Washington DC's NFL team to change name

This is such good news.

I'm happy about this for in general but also because it will help other efforts to change team names and mascots. Locally, we're fighting to get one of our city's two high schools the change its breathtakingly racist team name and mascot. It's the worst I've ever seen, and because of the Black Lives Matter protests our racist mayor decided to put banners with the mascot up all over town to "honor" the school. In the middle of summer for no actual reason other than he's mad we had a big, well-attended, peaceful protest that he sulked through and walked out of when the police began to kneel with protesters. It's backfiring on him. We've been trying to get rid of it for years, but for the first time I am hopeful. This news will help.

As a Cherokee, I never really cared that much about the team name one way or another. But I understand not everyone, including my own people, feel that way.

I do wish, however, they would keep the logo and just change the name. The Washington logo is, in my opinion, a dignified representation of a Native American. Especially compared to the other representations, such as Chief Wahoo.

Keep the logo, change the name to the 'First Men'? Both to acknowledge that the Native Americans were here first, and to make a great cheer: "First in the game (war), First in the score (peace), First in the heart of their countrymen!"

frimble3 said:

Keep the logo, change the name to the 'First Men'? Both to acknowledge that the Native Americans were here first, and to make a great cheer: "First in the game (war), First in the score (peace), First in the heart of their countrymen!"

Click to expand...

The logo is problematic from a cultural appropriation standpoint, and is too tied to the slur of the old name, imo.

Dignified or not, the logo presents a stereotype. I wonder if we need to quit naming sports teams after any people.

RC turtle said:

Dignified or not, the logo presents a stereotype. I wonder if we need to quit naming sports teams after any people.

Click to expand...

I have to admit I'm surprised they are going ahead with this, given the opposition of the team's fan base (and we know teams are always about following the money). People get really emotional about team names and traditions, which is odd when you consider how often teams move and change their names.

Agreed. I know there are a range of opinions among Native Americans about this, but my understanding is the consensus is that using them as mascots, even when not a pejorative, treats a people and their culture as if they were some kind of mythic entity, at best.

And it implies that their images and culture are mainstream America's to borrow and present at will. Given the history of cultural erasure and persecution, this is problematic, imo. I suppose it's different if a group of people are not historically marginalized, or if they are owning or taking back a stereotype for their own schools or institutions (like Notre Dame's "Fighting Irish," which is a stereotype that seems like it should be offensive, but it was adopted by a school started by Irish Catholics, so that's their business).

I do think it's different when a profession is chosen as a team name, though, like the Cowboys or Steelers, as long as racial stereotypes aren't being invoked.

I'm not a football fan, and Washington wouldn't be my team if I were, but I like "Redtails." It has a similar sound.

Roxxsmom said:

I have to admit I'm surprised they are going ahead with this, given the opposition of the team's fan base (and we know teams are always about following the money).

Click to expand...

Oh, yeah. The team must have had an analysis done of how much money they'd lose from changing the name (fans boycotting) versus changing (Nike pulling their merch, Pepsi, FedEx, and Bank of America all applying various kinds of pressure). Keeping the name must have been deemed the costlier decision.

Lyv said:

Oh, yeah. The team must have had an analysis done of how much money they'd lose from changing the name (fans boycotting) versus changing (Nike pulling their merch, Pepsi, FedEx, and Bank of America all applying various kinds of pressure). Keeping the name must have been deemed the costlier decision.

Click to expand...

And the recent protests over systemic racism probably tipped the scales in that direction, so this shows that mass demonstrations can have further-reaching effects.

I know some people say team names are a small thing in a long history of oppression, but they reflect an unspoken (and previously unexamined) attitude, and imo those unspoken attitudes are one reason systemic racism hasn't died out.

Roxxsmom said:

I know some people say team names are a small thing in a long history of oppression, but they reflect an unspoken (and previously unexamined) attitude, and imo those unspoken attitudes are one reason systemic racism hasn't died out.

Click to expand...

Every landscape changing avalanche starts with one small rock falling. Start with the small stuff, if it's an easier place to start.

BTW, it just occured to me that, for the Washington, DC team, 'The Red Tape' would be an ideal choice, much like the 'The Crimson Tide'.

Chris P said:

I can't think of the exact quote, but I recently saw a headline to the effect that the names/statues/memorials we display represent the attitudes we continue to honor, even in ignorance of the original meaning.

Click to expand...

Which says scary things about the people who freaked out over the removal of the Confederate memorials in the South.

Chris P said:

Matt Weurker cartoon. I think "Red Tapirs" might be best one yet.

Frimble: the quote I saw was regarding the Confederate statues, but the team names is another symptom of the same thing.

Click to expand...

Those are awesome.

frimble3 said:

Which says scary things about the people who freaked out over the removal of the Confederate memorials in the South.

Click to expand...

My favorite quote right now to skewer the "heritage" argument is from Tom Morello: "Nirvana lasted longer than the Confederacy!"

The unfortunate context was an interview where he said even some Rage Against the Machine fans freaked out when they found out he's Black. Seriously?!

CWatts said:

My favorite quote right now to skewer the "heritage" argument is from Tom Morello: "Nirvana lasted longer than the Confederacy!"

