This is the last Slate article that will refer to the Washington NFL team as the Redskins.

[kpete]

This is the last Slate article that will refer to the Washington NFL team as the Redskins.

...........................

For decades, American Indian activists and others have been asking, urging, and haranguing the Washington Redskins to ditch their nickname, calling it a racist slur and an insult to Indians. They have collected historical and cultural examples of the use of redskin as a pejorative and twice sued to void the Redskins trademark, arguing that the name cannot be legally protected because it’s a slur. (A ruling on the second suit is expected soon; the first failed for technical reasons.) A group in the House of Representatives also recently introduced a bill to void the trademark. The team has been criticized from every different direction, by every kind of person. More than 20 years ago, Washington Post columnist Tony Kornheiser, no politically correct squish, urged the team to abandon the name. Today, the mayor of Washington, D.C.—the mayor!—goes out of his way to avoid saying the team’s name.

...............

........while the name Redskins is only a bit offensive, it’s extremely tacky and dated—like an old aunt who still talks about “colored people” or limps her wrist to suggest someone’s gay.

Slate is far from the first to take a stand against the nickname. Why are we joining Washington City Paper and Gregg Easterbrook and writers from the Buffalo News and the Philadelphia Daily News? We’re a national, general-interest magazine, not the Washington Post or ESPN. Our coverage is sporadic, and I doubt that Dan Snyder or Roger Goodell have Google alerts for our NFL stories. When we stop using the name Redskins, hardly anyone will notice. But it will also represent no great sacrifice for us to stop using the word—it’s easy enough to substitute “Washington” or “Washington’s NFL team.” (To be clear, though we’re striking the word from our vocabulary, we will not bowdlerize quotes—if a public official utters the nickname in a newsworthy speech, we will not strike the word Redskins.)

Changing how you talk changes how you think. The adoption of the term “African-American”—replacing “Negro” and “colored”—in the aftermath of the civil rights movement brought a welcome symmetry with Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans, groups defined by geographic origin rather than by race or color. Replacing “same-sex marriage” with “marriage equality” helped make gay marriage a universal cause rather than a special pleading. If Slate can do a small part to change the way people talk about the team, that will be enough.

...............


MORE:
http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2013/08/washington_redskins_nickname_why_slate_will_stop_referring_to_the_nfl_team.html

[JVS]

1. Alternative names: The W. Red Tapes, The W. Filibusters, The W. Plutocrats, The. W. Whigs, Generals

It's surprising how hard the franchise clings to its name considering a) The name Redskin has no cultural connection to the city of Washington D.C. like some other teams do (Packers, Steelers, Cowboys, Vikings, Ravens, 49ers, Lakers back when they were the MN Lakers, even the Chicago Blackhawks at least have the excuse of coopting a tribe from their area), b) Washington D.C. has such rich possibilities when looking for an emblematic team name, and c) the team's mediocre history.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. If I might be so bold...

...as to suggest, this controversy and the issues surrounding are FREE ADVERTISING. For the front office a name change is writing a big check. Maybe bad PR but free PR is still free.

[KamaAina]

3. Snyder registered "Washington Warriors" as a trademark

allegedly for an arena football team he was planning to bring to the area, but more likely as insurance in case he loses the suit.

[Recursion]

4. They took the name "Redskins" when they moved to Fenway to tie in with the Red Sox

It was a different time then (1932 IIRC), but beyond that the marketing logic is gone, and if they changed the name once for marketing reasons there's no reason they can't do it again.

Now, they do still tie in with the Cowboys (that rivalry is the most lucrative in professional sports), but there are other ways to keep doing that: the Rustlers, the Bandits, the Sheriffs, etc. Or pick a different rival from outside their division (and why is Dallas in the NFC East anyways?)

[BumRushDaShow]

5. "that rivalry is the most lucrative in professional sports"

Nah.... Eagles and Cowboys - THAT is the most lucrative in terms of loud and brawling fans.

And I too want to know why they dumped Dallas in the NFC East. Guess it was to fill out the Division...

[Wednesdays]

6. While they're at it, I wish Florida State would drop the "war whoop"

during football games, if not abandon "Seminoles" as team name entirely.

[dogknob]

7. How about the Washington R-words?

How about we stop paying attention to football completely?