If there is one topic in the NFL in recent years that has divided opinion among fans, it is the possible renaming of the Washington Redskins NFL franchise and the reasons behind why it may just have to happen.
The word ‘Redskins’ is a derogatory word used to describe Native American Indians, although I have seen this being debated by many.
So you may now be wondering why the team were named ‘Redskins’ in the first place? Well it dates back to 1933 when co-owner at the time George Preston Marshall changed the name from the Braves to the Redskins, apparently to avoid confusion with the Atlanta Braves Baseball team.
Marshall was against African-Americans playing for his team and was therefore identified as the leading racist in the NFL for over 20 years. Fast forward to now and the NFL and the Redskins themselves are under pressure to change the name altogether. Sounds easy, right?
First of all the NFL itself are actually in support of Washington keeping the Redskins name, which makes life that little bit easier for current Redskins owner Daniel Snyder. Then of course money comes into play here, as the Redskins brand is the third most valuable in the NFL.
The franchise is worth a whopping $1.56 billion dollars as of January 2014 according to Forbes. Imagine how much the Redskins would lose if they are forced to change their name?
However last month the US patent and Trademark Office decided to cancel the team’s trademark registration, which is a huge blow to Snyder in his fight to keep the Redskins name, and could ultimately force Snyder’s hand.
Growing up following the NFL I had personally never heard of the Redskins term in a derogatory way, so when I first heard of this whole saga, my initial thoughts were that I sided with the NFL and the Redskins. I couldn’t understand why the name was even an issue. Admittedly I found myself being quite ignorant.
However after some research and discussions with people in the know, my opinion has changed and I feel now that the name should be changed – mostly due to the wider meaning of the word Redskins, but also because I am a father of two young children and I would not want them growing up in a world where racial and derogatory terms are acceptable in any part of the sporting world.
There was a commercial run by a Native American Indian group during the recent NBA finals calling for the name to be changed. Whether this will lead to its desired effect remains to be seen. Ironically there are some Native American Indians who support the Redskins name, or simply don’t care what happens. So not only is opinion divided among NFL fans, but among those who the name Redskins directly affects.
Then of course there is the question of what name should the team be changed to should it have to be changed. Some names thrown around as possible replacements are the Warriors, Senators, Pigskins, Renegades, Redtails and possibly reverting back to the original team name when the team itself was based in Boston, the Washington Braves.
The more I think about it, the more I like the Washington Braves. Braves being a less controversial term that would still honour the Native American Indians.
I believe the name change will come eventually, it’s just a question of whether it will be sooner or later, and to what name.
WQ
Guest
I find it hard to believe that changing the name of a Football Team will do anything at all to compensate any group of people over anything!
Justin Twell
Roar Guru
The Washington Iroquois doesn't have any ring to it for me. There is of course the option that the Redskins move away completely from the Native American Indian theme, if you will. Can't see that happening though.
Matthew
Guest
Dwight, I've also seen it suggested that names like Braves and Warriors focus on just one aspect of Native American history (the violent part), and thus become a derogatory stereotype. At the same time, football is a violent sport of aggression, and so you want a name the projects an aggressive, even dangerous, image (Lions, Bears, etc.). I can see it both ways. But, as sports really doesn't require the name to project a specifically violent image--Dolphins are not violent, and 49ers were prospectors, and would be more likely to defend themselves than attack anyone--I would think that any name that relates to a group of people as a tribute should be aware of deeper implications to their name. With that in mind, I agree with you completely. Something like "Iroquois" would be honorable on all levels. Assuming some drunk moron doesn't show up dressed like a cartoon of an Indian.
liam
Guest
The only way Braves could work is in the context of "The home of the brave and the land of the free" somehow I can't see this working.
Nicholas Hartman
Roar Guru
I don't think the Braves is that too far removed from Redskins. While it may not be outwardly derogatory, it's still patronising (one just a look a little into Native American history to see why). Why can't the Washington team, if they want to retain the Native American name, just renames themselves the Iroquois or Sioux or whatever local people populated the Washington area? Or perhaps call themselves the Washington Spears and have their logo being that of a Native American thrusting a spear?
nordster
Guest
Washington Tea Party is the best suggestion i've seen... The left would go absolutely mental... :)