NFL owner finally succumbs to political correctness

[ElJefeDeNada]

For Ken:

Daniel Snyder, owner of the NFL's Redskins franchise, has announced that the team is dropping the word "Washington" from the team name and it will henceforth be simply known as "The Redskins".

It was reported that he finds the word 'Washington' imparts a negative image of poor leadership, mismanagement, corruption, cheating, and lying, and is not a fitting role model for young fans of football.

Cheers

[jeremyk]

Lol

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jackattack]

Now that is funny....and true!

[Habana Mike]

[Hypersomniac]

That is great!

[klassikkasp]

Haha nice

[forgop]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

[BuckeyeSmoker]

i enjoyed this very much!

[DrunkenMonkey]

kAuIkvl.jpg

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

Does the Federal Government really have a position on the name of the football team?

[BuckeyeSmoker]

Does the Federal Government really have a position on the name of the football team?

I dont know what the rules state about posting links from other websites, but if you google search "redskins name congress' youll get multiple washington post links about members of congress writing letters to Snyder and making public statements against the name.

[Ken Gargett]

after yesterday's glorious, never-in-doubt, come from behind whomping of the bucs, they can call themselves anything they want!

[NSXCIGAR]

My high school mascot was the Redskins. We had been hearing talk through the early 90s that some were pushing to change it to something more PC. As time went on we discovered that despite the area being historically Native American Indian (hence the mascot) none of the complainants were Native American Indian. It was some middle class white guy and his group of PC policemen.

They succeeded in removing the Redskins name in 1998. However, the best part of the story is that there was such student and community backlash about the removal of the name that every time they polled the students and locals for name suggestions they kept recommending "Redskins" over and over! It took them another 3 years and some kind of moneteary prize contest to get a new mascot name which ended up being "Red Hawks."

Just goes to show that the people who complain are rarely the people who are supposedly being offended. Because words and names are just words and names--it's the intent that matters. Real Native American Indians have better things to do than care about a mascot name. We always thought it was more of a tribute to the Native American Indians, as did the community. So they applaud themselves for protecting people when they actually hurt them by removing a tribute.

Looks like this school is having the exact same issue...

[QwizatzHaderach]

Hi all,

I usually don't post much, and otherwise really appreciate FOH, but I'd like to mention a couple of thoughts on this topic.

I certainly agree with the humor in the post that's poking fun at the wasteful beaurocracy in Washington. What a mess that place is more often than not.

Regarding the Redskins team name though... We can debate where that term came from all day and night, but if this is even questionable at all, why do we (meaning some NFL team owner) need to force the issue? Whether or not it was a derogatory term in the past, it's clearly considered derogatory by some decent percentage of a people who have been historically either violently treated or merely forgotten. This isn't a simple decision, I think, because it's not exactly clear what the origin of the word is, or what percentage of native Americans have experienced it as derogatory (based on my ten minutes of looking into this). But isnt it worth giving some benefit of the doubt to those who are offended? If we named a new NFL team the "[insert color here]skins" you don't think that would be offensive in some way to someone given how talking about the color of someone's skin as a way of categorizing a person is not always considered appropriate (though interestingly it sometimes is)? It's not a simple issue, but it's not as if the way that we talk about skin color is exactly well understood by all and agreed upon. So dismissing objections to using something like that as a corporate brand seems really odd and unwise at best, and incredibly offensive and inexcusable at worst. Why defend it at all?

Also, the post about the fact that the government in the U.S. names other things after Native American terms doesn't really defend this well, as none of those other names are potentially considered derogatory; they're real names that people use on a regular basis as opposed to a misunderstood term that may or may not have always been derogatory but seems to be now. The Chicago Blackhawks are a professional team named after a Native American tribe, for example. That's not derogatory, it's just the name of a tribe from that region, which is pretty cool.

I don't like "pc" for the sake of being "pc" either, but sometimes being "pc" actually means trying to change traditional behavior that we now know was really stupid and benefits everyone to change. Not all the time... But sometimes.

I know this was meant to be a light-hearted thread... Clearly I have too much free time tonight!

