Drew’s Morning Dish — Thurs., October 10

October 10, 2013 | Drew Forrester

Dan Snyder is an easy mark, for sure.

He could find a cure for blindness and people would ask “why did it take you so long?”

Snyder, the owner of the Washington Redskins, authored a lengthy letter to his team’s season ticket holders on Wednesday explaining in great detail his reasons for standing firm on the issue of whether or not the ‘Skins should change their nickname in the wake of on-going criticism for the delicate nature of the word REDSKINS.

Here’s the letter Snyder wrote…

Makes sense to me, I guess.  They evidently even polled a bunch of people with Indian heritage and most of them didn’t even care about the word REDSKINS.  If they don’t care, why should I?  And, for the record, I don’t.

Laughably, some stuffed suits in the national media have gone as far as to declare, “I won’t write the word REDSKINS when referring to the Washington entry in the NFL.”

What warriors fighters those guys and gals are.

I wonder where they all were back in 1996 when Art Modell offered to return the nickname COLTS to its rightful owner in Baltimore and Jimmy Irsay asked for $25 million?

Anyway, about that Redskins nickname.  Like a lot of things in our country these days, a vocal minority somewhere – and I’m not really sure where they are, honestly – has spouted off about how “offended” they are (evidenty, they weren’t offended in 1970, 80 or 90) about the Washington football team using Redskins as their nickname.  I can say, for sure, that nearly everyone in the country couldn’t care less what the football team is called in Washington — but people who support and cheer for the Redskins certainly care.

And, they should.

It’s their identifiable trademark.

They’re not “the Washington’s”.  They’re “the Redskins”.

I’ve read and heard some people who clearly don’t understand the whole situation point to several colleges in the country like Marquette (Warriors), Syracuse (Orangemen) and St. John’s (Redmen) who changed their nickname under various pressures over the last fifteen years or so.

Well, that’s because you don’t refer to those schools by their nickname and no branding at all is done via the use of that nickname.

A college uses a “mascot” — but their trademark is the school name.  A professional sports team uses a “nickname” and that’s the logo they use on apparel, souvenirs, etc.

If you’re in Milwaukee on a Saturday afternoon in February and someone asks, “What are you doing tonight?”, you don’t reply, “I’m going to the Golden Eagles basketball game against Providence.”

You say, “I’m going to the Marquette basketball game.”

No one in Washington D.C. walks around the office today and says, “I can’t to see the Washington’s play the Dallas’s on Sunday night, can you?”

Of course not.

But, lots of folks are looking forward to that Clemson vs. Florida State football game next weekend, aren’t they?  BTW, what exactly IS a Seminole?  Oh, never mind.

They’re called “the Redskins”.  That’s what they’ve been called for over 80 years.

A handful of people with nothing better to do wind up making this into a much bigger issue than it really is.  Some folks – *ahem* – like the President of the United States, even, put themselves out there like this whole thing is something we should all really concern ourselves with…and it’s just not that important to any of us — unless you’re a Redskins fan.

We lost our team and our nickname in Baltimore and no one seemed to give a damn about that — except those of us IN BALTIMORE.

It’s a sexy thing to rally behind these days, which is why some national sports folks have jumped on board and declared themselves morally offended by the continued use of “Redskins” by the folks who run the Washington football team.

Give it a rest…

And start calling them “Indianapolis” on Sunday Night Football when you have to mention how Andrew Luck did earlier in the day.


17 Comments For This Post

  1. jay Says:

    The president was asked about it an he answered the question with his opinion, at least he was honest and thoughtful regarding the whole thing; that’s more than I can say for Dan Snyder. It’s 2013, time to move on, even if there is not a vocal minority of Native Americans, it doesn’t mean that the Washington DC football team shouldn’t do the right thing here…

  2. Dirk Says:

    So if ANYONE is offended by ANYTHING it should be changed? I wish, oh how I wish, these were the only things I had to worry about. Must be nice. btw Is there a list of politically correct nanny approved names we could just chose from? Just silly really. If people payed more attention to what was happening in this country and the world this ‘horse manure’ would be so far out of focus it wouldn’t be found w/ the Hubble telescope.

  3. Dave Hittinger Says:

    More than two-thirds of the roughly 3,000 teams with American Indian mascots have dropped them, many voluntarily and without incident.

  4. Steve from Sandpoint Says:

    If Dan Snyder the owner of the team wants the Redskins name to stay the same, then so be it. What right does anybody have in telling him he must change it, this really get’s out of hand !

  5. unitastoberry Says:

    I never liked the name 40 years ago too. Deadskins sounds better.

  6. justafan Says:

    The name could be changed to the Washington Obamas but many would consider this to be even more offensive than the Washington Redskins.

  7. The Armchair QB Says:

    “Political correctness” to an extreme! I’m no fan of the Redskins, but they’ve had that name for over 80 years, so when, exactly, did it become offensive?! The University of Pennsylvania’s Annenburg Institute conducted a survey in 1992 of Native Americans in 48 of the U.S. states (they don’t poll in Hawaii or Alaska) and 90% of those polled said they were NOT offended by the name! With a country of more than 300 million people, at any given moment, someone somewhere will be offended by something, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s….OFFENSIVE! I once was accused of “sexism” by a receptionist in my office because I referred to a meeting as an, “orgy”. When I explained that the word means “excessive”, she was lost for words! As you say, GIVE IT A REST……..

