Changes to Team Names

LoneStarPhan 2020-07-11 22:29:59 UTC #1

It almost seems certain that the Washington Redskins will be making a change to the team name after years of resisting that change.

I thought a thread on changes might b interesting. What other teams should be looking at changes? In baseball, the Indians and Braves jump to our mind but neither seems to have the intense pressure for change being felt by the Redskins.

This evening, I saw that the name Washington Red Wolves has gained some support. Seems like that might be a reasonable name to select. Interestingly, the Redskin name came when the Boston Braves football team changing the name to Redskins when they moved from playing games at Braves field to the Red Sox park. So the name has its origin from the Boston (later Milwaukee later Atlanta) baseball Braves and the Red in Red Sox likely was a factor leading to the change from Braves to Redskins. A change to Red Wolves seems fine to me. Articles I have just read suggested team colors and basic uniform designs could be retained with a Red Wolf logo replacing the current logo on uniforms, helmets, etc.

So what do you think? Should the Indians and Braves make a change? What other sport teams' names do you think should be changed?

zambonir 2020-07-11 22:49:16 UTC #2

The Blackhawks have already said they won't change their name. The bigger issue there, I think, is the logo.

Some have recently argued the Texas Rangers should change their name.

Of course there are also the obvious, non-political names that have never really worked, but have too much tradition now: Utah Jazz. LA Lakers, LA Dodgers. If things had played out differently would there be an Oakland Phillies?

allentown 2020-07-11 22:53:56 UTC #3

The term redskin has always been a pejorative used toward the native Americans this nation hounded almost into extinction in its Manifest Destiny dreams of finding fortune on Indian land. Washington Redskins is about as bad as Washington n-words would be,-- choosing a name of a pejorative for those we enslaved, then held in near bondage with de jure segregation (as with Indians isolated on reservations, with the Interior Department continuing to steal funds which are rightfully theirs, the government totally avoiding its duty to provide healthcare and education. A disgraceful national mistreatment of those human beings considered less than itself, enshrined in the name of a football team. It has to go. It is way, way past time. Braves was never a pejorative, so not as big a need for change. The Indians is a misleading, wrong name for a fairly large group of different tribes, bestowed by Europeans who didn't know where they were, when they came to the Americas. Probably should be changed, but far from being as bad as Redskins. An actual name of a people, like the Iroquois would be better than Indians. Indians may have become a sort-of pejorative, but is mainly a marker of European ignorance.

julio 2020-07-11 23:36:26 UTC #4

This is a bit bizarre, IMHO. The Texas Rangers (statewide law enforcement) are still in existence, in operation; they're a dvision of the Texas Department of Public Safety. So the name is historic AND current.

I suppose one could argue that the name should be "unfunded," or something, but it's not pejorative, it's not racist. IMHO, it's a stupid battle for anybody to choose. But of course, the less relevant, the less important, the more some people want to argue!

zambonir 2020-07-12 02:28:54 UTC #5

You are mistaken, my friend (but apologies for not providing more information). They have already removed a Texas Rangers statue from the Dallas airport due to the organization's history. The name was even protested in 1971!

https://sports.yahoo.com/texas-rangers-have-no-plans-to-change-name-despite-criticism-of-police-force-connection-180228184.html

zambonir 2020-07-12 02:39:20 UTC #6

Of course you could argue the New England Patriots is no less problematic. Certainly would be to the protestors who have pulled down Washington and Jefferson statues.

bkeich 2020-07-12 02:46:18 UTC #7

The Redskins absolutely should have changed before now, but to be honest they are my least favorite sports franchise ( I have had too many bad Redskins fans in my life) so I have actually always enjoyed that their name was obviously offensive. Hopefully they will continue to be one of the worst franchises in sports as they have been for the last 25 years.

The Indians and Braves could (and maybe should) be viewed as honoring Indians. I have no problems with them, but things like Tomahawk Chops and the Indians mascot are fairly bad. In short, the team nickname doesn't seem to be that bad to me, but their implementation of it has been bad in many aspects

The Texas Rangers are not offensive IMHO. The Rangers are a huge part of Texas history and to honor them is appropriate and honorable. I don't buy that their record of suppressing freedoms is particularly worse than other states and I don't choose to deny the important and largely honorable role that the Police plays in society.

BostonRoss 2020-07-13 02:45:27 UTC #8

And it is happening...

zambonir 2020-07-13 05:02:38 UTC #9

I wonder if they've quietly been developing alternatives for a year or two, or if they just feel the pressure is so great that they can't possibly play this season with the name.

zambonir 2020-07-13 05:13:19 UTC #10

Interesting video. According to this, both the KC Chiefs and the Atlanta Braves were named for white men who had those nicknames, while the Indians' claim that they were named to honor a particular player is likely untrue. Rangers also discussed here.

At the end of the day, it's not really up to us (or these teams) to decide if the names "honor" Native Americans. And while some teams and schools have worked with tribes, given that Chief Wahoo and the Tomahawk Chop exist, there's really no way to divorce the names from their dubious overall usage/history.