[Ken Gargett]

there is another long thread somewhere on this very subject. lots of views, pro and against.

part of the problem becomes where do you stop this? if anyone claims offence, do they have the right to cause someone millions of dollars in lost revenue, which would happen to sydner (though lord knows he doesn't spend it that well - $20 mill to gruden, spare me)?

who becomes the arbiter of things like this? a vocal minority? not saying that is the problem here but there will be instances where it will be.

[DrunkenMonkey]

I dont know what the rules state about posting links from other websites, but if you google search "redskins name congress' youll get multiple washington post links about members of congress writing letters to Snyder and making public statements against the name.

That's not an official government position, that is individuals advocating for something. Hopefully you're not suggesting that individuals shouldn't be able to advocate for whatever they want? That doesn't amount to an official government position. If Congress had passed something advocating a name change, or if a government agency had taken a policy position, then it would be fair to say that the government had taken a position. It hasn't.

[wabashcr]

there is another long thread somewhere on this very subject. lots of views, pro and against.

part of the problem becomes where do you stop this? if anyone claims offence, do they have the right to cause someone millions of dollars in lost revenue, which would happen to sydner (though lord knows he doesn't spend it that well - $20 mill to gruden, spare me)?

who becomes the arbiter of things like this? a vocal minority? not saying that is the problem here but there will be instances where it will be.

I think we can say that a word that refers to people specifically by their skin color is a dodgy name for a football team without going down the PC slippery slope. As for Snyder, I'd think a name change would be a huge financial boon to him. Think of all the merchandise and marketing opportunities with a new brand. Sure he'd lose some fans, but an NFL franchise in the DMV is going to make money hand over fist regardless. The corporate money that funds the team isn't going anywhere. Sell a few million new jerseys, hats, jackets, etc., and you won't miss the fans that jumped off over stubborn allegiance to a term that many people find offensive.

[Ken Gargett]

I think we can say that a word that refers to people specifically by their skin color is a dodgy name for a football team without going down the PC slippery slope. As for Snyder, I'd think a name change would be a huge financial boon to him. Think of all the merchandise and marketing opportunities with a new brand. Sure he'd lose some fans, but an NFL franchise in the DMV is going to make money hand over fist regardless. The corporate money that funds the team isn't going anywhere. Sell a few million new jerseys, hats, jackets, etc., and you won't miss the fans that jumped off over stubborn allegiance to a term that many people find offensive.

completely leaving aside the concept of whether it is correct or not, my understanding is that the audits/investigations/whatever you want to call it would cost him millions. i would think possibly tens of millions. that is not a reason it should not be done, of course. and he will certainly get some of it back with new gear.

but seriously, if the name changes, you honestly think that 1,000s of skins fans are going to dump all the jerseys and hats and so on? they'll keep wearing them.

[TCContender]

Does the Federal Government really have a position on the name of the football team?

If anything, you would think that they would go after Pittsburgh, seeing as the federal government are the original "Stealers".

[DrunkenMonkey]

If anything, you would think that they would go after Pittsburgh, seeing as the federal government are the original "Stealers".

Leaving aside the intended humor, I would think it would be stupid for the government to take an official position on football teams. Which they haven't. So maybe your "if anything" scenario is right. But in this case the "if nothing" scenario is the real world one.

Now maybe we could find something else to worry about. Is it time to get upset about the Federal Government's "war on Christmas" yet?

[wabashcr]

completely leaving aside the concept of whether it is correct or not, my understanding is that the audits/investigations/whatever you want to call it would cost him millions. i would think possibly tens of millions. that is not a reason it should not be done, of course. and he will certainly get some of it back with new gear.

but seriously, if the name changes, you honestly think that 1,000s of skins fans are going to dump all the jerseys and hats and so on? they'll keep wearing them.

Where would the losses come from if he changed the name? I don't expect fans to throw away their old Redskins stuff, but I absolutely expect that most would buy new merchandise. It's no different than all the alternate and throwback jerseys they wear (like the ones they wore on Sunday, which are superb, BTW). Fans eat that stuff up. Granted, the revenue from merchandise is generally shared with the 31 other clubs, but I imagine he'd get quite a bit of help with the rebranding costs from the league, too. On top of the merchandising, I'm sure a more politically palatable name would open the door to even more corporate sponsorship from companies that want to be in the NFL, but have reservations about the nickname. I just don't see how he could lose money.

