|
WASHINGTON
Peter King and Mike Florio, among others, have their champagne on ice and their list of new demands ready to go. The traditional name of Washington’s football team is hanging by a thread.
With “investors” demanding change, Nike and FedEx have put pressure on Daniel Snyder. CNN Business:
FedEx (FDX), a major sponsor of the Washington Redskins, is asking the NFL team to change its name in response to growing pressure from investors who oppose the name’s racist connotations.
“We have communicated to the team in Washington our request that they change the team name,” FedEx told CNN Business in a statement.
The delivery services company — which sponsors and has naming rights for the stadium the Washington team plays in — released its statement after more than 80 groups and shareholders that invest in the company sent a letter to FedEx CEO Frederick Smith calling on it to “terminate its business and public relationships” with the franchise because of the name.
Similar letters were also sent by investors to the CEOs of Nike (NKE), which makes Redskins uniforms and equipment, and Pepsi (PEP), its snack and beverage partner. Those two companies have not responded to CNN Business requests for comment.
Want some Nike gear with the current name on it? Or even some Nike gear with the team’s current symbols and color scheme? Not happening. R.P. Salio ofClutchPoints.com:
Nike has reportedly removed any and all merchandise bearing the Redskins’ name or logo from their official website. But going even further, if you check their drop down menu to click on specific teams whose merch you might want to cop, Washington is nowhere to be found.
Unless there’s a massive lack of stock in DC football merchandise, Nike has seemed to go the way of FedEx in that they will no longer be accepting of the racially-charged name.
Pepsi also issued a statement calling for change:
“We have been in conversations with the NFL and Washington management for a few weeks about this issue,” a PepsiCo spokesperson said. “We believe it is time for a change. We are pleased to see the steps the team announced today, and we look forward to continued partnership.”
On Friday, the team and the NFL coordinated on statements that indicate a change is on the way, but maybe time is being bought to get through 2020 and to have a new name and scheme in place when the change is made:
The Washington Redskins on Friday issued a statement saying that they will “undergo a thorough review of the team’s name” amid renewed pressure.
“In light of recent events around our country and feedback from our community, the Washington Redskins are announcing the team will undergo a thorough review of the team’s name. This review formalizes the initial discussions the team has been having with the league in recent weeks,” the statement said.
Team owner Dan Snyder has been under more pressure in recent weeks to change the name given the social climate following the death of George Floyd in Minnesota.
“This process allows the team to take into account not only the proud tradition and history of the franchise but also input from our alumni, the organization, sponsors, the National Football League and the local community it is proud to represent on and off the field,” Snyder said in the statement.
NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said in a statement Friday that the league has had “ongoing discussions” with Snyder and was “supportive of this important step.”
So, for every answer comes new questions.
When the team capitulates –
1) Can they/do they keep the distinctive burgundy and gold color scheme? We would think yes, it’s a distinctive look and kind of classy. But will there be those who say they can’t see the colors without flashing back and seeing that awful name.
2) Can they still honor Native-American culture with their new nickname coupled with their current logo which seems to project a positive image of that culture (see the logos history below)? Warriors, Chiefs, Braves have all survived so far in other contexts, would they be acceptable here (obviously not Chiefs in the NFL)? We are guessing that if Daniel Snyder were to try this, those demanding “change” would feel snookered.
3) So are there other names available that would not represent a total culture change. Coupled with the current color scheme, can you go with Hogs, Pigskins (Skins) or Burgundy? Or must it be a clean break, perhaps to something that honors our government culture?
4) Will the name Redskins be allowed to live in history? Will team materials and other accounts be allowed to use the word in a historical context or will Joe Gibbs have won his three Super Bowls with just “Washington.” Or will the new name be inserted (golf tournaments offer an analogy of backdating achievements when a new title sponsor comes on board)?
5) How soon can this be accomplished? By the time we hear the then-familiar strains of “Lift Every Voice And Sing” in Week One, would the new name be in place with new money-making merchandise?
