I like the “warriors” nickname. But there STILL would be someone that would be “offended” by it.
Originally Posted by: Cheesey
Warriors is reportedly the front runner (which is what I assumed after the Redskins said they'd like something that honors both Indians and Military). But sounds like Dan Synder got the trademark in 2010 for an AFL team he was hoping to run, but then dropped it when that was no longer happening , and in 2014 someone else tried to pick it up, no word if he was successful. Synder will probably demand owning the trademark of anything he changes the name to.
But it might help get people to stop complaining if they also change their logo
I prefer you folks making topics and posts. When you see me create topics, and posts in abundance, that means I feel you all slacking off. 😜
Back on topic since I foolishly derailed a post or two here.
Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool
Yes it's all your fault 😜
Prior to all this a few years ago, I never knew Redskins meant something foul. I thought it meant warrior or something on those lines. As they say, ignorance is bliss.
I believe most teams could have a syndicate that would find offense to their name or names lineage. My question is, where does it stop? What's the end? What is the purpose? Do we not have larger issues at hand to tend with? I feel strongly that we do.
Originally, I believe they were called the Braves. George Marshall changed the name from Braves to Redskins so he could keep the Native American monikers (that's from wiki).
While Marshall was in favor of segregation, I'm not entirely convinced he chose to name his professional football organization racial slur. At least, not knowingly. The guy was known to be frugal as hell. If that's all true, why would you name your franchise after a racial slur? It doesn't make sense to me, but just because it doesn't make sense to me doesn't mean much.
Personally, if I was the owner and it became apparent the team name was a racial slur. I would have tried to make it a huge massive public relations win for me and my business.
Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool
I absolutely agree with the question of where does it stop, if it's just the Redskins, then change them now!
But the Indian leader of the last movement that took them to court or TM court or something, publicly stated it's Washington Redskins, Cleveland Indians and then Kansas City Chiefs (for their usage of the religious headdresses)... I'm surprised her left out Braves.
Also we got PETA trying to change the Packers name, after it was after meat packing company originally.
I absolutely don't think the owners of the team ever meant to be racist with the team name (even if they are racist), I believe they choose Boston Braves as they were playing in the same stadium as the then Boston Braves baseball team and because they were completely unoriginal. Then they wanted their own mascot, so they changed it to Redskins because they were completely unoriginal.
My understanding is the term Redskins, has become more used as a racial term in recent decades in the west area where Cities and Native Americans areas are close and bothering each other... the East knowns nothing of this as they basically have no Native American tribes area left.