Washington Redtails.....Discuss

[hugevolsfan]

This is the height of ESPN fueled PC silliness, and anyone who buys into it needs to just stay in bed all day with their legs curled up in the fetal position. Momma will be by soon to give you a bottle of formula.

I'm part Irish, and if there was a 60 year old team named the Boston Drunkards, I'd have a laugh and move on. But on second thought, the short old guy with the cane on the Celtics logo is a bit offensive to me. I demand a new logo....

Celtic isn't a racial slur you Mick . (See what I did there?)

He's not talking about the name. He's talking about the logo. And he has a point. If you insist the Redskins name be changed then why wouldn't you want the Celtics logo changed? I can definitely see how some people would find it offensive. But nobody is clamoring to change that,

Because logos don't hurt but words do!

[wonderbread]

This is the height of ESPN fueled PC silliness, and anyone who buys into it needs to just stay in bed all day with their legs curled up in the fetal position. Momma will be by soon to give you a bottle of formula.

I'm part Irish, and if there was a 60 year old team named the Boston Drunkards, I'd have a laugh and move on. But on second thought, the short old guy with the cane on the Celtics logo is a bit offensive to me. I demand a new logo....

Celtic isn't a racial slur you Mick . (See what I did there?)

He's not talking about the name. He's talking about the logo. And he has a point. If you insist the Redskins name be changed then why wouldn't you want the Celtics logo changed? I can definitely see how some people would find it offensive. But nobody is clamoring to change that,

Because logos don't hurt but words do!

Which is why people are also up in arms about the cleveland indians chief wahoo logo, saying it should be replaced, because that logo is way more offensive than the team that uses the name redskins but has logos that show them nobly. I use to like chief wahoo because i was a kid and i liked watching the major league and the cartoon logo was nice, but since i've gotten older i see how racist it is.

[illwauk]

This is the height of ESPN fueled PC silliness, and anyone who buys into it needs to just stay in bed all day with their legs curled up in the fetal position. Momma will be by soon to give you a bottle of formula.

I'm part Irish, and if there was a 60 year old team named the Boston Drunkards, I'd have a laugh and move on. But on second thought, the short old guy with the cane on the Celtics logo is a bit offensive to me. I demand a new logo....

[JStamper]

I've got a Redtails concept going on over in the Concept forum. This is what I have so far, feel free to stop over there and leave your comments.

I like that a lot, nice job. Since the redskins name has been offending one group of people we screwed over for a couple hundred years, the least they can do is change to a name that honors a heroic group of people that are part of a different group of people that we screwed over for a couple hundred years. It would be good karma!

[Midway]

Here's a hypothetical situation.

Let's say Washington DC never had a professional football team before and the city was just recently awarded an expansion franchise for the upcoming season. After just a few weeks of research and marketing work, they roll out a press conference and announce that their name will be the Washington Redskins with the current logos and everything. They claim it honors Native Americans and that they feel its a nickname the people of Washington DC can get behind. Well I'd like to think most people would immediately react in disgust at the ignorance displayed in the name chosen and demand it be changed. So why then would any of you honestly believe that this name would fly in today's world?

[LourdOfTheFly]

This is the height of ESPN fueled PC silliness, and anyone who buys into it needs to just stay in bed all day with their legs curled up in the fetal position. Momma will be by soon to give you a bottle of formula.

I'm part Irish, and if there was a 60 year old team named the Boston Drunkards, I'd have a laugh and move on. But on second thought, the short old guy with the cane on the Celtics logo is a bit offensive to me. I demand a new logo....

How clever. You disagree with someone who you believe to be intolerant, so you choose to respond with a different "acceptable" intolerance.

Par for the course.

[Chromatic]

This is the height of ESPN fueled PC silliness, and anyone who buys into it needs to just stay in bed all day with their legs curled up in the fetal position. Momma will be by soon to give you a bottle of formula.

I'm part Irish, and if there was a 60 year old team named the Boston Drunkards, I'd have a laugh and move on. But on second thought, the short old guy with the cane on the Celtics logo is a bit offensive to me. I demand a new logo....

Celtic isn't a racial slur you Mick . (See what I did there?)

