially insensitive name?
2 Likes
“an overwhelming majority of Native Americans do not find the name offensive”
please sir, could we see the true & complete documentation for this because it just sound preposterous.
Other than the voices in your head, how do you know the owner, president, or anyone else in the Redskin’s organization is a racist?
1 Like
It is time for the name to change … and to stop pretending like it was selected as an “honor” - the team started as the Boston Braves in 1932 & played in “Braves Park” (home of baseball team of same name - Owner George Preston Marshall (colossally cheap & notoriously racist by the way) moved team in 1933 to Fenway Park (home of the RED SOX) - and essentially changed name to be rid of association w/ “Braves” & to dramatize association with Red Sox … but conveniently didn’t have to really change mascot.
Personally, I think the Houston Texans should be made to change their name. People in New Mexico consider “Texan” to be a slur.
Because he runs a team whose commercial brand name and trade dress is a colossal racial slur, and he is unwilling to even consider changing that name. That pretty much makes him a huge fucking racist.
There was a single, methodologically questionable poll over a decade ago.
In any case, majority opinion is not necessarily the best way to resolve an issue of ethics and perception.
I will confess to being conflicted about this issue.
I have been a Washington Football Franchise fan since 1965 when I moved to DC. And, although I left the area in 1980 to return home, I continued to be a fan.
I didn’t think much about the name of the franchise, except as a symbol for the team, for most of that time, until recently the issue began to be more visibly raised and concerns expressed.
As I reflected upon the implications of the name, particularly in light of strong feelings regarding other expressions of prejudice, I began to be more and more uncomfortable with my affinity for that name, and have pretty much gotten to the point where I would support a name change.
Reading Mr. Allen’s letter, and the citations he makes in support of his position, tempts me to abandon my previous concerns, but I’m not sure that, for all of the surveys and history he cites, that necessarily justifies retention of the name.
At one point “jim crow” was widely accepted, as were most other expressions of prejudice, as Ta-Nahisi Coates so eloquently relates: http://forums.talkingpointsmemo.com/t/ta-nahisi-coates-the-case-for-reparations/4239/6.
Would that I could be certain that what I am doing is right.
1 Like
Can you say, “What a soulless putz!”
Sure. I knew you could.
Hey Harry, how about making some changes yourself.
And Sheldon Adelson isn’t at all like the Koch brothers.
Phony.
I share some of your feelings. The Washington Redskins have a cherished legacy going back to the days of Sonny Jurgensen and Bobby Mitchell (and earlier) through recent times. The name was just a name of a team.
Like you, I’ve increasingly become uncomfortable with the display of the brand by the fan’s behavior – which isn’t meant with any malice, I know, but real redskins don’t chop air – as well as the ancillary branding, including Bruce Allen’s lame justification.
It’s time to end that era while it can be preserved as grand. Change the name.
You have to really dislike someone to try to make him go to a Redskins game.