Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
Fri May 3, 2013, 07:12 AM May 2013

Change the name of the Washington, DC football team: Recursion's talking points

For those who wish to enter into this debate, the thoughts of a 20-year Washingtonian.

(NB: to me the obvious answer of "it's an ethnic slur, asshole; we don't have the Boston Micks or the New Orleans N****rs" doesn't work; I've tried it. Move on.)

1. People who whine about tradition and history rarely actually know much about it, to wit: "Redskins" is the second name of the franchise. The team began as the Boston Braves, playing on Braves Field (now the unused field on Boston University's West Campus) and tied into the baseball team the Boston Braves (now the Atlanta Braves). When the baseball Braves moved to Milwaukee, the football Braves moved to Fenway and changed their name to the "Redskins" to tie in with the "Red Sox".

Talking point: it was changed once for marketing reasons, so don't talk "history" and "tradition" now. (And just anecdotally, if you can simply put the words "Boston", "Braves", "Boston University", and "Fenway" into a single sentence, football historians will respect you.)

ALSO: the name is not a tie-in with the Cowboys. It offends me that people who claim to know football would even say that. The Redskins' name predates the Cowboys by a quarter century.

2. George Preston Marshall is a racist motherfucker and anything he liked we should piss on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Preston_Marshall

Talking point: read the link for yourself, and fuck that asshole.

Actually, that's it: two talking points. They're pretty much devastating. The name came about as part of a weird marketing ploy, and it was maintained by a guy who makes Goering look tolerant. But, seriously, if you're not comfortable with sports facts, the history of the Redskins in Boston will get you some cred when you talk about it.

EDIT: Thanks to Fumesucker: the baseball Braves passed through Milwaukee first.

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
2. Thank you! I did not know that. Edited.
Fri May 3, 2013, 07:19 AM
May 2013

I think my point about DC's current team remains unimpeached, however.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
6. Agreed. My main point is the historical one.
Fri May 3, 2013, 07:43 AM
May 2013

The current name was a marketing gimmick. Don't be shy, Snyder: start another gimmick. You love them.

Call them the Washington Greys.

Call them the Washington Marines for the one branch of service that didn't flee the field in the war of 1812.

Just call them something else.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
7. The Washington DC American Legion Post does not say the mascot of the DC football team
Fri May 3, 2013, 07:46 AM
May 2013

That's another talking point.

I am a member of that post, and we do not talk about "R******s" games, we talk about "football" games.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Change the name of the Wa...