Making all of this more likely, is there never has been a better time for a change as the Redskins put the mediocrity of the last 15 years or so behind them with a minority coach and a minority quarterback.
A similar point from Washington area radio host Grant Paulsen:
@granthpaulsen
If the Redskins do change their name, a lot of fans will be upset. But will the majority be angry? I really don’t think so. What if the new name/ logo is cool & well received?
They haven’t won in 30 years. It’s not like the timing of a re-brand is bad from a football standpoint.
Here is his online poll:
Redskins fans if he were to change the name.
I want it changed 31.5%
Wouldn’t mind a change 39.9%
Would be mad if changed 28.6%
Jared Dubin of CBSSports.com gives us an idea of which of the proposed names will fly with his media cohort:
With political and financial pressure now being applied to Snyder, perhaps he finally breaks and does indeed decide to change the team’s name. If and when that happens, there is no shortage of options available. People have been trying to come up with alternative names for some time now, so there are plenty of potential solutions to this issue for him to choose from. In the space below, we’ll run through some of the most popular suggestions, as well as some that seem logical on the surface but probably can’t happen.
Braves
This one is a no-go. Sure, it was the team’s original name; but if the team is being forced to change its name because of the potential racist connotations, then switching to another name that has potential racist connotations doesn’t seem like a wise idea. (The same concept applies to just changing the team name to Skins.)
Hogs
Naming the team after the famed offensive linemen that helped power them to three Super Bowls in the 1980s and 1990s seems like an interesting idea and there’s already a built-in affinity for the name from the fanbase, but there is also far too much potential for … different interpretations if you name a team the hogs. Can’t say I’d recommend this one. (Our own Michael Bohlin suggested the Warthogs, which was the name of Washington’s indoor soccer team, but if any variation of “Hogs” is going to win out, it’s probably the regular style, rather than the Warthogs.)
RedHawks
Miami (Ohio) University helpfully suggested this one, all the way back in 2014. While it would make for a smooth transition for CBS Sports Director of Programming Eric Kay, who is both a Washington fan and a Miami (Ohio) alum, it seems unlikely that the team would choose to become the second to make this exact name change. (i.e. “Redskins” to RedHawks)
Senators
This seems unlikely for a couple of reasons. First of all, the Senate has a disastrous approval rating, so I’m not sure anybody would want to root for the Senators. More importantly, the Washington Nationals still own the moniker “Washington Senators,” so it wouldn’t be possible even if Snyder wanted to pay tribute to the city’s original baseball team. (Unless he bought the name from Randy Lerner. But that seems even more unlikely.)
Americans/Generals/Other Military Name
One of the other teams in Washington is named the Capitals. Naming the team after the Senate (or the House of Representatives) seems like a horrendous idea. But it is based in our nation’s capital, so you know some people are going to suggest naming it either after the country itself, or one branch or another of the armed services. Personally, I think teams should be much more creative than this. You can name a team the Americans or Generals in any city in the country. The name should be specific to Washington in some way.
Bravehearts/Warriors/Renegades
Each of these names has the benefit of not changing the team’s overall aesthetic too much. They could probably keep the spear logo, which actually looks really cool on helmets, for example. (Just ditch the feather, probably.) With the Renegades, the team could also keep the “R” logo in place. They wouldn’t have to change their colors and the fight song could easily be tweaked to replace one word, and any of these options would work. This is probably the simplest route the team could go without making any drastic changes.
Redtails
This is the name that won a design contest several years ago, and honestly, I dig it. It’s a nod to the planes flown by the Tuskegee Airmen, an all-Black squadron of fighter and bomber pilots who fought in World War II and were the first Black military aviators in the United States Armed Forces. Three of the first five admitted Airmen were from Washington, which gives the Redtails name a specific connection to the city. The team could easily keep the colors and the “R” logo, while also transitioning from a name with potential negative connotations to one with extremely positive connotations that honors the city, the armed services, and Black Americans.
