2024 Commanders Off-Season Thread

One of the complaints about the perjorative name "Redskins" was that the name was remindful of the portrayal of Native Americans as warlike savages. So that's a no-go.

Also, what do the Commanches have to do with the D.C. area? Aren't they a western tribe? There was a tribe called the Nacotchtank that had a settlement on the east bank of the Anacostia River at the time D.C. became the nation's capital but that name doesn't sound very elegant to my ears.


Redskins was a derogatory term. Comanche isn’t. Chief isn’t. Brave isn’t. Seminole isn’t.
As far as your question about relation to the city well What does Titan have to do with Tennessee. Or Ravens and Baltimore. Was there a tribe of Giants that lived in Manhattan? Did Raiders run rampant in Oakland? Tons of examples in all sports. I personally don’t care if the name is tied to the city, and it opens up the options.

Comanche's would be nice but one issue is the traditional logo was a member of the Blackfeet tribe.


They aren’t bringing back the logo or the name. Hang feathers on the W like Quinns shirt, call em the Comanches and raise hail. HTTC!

Redskins was a derogatory term. Comanche isn’t. Chief isn’t. Brave isn’t. Seminole isn’t.
As far as your question about relation to the city well What does Titan have to do with Tennessee. Or Ravens and Baltimore. Was there a tribe of Giants that lived in Manhattan? Did Raiders run rampant in Oakland? Tons of examples in all sports. I personally don’t care if the name is tied to the city, and it opens up the options.

Ravens and Baltimore are entirely linked. Edgar Allen Poe is buried there, and his most famous poem is The Raven. That was the inspiration for the team name and it's a pretty awesome connection.

But your point that there need not be a strong connection of name to geography isn't wrong -- the Cardinals kept the name even though they originated in St. Louis (and was the other Cardinals team in that city). Which reminds me that there's really no reason not to use the same name from another sport -- it shouldn't create any consumer confusion, which is the touchstone of trademark infringement. Having said that, I doubt they'd re-name the football team the Nationals (which I find bland), Capitals (same), Wizards (terrible name), or United (which I actually like a lot).

Redskins was a derogatory term. Comanche isn’t. Chief isn’t. Brave isn’t. Seminole isn’t.
As far as your question about relation to the city well What does Titan have to do with Tennessee. Or Ravens and Baltimore. Was there a tribe of Giants that lived in Manhattan? Did Raiders run rampant in Oakland? Tons of examples in all sports. I personally don’t care if the name is tied to the city, and it opens up the options.

The notion that Redskins was a derogatory term is still false in my opinion. Yes, some found it "offensive" or "racist". However, it's tough to find something that doesn't offend someone these days. When there are Native American High Schools with the Redskins mascot, that's enough for me.

Sadly, it'll never come back, I know. But it was never derogatory.

Anyway, Raise Hail I guess...

Redskins was a derogatory term. Comanche isn’t. Chief isn’t. Brave isn’t. Seminole isn’t.
As far as your question about relation to the city well What does Titan have to do with Tennessee. Or Ravens and Baltimore. Was there a tribe of Giants that lived in Manhattan? Did Raiders run rampant in Oakland? Tons of examples in all sports. I personally don’t care if the name is tied to the city, and it opens up the options.

Don't play into the disinformation about the Redskins being a derogatory term. Multiple studies by etymologists showed that it wasn't. In fact outright forgeries and fabrications were used to convince people that it was a derogatory term. And yes the media often supported that misinformation even when presented with information debunking the claims. That the name was dropped at all was an injustice (Maybe not a grave injustice given what happens in the world but an injustice none-the-less).

https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/12/redskins-the-debate-over-the-washington-football-team-s-name-incorrectly-invokes-history.html

Couple of Examples

"....Before all this recent scholarship, though, one could be forgiven for thinking redskin had emerged from hostilities with the white man. For many years the first citation in the Oxford English Dictionary was dated 1699 and purported to come from Samuel Smith. It read, “Ye firste Meetinge House was solid mayde to withstande ye wicked onsaults of ye Red Skins.” It had been quoted from family papers in a book published in 1900 by Helen Evertson Smith.

But Goddard’s research undermined this earliest of citations. First, he explains, Smith’s words were “relentlessly antiqued”—made to appear older than they were. One giveaway was the use of ye, which was anachronistic for 1699. By investigating the underlying documentation Goddard further discovered a probable source for the quotation, bearing a different date and the word Indian, which Helen Evertson Smith had modified to redskin...."

