The end of an era as The Washington Redskins become something else

21 thoughts on “The end of an era as The Washington Redskins become something else”

1. I’m only an extremely casual fan as I grew up in an Eagles family and married into the Steelers, and would never have been a Redskins fan under any foreseeable circumstances, but I only hope that their name isn’t itself an overtly “woke”, pandery sort of thing. There are many other possible choices, but an overt attempt to try to pay off historical injustice with the name of a football team would be too ridiculous for words.

   1. I wanted them to change their name to The Thinskins, and then change it back to The Redskins.

2. QUOTE: People who chose to be offended on behalf of native Americans pushed the idea that “redskin” was an ethnic slur, and forced the team to change their name.

   According to recent polling, that’s not fully accurate. Results from a 2020 empirical study of 1,021 Native Americans (twice the size of previous study samples, from all 50 states, representing 148 tribes) found that 49% of self-identified Native Americans found the Washington Redskins name offensive or very offensive, 38% found it not offensive, and 13% were indifferent. For study participants who were heavily engaged in their native or tribal cultures, 67% said they were offended, for young people 60%, and those with tribal affiliations 52%. That said, there were previous polls that had different results. Yet, according to several research specialists, the methodology and results of those polls were flawed and didn’t accurately represent Native American attitudes at the time they were conducted.

   QUOTE: You may have also heard that the team is losing fans at a tremendous pace, and that they haven’t been good for a long time…I don’t know if they can keep me as a fan, no matter what they do.

   Seems they recognize the decline and it’s not problematic. In fact, they are attempting to recruit a new, younger fan base and leaving fans like you behind. So, it appears it’s a mutual parting of ways.

   “Dear RFK fans, it’s time to say goodbye. You’re getting old and the team is looking towards the future. You know, with its new name and all. The path forward means not looking backwards and this is where a split will come between young and old fans. Like most American industries, the team is more interested in future fans now that it has ground the old ones into the dust. Washington owner Dan Snyder finally felt the needed eureka moment that the franchise was either entering a black hole or everything must change. So now we’re seeing change, but it’s geared for younger fans who can grow into new name over the next three decades. Rather than fight to keep Redskins name for a few more years to appease long-time fans, Snyder will find a fresh name to attract the city’s young crowd that are often transients.”

   1. Entire leaving aside questions of the appropriateness of the name change, the process of it, etc., I am always mystified by this mentality of “we need young new fans/customers, therefore we don’t care about the ones who actually have the money to spend on entertainment and luxury items.” I understand the need to be always attracting new, and that means generally young, but not caring about alienating the older ones in the process seems just plain stupid from a business point of view.

      1. You remind me of the best business book I’ve ever read: Marketers are from Mars, Consumers are from New Jersey, in which he criticizes marketers for all kinds of stupid things, including the constant obsession with getting a younger audience or market, despite the fact that it’s the older people who have the money.

         1. Isn’t it amazing how rock and roll became a gold mine by appealing almost exclusively to younger consumers?

            1. Obviously there are some products that appeal to younger audience. That’s not the point.

               1. Sports can became one of those products. That is very much the point.

                  1. Google “age of football fans” and you get this.

                     Characteristic Avid fan Casual fan
                     18 – 34 34% 36%
                     35 – 44 41% 33%
                     45 – 64 31% 35%
                     65+ 27% 34%

                     My experience is entirely in publishing, but every time I’ve seen someone try to change an underlying demographic like that, it’s been a failure.

                     The NFL has been trying to broaden its base, not shrink it. If the Washington Football Team thinks they’re going to succeed by trying to appeal mostly to young people, I predict they will fail badly.

                  2. The younger people will soon become older people. The people who are enraged about the change of the name of a team will eventually die away and it will all be hunky dory again. It doesn’t sound so far-fetched to me.

            2. The music business as a whole never stopped producing things that appeal to older people on the theory that they could survive entirely on young people.

