Redskins Trademark cancelled

I think using Native Americans as mascots in general is the issue; some feel that they are honored by it, some feel dehumanized by it (Chief Wahoo is a pretty dehumanizing caricature if you ask me). So anything Native American will be off the table if this campaign is ultimately successful. Braves, Warriors, Chiefs, etc.

Perhaps the only option left would be an agreement with a local tribe, similar to what the Seminoles have with FSU. The Washington Powhatan has a nice ring to it.

But one thing I did want to comment about the "Braveheart" name. If it wasn't for the movie (and I LOVED the movie), I'd probably get used to that name. But since there is a move called Braveheart, I'd feel that name would be a little "Campy". I can't help but to picture a logo with Mel Gibson's panted face on it.

I think using Native Americans as mascots in general is the issue; some feel that they are honored by it, some feel dehumanized by it (Chief Wahoo is a pretty dehumanizing caricature if you ask me). So anything Native American will be off the table if this campaign is ultimately successful. Braves, Warriors, Chiefs, etc.

Perhaps the only option left would be an agreement with a local tribe, similar to what the Seminoles have with FSU. The Washington Powhatan has a nice ring to it.

Honestly, I think if the team ever did agree to the change, the other side would have to agree to a compromise. I think they could live with Braves or Warriors with the agreement that a certain percentage of income made was given to a local tribe or something like that. To me, if people like Susan Harjo or Amanda Blackhorse didn't agree to that, then it says to me it's all about the money. They may think they can stronghold them into an all or nothing change, but the truth is, I don't believe they have that much power. And knowing that these ridiculous lawsuits are popping up ($9B of the Cleveland Indians), eventually the general public is going to start thinking this is more about money than rights.

Identity. You gotta understand that not everybody on this board is a resident of the D.C. area, surrounding areas, or has been at some point. For me, I grew up 5 hours away from D.C. That isn't exactly being a part of the area, even though most of all Virginia is a Redskins state. So for me, I identified with the team by their name, logos, and color of uniforms. I don't have that hometown attachment to the team. So, if the team moved out west and still called themselves the Redskins, I'd still root for that team even if a new team moved into the D.C. area.

Having said that, I feel that most fans could embrace a name change if the change wasn't a complete and total change away from what the team is now. A name that could still embrace the old identity, colors, even the logo - if not for a transitional period. And then, once fans are used to calling the team the new name, then other changes (main colors if need be, logo, etc...) could gradually be mixed in. Over time, the change and transition isn't quite as harsh.

I understand the thoughts of some to just change the name completely, get rid of everything Washington Redskins, and just move on so that we're not having to hear about people like Susan Harjo or Amanda Blackhorse. But the truth is, that would be a very polarizing change. The hometown fans would embrace whatever, but the admirers from far away would be left feeling as if we got robbed.

Not really, I haven't lived anywhere near DC since 1973 and if we have to change names I want to dump the Indian thing entirely.

Honestly, I think if the team ever did agree to the change, the other side would have to agree to a compromise. I think they could live with Braves or Warriors with the agreement that a certain percentage of income made was given to a local tribe or something like that. To me, if people like Susan Harjo or Amanda Blackhorse didn't agree to that, then it says to me it's all about the money. They may think they can stronghold them into an all or nothing change, but the truth is, I don't believe they have that much power. And knowing that these ridiculous lawsuits are popping up ($9B of the Cleveland Indians), eventually the general public is going to start thinking this is more about money than rights.

I think you're being overly optimistic.

There's a bigger play at work here. And even if there isn't, the constantly shifting 'standards' of political correctness guarantee nothing if the team name is changed to anything that can be perceived as relating to any culture, race, creed, etc.

My opinion: if you change the name and leave any links to Native Americans in place, you're simply asking for us to go through all of this again at some point in the future. Personally - if we're going to change the name I prefer we change to something that doesn't mean decades of defending it again. I'm rather tired of the whole issue.

You know, it may be about money. But honestly, I don't think that's a totally awful thing... Conditions are deplorable on a lot of reservations, and frankly, the US government has a lot to do with that. Now, whether or not the money would actually go towards making things better is another discussion altogether, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion, I think.

Honestly, I think if the team ever did agree to the change, the other side would have to agree to a compromise. I think they could live with Braves or Warriors with the agreement that a certain percentage of income made was given to a local tribe or something like that. To me, if people like Susan Harjo or Amanda Blackhorse didn't agree to that, then it says to me it's all about the money. They may think they can stronghold them into an all or nothing change, but the truth is, I don't believe they have that much power. And knowing that these ridiculous lawsuits are popping up ($9B of the Cleveland Indians), eventually the general public is going to start thinking this is more about money than rights.We had approval of the National Congress of American Indians. Dan Snyder funds a foundation for Native Americans. The whiny PC crowd apparently doesn't care about things like that.

only 26 views since October

KsZ0io3H2YY

this is good

HOLMBERG: Easier to protest Redskins’ name than actually help Native Americans | WTVR.com (http://wtvr.com/2014/06/27/protesting-washington-redskins-name/)

I think you're being overly optimistic.

There's a bigger play at work here. And even if there isn't, the constantly shifting 'standards' of political correctness guarantee nothing if the team name is changed to anything that can be perceived as relating to any culture, race, creed, etc.

My opinion: if you change the name and leave any links to Native Americans in place, you're simply asking for us to go through all of this again at some point in the future. Personally - if we're going to change the name I prefer we change to something that doesn't mean decades of defending it again. I'm rather tired of the whole issue.

I might be overly optimistic, but when I start seeing frivolous lawsuits such as the one against the Cleveland Indians for $9 billion, then I start to see that this is a money thing more than anything else. And money talks, people listen. Everybody has their price, even these special interest groups. If the price is right, they go away satisfied and hopefully you've brokered a deal to either keep your name and logo, or change it to something that still remains Native American. Obviously that's still important to Daniel Snyder.