"....the Post published a column by Eva Rodriguez, trotting out the bloody-scalp origin story. Goddard responded by writing a letter to the editor. First, he stated clearly that only current feelings about the word were relevant to determining whether redskin is offensive today, and then he objected strenuously to Rodriguez’s amateur scholarship:

What is not acceptable is for her to give as the only relevant historical fact the fictional claim that the word originally referred to scalps, for which there is no evidence.
But the Post’s letters editor would not allow Goddard to call the bloody-scalp claim “fictional,” and so deleted the word from his letter...."

https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2013/12/why-is-the-word-redskin-so-offensive/

"....There is little evidence that the perception of “redskin” as an inherently offensive term for Native American existed before the late 1970’s or early 1980’s. Traditionally, the word “redskin” was viewed as a synonym for Indian or Native American and did not carry the sort of negative connotations that have long attached to ethnic slurs like ...." (I stopped the quote at this point to avoid any possible term violations)

Ravens and Baltimore are entirely linked. Edgar Allen Poe is buried there, and his most famous poem is The Raven. That was the inspiration for the team name and it's a pretty awesome connection.

But your point that there need not be a strong connection of name to geography isn't wrong -- the Cardinals kept the name even though they originated in St. Louis (and was the other Cardinals team in that city). Which reminds me that there's really no reason not to use the same name from another sport -- it shouldn't create any consumer confusion, which is the touchstone of trademark infringement. Having said that, I doubt they'd re-name the football team the Nationals (which I find bland), Capitals (same), Wizards (terrible name), or United (which I actually like a lot).


You know as I made that comment about Baltimore and the Ravens I actually thought about googling it to see… interesting.

Don't play into the disinformation about the Redskins being a derogatory term. Multiple studies by etymologists showed that it wasn't. In fact outright forgeries and fabrications were used to convince people that it was a derogatory term. And yes the media often supported that misinformation even when presented with information debunking the claims. That the name was dropped at all was an injustice (Maybe not a grave injustice given what happens in the world but an injustice none-the-less).

https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/12/redskins-the-debate-over-the-washington-football-team-s-name-incorrectly-invokes-history.html

Couple of Examples

"....Before all this recent scholarship, though, one could be forgiven for thinking redskin had emerged from hostilities with the white man. For many years the first citation in the Oxford English Dictionary was dated 1699 and purported to come from Samuel Smith. It read, “Ye firste Meetinge House was solid mayde to withstande ye wicked onsaults of ye Red Skins.” It had been quoted from family papers in a book published in 1900 by Helen Evertson Smith.

But Goddard’s research undermined this earliest of citations. First, he explains, Smith’s words were “relentlessly antiqued”—made to appear older than they were. One giveaway was the use of ye, which was anachronistic for 1699. By investigating the underlying documentation Goddard further discovered a probable source for the quotation, bearing a different date and the word Indian, which Helen Evertson Smith had modified to redskin...."

"....the Post published a column by Eva Rodriguez, trotting out the bloody-scalp origin story. Goddard responded by writing a letter to the editor. First, he stated clearly that only current feelings about the word were relevant to determining whether redskin is offensive today, and then he objected strenuously to Rodriguez’s amateur scholarship:

What is not acceptable is for her to give as the only relevant historical fact the fictional claim that the word originally referred to scalps, for which there is no evidence.
But the Post’s letters editor would not allow Goddard to call the bloody-scalp claim “fictional,” and so deleted the word from his letter...."

https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2013/12/why-is-the-word-redskin-so-offensive/

"....There is little evidence that the perception of “redskin” as an inherently offensive term for Native American existed before the late 1970’s or early 1980’s. Traditionally, the word “redskin” was viewed as a synonym for Indian or Native American and did not carry the sort of negative connotations that have long attached to ethnic slurs like ...." (I stopped the quote at this point to avoid any possible term violations)


So not going down this road. Lol. U can find both sides of the coin on the internet. Ive read it is. Ive read it isn’t. Fact of the matter is it is up for debate. Unlike seminoles, chiefs, braves, etc. That was my only point. The name will never be Redskins again. Hopefully one day soon it isn’t Commanders. Red Hawks and keep the feathers??

So not going down this road. Lol. U can find both sides of the coin on the internet. Ive read it is. Ive read it isn’t. Fact of the matter is it is up for debate. Unlike seminoles, chiefs, braves, etc. That was my only point. The name will never be Redskins again. Hopefully one day soon it isn’t Commanders. Red Hawks and keep the feathers??

Ok you don't want to go down this road but one thing you won't find on the side of the debate that says Redskins is a slur are etymologists and probably not any other type of historian as well.

would people consider it icky if we named them the blackskins?

it's dead jim; let it lie. not worth the trouble and it's not happening. No need to waste any more time on it.

(as a post note, yes surveys showed most NAs didn't consider it offensive (some did), but most DID find the fans offensive (the ones with head dresses and hatchets and all that)).