Category Archives: Redskins Name Change

George Wallace, Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond On ‘Redskins’ (GUEST POST)

Here with a not-at-all incendiary guest post for winning our Redskins-Lions Prediction contest is Jon.

First off, I’d like to thank Jamie for giving me the opportunity to write a little something about our beloved Washington Football Team. I have to apologize, though. I couldn’t come up with a #hottake on the state of the team. All I have is this transcript of George Wallace, Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond talking about the name change down in Hell (way to drop the ball, Steinz).

Take it away, boys!

Governor Wallace: What’s this bullshit about the liberal media trying to change the name from the Redskins to some stupid name like the Griffins or Warriors?

Senator Helms: I don’t know, George. This country is going straight to hell. There’s not enough troops in the Army to force true Redskins fans to change the name and allow shitty names like the Warriors, Griffins or Renegades into our stadium, into our practice facility, into our Joe Gibbs Memorial Bubble, into our fancy new training facility in the capitol of our Confederacy or into our homes!

Senator Thurmond: HOOWEE, I’m with you on that one, Jesse! You know, I think the Redskins Name Guardians are the greatest minority in this nation! They deserve consideration and understanding instead of the persecution of twisted Costasian propaganda.

Governor Wallace: Amen, Strom. Amen. If I was the owner, I’d resist any calls for changing the name, even to the point of standing at the stadium gates in person, if necessary.

Senator Thurmond: I’d do exactly the same, George. It’s not that I’m prejudiced against Native Americans. When I was governor, I did more to help the Native Americans in our state than any previous governor, and I think you can find Native Americans in the state who will attest to this fact.

Senator Helms: Like that Indian chief Mister Snyder found in Alaska, right??? I love that guy!

Continue reading

Some Alt Redskins Logos To Go With Some Alt Redskins Names

Dan Snyder trademarked the name “Warriors” in 2000* and has squatted on the name ever since. Now, thanks to design firm 99 Designs, here’s what the Washington Warriors could look like:

I don’t know why the mil-bro is so damn, well, red-faced, but he does look pretty bad-ass. As does this paler version, so long as you steer clear of the gold helmet:

Click through to FTW for additional versions of the “Renegades” and “Griffins” logos, even if those names are not advised. And there are many, many more at 99 Designs.

* Reader Matt Brown emails to clarify this Warriors trademark business:

“You can’t squat on a trademark for decades on end and not do anything with [it]. After a period of time, the US Patent & Trademark Office will consider the trademark ‘abandoned’ and throw it back into the free market. The Redskins’ 2000 submission for Washington Warriors expired in 2004. The Arena Football League submitted a claim for Washington Warriors in 2007, and that mark expired in 2009.

There is a claim for just ‘Warriors’ that the Redskins own related to football entertainment and merchandise, but without ‘Washington’ attached to it. That was submitted in 2007, and the claim on the mark is still alive. They tried to trademark ‘Skins’ in 1997 but lost that within the year. They tried again in 1999 but that was abandoned in 2005.”

DMV: Rick Reilly Is Pro-’Redskins’

Rick Reilly wrote about Redskins name change. (He’s against it.) [ESPN]

And then Reilly’s column got absolutely eviscerated. [KSK, Dave Zirin]

Peter Berg said Theismann said the Hogs used to smoke at halftime. [Bog]

The Skins’ 0-2 start isn’t that bad. 0-3 is, though. [Staying Medium]

Jordan Reed got more snaps than Fred Davis in Week 2. [Real Redskins]

Brandon Meriweather fined $42k for his hit on Eddie Lacy. [The Insider]

O’s win in 12 on Crush Davis two-out single. One back. [Camden Chat]

Nats lose to Braves. Cincy wins in 13. 5.5 back. 10 to play. [Nats Insider]

Kilgore subtly takes Olbmermann behind the woodshed. [Nats Journal]

Strasburg scratched again due to lingering forearm issues. [Nats Insider]

The Caps played in Baltimore and someone threw a crab on the ice. [Bog]

Diggs has the best odds of any WR to win the Heisman. [Testudo Times]

Terps to wear new red Maryland Pride uniforms Saturday. [Terps Insider]

The Most Ridiculous Result From That WaPo ‘Redskins’ Poll

The Washington Post polled 1,106 D.C.-area residents about the Washington football team’s nickname, and the big takeaways are “61 percent [of Washingtonians] say they like the team’s name” and “among those who want to keep the Redskins’ name, 56 percent say they feel the word ‘redskin’ is inappropriate.”

That first result is predictable, and the second is pure comedy, though Chris Chase explains it away as pure apathy. (“This isn’t a big deal to most people.” Fair enough.)

Another common-sense result was “around 8 in 10 Redskins fans and non-fans alike say changing the name would not affect their support for the team.” That sounds about right, but the flip side is:

“Among avid sports fans who have strongly favorable impressions of the Redskins, 15 percent say they would be less of a fan of the team if it were to change its name.”

Really?! These people would “be less of a fan” if the Redskins became the Skins (short for Pigskins) or the Warriors or the Hogs or whatever. These 15 percent — or approximately 166 people — would “be less of a fan” if the name of their preferred sports team was no longer an “inappropriate way to describe a Native American Indian.” They’d stop sympathizing with Larry Michael and Dan Snyder, or whatever it is knuckle-dragging Redskins fans do, which is fine, because those in this sub-set are the worst fans of anything anywhere.

Of course, you could literally change the name to the Washington Whatevers and I’d root for them the same. I just don’t want my team’s name to be described by the dictionary as “usually offensive.” But there’s no winning this argument. It’ll just be over one day.

(Reminder: We have a Washington “Football Team” shirt for some of you.)

Introducing A T-Shirt Celebrating The Washington ‘Football Team’

I’m not going to conduct a poll about it, and I’m not going to target-question American Indians, but I will venture to say some Washington football fans are uncomfortable with the team’s name. I know because I’m one of them.

So we partnered with Sneeki’s Tees, which designs awesome D.C. sports stuff, to make a T-shirt that a progressive Redskins fan can wear without having a racial slur across his/her chest. Consider it an act of silent, wearable protest. Plus, it’s a pretty good-looking shirt.

Get the high-quality, super-comfortable tee now in burgundy, black or white for just $24, and wear it with pride. I prefer burgundy myself.

Let’s Talk About That Infamous 2004 ‘Redskins’ Poll

Another day, another round of skirmishes over the Redskins name. Today’s sally is led by Tom Garrett, founding father of a “culture and society” blog called, whose post for that site got a signal boost by being re-posted as a “Special to” over on Hogs Haven.

Garrett offers a lengthy, sesquipedalian defense of the Redskins team name, marshaling various avenues of attack on those who want change, and I recommend that you go read the entire thing to understand the subtle nuances of his myriad points, because I’m not recapping them here.

Especially since, for me, all those carefully reasoned points are completely undermined by one paragraph in the middle, which I’ll reproduce below:

Then what do we make of the fact that the only comprehensive survey conducted among the Native American population as to the offensiveness of “Redskins” showed very little opposition? The poll, from 2004, found that 91% of Native Americans found the name to be acceptable, while only the remaining 9% found it to be offensive.

Making the same assumption that Garrett does in his following paragraph –- that the math has not changed in the intervening years –- here is what we make from that information: 9% of a minority group finds the name offensive. If we use 2010 U.S. Census data and assume that the folks surveyed were representative of the entire population, we can further make a specific number of Native Americans that consider the name offensive –- something like 469,000. Continue reading