We like Renegades in concept, but doesn’t it have a history that could be problematic to some? Let’s check:
1: a deserter from one faith, cause, or allegiance to another
2: an individual who rejects lawful or conventional behavior
We think of renegade Indians when we hear the word, a convention in Westerns to distinguish from good Indians. But the pure definition applies more (#2) to Antifa in today’s context.
Kyle Smith of HogsHaven.com offers an analysis of the team’s history that ends up as a defense of the name. Key points –
Founder George Preston Marshall liked and respected Native-Americans, even as he was opposed to Blacks.
“Redskins” was once a name used by Native-Americans to describe themselves, but has acquired a slur aspect to it over the years.
As another commentator put it – 90% of Native-Americans have no problem with the name, but 90% of sportswriters seem to feel they must be appalled.
His whole analysis is here, edited version below:
At the risk of putting the final, tenderizing blows on a very dead horse, I thought it was worth composing some thoughts on the current moment in time, the Washington Redskins’ associations with racism, and origin stories for the team’s moniker and logo. Many Redskins fans will be familiar with some, or all, of these details. Some will not be. Many non-Redskins’ fans won’t be familiar with any of it. This is intended as an attempt to lay it all bare, and to facilitate a discussion that can result in broader understanding.
To begin, and to attempt to minimize claims of bias, let me first lay out my own position: I grew up as a fan of the team, with cheering on the Redskins a key point of contact with my father. We didn’t necessarily share a lot in common, but we both loved the Redskins, and both loved watching them together (and still do). In my younger years, I actually penned a letter imploring a name change (well before it was fashionable to do so). Decades have passed, and as they often do, views have become more complicated.
Ultimately, I would still root for the team, even if the name changes, though I’d rather that it didn’t. I absolutely understand the terrible treatment of American Indians throughout the country’s history, and I think that we all – and particularly those profiting off American Indian images – owe that community a great deal, and should take concrete steps to improve their welfare, to honor their history, and to acknowledge that people of all ethnic backgrounds spent much of this country’s existence trying to wipe them from the face of the earth.
To that end, my perspective is that breaking the connection between Washington, DC’s football team and its American Indian imagery can be just one more form of cultural erasure for a group of people who should ultimately be more prominently featured in the American experience. I believe the Washington Redskins (or perhaps some other name that retains the logo) should be turned into an organization that can serve as an exemplar for how to work in coordination with, and improve the lives of the American Indian community. More thoughts on that later.
The Redskins Were Birthed in Racism
Let’s get this out of the way at the beginning: The Redskins franchise was brought into existence by a virulent racist who leveraged that racism for a perceived business advantage until the federal government eventually forced his hand. That racism, however, was not directed at American Indians – quite the contrary – but African Americans.
When George Preston Marshall was awarded an NFL franchise in Boston in 1932, the team was originally called the Braves. To avoid confusion with the Boston Braves baseball team, he changed the name to the Boston Redskins in 1933. The change allowed Marshall to keep the American Indian imagery associated with the team, and also recognized the team’s head coach, William “Lone Star” Dietz, who was purported to be of Sioux heritage. At the time, the team also had six players of American Indian descent on the roster.
The fact that Marshall selected the name “Redskins” for his franchise suggests he saw it as an honorific title at the time, certainly not as a slur or way to degrade American Indians.
Marshall moved the Redskins to Washington, DC in 1937, after winning the division title game in 1936 and failing to get the desired level of fan support from Bostonians. From 1934 to 1946, there was an implicit “gentleman’s agreement” among NFL franchises not to hire African American players. Finally, in 1946, the LA Rams hired two African American players, causing a great deal of consternation among the rest of the owners, but ultimately breaching the dam of segregation. Nevertheless, one owner held fast.
Sixteen years after NFL (re) integration began, Marshall remained the last owner not to integrate. This, despite the fact that his teams of that era were absolutely pathetic, likely in large part because they didn’t take full advantage of the talent pool. In 1960 and 1961, the Redskins won one game apiece. From 1946 to 1962, they had a total of 3 seasons above .500.
