Dan Snyder is never gonna change the name, y'all are fooling yourselves. This is nothing but posturing, you are just gonna have to keep living with it.

Do the Redskins have a contract with Nike ? Does this mean that the Redskins can now make and sell their own merchandise? Does this open the door for other teams to make and sell their own merchandise? Does this open the door for Jerry Jones to own and sell their own merchandise? Jones has been trying to get out of the NFL contract for years.

Benjamin Frankenstein: we tried, really we did. The dismissed consciences were inevitable, it seems.

“|Pussy| has joined the thread”

Lmao

Never underestimate a grown man’s commitment to a corporate mascot.

Everything's offensive.

I’ll save the woke mob some time. Well just rename each nfl team where each team will be a number between 123 and 173
Kansas City 145s sounds good.


There. Now no one is offended.

Everything's offensive. Give it time.




I believe Schefter is missing the mark here.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Just saying.... <a href="https://t.co/QGQqLLpoH6">pic.twitter.com/QGQqLLpoH6</a></p>&mdash; Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) <a href="https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/1279028170025566209?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 3, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


Oilers to Titans has nothing to do with being offended. Nashville has very little to do with oil.

Devil Rays are real things.

Ducks-well appearently Mighty was to masculine????

I take his point just to be that it's really not the end of the world to change a name. People eventually get used to it and move on.

Nike pulls Redskins merchandise--But yet today this email


Fresh Chiefs Looks By Nike + 30% OFF!

The Chiefs name isn't the trendy social media fake outrage of the day. I hope the Redskins never change their name. They're like a barrier for us. They have to get them before they'll come for us.

If one changes they all will. Kansas City or KC would work because people use it anyway.

The new name has been released
The Washington Foreskins
Boyz with the hoods was also considered but Foreskins won out

ROFL

This is an interesting concept....would be funny if the side effect of all of this is the NFL getting out of a contract with Nike.

Could you imagine the free-for-all this would create with companies scrambling to sign with each individual team?

You mean like it used to be.

Cleveland Browns ...

I could argue it both ways.

Let's be honest, Chiefs is not even remotely offensive compared to Redskins. Chiefs pays homage to actual leaders of Native American tribes, actual positions of power and leadership that exist throughout many different groups. We don't have a picture of a Native American as our logo, we have a wolf as our mascot, and we have an arrowhead as our brand, the deadly part of all arrows that exist throughout archery, hunting, etc. You can say the tomahawk chop is offensive, but good luck getting a stadium of 75000 to stop that regardless if you don't play the music to it.

IMO the Redskins and Indians can go through the name and mascot changes, the Braves and Chiefs shouldn't be forced to make any changes.

This is correct.

If you find yourself constructing a reasoned argument against the name change (a change that is inevitable, IMHO), you’ve already misunderstood the situation. Reason will be a weak and ineffective tool in this situation. Money is your only real lever—if you can find the will to push your collective weight against it. Even then, your opponents probably outweigh all of you.

Looks like Snyder’s finally going to do it.


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">And here it is: the Redskins are undergoing a thorough review of the team’s name.<br><br>And let’s be clear: There’s no review if there’s no change coming.<br><br>Redskins on way out. <a href="https://t.co/ZrS3cCvhMg">pic.twitter.com/ZrS3cCvhMg</a></p>&mdash; Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) <a href="https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/1279067390198927360?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 3, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

this statement is signed REDSKINS LMAO

they're not changing shit - this statement is a low key **** you

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EcApAhNW...jpg&name=large

Braves, Indians, Chiefs—They’ll all be history quickly. There’s simply no consequence to getting rid of the names and imagery

No. The Chiefs fan base is strong enough they don't care about this shit.

Cancel culture ain't coming here.

They wouldn’t have even put this out if they had no intention of changing

Granted, their hand is being forced financially from Fedex, Nike, etc....

Dude, I don't want the Chiefs name to change, but the fans have very little power in deciding this shit.

Snyder and the fans thought they were in charge with Redskins. And then the money arrived at the party, and then they had nothing.

DC is different. Period.

Latest news from the Redskins.
https://babylonbee.com/news/redskins...n-better-in-dc

I don't think that's true at all. They can't say nothing in this day and age - they have to give the appearance that they're taking it seriously. I wouldn't be surprised if this ends in the standard "We talked, they're cool with it, and we gave them a bunch of money."

Braves, Indians and Chiefs don't directly refer to someone's skin color, nor were they used as a slur in the 1800's-1900's to summarize a type of people.

It's a pretty damn important nuance.

It's very simple to me: Society wouldn't tolerate a "Blackskins" team. Most of us would agree it's in poor taste.

Society would go ape shit over a "Whiteskins" team.

Why is Redskins any different?

Texas Rangers: brutal racists, the klan of the border.

Washington Sentinels please.

Yeah, the interesting part of this is that people on all sides become so entrenched that there's no reasonable discussion. I have misgivings about replacing names like Braves and Chiefs. I don't think they're inherently disparaging terms, and I view with skepticism the notion of "embracing diversity" by deleting public references to a culture. I think people view the Redskins name as the opening salvo of a larger war and they want to hold the line, but defending the name "Redskins" is a folly.

It would appear to me that the line of reasonableness falls somewhere between Redskins and Braves. Redskins is clearly over the line. Maybe Indians is as well, though I find it hard to view it as a racial thing when we've also got the Vikings and patriots that are the same concept. I think Braves is under the line because it's not about Indians, it's about warriors and it's clearly honorific. Braves is equivalent to Cowboys and Oilers and Packers.
It's not racially motivated, but rather is vocationally oriented. Chiefs is closer to the line than Braves, but still under it for the same reason. As others have noted, I think the issue lies with the tertiary activities like the chop and the horse and that sort of thing.