He's not talking about the name. He's talking about the logo. And he has a point. If you insist the Redskins name be changed then why wouldn't you want the Celtics logo changed? I can definitely see how some people would find it offensive. But nobody is clamoring to change that,

I know you're a Vancouver fan and therefore terminally obtuse, but he is talking about the moniker.

Actually he isn't. He made up some fictional name called the "Boston Drunkards", and the only mention of the Celtics he made was to the logo.

So, on top of that, you then call me obtuse because of a team I like. Nice.

[rams80]

This is the height of ESPN fueled PC silliness, and anyone who buys into it needs to just stay in bed all day with their legs curled up in the fetal position. Momma will be by soon to give you a bottle of formula.

I'm part Irish, and if there was a 60 year old team named the Boston Drunkards, I'd have a laugh and move on. But on second thought, the short old guy with the cane on the Celtics logo is a bit offensive to me. I demand a new logo....

Celtic isn't a racial slur you Mick . (See what I did there?)

He's not talking about the name. He's talking about the logo. And he has a point. If you insist the Redskins name be changed then why wouldn't you want the Celtics logo changed? I can definitely see how some people would find it offensive. But nobody is clamoring to change that,

I know you're a Vancouver fan and therefore terminally obtuse, but he is talking about the moniker.

Actually he isn't. He made up some fictional name called the "Boston Drunkards", and the only mention of the Celtics he made was to the logo.

So, on top of that, you then call me obtuse because of a team I like. Nice.

It's a fairly basic analogy, although the fact that this basic analogy is beyond you pretty much cements the obtuse part.

This is the height of ESPN fueled PC silliness, and anyone who buys into it needs to just stay in bed all day with their legs curled up in the fetal position. Momma will be by soon to give you a bottle of formula.

I'm part Irish, and if there was a 60 year old team named the Boston Drunkards, I'd have a laugh and move on. But on second thought, the short old guy with the cane on the Celtics logo is a bit offensive to me. I demand a new logo....

How clever. You disagree with someone who you believe to be intolerant, so you choose to respond with a different "acceptable" intolerance.

Par for the course.

I dunno, I find that particular caricature to be strikingly accurate.

[daveindc]

I've got a Redtails concept going on over in the Concept forum. This is what I have so far, feel free to stop over there and leave your comments.

Absolutely hideous.

Most Skins fans here in DC look at this whole Redtails thing as a complete joke, just fyi.

[GeorgesL]

I like Federals better.

[daveindc]

I like Federals better.

Federals would have worked for our baseball team. For our football team, it would mean losing the burgundy and gold. I like Warriors better myself, like a lot of other people. Just put the spear back on the helmet, and we are good to go.

[Chromatic]

This is the height of ESPN fueled PC silliness, and anyone who buys into it needs to just stay in bed all day with their legs curled up in the fetal position. Momma will be by soon to give you a bottle of formula.

I'm part Irish, and if there was a 60 year old team named the Boston Drunkards, I'd have a laugh and move on. But on second thought, the short old guy with the cane on the Celtics logo is a bit offensive to me. I demand a new logo....

Celtic isn't a racial slur you Mick . (See what I did there?)

He's not talking about the name. He's talking about the logo. And he has a point. If you insist the Redskins name be changed then why wouldn't you want the Celtics logo changed? I can definitely see how some people would find it offensive. But nobody is clamoring to change that,

I know you're a Vancouver fan and therefore terminally obtuse, but he is talking about the moniker.

Actually he isn't. He made up some fictional name called the "Boston Drunkards", and the only mention of the Celtics he made was to the logo.

So, on top of that, you then call me obtuse because of a team I like. Nice.

It's a fairly basic analogy, although the fact that this basic analogy is beyond you pretty much cements the obtuse part.

The analogy isn't beyond me. I get the "Boston Drunkards" is referencing the Irish/Celtics. When he was talking about the logo, you responded with Celtics isn't an offensive name. You're not even in the ballpark.

[rams80]

This is the height of ESPN fueled PC silliness, and anyone who buys into it needs to just stay in bed all day with their legs curled up in the fetal position. Momma will be by soon to give you a bottle of formula.