Until 1960, with the founding of the Dallas Cowboys, the Redskins were the southernmost team in the NFL, and Marshall’s racism seems to have been a good fit with the demographics of that fanbase. Versions of the Redskins’ fight song during that period included references like “Fight for Old Dixie,” where the contemporary fight song refers to “Old D.C.” Marshall actively marketed the Redskins as the “South’s team,” and seems to have believed that an all-white team was good for business, even it if wasn’t good for winning.
By the early 1960s though, the tides of change had arrived. In 1962, Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy told Marshall that unless he signed an African American player, the federal government would revoke the lease on D.C. Stadium.
– – –
Faced with the potential loss of his lease, Marshall finally relented.
“Redskin” Was an American Indian Creation
The gold-standard work on the etymology of “red skin” was conducted by Smithsonian Senior Linguist, Ives Goddard, in 2005. “I am a Red-skin”: Adoption of a Native American Expression (1769-1826), goes into painstaking detail exploring the first appearance of the term “redskin” in the Americas and concludes the following:
“The word “redskin” reflects a genuine Native American idiom that was used in several languages, where it grew out of an earlier established and more widespread use of “red” and “white” as racial labels. This terminology was developed by Native Americans to label new categories of the new ethnic and political reality that they confronted with the coming of the Europeans.”
In the early 1800s, the term “red-skin” was used by American Indian leaders to create a sense of “supra-tribal” identity when negotiating with the US Federal Government. It was intended to reference American Indian solidarity and unity, and to contrast these collected individuals with their “whiteskin” negotiating partners (e.g., the French, British, and former American colonists).
– – –
A descriptivist account would surely recognize that sometime in the period after “redskin” initially had positive connotations of American Indian unity and solidarity, its usage took on a much darker meaning. As the orientation of the new (white) Americans shifted from one of sympathy towards the American Indians, in the late 1700s and early 1800s, to enmity in the mid-1800s and beyond, with westward expansion, the word itself transformed:
The word itself was composed of the exact same letters, yet its effect was the polar opposite of its initial usage, because though it was describing the same group of people, its intent had been changed by the users.
– – –
It would be tone deaf, and oblivious to history, for white Americans, and white Redskins’ fans to fail to recognize that, for many American Indians, white people calling them “redskins” is synonymous with this country’s attempt to exterminate them. That is certainly not the way I believe most Washington Redskins’ fans use the word, but it is important recognize why some see it as malignant. However we’ve also seen that the meanings of words can (and do) change.
Origin of the “Redskin” Controversy
Since the 1960s, Suzan Shown Harjo, an advocate for American Indian rights, has been working to end the use of American Indian mascots and stereotypes by sports teams.
The Logo
For the many things the franchise has done wrong since its inception, the way it handled the design of the current logo, commissioned in 1971, under the ownership of Edward Bennett Williams, was thoughtful, respectful, and well-executed.
At the urging of Walter “Blackie” Wetzel, a former Blackfeet tribal chairman and National Congress of American Indians President, the team changed its logo from the burgundy and gold “R” to the American Indian head logo the team sports today. Wetzel, who died in 2003, was an activist for American Indian civil rights and believed the new logo honored American Indian people.
Of his grandfather, Lance Wetzel said:
“Grandpa saw that the “R” was not the right representation of this team and organization. He stepped up to the plate when no one else would, which was an enormous deal to give that logo a sense of respect. There was no harm, he didn’t want to offend anyone. (He just wanted) to have an actual Native American on the helmet, a man who wanted to do something like this with heart and determination.”
The logo itself depicts a Blackfeet Chief, John “Two Guns” White Calf, who also appeared on the Buffalo nickel.
Polls, Polls, Polls
In 2004, the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania fielded a poll of 768 people who identified as Indians or Native Americans. In that poll, 90 percent of respondents said that calling the Washington football team the “Redskins” didn’t bother them. Nine percent found the name offensive. Specific subgroup findings are below:
There was little variation among subgroups of Native Americans. Eight percent of men and 9 percent of women said the name was offensive, while 90 percent of each sex said it did not bother them.
