|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Jul 13, 2020 6:22:30 GMT -5
Name is being 'retired' today. New name not yet chosen.
This is the result of 'money talking', not altruism. Snyder couldn't take the financial hit from corporations ending branding and sponsorship deals.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Jul 13, 2020 7:08:34 GMT -5
It will be interesting to see where this goes.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Jul 13, 2020 7:40:30 GMT -5
FedEx led the charge, threatening to take its name off the stadium. Walmart and another big chain, can't remember which, said they would stop selling Redskin apparel.
And Snyder is a lightweight, maybe even a featherweight, among league owners, which is a bit surprising, if only because he has been an owner for 21 years.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jul 13, 2020 7:56:07 GMT -5
He has consistently proven that he is at best a featherweight
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Jul 13, 2020 8:46:26 GMT -5
Hey, even the guy running the country, whether he'd say he's opposed to this or not; would say do what's good for business...and dropping the name would fall under that category.
They're better off going generic for a season and getting a good handle on what works. Just like the Titans/Oilers did (personally, I'd have kept Oilers in honor of The Clampetts).
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Jul 13, 2020 9:01:49 GMT -5
Its time. Its been time.
There are plenty of solid nicknames they could use: Generals, Senators, Pigskins. If they went with Pigskins, they could still be referred to as the 'Skins.
Cleveland Indians -- youre on deck.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jul 13, 2020 9:21:09 GMT -5
Doubt they would go with Generals. They were the long time futile opponent of the Harlem Globetrotters. Also think Senators would be rejected due to their poor showing in the American League.
|
|
|
Post by WCHC Sports on Jul 13, 2020 9:50:07 GMT -5
The ends justify the means here, methinks.
What about Snyder's Pretzels? The "of Hanover" part of the moniker could be dropped for the upside in joint marketing. Plus, the NFC East loves to feast on the franchise, so why not tie in a delicious and fat free treat? Snyder could always be "salty" when reporters push him and his management on ineptitude.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jul 13, 2020 10:07:01 GMT -5
Score one for the self-appointed societal monitors. Now will all mascots referencing Native Americans have to go or will there be some analysis of where the names fit onto the offensiveness spectrum? Is Chief Wahoo still used by the Cleveland Indians--maybe he'll go but the activists will allow the name Indians to remain?
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Jul 13, 2020 10:35:22 GMT -5
I thought that cartoon Chief Wahoo was already gone. What about "Chief Nokahoma?" Wasn't he connected to Cleveland?
|
|
|
Post by WCHC Sports on Jul 13, 2020 10:36:56 GMT -5
I can easily be called ignorant by a person of Native American descent, and readily stand corrected... but I think that the Chief Wahoo logo, or "Redskins" name is much more offensive than simply the word "Indian." The name "Indian" comes come a place of ignorance and misinformation anyway, so lesser on the scale of offense but still on it.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jul 13, 2020 10:59:18 GMT -5
I can easily be called ignorant by a person of Native American descent, and readily stand corrected... but I think that the Chief Wahoo logo, or "Redskins" name is much more offensive than simply the word "Indian." The name "Indian" comes come a place of ignorance and misinformation anyway, so lesser on the scale of offense but still on it. What is offensive is what the activists deem to be offensive and can push through an unresponsive public at large.
|
|
|
Post by WCHC Sports on Jul 13, 2020 11:07:15 GMT -5
I agree with you more broadly, KY, but this one I think is fairly obvious. Just my viewpoint though.
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Jul 13, 2020 11:29:04 GMT -5
I'm not in the cancel culture camp with just about anything, but the term "redskin" is overtly racist that I'm surprised it took this long to change the name.
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Jul 13, 2020 11:45:10 GMT -5
Braves and Chiefs might survive.
Hopefully the Tomahawk Chop won't, on my wish list of things that would disappear in sports.
Chief Nokahoma was a Braves personna.
|
|
|
Post by lou on Jul 13, 2020 11:47:56 GMT -5
I'm not in the cancel culture camp with just about anything, but the term "redskin" is overtly racist that I'm surprised it took this long to change the name. I'm surprised they thought it was a good choice of names in 1937
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Jul 13, 2020 12:11:41 GMT -5
Braves and Chiefs might survive. Hopefully the Tomahawk Chop won't, on my wish list of things that would disappear in sports. Chief Nokahoma was a Braves personna. Braves is a pretty generic term. And KC could always make the Chiefs namesake an homage to firefighters.
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Jul 13, 2020 12:20:48 GMT -5
Score one for the self-appointed societal monitors. Now will all mascots referencing Native Americans have to go or will there be some analysis of where the names fit onto the offensiveness spectrum? Is Chief Wahoo still used by the Cleveland Indians--maybe he'll go but the activists will allow the name Indians to remain? Hopefully the latter. When it comes to college nicknames that reference specific tribes, in most cases the local tribe take a lot of pride in the distinction. See Ilini, Utes, Seminoles, etc. The College of William & Mary, which goes by "The Tribe", for example was founded as a school to educate local Native Americans and these local tribes fought back against advocates looking to change the school nickname earlier this century. One case I recall where a local tribe opposed a school nickname was in the case of the North Dakota Fighting Sioux. I think the issue stemmed from the tribe's disapproval of the word "fighting".