Philsmania 2020-07-13 15:15:02 UTC #11

zambonir:

Interesting video. According to this, both the KC Chiefs and the Atlanta Braves were named for white men who had those nicknames, while the Indians' claim that they were named to honor a particular player is likely untrue. Rangers also discussed here.

usatoday.com

Redskins not the only team with racially insensitive nickname

SportsPulse: While it appears Washington's NFL team is finally putting to bed their racially insensitive nickname. There are other major sports teams whose nickname origins are linked to America’s culturally-insensitive past.

At the end of the day, it's not really up to us (or these teams) to decide if the names "honor" Native Americans. And while some teams and schools have worked with tribes, given that Chief Wahoo and the Tomahawk Chop exist, there's really no way to divorce the names from their dubious overall usage/history.

I was no fan at all of George W. Bush's presidency but he did have some degree of sensitivity toward people of color. If he still owned the Rangers, I get the sense he would probably change the name. Putting aside the nickname, I have never been a fan of teams naming themselves for their states instead of their cities. I give an exception to Minnesota to keep the peace between Minneapolis and St. Paul but, otherwise, we should have the Denver Rockies, the Phoenix Diamondbacks and the Dallas/Ft. Worth whatevers (since Texas also has Houston and the Astros).

Then, of course, there's a host of colleges and universities that still have questionable team names. For example, it's disappointing that Jesuit Catholic university Holy Cross still uses the Crusaders despite history of the Crusaders' brutality toward Muslims, Jews and even Eastern Orthodox Christians (the Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire never fully recovered from the Crusader sacking of Constantinople) during the Crusades..

zambonir 2020-07-13 17:09:48 UTC #12

Yeah, Crusaders probably has to go.

I actually don't have any problem with the Rockies and the D-Backs because they do have the whole state. The thing about the Rangers (the "Texas" part not the team name) is Arlington would never allow them to be DFW at this point, they are very sensitive about that and have paid handsomely (unfortunately for their taxpayers) for their voice to count.

"Lone Star Rangers" would work, a la Golden State Warriors (of course the Warriors name is itself still a problem, even if the Native branding is long-gone).

BostonRoss 2020-07-13 17:30:22 UTC #13

California Angels lol

Philsmania 2020-07-13 19:03:20 UTC #14

That was as offensive to common sense as Florida Marlins was. Southeastern Florida is pretty separate and apart from the rest of the state on multiple levels. Hoping that they would ever draw a statewide following was a sheer folly. Miami Marlins is more like it and has a nicer ring to it.

Philsmania 2020-07-13 19:04:21 UTC #15

How much did New Jersey taxpayers put up for stadiums for the NEW YORK Giants and NEW YORK Jets? Take a cue from the Angels and call them the "Dallas/Ft. Worth [Whoknowswhat] of Arlington"?

zambonir 2020-07-13 19:21:17 UTC #16

Zero dollars, actually. Metlife Stadium was privately funded whereas Arlington put in half a billion dollars for a new stadium that didn't even need to be built (the last one opened in 1993). Trust me, the politicans and money people there would lose it. And the Giants and Jets didn't start playing football in New Jersey (much like the Dallas Cowboys, Arlington can't do anything about that).

A lot of people in the region, but especially on the Fort Worth side, dislike "Dallas-Fort Worth." So really it's the Minnesota argument. And of course the Rangers like thumbing their nose at Houston.

I thought Florida Marlins was better tbh. But the Rays didn't exist then. A lot of people don't like "Tampa Bay" either.

The current Angels name is really the worst, but they were originally the Los Angeles Angels (and a team of that name existed for years before the Dodgers) and Anaheim just didn't have the clout in the '60s. It's too bad the Warriors weren't Oakland but they'd have to change that now.

Philsmania 2020-07-13 20:08:24 UTC #17

The lifespan of stadiums sure does seem to be shrinking. Turner Field only had twenty years (1997-2016) while Globe Life Park had only twenty-six (1994-2019). And, the Washington NFL team has been hot to get out of poorly-designed and located Fed Ex Field which opened in 1997 since 2007. A waste, really. And, many thought the Vet went young at thirty-three.

LoneStarPhan 2020-07-13 20:12:01 UTC #18

Yes, Arlington voted to spend the money on the new ball park as they did on the stadium for the Cowboys. So Arlington, not even the largest city in our county (by far), is home to an NFL and an MLB team. I guess maybe the Cowboys' home is really Frisco, where Jerry Jones got both the city and the school district to share costs in building the Star, the location of the Cowboys' training and office facilities.

I have lived in Fort Worth for 15 years now and rarely go to Dallas.

As baseball looks to expand, Texas could provide support for another team in the San Antonio - Austin area. Both are major US cities (San Antonio #7 and Austin #11 in US) close enough to support a single team. I do think Nashville may have the inside track for a team but I question if expansion is likely anytime soon. The set back due to COVID this year may have put expansion off for many years.

Although metropolitan areas are really more important, I always have enjoyedlooking at the ranking of cities by their population. Fort Worth has moved from 19th to 12th since I have lived here. Arlington is 48th on this list.

The 200 Largest Cities in the United States by Population 2020

zambonir 2020-07-13 20:13:26 UTC #19

They (the Gwinnett and Arlington deals) are both massive scams. If you are an Athletic subscriber here's an interview with a friend of mine who made a movie about the Rangers stadium.

BostonRoss 2020-07-14 00:05:53 UTC #20

I’ve won bar bets (remember bars?) on the largest U.S. city that begins with S. No one guesses San Antonio.