In 2016, the Washington Post, which has a fairly well-established position opposing the Redskins’ name, fielded another poll asking Native Americans about the name. This poll sampled 504 people, from every state and DC and found that 70% of Native Americans didn’t feel “Redskins” was disrespectful to Indians, 80% would not be offended if a non-native called them that name, and 90% were not offended by the Redskins team name.
More recently, in early 2020, researchers from the University of Michigan, and University of California, Berkeley – convinced the earlier polls weren’t an accurate reflection of true, American Indian opinion – fielded their own poll of 1,019 Native American participants. Their findings were significantly more mixed than the earlier polls, with 49% of their respondents “offended” by the Redskins name, 13% indifferent, and 38% not offended. They also found that those with stronger senses of Native American identity were more likely to be opposed to the name and the use of Native American mascots.
Alternative Models
The Kansas City Chiefs, Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians, and Florida State Seminoles. One of these things is not like the others. Unlike most instances of professional and college sports’ teams using American Indian imagery to represent their teams, Florida State University has unique, deep bond with the tribe whose name the school shares:
For almost 70 years, Florida State has worked closely, side by side, with the Seminole Tribe of Florida. The relationship, built on respect, is so mutually supportive that in 2005 the tribe — which rarely puts such things in writing — took an unprecedented, historic step with a public declaration of support. The Seminole Tribe invited the university president at that time, T.K. Wetherell, to Big Cypress Reservation to receive a written resolution from the Tribal Council affirming its enthusiastic support for the university’s use of the Seminole name, logos and images. Subsequently, Chief Jerry Haney of the Seminole Tribe of Oklahoma also publicly stated his support.
As part of the relationship, FSU has an ongoing set of cultural engagement activities with the Seminole tribe, including a scholarship program for students coming from reservations, an explicit mention that the team does not “have a mascot,” as well as courses focused on Seminole history and traditions.
This sort of partnership, built on mutual respect, honoring – and promoting – the traditions of the represented party, and contributing to their cultural and social success, is an ideal model for teams to adopt in an environment where simply profiting off the imagery of American Indians without their engagement and benefit is no longer desirable or acceptable.
One Path Forward
Engagement on the subject of the Redskins’ team name and its associated imagery requires a recognition of where concerns about them come from as well as the franchise’s legitimately checkered racial history. Recent steps to de-emphasize former owner George Preston Marshall, and to elevate team heroes, like Bobby Mitchell, are a step in the right direction, but it seems clear that they alone will not be sufficiently robust to tamp down objections to the team’s name.
Some (on both sides of the issue) would argue that the best outcome is for the team to divest itself from its American Indian association altogether. I disagree, as that simply results in one less opportunity for awareness building and American Indian community benefit.
“It will erase us,” Robert Doore [Blackfeet business owner] said. “It will erase us from history. It will erase us like we never happened. Let’s never forget the past because that’s what defines us. But if we dwell in the past and worry about a newspaper clipping that’s over 100 years old, then we’re going to die in the past.”
“We have an opportunity here with this Redskins discussion to educate America,” Doore added. “Why not use the massive platform of the Washington Redskins to reach millions of Americans? Let’s start fighting for something that matters. Let’s attack something like housing. Let’s attack alcoholism. I’ll fight tooth-and-nail if we can, but changing a football team name will do nothing for us.”
If Daniel Snyder is adamantly opposed to changing the name, as he has articulated in the past, then he should adopt a tone of conciliation and engagement with representatives of the American Indian community to strike a path forward. In the same way the word “redskin” shifted from a term of pride to one of vilification, I believe there is an opportunity to yet again shift its meaning. The Washington Redskins, in concert with the American Indian community, can help reclaim a term that was once one of unity and solidarity in the face of some of the most dramatic division that we have witnessed in a generation.
Here is a poll of his readers (who we presume are mainly fans of the team):
Change the name and the logo 27%
Change the name, keep the logo 24%
Change the logo, keep the name 2%
Keep the name and the logo 48%
So 51% for changing Redskins, but 74% for keeping Native-American imagery.
|