  8. Rob Says:

    I think Danny Boy should change the name for the right reason, to make more money!!! He can play it up as a PR deal, but in the end he’s gonna laugh all the way to the bank. Can you imagine how much coin he would bank when all those fans go buy the new stuff with just because its new and hip? How many people still walk around wearing hats or shirts with the old Ravens logo? Not. Hey I am one of them, I’ll admit it. As Yogurt the Magnificent said in Spaceballs, “Moichandising! That’s where the real money is made!”.

  9. Justin Says:

    Seems like a lot of “takin our jobs” angry white guys here…citing a 20+ year old survey? Or saying “it’s been that way for a long time, so leave it.” What is wrong with you guys? Slavery existed for a long time, does that mean we should not have changed it? Stop clinging to the past and do the right thing! This is ridiculous that this many people think this is OK, come on man! (DF: LOL…you clearly didn’t read anything that was posted. Just yelling to yell. Which, of course, is your right.)

  10. Bill O. Says:

    When choosing a mascot for a team, don’t you usually choose a mascot for its good qualities??? A team does NOT choose a mascot for derogatory reasons. A team chooses a mascot that reflects positive qualities that it wants associated with its team – strength, ferocity, toughness, etc. Just because people have been mistreated in the past does not mean that those people do not have positive traits that we cannot applaud today. In this sense how is the term Redskins any different than the Spartans or Trojans. Redskins, Spartans, Trojans all chosen because of positive qualities. How about the fightin’ Irish? Why isn’t that offensive????

    And here is a better one – the Kansas City Chiefs??? No one calls for them to change their name. Clear Indian reference there, right??.

    What about the Pirates? How is that not offensive to a group of people?

    Surprising how many people are weighing in in favor of the redskins changing their name on the grounds that it is offensive. To those people, please articulate precisely how this offensive? Why is changing the name the “right thing”? How is this different than Spartans or Trojans or other mascots named after groups of people?

  11. BK Says:

    Why must ‘those type of people’ always have to try to bring Obama into it or make negative remarks towards him even when the discussion has nothing to do with it? He was asked a question and gave an answer. If he didn’t you would get on him for that as well and call him a liar and a cheat. It is laughably unpatriotic, but that is a whole different issue. He is the President of the United States of America for gods sake. How are we ever going to change anything or move forward if we do not at least support him, even if we disagree with him. Shame to all of you who make it your mission to somehow, and in any way try to degrade him. You might have been arrested 50 years of ago for treason if you did what you are doing now (seriously).

    The problem with saying that we should not listen to a few people that bitch and go with what the masses say is that the issue itself is about a small minority. Of course their voice is not going to be any where near as large as the rest of the public. People need to realize that before making dumb comments about ‘why should we change something just because every person whines about something’. You show how ignorant you are with comments like that.

    With that said, there clearly does not appear to be enough evidence from the so-called offended minority to warrant a change here. Show me some pissed off Native Americans picketing about it or boycotting Redskins games, merchandise, etc. before I get worked up about something OTHER minorities and the media is hyping up. Merely stating the color of someone’s skin should not warrant offensiveness, but again that is not for me to determine as it appears like those who should make that decision are not offended. There are much worse things we could be concentrating on, like the severe lack of patriotism in this country right now……

  12. justafan Says:

    To BK;
    If Obama were not acting like a dictator, which in my opinion he is, I would be glad to support him. He allows illegal immigrants on the mall but refuses to allow our war heroes to visit the Memorials. He refuses to pay out the grants to the families of our fallen soldiers. You call this guy a president? I call him a treasonous dictator who should be impeached.

  13. John in Westminster Says:

    Brand recognition is no excuse for the continued use of a rascist term.

  14. Tim in Timonium Says:

    “I’d rather sell my children to the gypsies than have them root for the Washington Redskins.” – Tom Clancy

  15. Dan Says:

    Lets first change the name of the New York’Yankees’ and New York ‘Giants’ The name Yankees is very offensive to people of the South , ( See Shermans march to the sea ) and the name Giants offends people with the disease that killed Andre The Giant ,( Gigantism is abnormally large growth due to an excess of growth hormone during childhood, before the bone growth plates have closed.)
    It also offends Midgits who suffer from a similar disease . Disrespecting people with these maladies by naming a football team “Giants” is a terrible thing .

  16. BK Says:

    Justafan: You obviously have no clue what is going on in Washington. The only ‘dictator-like’ actions have come from the Rep’s who jump up and down, stomp their feet, and shout NO like a petulant child to anything Obama and/or the Dem’s try or want to do. The Dem’s are not much better, but they won the election so it should be their turn to put into place what they think it right for this country instead of being blocked by a minority power every time. When the Rep’s win again, they can do the same. The people spoke, get over yourself. BTW, I am a registered Independent and have issues with both sides, but right now the Rep’s are the ones killing any chance of our country moving forward and fixing itself, not that the Dem’s are much better.

  17. OVER40DON Says:

    Drew, OUTSTSANDING blog Thurs. ! now this is what I’m talking about.

    BK u sir are full of SH*@ this about sports and related topics. Independent my ASS. keep ur politics for political masturbation on other sites. CHUMP! it’s ur right to do so

Leave a Reply