Palefaces: Redskins' Name OK

Status
Not open for further replies.

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,025
Mansfield MA
GregHarris said:
I've always wondered how far this would go.  What about high schools like:
 
Marquette was the Warriors until 1994, when they changed to Golden Eagles. I think it's clearly less offensive than Redskins, but I think it's fair to question whether white Americans should ever be appropriating American Indian imagery.
 

Soxy

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2008
6,095
GregHarris said:
I've always wondered how far this would go.  What about high schools like:
 
 
 
That's already been happening for some time.  When I was at Andover High School in the mid-90's, we changed our logo from a Native American to an Eagle, while keeping the name Golden Warriors.  I think it was when I was a freshman, so that would've been 1995 or 1996.  So almost 20 years ago.
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,839
Needham, MA
moly99 said:
The trend is that any form of cultural appropriation is wrong.
 
The issue for the team isn't really free speech but money. Sports fandom is weird in that it is all about rooting for laundry. Changing the laundry could cost them lots of customers.
 
I continue to believe that the only way out is to pick an intentionally awful placeholder name for a year or two for the sake of catharsis. (Washington Rainbows? DC Eels?) They can then rebrand a second time and unite the fan base.
 
Do you really believe this to be true?
 
I agree that most fans just "root for the laundry" but I don't think that means if the laundry changes the fans might switch allegiances.  I am a fan of the New England Patriots and the Boston Red Sox, but what that really means is that I am a fan of the MLB franchise that plays in Boston, and the NFL franchise that plays in Foxboro.  If they were forced for whatever reason to change either of those names I'm not jumping ship and ditching an entire lifetime of following those franchises because they are called something different.  I don't think Washington would lose many any fans if they changed names, other than those who are truly bitter and would do so out of spite. 
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
BTW, Wikipedia has a list of defunct ethnic sports team names, which include:
 
Indians
Black Crackers
Redmen
Cubans
Savages
Redskins
Flying Dutchmen
Aztecs
Mohawks
Chiefs
Black Yankees
Chinks
Brown Squaws
Black Indians
Orangemen
 

moly99

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 28, 2007
939
Seattle
Ralphwiggum said:
 
Do you really believe this to be true?
 
A number of their fans have told me they would cancel their season tickets and boycott the team if the team changed its name. Whether they would go through with it or not is uncertain. But if you are the owner of the Washington professional football team you have to be worried about that.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
32,067
Alexandria, VA
Super Nomario said:
Marquette was the Warriors until 1994, when they changed to Golden Eagles. I think it's clearly less offensive than Redskins, but I think it's fair to question whether white Americans should ever be appropriating American Indian imagery.
 
The problem for them wasn't the name--"Warriors" doesn't suggest any particular ethnic group, let alone disparage one--it was that some of their historical logos war as bad as Chief Wahoo.
 
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,839
Needham, MA
moly99 said:
A number of their fans have told me they would cancel their season tickets and boycott the team if the team changed its name. Whether they would go through with it or not is uncertain. But if you are the owner of the Washington professional football team you have to be worried about that.
This strikes me as complete bullshit. Who roots for a team because of the name? I doubt many would really leave, but put a winning team out there and they would come back.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,025
Mansfield MA
SumnerH said:
 
The problem for them wasn't the name--"Warriors" doesn't suggest any particular ethnic group, let alone disparage one--it was that some of their historical logos war as bad as Chief Wahoo.
 
For sure, but they had switched to a more PC logo years before the name change.
 

PBDWake

Member
SoSH Member
May 1, 2008
3,686
Peabody, MA
Ralphwiggum said:
This strikes me as complete bullshit. Who roots for a team because of the name? I doubt many would really leave, but put a winning team out there and they would come back.
It's ego, pure and simple. If the Cleveland Indians changed Chief Wahoo on their own, it'd get about as much attention as Pat Patriot's departure. If the Redskins had moved on without a controversy, then it'd notch a little above the hubbub of the Bullets becoming the Wizards. There'd be some griping but people would get over it.

