FedEx asks Redskins to change name

[comochiefsfan]

JUST IN: @FedEx has asked the Washington @Redskins to change its name. Here is the statement:

“We have communicated to the team in Washington our request that they change the team name.“

— ABC 7 News - WJLA (@ABC7News) July 2, 2020

Here we go. I think part of the reason we’ve been safe from this kind of stuff is because the Redskins have always been a bigger target. Now that there’s pressure from sponsors Snyder is going to feel the heat like never before.

If they go down, make no mistake, the mob will come for us next.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I don't know about that, man. Some of the current players are championing that name because it honors the Tuskegee Airman and since 70% of NFL players are Black, I doubt you'd find anyone that would be against that as their mascot.



In addition to that, 47% of DC is Black.

I haven't paid attention to the discussions, but if I'm an NFL owner, I'm staying far away from any names that relate to humans. Even if you have people on board now, there's no telling what people will choose to be mad about next year.

[displacedinMN]

has to be dropped here again

Further muddling the transition is the fact that North Dakota’s 2007 settlement with the N.C.A.A. allows it to keep the Fighting Sioux trademark. According to Schafer, federal trademark law requires North Dakota to maintain continuing commercial use to keep it. So it must sell some Fighting Sioux gear or risk losing the trademark, which would allow outside vendors to flood the market with Fighting Sioux knockoffs.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Conversely, Native Americans don't exactly feel the same way about the name "Chiefs" and its imagery.

Well, some do. The Chiefs have generally had a good working relationship with local tribes. It's everyone else that's the problem.

And you know some people would be pissed off by a name related to a group of black guys too.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by InChiefsHeaven

OK. So Redtails is an honorary title.

Chiefs is somehow derogatory, even though the team has gone out of it's way to honor tribes in the area and have never intentionally run down Native Americans.

I say the Chiefs organization has indeed used the name as a honorary name of their team. No different than "Red Tails".

I'm sure you will still think I'm "uniformed...again"...whatever that means.

I don't think that "Chiefs" is derogatory at all.

What's considered "derogatory" is the use of the Arrowhead on their helmet, the name of the stadium, Warpaint and the Chop.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Well, some do. The Chiefs have generally had a good working relationship with local tribes. It's everyone else that's the problem.

And you know some people would be pissed off by a name related to a group of black guys too.

I think the biggest issue with "Chiefs" isn't local perception but national perception of their imagery.

I hope that they never change the name and colors of the team but I think it's only a matter of time before they'll have to redesign the logo, rename the stadium and get rid of Warpaint, et al.

I have no idea whether that'll be in 5 years or 20 years but I don't think there's any denying that it's going to happen eventually.

[displacedinMN]

This is the second DC team to change names in the city of DC

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I think the biggest issue with "Chiefs" isn't local perception but national perception of their imagery.

I hope that they never change the name and colors of the team but I think it's only a matter of time before they'll have to redesign the logo, rename the stadium and get rid of Warpaint, et al.

I have no idea whether that'll be in 5 years or 20 years but I don't think there's any denying that it's going to happen eventually.

I think the name will go too because they’re never satisfied. The mob wants it all. They get something then move to the next thing.

[comochiefsfan]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I think the biggest issue with "Chiefs" isn't local perception but national perception of their imagery.

I hope that they never change the name and colors of the team but I think it's only a matter of time before they'll have to redesign the logo, rename the stadium and get rid of Warpaint, et al.

I have no idea whether that'll be in 5 years or 20 years but I don't think there's any denying that it's going to happen eventually.

This is also a case where being as good as we are will hurt us.

Every time we go to the Super Bowl over the next decade, the media will put the heat on and demand that action is taken over the team name. Those two weeks before the Super Bowl are a dead period for writers and those kind of stories will be everywhere in order to stir discussion and create controversy.

[InChiefsHeaven]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I don't think that "Chiefs" is derogatory at all.

What's considered "derogatory" is the use of the Arrowhead on their helmet, the name of the stadium, Warpaint and the Chop.

Arrowheads are not derogatory. They are an implement used by many people, but in this case Native Americans, for hunting, and for war. Naming a stadium after them is not derogatory.

A horse named warpaint...fine, I guess.

The chop...sure, I guess that can be considered derogatory...not intended as such, but that's the world we now live in.

In today's climate though, all of it will have to go to appease the woke crowd. Because it's not about being derogatory, it's about creating a narrative to make things the way "they" want it.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I don't think that "Chiefs" is derogatory at all.

What's considered "derogatory" is the use of the Arrowhead on their helmet, the name of the stadium, Warpaint and the Chop.

I think most of us feel that "Chiefs" isn't derogatory. The challenge is that it doesn't make much sense if you get rid of the helmet and maybe the stadium name. The other stuff is highly optional and can be jettisoned, but it's also part of the stadium ritual so it'll take a while to kill off. I think you have to make a full change or it's going to be half-baked.

I'm with DaFace, though. Stay away from any name that involves a human. There's always room to criticize humans. In fact, I'll start with the fact that women weren't allowed to be part of the Tuskegee Airmen. So Washington is glorifying misogyny? It's that easy. Just go with any animal that's not a hawk.

[Halfcan]

The Washington Redskins are changing their name to be more racially sensitive.

They will now be called the Washington RedCoons

Everyone likes raccoons right-especially cute Red ones.

[comochiefsfan]

Cowboys and Patriots literally genocided Native Americans.

Why don't those names have to go?

[Wisconsin_Chief]

Originally Posted by comochiefsfan

Cowboys and Patriots literally genocided Native Americans.

Why don't those names have to go?

Wait like 9 days. We'll get there.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I think the biggest issue with "Chiefs" isn't local perception but national perception of their imagery.

I hope that they never change the name and colors of the team but I think it's only a matter of time before they'll have to redesign the logo, rename the stadium and get rid of Warpaint, et al.

I have no idea whether that'll be in 5 years or 20 years but I don't think there's any denying that it's going to happen eventually.

I do find it interesting, though, that we'll have idle discussions on this very board about changes to the uniforms and logo. Maybe not so much the team name, but it wouldn't be considered off limits if it's coming internally from those of us in the Chiefs family. I think the real resistance is if it feels like it's being forced from outside the Chiefs fan base and franchise.

The funny thing is that it's happened before. We were the Dallas Texans with a very different log through 1962. Obviously the physical move was the big difference there, and most likely the fan base had a near-100 percent turnover as a result, but it's happened before.

Now I'm curious. Are there still any Chiefs fans today who were originally Dallas Texans fans? That would be a fun thing to know.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by InChiefsHeaven

Arrowheads are not derogatory. They are an implement used by many people, but in this case Native Americans, for hunting, and for war. Naming a stadium after them is not derogatory.

A horse named warpaint...fine, I guess.

The chop...sure, I guess that can be considered derogatory...not intended as such, but that's the world we now live in.

In today's climate though, all of it will have to go to appease the woke crowd. Because it's not about being derogatory, it's about creating a narrative to make things the way "they" want it.

The point I was attempting to make is that the name Chiefs isn't offensive in and of itself. Anyone that has an issue with it is being silly.

But, if the mascot Chiefs is accompanied by arrowheads, headdresses, a woman in a headdress riding a horse named Warpaint while the crowd is simulating scalping and decapitation, then it's a completely different ballgame.

Same with the Cleveland Indians. There's nothing wrong inherently with Indians as a mascot, unless you're making fun of Native Americans and using derogatory imagery.

As I mentioned in a related thread, no one would have issue with the name the Cleveland Indians if they changed their mascot to Ghandi or a similar image.