               1. But there were people in the music industry who were selling rock and rock roll, either primarily or exclusively, at a time when it was usually repulsive to older people. Obviously a lot of the artists were doing this, but also producers, concert promoters, technicians, etc. So why can’t be something comparable in sports, not sports as a whole, but perhaps a team, a league, etc. Of course now older people like rock music, as eventually they will get into the Washington team that no longer wears white supremacy on its sleeve.

                  1. Niche marketing of a niche product is different from marketing a product that has historically had a broad base, but being eager to throw reliable customers overboard because they don’t fit some image of who you want to market to.

                     I noted when I first brought this up that I wasn’t referring to the Washington football situation at all. JC Penney presumably didn’t attempt to throw all its middle aged customers overboard a decade or so back because they thought it was more virtuous to do so, but because they had some harebrained idea that marketing to young people required discontinuing both the marketing approach and the product content that the people who made up their largest market share wanted.

      2. Agreed. It’s typically strategic to target a given market in an attempt to maximize sales/influence. Yet, it’s not good practice to alienate a part of your customer base….nor anyone (inclusive of namesakes). It’s a small world and word of mouth from disgruntled people can have a negative impact on the “desired” target audience.

   2. It’s quite a bit more complicated than you assume, William, as this article shows.

      The controversy started way before 2020, and it’s not at all surprising that Native Americans were convinced that they ought to be offended after decades of a campaign to convince them they should be.

      1. QUOTE: It’s quite a bit more complicated than you assume, William, as this article shows.

         I didn’t assume anything. I said… …there were previous polls that had different results. . Seems you assumed that I thought the controversy began in 2020…NOT! There were multiple surveys over many years. Yet, a careful examination of those previous surveys, by skilled survey administrators, revealed their methodology and conclusions were flawed and didn’t accurately represent the perspectives of Native Americans.

3. My daughter graduated from Union high school here in Tulsa in 2019 where they were known as the Union Redskins. This past November I heard a game on the radio and they were calling them the Redhawks. So, evidently they changed the name in the last 2 years. There are a lot of Indians in Tulsa (they call themselves Indian, why shouldn’t I?). I know people who were part Cherokee who went to Union and had t-shirts that said “Union Redskins” on them.

   You can look up “redskin” on Wikipedia. They cite Merriam Webster from the 1890s where the dictionary states the term is mostly pejorative. How would your family feel about The Washington Slants? or G**ks? I can say, “hey, ‘slant’ is a kind of a pass route or a geometric description. Don’t be so thin-skinned.”

   It’s hard to gauge how pejorative a term like Redskin is. I personally don’t have a problem with them changing it. Although I’d probably draw the line at Braves, Chiefs, or Blackhawks. Lots of times teams are named after fierce warriors…Spartans, Raiders. I don’t see the offense at all in Braves, Chiefs, Blackhawks, or Warriors. “Indians” skirts it a little. My former barber was 100% Creek Indian and called herself “Indian” and not Native American or Indigenous. But, someone else might see that as the result of oppression by the ruling white society.

   I grew up in Detroit..where the football team is named the Lions. They certainly haven’t played like lions in 70 years. My dad remembers when they were a force. If they dropped the Lions and were just named Detroit, it wouldn’t hurt my feelings.

   1. As your story indicates, the issue is quite a bit more complicated than we’re often led to believe. I’ve read several times that Indians themselves chose “Redskin” as a way to indicate their group.

4. The underlying, fundamental lunacy of the anti-Redskins campaign is that you don’t name your team after something you don’t like or respect. Nobody (serious) names their team the losers, or the bone heads, or the awkwards, or something like that. They chose “Redskins” out of respect and admiration.

   1. Generally, true, but sometime they are named to inspire fear.

      Tampa Bay Buccaneers… except for maybe some having fuzzies for Capt. Jack Sparrow…pirates aren’t respected…maybe feared, but not really respected.

      1. Fair point. I suppose someone could argue they chose Redskins as if to say “we’re just as ferocious and mean as those dirty, stinking Redskins.” Although that was never the vibe. In fact, they used to have celebrations of Indian heritage before all the home games. It was a shame when the new owner stopped that.

Comments are closed.