But so help them God, you will NOT come in there and tell them how to manage THEIR team. I honestly think a lot of this is about two things. The first is what I just mentioned, and they're more pissed about the team caving to something they think is BS than the name change itself.

The second are the people who have the following train of thought. "If the logo/name is racist, and I'm attached to it, then that makes me racist. That sucks! I'm not a racist! Therefore, it can't be racist either!". There are a lot of those running around.
 

Spelunker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
12,095
geoduck no quahog said:
BTW, Wikipediahas a list of defunct ethnic sports team names, which include:
 
Indians
Black Crackers
Redmen
Cubans
Savages
Redskins
Flying Dutchmen
Aztecs
Mohawks
Chiefs
Black Yankees
Chinks
Brown Squaws
Black Indians
Orangemen
Holy fuck. From the Wikipedia link:

Pekin High School (Pekin, Illinois) Chinks, now the "Dragons"

The school teams were known as the Pekin Chinks from the 1930s until 1980 when the school administration changed the nickname to the Dragons.[14] The team mascots were a male and female student dressed as Chinese persons wearing traditional Chinese attire. An earlier attempt was made by a visit of Chinese American groups to change the name from Chinks during the 19741975 school year; this was voted down by the student body. The event received national attention.
 

moly99

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 28, 2007
939
Seattle
Ralphwiggum said:
This strikes me as complete bullshit. Who roots for a team because of the name? I doubt many would really leave, but put a winning team out there and they would come back.
 
It's not the name change itself, but rather the view that the franchise would be caving into PC pressure and betraying the fan base and its own past. I suppose it is a bit like the Paterno thing with Penn State fans.
 
I'm not agreeing with those fans. I'm just saying that the team has financial reasons to fear a name change, which is why I think they have resisted it so long.
 

cannonball 1729

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 8, 2005
3,581
The Sticks
geoduck no quahog said:
 
BTW, Wikipedia has a list of defunct ethnic sports team names, which include:
 
Indians
Black Crackers
Redmen
Cubans
Savages
Redskins
Flying Dutchmen
Aztecs
Mohawks
Chiefs
Black Yankees
Chinks
Brown Squaws
Black Indians
Orangemen
 
 
Worth noting that several of those are from Negro League Baseball.  Certainly, the Black Yankees is a more reasonable thing to call the team when everybody on the team (and in the league) is black.  The Cubans, Black Indians, and Black Crackers are from NLB, too.
 
My favorite of those is still the Atlanta Black Crackers, though.  What the hell is a black cracker?
 

Marbleheader

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2004
11,750
Atlanta Crackers were the white team. Crackers being a nickname given to Irish settlers in the deep South.
 

Stevie1der

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 6, 2009
1,073
Morrisville, NC
moly99 said:
 
A number of their fans have told me they would cancel their season tickets and boycott the team if the team changed its name. Whether they would go through with it or not is uncertain. But if you are the owner of the Washington professional football team you have to be worried about that.
I dunno, this doesn't strike me as something that people will hold out very long for, given that the boycotters will almost certainly be replaced by other season ticket holders looking to upgrade and people on the waiting list.
 

B H Kim

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 24, 2003
5,737
Washington, DC
Stevie1der said:
I dunno, this doesn't strike me as something that people will hold out very long for, given that the boycotters will almost certainly be replaced by other season ticket holders looking to upgrade and people on the waiting list.
 
The Redskins' claims that they have a huge waiting list for season tickets is largely a myth.
 

Awesome Fossum

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,912
Austin, TX
PBDWake said:
If the Redskins had moved on without a controversy, then it'd notch a little above the hubbub of the Bullets becoming the Wizards. There'd be some griping but people would get over it.
 
Ask the Wizards owner if the fan base has gotten over losing Bullets. Fans don't get over stuff like this. They get old and die and are replaced by fans who are too young to have that emotional investment. 
 
 

PBDWake said:
But so help them God, you will NOT come in there and tell them how to manage THEIR team. I honestly think a lot of this is about two things. The first is what I just mentioned, and they're more pissed about the team caving to something they think is BS than the name change itself.

