That article doesn’t say what you think it says. The family of the man pictured in the logo wanted to keep it because it was it of the most widely seen images of a Native American. The family themselves don’t seem to care about the name much. Other groups do though.
I was never a big fan about the wholesale elimination of native-inspired team names, because I always felt the iconography was more offensive. There could have been tasteful ways for Cleveland to keep the “Indians” name, but it was clear years ago that Chief Wahoo had to go. Same for Chief Nokahoma (who I think the Braves retired in rhe 80s), and every team with a Tomohawk in their logo.
The Redskins were always a different case. The logo wasn’t quite so offensive, but try naming a team the Spics, Honkeys, or Japs and see how people like that. The name had to go. They could have named the team after the Blackfeet tribe, somehow, and kept the logo. But once they abandoned native names, the logo had to go.
It’s too bad the Washington Generals was already taken, that would have been awesome. In retrospect, they should have kept Washington Football Team…
Right. You’re illustrating my other point for me. The issue isn’t black-and-white, and there are those with valid points on both sides of the issue. Yours is a good illustration of the other side.
My opinion? I’m a white guy. My opinion should be irrelevant. Hold a vote on native american tribal lands. Let the majority speak.
(EDIT: Side note, the New York Giants was the name of both a professional baseball and football team for around 30 years or so. Outside of potential trademark issues, having teams from two different sports sharing the same name isn’t without precedent.)
It was always offensive to you. And it is offensive to many Native Americans. But not all of them. That’s the point I’m trying to make. The Washington Post reported that as many as 90% of Native Americans aren’t offended by the name at all, though another poll a few years later claims that it’s closer to a 50/50 split. You have the right to be offended by the name, but your opinion does not reflect large chunks of the Native American population.
Again, I think the best way to solve the problem is to ask them. Get tribal leaders from across the country. Hold a vote. Whatever. Ask them. “What name can we give this football team that would honor our country’s Native Americans?”. I don’t know what that answer is. Maybe there isn’t a good one. I don’t know. Maybe the solution is to have a more generic name for the team itself, but keep the logo. But at the end, I believe in two things: (1) Native Americans should have much more of a say in the issue, and (2) Please, please, anything but Commanders. My god, that name is awful.
That article doesn’t say what you think it says. The family of the man pictured in the logo wanted to keep it because it was it of the most widely seen images of a Native American. The family themselves don’t seem to care about the name much. Other groups do though.
I was never a big fan about the wholesale elimination of native-inspired team names, because I always felt the iconography was more offensive. There could have been tasteful ways for Cleveland to keep the “Indians” name, but it was clear years ago that Chief Wahoo had to go. Same for Chief Nokahoma (who I think the Braves retired in rhe 80s), and every team with a Tomohawk in their logo.
The Redskins were always a different case. The logo wasn’t quite so offensive, but try naming a team the Spics, Honkeys, or Japs and see how people like that. The name had to go. They could have named the team after the Blackfeet tribe, somehow, and kept the logo. But once they abandoned native names, the logo had to go.
It’s too bad the Washington Generals was already taken, that would have been awesome. In retrospect, they should have kept Washington Football Team…
Right. You’re illustrating my other point for me. The issue isn’t black-and-white, and there are those with valid points on both sides of the issue. Yours is a good illustration of the other side.
My opinion? I’m a white guy. My opinion should be irrelevant. Hold a vote on native american tribal lands. Let the majority speak.
(EDIT: Side note, the New York Giants was the name of both a professional baseball and football team for around 30 years or so. Outside of potential trademark issues, having teams from two different sports sharing the same name isn’t without precedent.)
No, you can hem and haw about the other team names. But “Redskins” was always offensive, unless you were taking about potatoes.
It was always offensive to you. And it is offensive to many Native Americans. But not all of them. That’s the point I’m trying to make. The Washington Post reported that as many as 90% of Native Americans aren’t offended by the name at all, though another poll a few years later claims that it’s closer to a 50/50 split. You have the right to be offended by the name, but your opinion does not reflect large chunks of the Native American population.
Again, I think the best way to solve the problem is to ask them. Get tribal leaders from across the country. Hold a vote. Whatever. Ask them. “What name can we give this football team that would honor our country’s Native Americans?”. I don’t know what that answer is. Maybe there isn’t a good one. I don’t know. Maybe the solution is to have a more generic name for the team itself, but keep the logo. But at the end, I believe in two things: (1) Native Americans should have much more of a say in the issue, and (2) Please, please, anything but Commanders. My god, that name is awful.