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Jul 13, 2020 13:02:38 GMT -5
IIRC the Lakota Sioux made no formal objection to the use of that nickname name. They did not ask that it be changed. Most tribal members wanted it kept (and many played for North Dakota and were proud to "fight" under that nickname).
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Jul 13, 2020 14:06:33 GMT -5
IIRC the Lakota Sioux made no formal objection to the use of that nickname name. They did not ask that it be changed. Most tribal members wanted it kept (and many played for North Dakota and were proud to "fight" under that nickname). Upon brief research, the ND Dept of Higher Ed first filed a motion to retire the nickname in 2009 but allowed for a caveat to cancel the motion if both Sioux tribes in the state voted to approve the nickname. The Big Lake Sioux tribe quickly approved but the Standing Rock Sioux tribe refused to vote. As a result the Dept. of Higher Ed, then forced the school to eliminate the nickname effective 2012. The Fighting Hawks nickname was adopted in 2015.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Jul 13, 2020 14:14:41 GMT -5
That change cost the college well over a million dollars...are things better now? Did they secure permission for name use from any Hawks?
This change came from the NCAA who pressured the school and fans by announcing that if the name was not changed the college could not play in any NCAA tournaments. When did the NCAA become a legit representative to speak for all Natve Americans?
|
|
|
Post by Crucis#1 on Jul 13, 2020 14:34:04 GMT -5
The Sioux Nation is composed of three divisions. Eastern - Dakota, Middle - Nakota, Western - Lakota. aktalakota.stjo.org/site/News2?page=newsArticle&id=9017Tribes from the two other divisions were not consulted regarding the term “Fighting Sioux”. The whole story about the Lakota being in favor may be extremely skewed and not totally accurate. The vote that was taken in favor was by UND Alumni and Athletes, some may have been enrolled Big Lake Lakota tribal members. Standing Rock Lakota did not vote, and the nine Lakota reservations located in South Dakota were not consulted regarding the nickname and logo. Twenty One Native American organizations at UND were opposed to the nickname and logo. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Dakota_Fighting_Sioux_controversy I wonder how many that are providing their opinions on this board, have ever set foot or spent time on a Western Tribal Nation land and getting to know the people’s culture. I would surmise very few, and probably only if they were members of JVC. Stating that the Lakota approved the nickname and logo reminds me of a First Nations saying that originated in the 1690’s as a result of the duplicity that occurred with the French lying to the Iroquois regarding invitations to a Peace Conference, only to be slaughtered or captured. We have all heard the saying “.............speaks with forked tongue”. The “enrolled” tribal members of the Lakota, Dakota and Nakota Sioux did not approve of the nickname and logo.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Jul 13, 2020 15:53:29 GMT -5
I, for one, have done that. Everything I have said about the Lakota came from Lakota with whom I spoke. One of the votes in favor was by those Lakota who were enrolled at or were alumni of North Dakota. The first vote was in favor (and had larger numbers responding). None of the Lakota groups voiced opposition to the use of the nickname. BTW, electing not to vote is not the same as voting against or opposing it, but is being spun that way by some.
It was said that "Twenty One Native American organizations at UND were opposed to the nickname and logo." OK, how many people make up those groups? Were these organizations composed of Lakota or was this opposition from outside (like the NCAA opposition)? I wonder if those who cite the "21 Native American Organizations" know much about those organizations. Refusing to take part in a vote is being treated as if it were a "no" vote but that may not be correct. There were many reasons why some Lakota did not wish to participate in the NCAA forced vote.
The name is now gone (for the most part) and most of the Lakota with whom I spoke do miss it. They are all Lakota, none are Hawks (Blackhawk or otherwise). I guess it is important to the NCAA that a nickname have no connection the proud traditions of the Lakota.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Jul 13, 2020 16:25:58 GMT -5
Perhaps if "Fighting" was dropped from the nickname. Or perhaps if the musical score for the school's fight song was 'Garryowen'. Then I'd call it even-up.
|
|
|
Post by Crucis#1 on Jul 13, 2020 17:31:48 GMT -5
Fighting over mascot names representing First Nation People is a diversion.
If we truly want to honor their heritage, then we all should be “Fighting” to get the U. S. Government to honor treaty obligations, and to provide decent medical care and running water on tribal lands.
Personally, I wish H C would have a sustained effort to seek out talented Native American students and provide an opportunity for an education. The education certainly would be bilateral, as many HC students have lived in a bubble, and truly do not have exposure to First Nation culture except the make believe fiction from movies.
|
|