The second are the people who have the following train of thought. "If the logo/name is racist, and I'm attached to it, then that makes me racist. That sucks! I'm not a racist! Therefore, it can't be racist either!". There are a lot of those running around.
 
This is spot on.
 
Edit: And not just "the name makes me racist," but that "the name makes this important and cherished part of my life/childhood/way-I-connect-with-my-family racist and ugly." That's hard for people. Personally, I think the aggressive tone often taken by people who are in favor of changing the name fuels this cycle. 
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,640
Somewhere
Awesome Fossum said:
 
Ask the Wizards owner if the fan base has gotten over losing Bullets. Fans don't get over stuff like this. They get old and die and are replaced by fans who are too young to have that emotional investment. 
 
This is total nonsense. The year the Bullets changed their name, their attendance jumped by 100K.  Basically with the same roster and record. The only thing fans really miss about the Bullets is Wes Unseld.
 

Awesome Fossum

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,912
Austin, TX
Devizier said:
 
This is total nonsense. The year the Bullets changed their name, their attendance jumped by 100K.  Basically with the same roster and record. The only thing fans really miss about the Bullets is Wes Unseld.
 
Same roster, same record, new name. Oh, and the new downtown arena.
 
Edit: It's funny, because that's roughly what I think will happen with the Redskins. A new stadium will be built in the city, they'll move in and change their name, and attendance will probably jump (at least in terms of bodies in seats; I'm sure the so-called sellout streak will live on). And in another 20 years, people will still be complaining about the name.
 
Again, business isn't going to suffer. This is the NFL, for Christ's sake. But fans will pine for the name until they're dead.
 

B H Kim

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 24, 2003
5,737
Washington, DC
Devizier said:
 
This is total nonsense. The year the Bullets changed their name, their attendance jumped by 100K.  Basically with the same roster and record. The only thing fans really miss about the Bullets is Wes Unseld.
 
Their attendance jumped primarily because they moved to what is now the Verizon Center the same year they changed the name.  But the broader point is correct.  I don't know anyone here in DC who stopped going to Bullets/Wizards games or following the team because of the name change.  
 

Awesome Fossum

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,912
Austin, TX
Devizier said:
 
Again, my point stands. No one honestly cares about the Bullets name.
 
Maybe we have different interpretations of the word "cares" in this context. Obviously they didn't care enough to boycott the team, but they do care enough that a non-scientific poll by The Washington Post had support at 84% for a name change in 2010. The franchise saw enough value to rebrand with the old colors and Bullets-esque logos and uniforms. If there weren't social implications, I guarantee they would have changed the name as well.
 
I'm unclear if this is a Washington basketball-specific observation or if you think names just don't matter that much to fans in the general sense. But whether it's the former or latter, I have to completely disagree. Do you think no one in Charlotte honestly cares about the Hornets name?
 

Infield Infidel

teaching korea american
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,463
Meeting Place, Canada
Charlotte is the Hornets again. 
 
I think it's something you have to take on a case-by-case basis. Fans are different everywhere and the connections are different.
 
For instance, no one in Tampa cares about "Devil Rays." Houston didn't want "Oilers" and neither does Tennessee. Fans of most of the colleges that have changed don't really care as much, but then again it's a different type of connection, to a school as opposed to a corporate entity that can be moved at anytime. But no one is pining for Stanford Redmen or UL-Monroe Indians. 
 
But obviously the Browns were keeping their name, and Bobcats are now Hornets (no one will miss Bobcats). 
 

cannonball 1729

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 8, 2005
3,581
The Sticks
Awesome Fossum said:
 
Maybe we have different interpretations of the word "cares" in this context. Obviously they didn't care enough to boycott the team, but they do care enough that a non-scientific poll by The Washington Post had support at 84% for a name change in 2010. The franchise saw enough value to rebrand with the old colors and Bullets-esque logos and uniforms. If there weren't social implications, I guarantee they would have changed the name as well.
 
