Plan B Forum

Anybody got an idea for a new name to replace 'Redskins'?

I say, in honor of Lord Jim, they should be named the Washington Ronald Reagans.

Washington Lord Jims?

Okay, I guess that won't work.

Any ideas?

Washington Slurs?

The Washington Swamp Rats

How about leaving it as the Washington Redskins and telling the rest of the world to just fuck off and mind their own business?  Or maybe spend their energy worrying and working on more important things than the name of a goddamned PRIVATELY-OWNED football team?

They could even enlist BSG for the announcement.  She's already got the line down pat, and Boston isn't that far from DC.  She could hop on a quick commuter flight and be there and back all in the same day.

-"BB"-

Bicycle Bill wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 05, 2020 11:03 pm

How about leaving it as the Washington Redskins and telling the rest of the world to just fuck off and mind their own business?  Or maybe spend their energy worrying and working on more important things than the name of a goddamned PRIVATELY-OWNED football team?

Just like Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben, and Eskimo Pie, the owner of the team has to make a business decision: would it be more profitable to keep the name, or to change it. Whichever of these alternatives is better for the business is the right decision. And yes, customers and potential customers have EVERY RIGHT to take the name of the product into consideration when they're choosing how to spend their money, and if the owner doesn't acknowledge that fact, he doesn't deserve to be running a successful business..

Bicycle Bill wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 05, 2020 11:03 pm

She could hop on a quick commuter flight and be there and back all in the same day.

Uhhh...NO. Anyone who cares about their own health and the health of others should NOT get on any sort of commercial flight anytime this year.

The Washington Scarlet Epidermises?

The Washington Fifty-Firsters?

they c0uld call them the..., RG3 s....

but that w0n t last l0ng.....

0r....

the The RGB s !!!!!

0h wait...., same pr0blem.....

Oh it's wes, again.

I wonder where that stink was coming from.

Econoline wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 05, 2020 11:33 pm

Just like Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben, and Eskimo Pie, the owner of the team has to make a business decision: would it be more profitable to keep the name, or to change it. Whichever of these alternatives is better for the business is the right decision. And yes, customers and potential customers have EVERY RIGHT to take the name of the product into consideration when they're choosing how to spend their money, and if the owner doesn't acknowledge that fact, he doesn't deserve to be running a successful business..

You can always buy Hungry Jack pancake mix, or Minute Rice, or Klondike bars if you are upset with Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben, or Eskimo Pie, but if you decide to boycott the Washington Redskins over their name it's not like there's another Washington team you can swing your allegiance to instead.  There's only so many professional football teams out there and, I'm sorry to say, about the only way they are not going to make money is if revenues fall.  And where do these revenues come from?  Hint: it ain't from what the fans are paying to park their butts in the seats!  While that and the money the fans pay for shirts, hats, and other branded shit is nothing to sneeze at, it's the lucrative contracts that the TV networks pay for the rights to televise their games that ends up paying most of the bills.  And it is my understanding that this revenue is shared among all the teams — that's why the Green Bay Packers, in one of the smallest markets in any major league sport, are still viable — so even if the networks were to make a conscious (and probably illegal) decision to NOT broadcast any Washington Redskins games, the 'Skins still get a share of the money the networks paid for those rights.  And of course, fans of the other teams in the NFC East conference that PLAY the Redskins would be up in arms because they would not get to see their Cowboys or their Giants or their Eagles two weeks out of the year.

And the average fan is as fickle as hell anyway.  About the only thing that keeps them home is if the team's performance sucks.  So the Redskins could rename themselves the Beltway Butt-Fuckers (aside — I'd LOVE to see that logo; a Congresscritter doing a Capitol page, Greek-style?) and as long as the team was winning games the seats would STILL be filled.

-"BB"-

Congressional Panderers is fitting.

Geez some folks really are wedded to the old racist order of things.


I like the idea of calling them the Washington Redtails in honor of the Tuskegee Airmen, and apparently there has already been mockup of uniforms and logos for that option.

