Will You Still Wear Your Skins Gear After?

Ill still wear my hats with the skins logo. Still fly my logo flag out front.

Probably wont wear anything with "redskins" on it ...

All my shirts have the logo but don't actually say Redskins. I will keep rocking my gear. I'll buy new gear too. I'll wear either of them depending on the mood, the outfit, and the laundry situation.

Note - A small % of name changers that finally got their way due to the current climate in the country does not make everyone that wears a Redskins shirt now a racist. That makes no sense. If you ever wore a Skins shirt before, you can, with all due respect, STFU about me wearing my shirts still if I want to. You are not morally superior because you jumped on the bandwagon.

Note - A small % of name changers that finally got their way due to the current climate in the country does not make everyone that wears a Redskins shirt now a racist. That makes no sense. If you ever wore a Skins shirt before, you can, with all due respect, STFU about me wearing my shirts still if I want to. You are not morally superior because you jumped on the bandwagon.



Agreed!


Ill still wear my hats with the skins logo. Still fly my logo flag out front.

Probably wont wear anything with "redskins" on it ...

Sorry but that reasoning makes no sense. See sdskinsfan's post above for why.

You've supported the Redskins, paid the Redskins for merch...but don't want to wear their name? Sounds like someone who would wear a Glock shirt to look cool but refuses to actually own a gun.

Take a stand on either side, don't sit on the fence.

A person can find the name redskins offensive but find the logo acceptable. It is not an either/or much like a person can be a fan of the Cleveland Indians not find that offensive but the caricature of Chief Wahoo obviously is.

Agreed!

Sorry but that reasoning makes no sense. See sdskinsfan's post above for why.

You've supported the Redskins, paid the Redskins for merch...but don't want to wear their name? Sounds like someone who would wear a Glock shirt to look cool but refuses to actually own a gun.

Take a stand on either side, don't sit on the fence.

I used to passively support the name "redskins" touting the Wash Po survey.

Last couple years I have looked into the term "redskins" and have come to my own opinion that the term was originally used by NA as a pseudo umbrella for discussion with the early colonialists. But over time, the term evolved into a slur.

I think the logo, designed by Wetzel of the Blackfeet tribe, was done with respect. I view the name "redskins" as a slur when known racist George Marshall founded the team.

This is my own personal opinion and thoughts that I have come to after reading a lot from both sides. I personally am not going to tell another person what to do or think.

Will I wear the old logo'd gear? Yes. Without any hesitation.

Will I sport the new stuff? Well ... that depends on what the wizard Danny Snyder decides to name the team, and what the stuff looks like.

Will I root for the team still? Yeah ... I am really looking forward to seeing how this defense plays with actual COACHING. It could be truly special.

The WP poll said only 10% of NA were offended by the name, the UC Berkeley study (https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/02/04/native-mascots-survey/) said it's closer to 50%. Even if you split the difference that's 30%. To me that's enough to say a change is justified.

The WP poll said only 10% of NA were offended by the name, the UC Berkeley study (https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/02/04/native-mascots-survey/) said it's closer to 50%. Even if you split the difference that's 30%. To me that's enough to say a change is justified.

It was never a winning battle for the Skins, we all knew the day was coming eventually

I have a Maryland issued Redskins plate, I wonder what happens too it, my car is registered until 2022.

The WP poll said only 10% of NA were offended by the name, the UC Berkeley study (https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/02/04/native-mascots-survey/) said it's closer to 50%. Even if you split the difference that's 30%. To me that's enough to say a change is justified.

The Washington Post study roughly matched the findings of earlier surveys done by Sports Illustrated and the Annenberg Foundation. The two periodicals have stellar reputations as does the latter non-profit.

The UC Berkeley study used different methodology. Not surprising considered it likely had an agenda. The authors themselves admitted theirs was not a truly national sample while the others were. For details, you can glance at a not entirely sympathetic (to the Skins' name) article on today's National Review entitled Hail (and Farewell) to the Redskins.

In any case, the 30% variance is dubious and does not even total one-third. But history shows that small, energized groups often win. It's all moot now. :)