I'm unclear if this is a Washington basketball-specific observation or if you think names just don't matter that much to fans in the general sense. But whether it's the former or latter, I have to completely disagree. Do you think no one in Charlotte honestly cares about the Hornets name?
 
Yeah, I think the conflicting points here are that 
 
- Most people (especially local people who are responsible for buying tickets) don't choose to follow or stop following their favorite teams because of names or colors.
 
and 
 
- Names and colors have a huge effect on merchandise sales.
 
People who cared enough about DC basketball to buy tickets and watch games weren't going to stop caring because the team changed its name to the Wizards.  But they weren't going to go out and buy new stuff, either.  And casual basketball fans weren't going to go out and buy the latest gear for a team that looked like it was pulled straight out of a Harry Potter book.
 
And as someone who lives near Charlotte, allow me to say good riddance to the Bobcats' name, especially since the Hornets' name actually has local historical (i.e. Revolutionary War) significance.  The onslaught of Generic Scary Animal names from the NBA and NFL in the late 90's needs to be reversed.  Next up, the Carolina Panthers, Jacksonville Jaguars, Memphis Grizzlies, and Toronto Raptors.
 
 
Marbleheader said:
Atlanta Crackers were the white team. Crackers being a nickname given to Irish settlers in the deep South.
 
Right - I'm mostly amused at the fact that the Atlanta Black Crackers team name is basically the "black white people."
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
32,067
Alexandria, VA
cannonball 1729 said:
The onslaught of Generic Scary Animal names from the NBA and NFL in the late 90's needs to be reversed.  Next up, the Carolina Panthers, Jacksonville Jaguars, Memphis Grizzlies, and Toronto Raptors.
 
 
I view the Memphis Grizzlies more in the Utah Jazz/LA Lakers vein--the Vancouver Grizzlies made sense, but the relocation did it in.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,640
Somewhere
Michael Wilbon ca. the time of the name change:
 
Personally, I think the association between the name of the local basketball team and horrible things that people do with guns is a reach. Me? I'd keep the name Bullets. But I can understand Pollin's growing uneasiness. And if there's ever a time to change it, now would be that time, what with Chris Webber and Juwan Howard aboard and new uniforms and a new downtown arena in the works.
Being competitive now doesn't stop on the court. You can't be one of the major players if your merchandise is dead last, as has been the case with the Bullets, or if it isn't even on the shelves in America's major retail sports stores....
 
Link
 

Winger 03

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2003
1,686
Frederick, MD
moly99 said:
 
A number of their fans have told me they would cancel their season tickets and boycott the team if the team changed its name. Whether they would go through with it or not is uncertain. But if you are the owner of the Washington professional football team you have to be worried about that.
Maybe he is just waiting for the team to get better on the field so people will not even think of cancelling.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,444
Southwestern CT
Awesome Fossum said:
 
Personally, I think the aggressive tone often taken by people who are in favor of changing the name fuels this cycle. 
 
 
Blaming Synder's inaction on those with the audacity to point out the racism of the name does violence to reason and common decency.
 

moly99

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 28, 2007
939
Seattle
Infield Infidel said:
For instance, no one in Tampa cares about "Devil Rays." Houston didn't want "Oilers" and neither does Tennessee. Fans of most of the colleges that have changed don't really care as much, but then again it's a different type of connection, to a school as opposed to a corporate entity that can be moved at anytime. But no one is pining for Stanford Redmen or UL-Monroe Indians. 
 
I think people don't care about it because they didn't see their team play in the Super Bowl with that name multiple times and spend their childhoods with it. I think that's the part that makes it hard for them to let go of the name.
 
Winger 03 said:
Maybe he is just waiting for the team to get better on the field so people will not even think of cancelling.
 
If only they could make a move to acquire a stud QB to get everyone excited . . .
.
Average Reds said:
 
Blaming Synder's inaction on those with the audacity to point out the racism of the name does violence to reason and common decency.
 
I don't think anyone is defending Snyder. I just think money is the cause of his inaction rather than some perverse desire to offend Native Americans.
 