Others may have different opinions about where the line is, of course, but our challenge is that we don't know what the rule is for changing. Does it change if more than 50 percent are offended? Or do we change if one person out of our 300 million is offended?

Or are the only opinions that count those of the population being portrayed? I'd be fine with that as a decision rule, but if that's the case then I don't want to hear the opinions of the non-portrayed population. We put the question to our population of Native Americans and let them decide. And then we go to our Scandinavian population about Vikings and our tiger population about Bengals.

Stephen A. Smith says live on ESPN that a source tells him the name is going to be changed.

If they change the name then Synder will lose any respect he had among the Skins fans. They will be flying banners calling for him to sell the team. Defending the name is the only thing they praised him for and the only thing keeping from a full out fan revolt.

I am betting the fanbase doubles and triples down on the Indian iconography.

This is what happens when you allow things that will start a slippery slope

Would the name “Allskins” be offensive?? You know they are coming for the Chiefs next.. Hopefully having the new face of the NFL keeps them at bay for awhile..

Renaming the team to Washington Generals would make the most sense but then I see there is a basketball team with the same name who exists only to play exhibition games against the Harlem Globetrotters.

I was talking to a friend of mine who is very knowledgeable about the history of the NFL and who is no liberal by any means. He said that the term Redskin was used back in the day as a slur to refer to Indians similar to how the use of the N word refers to Blacks.

This! :thumb:

You don’t say!?

So if they change the name. Anybody can make Redskins apparel, which fans will want.. Talk about lost revenue.

The fans will get over it. Whether or not fans respect Snyder won't change his bottom line. At the end of the day it's about the team. Fans care much more about the team than the team's owner. If Snyder can figure out how to build a winning team the fans won't give a shit about Snyder or the name of the team.

I'm not sure why anyone has an issue with this (although it's humorous watching white people try to defend it). This isn't a flattering name, like "braves". It doesn't denote leadership, like "chiefs". It doesn't denote a group nationality, like "indians" (which, sure, is technically incorrect, but it's not our fault the dumbasses who first landed here thought they'd made it to India... so, "Indians" it is, for Native Americans, like it or not). The word "redskins" is literally nothing but a derogatory term for their skin color. Why don't we have a southern team called the Blackskins or Darkies, doesn't that sound good? Hey, San Fran has a huge Asian population, how about we change their name to the Yellows or Chinks? There is not one good brain cell of a reason to defend the name "Redskins". Change it back to Braves, change it to Nationals, whatever. ****ing team's only been around since 1937 and some of you act like they want to tear down Confederate war statues...

They should change it to the most powerful group in America: the Washington Lobbyists.

As RainMan said, for those people defending this it's not really about the name so much as it as about not giving in to what they believe is a slippery slope that could eventually affect teams like the Chiefs.

I understand that concern. I get it. Because their WILL be some bitch from some organization that claims to be offended. And yeah, maybe "they" will try to go after the Chiefs once the Redskins cave.

But my hope is that common sense will prevail for the majority, and the nuance we've pointed out regarding the names would be understood.

Redskins SHOULD be changed. But teams like the Braves, Chiefs etc shouldn't. Hopefully society can tell the difference.

You can't take Alex Smith any where without controversy.

LMAO

I like it.

Since being gay is cool now how about the dc dicklickers?

Chiefs isn’t a racial slur like Redskins. Chief is a pretty widely used title and term of respect used all over the business and military worlds.

I could however see them go after the Native American imagery associated with Chiefs like the Arrowhead and Drum stuff, etc. I thought the Chiefs organization had attempted to tone this down anyways in recent years?

They are now pushing for the Indians, Braces and Chiefs to change their names

"They" have been pushing for that for years. Hence the reason why the "slippery slope" people don't want the Redskins name changed. But the Redskins name needs to be changed. But the line needs to be drawn there. The concern is whether or not the line will be drawn there.

I have faith that it will. But i understand those that think it won't.

The Nationals would be a good one if the baseball team didn’t exist.

What about the Natives.?

Washington Bullets seems appropriate.

Just change it to the Washington Pelosi's and call it good

The Washington Corruption.

I like the way that sounds.

Cowboys and Patriots likely “offend” the inquisitors as well. Now that they’ve corrected the thinking of the Redskins owner it’s time to see who’s next.

The mob stops for nobody. I'm surprised people are shocked by this.

It's cute that you believe this

total propaganda created bullshit from the very beginning.

another mockery move by the govt..

Bullets is offensive to the black community and conotates death and crime/racism.
hey, heres an idea. Change the name to a upper management leader of the KKK..
Wizards.

The national leader of the Ku Klux Klan is called either a Grand Wizard or an Imperial Wizard, depending on which KKK organization is being described.

Gimme back my bullets. Put em back where they belong...

Washington Crackers

Washington generals

No one respects Snyder

Yep...but that was before anyone realized how lucrative licensing would really turn out to be.

Washington Mahomo

Love the Lynyrd Skynyrd reference...

To piss people off he will just call them the Washington Chiefs, Natives, Braves etc.

I chuckled at this, and then sadly agreed.

The devolution of the United States of America is terrifying to watch...

"The Washington Lampreys" for all the blood suckers in Washington.

To the right wing familiars from DC invading this thread: maybe take a moment and think do I really want to defend an actual racial slur to own the libs

Nah, we're not doing that.

THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY!

Shut the **** up and keep your politics out of the lounge.

He can't see this FWIW.

Washington wire taps

Thanks for the heads up. Am I on zir iggy list?