I'm part Irish, and if there was a 60 year old team named the Boston Drunkards, I'd have a laugh and move on. But on second thought, the short old guy with the cane on the Celtics logo is a bit offensive to me. I demand a new logo....

Celtic isn't a racial slur you Mick . (See what I did there?)

He's not talking about the name. He's talking about the logo. And he has a point. If you insist the Redskins name be changed then why wouldn't you want the Celtics logo changed? I can definitely see how some people would find it offensive. But nobody is clamoring to change that,

I know you're a Vancouver fan and therefore terminally obtuse, but he is talking about the moniker.

Actually he isn't. He made up some fictional name called the "Boston Drunkards", and the only mention of the Celtics he made was to the logo.

So, on top of that, you then call me obtuse because of a team I like. Nice.

It's a fairly basic analogy, although the fact that this basic analogy is beyond you pretty much cements the obtuse part.

The analogy isn't beyond me. I get the "Boston Drunkards" is referencing the Irish/Celtics. When he was talking about the logo, you responded with Celtics isn't an offensive name. You're not even in the ballpark.

The first half of his post provides context that is missing if you just look at the second half.

[mcrosby]

I've got a Redtails concept going on over in the Concept forum. This is what I have so far, feel free to stop over there and leave your comments.

Absolutely hideous.

Most Skins fans here in DC look at this whole Redtails thing as a complete joke, just fyi.

Ouch. Is it hideous because of your aversion to the name or is it actually hideous? Feel free to expand upon your comments over in the concepts section. I'm interested to get C&C from 'skins fans.

[wonderbread]

I've got a Redtails concept going on over in the Concept forum. This is what I have so far, feel free to stop over there and leave your comments.

Absolutely hideous.

Most Skins fans here in DC look at this whole Redtails thing as a complete joke, just fyi.

Ouch. Is it hideous because of your aversion to the name or is it actually hideous? Feel free to expand upon your comments over in the concepts section. I'm interested to get C&C from 'skins fans.

The only thing's i don't like about it are A. the name and logo because i want to keep atleast the native american imagery, and B. the Helmet having the retro leather texture, with the modern fat helmet strip, it clashes pretty bad, if it was the normal maroon helmet with that stripe it would all get muddled though so i don't know what you could do

[CrazyAnna]

I've got a Redtails concept going on over in the Concept forum. This is what I have so far, feel free to stop over there and leave your comments.

Not bad for a team's 3rd uniform, but not their primary. I'm just glad to see the Associated Press-GfK poll showed that 79% of Americans nationally support the Redskins name.

[Kevin W.]

I'm just glad to see the Associated Press-GfK poll showed that 79% of Americans nationally support the Redskins name.

Why?

[CrazyAnna]

I'm just glad to see the Associated Press-GfK poll showed that 79% of Americans nationally support the Redskins name.

Why?

Simple. Most people can see that it is just a team name in 2013 and can get over it. Seriously, it's a team name and nothing more. Possibly a racial term a long time ago and maybe still used in certain locations in America, but as a whole, it isn't used. When someone says Redskins in 2013, you think of the NFL team. Not Native Americans.

[keynote]

Not bad for a team's 3rd uniform, but not their primary. I'm just glad to see the Associated Press-GfK poll showed that 79% of Americans nationally support the Redskins name.

Offending 1 out of 5 people shouldn't be chalked up as collateral damage, IMHO. Especially because those numbers might be different if we hadn't been as successful in our, er, containment of hostile Native American populations during our settlement of this country.

These straw men arguments ("well, what about the <insert other ethnicity-based trademark here>") don't hold water for me, because we're talking about intentionally continuing to offend 20% of the population - real people, not people that might be offended by the various thought experiments we've dreamed up on this board, and not the nominal amounts of people offended by trademarks based on ethnic groups that haven't been disenfranchised to the same extent as Native peoples.