Awesome Fossum

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,912
Austin, TX
Average Reds said:
Blaming Synder's inaction on those with the audacity to point out the racism of the name does violence to reason and common decency.
In 2014, pointing out the racism of the name isn't all that audacious. What's far more challenging is doing it in a way that's going to influence the minds of the people who matter. Beyond Snyder -- who was a spiteful asshole before he was ever an NFL owner -- that's the Redskins fans and season ticket holders. Do we just want to be right, or do we want to not have a team named the Redskins? If it's the former, mission accomplished. If it's the latter, I think a little empathy and understanding would go a long, long way.
 

moly99

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 28, 2007
939
Seattle
Papelbon's Poutine said:
Regardless, I don't see how a name change costs him money. Everyone has to buy new gear right? And all the old inventory is now retro or a collectors piece right?
 
The point is that many fans may decide they don't want to own gear with the new name on it. This is especially dangerous for the team if they don't own the trademark for the old name and third parties can sell fans new gear with the old name.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
32,067
Alexandria, VA
moly99 said:
 
The point is that many fans may decide they don't want to own gear with the new name on it. This is especially dangerous for the team if they don't own the trademark for the old name and third parties can sell fans new gear with the old name.
 
There's basically no chance of them losing the trademark for the old name so long as they keep doing any business with it (e.g. selling throwbacks).
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
32,067
Alexandria, VA
caesarbear said:
Unless it's revoked by the USPTO.
 
USPTO doesn't have the authority to revoke trademarks, as they mentioned in the June 18th ruling that started this thread. They maintain the registry (for (R) marks), but taking something off that list still leaves you with a common-law trademark (designated by TM).
 

moly99

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 28, 2007
939
Seattle
SumnerH said:
 
There's basically no chance of them losing the trademark for the old name so long as they keep doing any business with it (e.g. selling throwbacks).
 
Isn't it kind of the whole point that they would stop doing business with the old name, though? Don't you think people would still be angry if they sold jerseys with the offensive word on them after changing the official name?
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
32,067
Alexandria, VA
moly99 said:
Isn't it kind of the whole point that they would stop doing business with the old name, though? Don't you think people would still be angry if they sold jerseys with the offensive word on them after changing the official name?
There's no way they wouldn't do enough business under the old name to keep the trademarks. Maybe it's cloaked as historical books discussing the problem with the name or whatever, but it's too big an asset for them to just drop in the foreseeable future.
 

Awesome Fossum

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,912
Austin, TX
Papelbon's Poutine said:
once Snyder finally caves, he will have to admit why and placate to those he disagrees with or else he looks like an idiot for just doing it to shut people up. So now you have the owner of the goddamn team admitting it's a slur
Judging by the PR work they've done so far, who knows what they'll come up with, but I would be surprised if the message isn't something along the lines of "we are completely, 100% dedicated to winning football games, and unfortunately the name was creating a distraction and detracting from that mission." I'd be stunned if Snyder admits it's a slur, unless that's a condition for New RFK.

Papelbon's Poutine said:
But it's Redskins always. Obnoxiously so. It is the only team anyone is loyal to there. There was nothing I loved more than when they were bad and luckily that was often. Because then people would shut the fuck up about them. But part of me still respected them no matter how annoying it was to hear "we're 2-6, but if we go 8-0 we can take the division!" Every. Year.
LOL. This is so, so true.
 

cromulence

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 25, 2009
6,832
Papelbon's Poutine said:
It's tough to describe, but over the 15 years I lived here, I learned the ONLY team that actually has loyal fans is the Redskins. It's an extremely transient city and area, where a minority of people are actually from there and so the teams are followed by band wagoners and people looking to show off. When the Caps got good a handful of years ago, you saw red sweaters everywhere. When the Wiz got Jordan, all of a sudden It was the ticket to have. When the Nats came to town or when they got good a cpl years ago, you started to hear some buzz. I can tell you that i spent most of late 2004 and early 2005 in a perpetual state of pissed off because after the sox won, all of a sudden you saw sox hats everywhere.