I will say this much, if it really is a losing proposal money-wise to change the name, I think the league should pay for it. As much as I think the name should be changed, I don't think it's fair for the league to force Snyder to do it and eat that cost himself.

[MrGTO]

What a bunch of thin skinned babies people have become.

[Ken Gargett]

Where would the losses come from if he changed the name? I don't expect fans to throw away their old Redskins stuff, but I absolutely expect that most would buy new merchandise. It's no different than all the alternate and throwback jerseys they wear (like the ones they wore on Sunday, which are superb, BTW). Fans eat that stuff up. Granted, the revenue from merchandise is generally shared with the 31 other clubs, but I imagine he'd get quite a bit of help with the rebranding costs from the league, too. On top of the merchandising, I'm sure a more politically palatable name would open the door to even more corporate sponsorship from companies that want to be in the NFL, but have reservations about the nickname. I just don't see how he could lose money.

I will say this much, if it really is a losing proposal money-wise to change the name, I think the league should pay for it. As much as I think the name should be changed, I don't think it's fair for the league to force Snyder to do it and eat that cost himself.

from articles i have seen (obviously i can't claim to have done the sums), the costs are massive. everything has to be changed - the logo and name are all over everything. so the headquarters need to be re-done. every jersey, helmet, pen, piece of letterhead, stationary, cup, mug, car, etc etc. these are massive businesses so this would be a huge undertaking.

but long term, you'd think he would recover at least a good chunk from new merchandising.

as for the league paying, i suspect synder has pissed far too many of the other owners off too many times.

[Orion21]

This politically correct non-sense has created a generation of whining babies unlike the world has ever seen. The "I'm Offended" industry is growing at a breakneck pace in the USA.

Facts are far too troublesome to use in today's day and age. The FACT is the Native Americans themselves were the origin of the term "redskin" and "red man." They used it to differentiate themselves from we "white" people and create unity within their communities. Several Native American Chiefs who spoke in the 1800's used the term "redskin" to refer to themselves (fully documented). The reason why the term is assumed to be "offensive" now is because the stupid entertainment industry co-opted the word. In their portrayals of Indian's as dimwitted savages they truly offended the Native Americans. The Redskin debate was taken up by a vocal minority of Native American activists who, if you research, want to rewrite history. They don't care about the origin of the word itself or how it fits into their own people's history. They literally made up a story about how "redskin" refers to white settlers scalping Indians when nothing can be found in the historical record to support this what-so-ever. It used to be the height of prestige to become a Redskin Warrior in the Native American culture, but now these politically correct rejects want to play the victim card to receive funding and reparations.

Just because a Native American name was used by those who perverted it's context doesn't mean you outlaw the word itself. Should we outlaw the word "Jew" because of the Nazis?

[Shrody234]

People need to relax with all this politically correct b.s. Too many are way too sensitive and worried about offending certain groups. The way things are going EVERYTHING will eventually be offensive.

[dvickery]

This politically correct non-sense has created a generation of whining babies unlike the world has ever seen. The "I'm Offended" industry is growing at a breakneck pace in the USA.

Facts are far too troublesome to use in today's day and age. The FACT is the Native Americans themselves were the origin of the term "redskin" and "red man." They used it to differentiate themselves from we "white" people and create unity within their communities. Several Native American Chiefs who spoke in the 1800's used the term "redskin" to refer to themselves (fully documented). The reason why the term is assumed to be "offensive" now is because the stupid entertainment industry co-opted the word. In their portrayals of Indian's as dimwitted savages they truly offended the Native Americans. The Redskin debate was taken up by a vocal minority of Native American activists who, if you research, want to rewrite history. They don't care about the origin of the word itself or how it fits into their own people's history. They literally made up a story about how "redskin" refers to white settlers scalping Indians when nothing can be found in the historical record to support this what-so-ever. It used to be the height of prestige to become a Redskin Warrior in the Native American culture, but now these politically correct rejects want to play the victim card to receive funding and reparations.

Just because a Native American name was used by those who perverted it's context doesn't mean you outlaw the word itself. Should we outlaw the word "Jew" because of the Nazis?

I think ... The original intent of this thread was to delete the word "Washington" from the team name .

To be honest I find nothing offensive about the word "Washington" .

Derrek