Another option that resonates with me is Washington Generals - another nice nod to our military.


Obviously I would love to see the change happen, and to extend it to all remaining major league sports teams that utilize Native American imagery in logos and names. Then hopefully that will carry over to sports teams at all levels from college to little league and pop warner, etc. A race of people shouldn’t be a mascot.

Cleveland is now contemplating a name change, too. I’m sure some of you will freak the fuck out over that, but I see it as necessary progress toward a better society.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsspo ... tions/amp/

It's not such a big deal to change a team's name if some people are offended by it. Few people know this but the Green Bay Packers started out as the Green Bay Fudge Packers. I'm not sure why they changed the name. The idea might have been pushed by the chocolate industry. It kinda makes sense that they were behind it.

Given their records over the last couple of decades, maybe the Washington Generals would be fitting.

Joe Guy wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 06, 2020 3:43 am

It's not such a big deal to change a team's name if some people are offended by it. Few people know this but the Green Bay Packers started out as the Green Bay Fudge Packers. I'm not sure why they changed the name. The idea might have been pushed by the chocolate industry. It kinda makes sense that they were behind it.

And of course, that's why PeTA wanted them to change their name twenty years ago.  Fudges have feelings too!!

-"BB"-

Washington Marvels.

More popular than DC

How about the "Washington We won some superbowls in the past but have been irrelevant for years"? Or make that the new name for the team in Dallas.


(Go Eagles!)

On the other hand...



IDEA OF THE DAY: RACIST MASCOT PSYCHOLOGY

A team of leading psychologists once conducted an experiment to see how popular images of Native Americans — like sports logos — affected Native American high school and college students. The psychologists first showed the students the images and then asked a series of questions.

The students mostly used positive words, like peaceful and kind, to describe the images, which included the Cleveland Indians mascot and Pocahontas. But when the researchers then asked a series of follow-up questions, the study took a more negative turn. Students who had seen the images reported lower self-esteem and more negative views of their community compared with a control group of similar students who had not seen the images.

The problem was not that the images were purely negative, the psychologists suggested. It was that they reminded students of the very narrow public portrayal of Native Americans — stereotypes of warriors of an exotic race (who were ultimately defeated and killed in large numbers). The mascots “function as inordinately powerful communicators, to natives and nonnatives alike, of how American Indians should look and behave,” the psychologists wrote.

For years, pro sports leagues have used caricatures of Native Americans — and have mimicked old rituals — in ways that would be unthinkable for other cultures. But the issue has taken a turn in the past few days, as part of the country’s current racial reckoning.

Major N.F.L. sponsors told Dan Snyder, the owner of the Washington Redskins, that they would no longer support the team if he didn’t change the name, and he announced a “thorough review” of the name. “It’s not the same thing as the N-word,” Philip Deloria, a Harvard historian of Dakota descent, told me, “but it’s clearly offensive.” There are no other team names with skin colors, and this name recalls a violent ritual of taking human bodies as trophies.

Deloria added that he hoped the team would not choose a new name — like Warriors, as some have suggested — with some of the same problems.

For more: Many tribal leaders have condemned the name; NPR has explained its history as a slur; Stephanie Fryberg of the University of Michigan has explained the dueling opinion polls about the name; and the Cleveland Indians are also reviewing their name.
https://web.stanford.edu/group/mcslab/c ... cesses.pdf

"Donald Wetzel Sr. knew what the Washington Redskins meant to his father. But it wasn’t until he stepped onto the team’s Virginia training grounds a few weeks ago that he learned what his father meant to the Redskins.

During a visit arranged by the franchise, he was shown a bronze statue of the team’s Indian head logo that he was told normally sits in owner Daniel Snyder’s office. On it were these words: “Walter S. Wetzel will forever be a part of the Redskins family because of his work in getting this logo put on the helmets.”

“It was just breathtaking to see that,” said Wetzel, 66. His late father, the former chairman of the Blackfeet Nation, would have been proud, he said. “He loved every part of the Redskins.”"