But it's Redskins always. Obnoxiously so. It is the only team anyone is loyal to there. There was nothing I loved more than when they were bad and luckily that was often. Because then people would shut the fuck up about them. But part of me still respected them no matter how annoying it was to hear "we're 2-6, but if we go 8-0 we can take the division!" Every. Year.
 
 
Preach. This is a 100% accurate portrayal of the DC sports scene. It truly has become a yearly tradition to laugh at Redskins fans desperately trying to figure out if they think their team is good or not (hint: it's not). 
 
The percentage of locals who would actually "quit" the team if they changed their name is extremely low. It doesn't matter how awful the Redskins are - every fucking year, this place loses their shit over them. It's absolutely absurd to think they'd stop following the team if they changed their name. It's totally ridiculous.
 

mascho

Kane is Able
SoSH Member
Nov 30, 2007
14,952
Silver Spring, Maryland
Papelbon's Poutine is so spot on. In the fall of 2002 the Washington Football Tram beat the Rams to get to 3-5.

On Monday morning local radio was talking Super Bowl. As in, "they are gonna win the NFC East, then the NFC, and get to the Super Bowl."

DC is a Redskins town, first, last and always.
 

moly99

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 28, 2007
939
Seattle
Papelbon's Poutine said:
The trademark issue has been covered, so hopefully you get an idea of how little that ruling actually impacted anything. But to your first point I'd ask you a question: which group of fans do you think would be bigger?:

- group A that is so outraged by the name change that they refuse to buy a new Pigskins (or whatever) jersey, drop their season tickets and adopt a new team.

- or group B that doesn't really care all that much because they realize it's still their team and they want the new gear because it's the NEW gear; plus the new season ticket holders that replaced the outraged in group A; plus people out of market that might support the positive move by buying some gear.
 
There's a group C as well, wherein fans wear hats, shirts, etc with the old name on them instead of buying the new stuff. And cancel their season tickets and watch the games on TV.
 
I have no idea how many fans would actually do this. Maybe it's enough to hurt the team's bottom line. Maybe it isn't. But it has to be a concern for them.
 
SumnerH said:
There's no way they wouldn't do enough business under the old name to keep the trademarks. Maybe it's cloaked as historical books discussing the problem with the name or whatever, but it's too big an asset for them to just drop in the foreseeable future.
 
Trademark rights only protect the particular type of goods and services that the mark owner is selling under the trademark. If they don't sell jerseys with the offensive name, I think a third party could successfully win a court battle for the right to do so.
 

ALiveH

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,105
it's ironic reverse racism that both sides of this debate are casting whites as a race as villains (or at least feel the need to mention that the villains happen to be white)
  from the herald article - "the PC police, led by big-city white elitists"
  from this thread - numerous mentions of "old white people" and the thread title, "paleface"
 
So is anti-white racism fully OK now?
 

barbed wire Bob

crippled by fear
SoSH Member
ALiveH said:
it's ironic reverse racism that both sides of this debate are casting whites as a race as villains (or at least feel the need to mention that the villains happen to be white)
  from the herald article - "the PC police, led by big-city white elitists"
  from this thread - numerous mentions of "old white people" and the thread title, "paleface"
 