I've been a Skins fan my entire life: I enjoyed our SB wins in the '80s, and I own my share of merch. I won't buy gear that has the primary logo on it, and I tend to avoid gear that has the full name (my Doug Williams and Sammy Baugh jerseys don't bear a wordmark, and my Gibbs-era cap just as the "R" secondary logo, but I do own one 75th anniversary Darrell Green jersey that bears the wordmark and spearhead logos). But, while my love for my team, its tradition, and its laundry is irrational, at the end of the day, I recognize that my loyalties shouldn't trump the feelings of 20% of the population - especially when the team could easily switch to another brand that would at a minimum avoid insulting people.

Of course, continuing to offend that 1 out of 5 is really only justifiable by dollar signs: the loss of (significant) value in the Redskins trademark, the cost of rebranding, the risk that the rebranding could fail (what if they choose something that's unoffensive, but also unpopular?), etc. Snyder is lucky to employ a bright young star who's *killing* it in merch sales. He's not going to risk upsetting that gravy train. Every over official statement ("it's not that offensive"; "we mean it to be a tribute"; "half of the 20% in that poll were Cowboys fans, yuk yuk") is just spin.

The Redskins will keep their name and logo until - and only until - it becomes financially unviable to do so. If Snyder (or his successors) ever determine that they'll make more money from the merch sales and increased goodwill from a rebrand than they'll lose in abandoning the old brand and developing/marketing the new one, then we'll see a happy press conference announcing such a change. But not before then.

[wonderbread]

Not bad for a team's 3rd uniform, but not their primary. I'm just glad to see the Associated Press-GfK poll showed that 79% of Americans nationally support the Redskins name.

Offending 1 out of 5 people shouldn't be chalked up as collateral damage, IMHO. Especially because those numbers might be different if we hadn't been as successful in our, er, containment of hostile Native American populations during our settlement of this country.

These straw men arguments ("well, what about the <insert other ethnicity-based trademark here>") don't hold water for me, because we're talking about intentionally continuing to offend 20% of the population - real people, not people that might be offended by the various thought experiments we've dreamed up on this board, and not the nominal amounts of people offended by trademarks based on ethnic groups that haven't been disenfranchised to the same extent as Native peoples.

I've been a Skins fan my entire life: I enjoyed our SB wins in the '80s, and I own my share of merch. I won't buy gear that has the primary logo on it, and I tend to avoid gear that has the full name (my Doug Williams and Sammy Baugh jerseys don't bear a wordmark, and my Gibbs-era cap just as the "R" secondary logo, but I do own one 75th anniversary Darrell Green jersey that bears the wordmark and spearhead logos). But, while my love for my team, its tradition, and its laundry is irrational, at the end of the day, I recognize that my loyalties shouldn't trump the feelings of 20% of the population - especially when the team could easily switch to another brand that would at a minimum avoid insulting people.

Of course, continuing to offend that 1 out of 5 is really only justifiable by dollar signs: the loss of (significant) value in the Redskins trademark, the cost of rebranding, the risk that the rebranding could fail (what if they choose something that's unoffensive, but also unpopular?), etc. Snyder is lucky to employ a bright young star who's *killing* it in merch sales. He's not going to risk upsetting that gravy train. Every over official statement ("it's not that offensive"; "we mean it to be a tribute"; "half of the 20% in that poll were Cowboys fans, yuk yuk") is just spin.

The Redskins will keep their name and logo until - and only until - it becomes financially unviable to do so. If Snyder (or his successors) ever determine that they'll make more money from the merch sales and increased goodwill from a rebrand than they'll lose in abandoning the old brand and developing/marketing the new one, then we'll see a happy press conference announcing such a change. But not before then.

Actually if you look at the results, 2% didn't respond, and 8% were indifferent, so 11% actually think it should be changed, but that also doesn't mean they are necessarily offended by it, maybe just feeling the PC guilt trip of it, if you look at the reason why the team is called the redskins you need to look at the teams history, the team was originally named the braves when the were first playing in boston because they played at braves field, they then moved to playing at fenway park home of the red sox, the owners wanted to add the word red to their name to go along with the red sox but keep the native american imagery. So they became the redskins, nothing racially offensive was meant about the name, they just wanted to go along with the red sox brand, and it has stuck for the next almost 80 years now. It shouldn't be changed because of the PC world we are in now, where you can't say anything without someone getting offended about it.