The unfortunate context was an interview where he said even some Rage Against the Machine fans freaked out when they found out he's Black. Seriously?!

Click to expand...

Very much, seriously. The heavy metal scene is republicans in black jeans. It's extremely conservative and full of right wingers and white supremacists. They think "Killing in the Name" is a call to action, not a protest. There were actual fucking Nazis at Slayer's final show in Sacramento. I'm talking swastikas on their necks and kkk hoods on their t-shirts. The only good thing about having them at the shows is you can punch them in the mosh pit and no one calls the news. I mean, even as low level metal as Metallica uses "don't tread on me". Much of this imagery was initially used mockingly and for shock value (it was the 80s remember), but these days no one seems to remember that and the metal scene has been entirely co-opted by white snowflakes.

https://www.metalsucks.net/2018/04/...ont-get-a-pass-while-slayer-and-metallica-do/

Also, I love the irony in him citing Nirvana, since grunge is what killed metal's popularity and IMO ultimately drove it into the hands of the Nazis.

jennontheisland said:

Very much, seriously. The heavy metal scene is republicans in black jeans. It's extremely conservative and full of right wingers and white supremacists. They think "Killing in the Name" is a call to action, not a protest. There were actual fucking Nazis at Slayer's final show in Sacramento. I'm talking swastikas on their necks and kkk hoods on their t-shirts. The only good thing about having them at the shows is you can punch them in the mosh pit and no one calls the news. I mean, even as low level metal as Metallica uses "don't tread on me". Much of this imagery was initially used mockingly and for shock value (it was the 80s remember), but these days no one seems to remember that and the metal scene has been entirely co-opted by white snowflakes.

Click to expand...

It's such a huge problem and has been for a long time, just like with hardcore and even the punk scene. I've know so many people who live/breathe/eat metal and get (at best) pushed out of the scene and have to spend their whole lives contending with how much their favorite bands revile them. There are bright spots but, gawd, I can't think of any beside Rammstein, who tend to play around with some troubling imagery but are always happy to tell you where they stand and why they think racists & the far-right are wimps.

Chris P said:

WTF? No, WFT. For now.

At least the old name is officially retired while they settle on a new one.

Click to expand...

They should have gone with 'Washington's Team for Football'. Looks cool on a jersey whether they win or lose.

It's existed before, but became popular with 20th c college sports. Sportswriters for newspapers could only write "our team" or "our guys" so many times before it got boring. And people started bringing live mascots to games-- and then the schools that didn't have live mascots started wanting to get them, too, which is why there are so many animal mascots.

My undergrad university was founded in 1845, but it wasn't until 1914 that they voted to have a live mascot. The options up for consideration were buffalo, eagle, antelope, and bookworm. But half of them liked the bear the best--- we got our first one in 1917, and have had about 50 since.

My parents' and siblings' university was founded in 1871. Their pre-WWI identity was the Farmers, with a lion mascot. Then they decided that "Aggies" was perhaps a bit easier to yell. They added in a live animal mascot (a collie) in 1931, and a cartoony drill sergeant in the 1930's, who didn't get a name until the 1940's. There have been a few other breeds of non-official mascots, but they've had about nine collies.

Having team names pre-dated that, of course, like with 19th c baseball teams. So if you have two teams from Chicago playing each other-- it's easier to tell them apart if one of them is the Cubs and the other are the White Sox. Or if you have Mets/Yankees/Giants/Knickerbockers all out of New York City, which one do you call the New York team when you're writing your article? etc.

Chris P said:

Come to think of it, why do we even have or need team names? Why not just have the NFL teams be "Washington," "Green Bay" "Denver," etc.? College and school sports could do this too: "Iowa State," "Duke," "Colo-NESCO," for example. Soccer in the rest of the world gets along just fine with "Liverpool," "Madrid," and others.

I suppose it arose out of a teamship building purpose, and a mascot meant to invoke an image, but is it really needed? Who else around the world does this?

Click to expand...

I've wondered this about sport the other side of the Atlantic. Teams over here do have nicknames and mascots but they're not usually part of the official team name.

For example, Liverpool are The Reds and Man United are the Red Devils, and my local premier league* team are, for some unfathomable reason, The Cherries. The difference is that their actual team names are Liverpool FC, Manchester United FC and AFC Bournemouth and not, for example, The Liverpool Reds, The Manchester Red Devils and The Bournemouth Cherries. That would look great on a jersey

*not sure for how long though as I think they're being relegated.

There's no official convention though. Teams call themselves what they want. Arsenal doesn't have a geographical component to its name and Tottenham Hotspur (aka Spurs) has both a geographical and non geographical component. They're both London teams and there are lots of other London teams, including Crystal Palace, Chelsea, Millwall and West Ham. They're usually named after the part of London they're from. I can't think of any team with London in its name though. You do get some with a City name and a 2nd part of their name to avoid confusion, e.g. Manchester City and Manchester United. Or Sheffield United and Sheffield Wednesday. So yeah, teams just name themselves whatever they want with no convention, like if you want to combine your city name with a day of the week, go for it!

I just googled why the Cherries are called the Cherries. Apparently it's because they used to play on land that had lots of cherry orchards.