So is anti-white racism fully OK now?
Nm
 

Winger 03

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2003
1,686
Frederick, MD
Papelbon's Poutine said:
The trademark issue has been covered, so hopefully you get an idea of how little that ruling actually impacted anything. But to your first point I'd ask you a question: which group of fans do you think would be bigger?:
- group A that is so outraged by the name change that they refuse to buy a new Pigskins (or whatever) jersey, drop their season tickets and adopt a new team.
- or group B that doesn't really care all that much because they realize it's still their team and they want the new gear because it's the NEW gear; plus the new season ticket holders that replaced the outraged in group A; plus people out of market that might support the positive move by buying some gear.
We may disagree but I'm pretty sure it's not group A. Part if that may be because I think the whole "fans will be pissed that we are abandoning our history" argument is complete bullshit. I think this for multiple reasons such as:
- DC is an extremely politically aware (obviously) market and one of, if not the most, culturally diverse city outside of NY. I tend to think that if you went further than doing an online ESPN poll and did a true Gallop poll in the streets, you would find a lot of support for dropping a racially insensitive mascot, especially given the mix of races and cultures present.
- once Snyder finally caves, he will have to admit why and placate to those he disagrees with or else he looks like an idiot for just doing it to shut people up. So now you have the owner of the goddamn team admitting it's a slur - how many people are going to risk being looked at as the bigot to refuse to buy the new hat or shirt or to walk away from season tix?
But even if you want to give no credit to those two - and that's certainly fair, they're simply my opinion - anyone who's lived in DC and been sports conscious will tell you there's absolutely no chance any kind of significant number of people walk away from this team.
It's tough to describe, but over the 15 years I lived here, I learned the ONLY team that actually has loyal fans is the Redskins. It's an extremely transient city and area, where a minority of people are actually from there and so the teams are followed by band wagoners and people looking to show off. When the Caps got good a handful of years ago, you saw red sweaters everywhere. When the Wiz got Jordan, all of a sudden It was the ticket to have. When the Nats came to town or when they got good a cpl years ago, you started to hear some buzz. I can tell you that i spent most of late 2004 and early 2005 in a perpetual state of pissed off because after the sox won, all of a sudden you saw sox hats everywhere.
But it's Redskins always. Obnoxiously so. It is the only team anyone is loyal to there. There was nothing I loved more than when they were bad and luckily that was often. Because then people would shut the fuck up about them. But part of me still respected them no matter how annoying it was to hear "we're 2-6, but if we go 8-0 we can take the division!" Every. Year.
Let me be very clear when I assure you that Snyder isn't balking at this move because of money. If you don't agree with my rationale, that's fine, I'm sure an argument can be made that they would in fact lose money somehow. I wouldn't buy it, but sure, you can make a case for anything. Hes not making this move because he's a smug little ass hole who will not be told what to do with his toy. It's no different than the first decade of his ownership where he blatantly made things worse by insisting on having control of player personnel because he was the boss and was too fucking egotistic to realize he was the problem.
I don't know what happened that finally made him step back from having his hands in everything, but whatever it was, it will take the equivalent of that to get him to back down on this topic. I don't know what that fucked up conversation scale looks like, but I assure you no amount of public pressure will get it done and the fan base will not make a big enough stand against to force it.
He either needs some kind of crazy offer from the district to drop it - like the old proposed "build a new stadium on site of old rfk and we'll give you a hundred lease on the land for $1" or he needs everyone to stop talking about it so he can make it look like his own idea. But that's just mho.
As a lifelong resident and fan, this is quite accurate.
 

Blacken

Robespierre in a Cape
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2007
12,152
ALiveH said:
it's ironic reverse racism that both sides of this debate are casting whites as a race as villains (or at least feel the need to mention that the villains happen to be white)
  from the herald article - "the PC police, led by big-city white elitists"
  from this thread - numerous mentions of "old white people" and the thread title, "paleface"
 
So is anti-white racism fully OK now?
You said you were done, and yet now that a little spark has lit in that deep, dank cavern you call a head you come rushing back?

There is no such thing as "reverse racism". It is a construct perpetuated by people who are insecure about losing something they don't rightly have and is a dogwhistle for the more vile elements of the xenophobic right; it fails to understand the power dynamics involved. Literally everyone who unironically uses the term lets their fuckhead flag fly high as they weep for those poor, poor powerful white people.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
People may walk away from the team, but not because of this issue, regardless how the team plays it.

Will say this though. If Snyder ever wants back into the City -- as in a new stadium -- the name will have to change. That would be a heavy enough lift just based on economics, but make no mistake about it -- DC government is like the Peoples' Republic of Cambridge.

I do believe Snyder wants back into the City at some point.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
32,067
Alexandria, VA
moly99 said:
Trademark rights only protect the particular type of goods and services that the mark owner is selling under the trademark. If they don't sell jerseys with the offensive name, I think a third party could successfully win a court battle for the right to do so.
That's not what the "type of goods and services" limitation means. If I own the Redskins and refuse to sell jerseys, other people can't just go ahead and sell jerseys with the logo and name on them. They could have another (totally separate) product that's a candy or a potato called the "Redskins", as long as it didn't create consumer confusion or act deceptively. But they can't make items that are references to the team and use that trademark--and even if the name itself is distinct between two fields of endeavor, the logo is generally protected (under the theory that using it elsewhere would create consumer confusion). Apple Records can't slap the rainbow Apple Computers logo on their merchandise. Redskins Potatoes could make shirts with their name on it, but they couldn't have "Washington Redskins", use the team's logo, and probably couldn't style them as football jerseys in the Washington colors unless there was some kind of clear parody or other protected rationale for it.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
We've been over this. The logo remains protected. Player names and numbers are protected. Nobody is interested in buying a bunch of Redskins' shit without the logo, names, numbers or the Nike swoosh, which also is protected.

Dog will not hunt.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
8,985
Dallas
Blacken said:
You said you were done, and yet now that a little spark has lit in that deep, dank cavern you call a head you come rushing back?

There is no such thing as "reverse racism". It is a construct perpetuated by people who are insecure about losing something they don't rightly have and is a dogwhistle for the more vile elements of the xenophobic right; it fails to understand the power dynamics involved. Literally everyone who unironically uses the term lets their fuckhead flag fly high as they weep for those poor, poor powerful white people.
This is getting pretty V&N re: reverse racism. While you may not buy that argument it's gotten traction with a few on SCOTUS and it's commonly argued at the circuits... I don't take issue with you disagreeing with it, Blacken, but I think dismissing it altogether is a bit much.

edit: If I put my own neck out there I personally favor diversity from race and socio economic background. So while I don't agree with the race can't be a factor at all I don't think it is the be all and end all to determine a good diverse mix. I strongly disagree with dismissing a main stream argument, even if I disagree with it, because how the hell do you have that conversation in the first place if you won't discuss any possible merits or truths in their side?
 

B H Kim

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 24, 2003
5,737
Washington, DC
mascho said:
Papelbon's Poutine is so spot on. In the fall of 2002 the Washington Football Tram beat the Rams to get to 3-5.

On Monday morning local radio was talking Super Bowl. As in, "they are gonna win the NFC East, then the NFC, and get to the Super Bowl."

DC is a Redskins town, first, last and always.
 
True, but I think there's been a clear drop in the level of local obsession with the Redskins during the Snyder years.  When I first moved to DC almost 30 years ago, it often felt like the region practically shut down during Redskins games.  Today, local media continues to obsess about the team, but I see considerably less interest in the team among fans.  And I think they are also far less popular among the next generation of potential fans.  At my kids schools (in Montgomery County) I think I see as many kids wearing Ravens jerseys as Redskins jerseys.  I don't think this has much to do with the name though; it's because the on-the-field product has been so bad for most of Snyder's tenure.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
B H Kim said:
 
True, but I think there's been a clear drop in the level of local obsession with the Redskins during the Snyder years.  When I first moved to DC almost 30 years ago, it often felt like the region practically shut down during Redskins games.  Today, local media continues to obsess about the team, but I see considerably less interest in the team among fans.  And I think they are also far less popular among the next generation of potential fans.  At my kids schools (in Montgomery County) I think I see as many kids wearing Ravens jerseys as Redskins jerseys.  I don't think this has much to do with the name though; it's because the on-the-field product has been so bad for most of Snyder's tenure.
Same vintage; came here months after Riggins shredded the Dolphins in that SB. This is absolutely true.

As with so much else, the explanation is demographics. People who enjoyed success under George Allen died. They were replaced by people who despaired of 15 years of Danny Snyder suck. The "waiting list" for season tix vaporized.

The grip had loosened and things were getting worse. Which is why Shanahan was installed as Emoeror.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.