Washington Commanders lol

[Fryfan]

14 hours ago, Aussie Tank said:

I would have kept Football team 

The name has been growing on me.  I agree.

[Panther53521]

The Washington message board …. 93% hate the new name

[Fryfan]

4 hours ago, LegioX said:

American Indians didn’t even care about the name. Maybe we should listen to them instead of woke white people.

https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/02/04/native-mascots-survey/

Contrary to polls showing that relatively few Native Americans take offense at the Washington Redskins’ name, a new UC Berkeley study has found that at least half of more than 1,000 Native Americans surveyed are offended by the football team’s 87-year-old moniker and Native mascots in general.

The results are particularly timely in the face of Native American protests against caricatures of their culture, including the tomahawk chop — performed by fans of the Kansas City Chiefs, who won Sunday’s Super Bowl — and other sports teams with Native American monikers.

The study’s findings, published in the journal of Social Psychological and Personality Science, show that the degree to which those surveyed identified as Native American influenced how offensive they found Native mascots.

Of those polled for the study, 57% who strongly identify with being Native American and 67% of those who frequently engage in tribal cultural practices were found to be deeply insulted by caricatures of Native American culture.

Overall, the results suggest the controversy over the use of Native representations, such as chief headdresses, war cries and the tomahawk chop, is far from over.

“We keep seeing clear examples of Native people speaking up and protesting these problematic team names and mascots. Yet, public opinion polls, with little methodological transparency, say that Native people are not offended. Things just don’t add up,” said study co-lead author Arianne Eason, a UC Berkeley assistant professor of psychology.

Eason and University of Michigan psychologist Stephanie Fryberg launched the study last fall in response to what they deemed as “yet another questionable opinion survey” about the Redskins’ name.

For example, a 2019 web-based survey of 500 self-identified Native Americans that was reported in The Washington Post found that 68% of those polled were not offended by the Washington Redskins’ name.  Among other things, it asked respondents to identify whether the Redskins’ name made them feel proud, disappointed, empowered, embarrassed, appreciative or hopeless.

Moreover, a 2016 Washington Post survey found that nine in 10 Native Americans polled claimed not to be bothered by the moniker. It was a telephone survey of 504 self-identified Native Americans, and the results are said to have influenced the decision of team owner Daniel Snyder to retain the Redskins’ name.

“The data from previous opinion polls is often used to silence Native people,” said Fryberg, a member of the Tulalip Tribes of Washington, in Washington state. “But our study, which captures a broad diversity of Native peoples and experiences, shows high rates of opposition. As researchers and consumers of information, we need to be very careful about whose voices we claim to be representing.”

Eason and Fryberg’s study is estimated to be the most large-scale investigation to date of the relationship between Native American identity and attitudes towards Native mascots.

The researchers recruited more than 1,000 self-identified adult Native Americans representing 50 states and 148 tribes using the Qualtrics online survey platform. The cohort varied widely in age, gender, socio-economic status, level of education, political ideology, tribal affiliation and Native American political and cultural involvement.

On a scale of 1 to 7, study participants were asked to disagree or agree with a selection of statements, some of which were adapted from the 2016 Washington Post poll.

For example, they were asked to agree or disagree with statements such as, “I think the term ‘redskin’ is respectful to Native Americans,” “I find it offensive when sports fans wear chief headdresses at sporting events” and “When sports fans chant the tomahawk chop, it bothers me.”

Overall, 49% of participants in the UC Berkeley study were found to strongly agree or agree that the Washington Redskins’ name is offensive, while 38% were not bothered by it. The remainder were undecided or indifferent.

However, the number of those offended rose for study participants who were heavily engaged in their native or tribal cultures (67%), young people (60%) and people with tribal affiliations such as members of federally recognized tribes (52%).

 

[Daddy_Uncle]

Almost as bad of name as "Nationals"

[Wanderlai]

They should have went with Red Wolves 

[Panther53521]

I think this would have been 1000% better

[TheoJay10]

I'm predominantly of Native American descent, Cherokee and Blackfoot. I grew up between Washington DC and South Carolina. I was a fan of any team with Native American mascots because where else could you see anything positive about Native American history. Most of my family in the DMV area are fans of the Redskins, they are mixed descent between Native American and Black. Not one of them ever complained about the name. I won't shitpost or cause anyone else to delving further into my beliefs around this but the choice in new name is just as stupid as the people that find Native American mascots in sports racist.

[travisura]

17 minutes ago, Panther53521 said:

I think this would have been 1000% better

I agree, but it was never going to be Red Wolves.

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/why-washington-football-teams-new-name-wont-be-redwolves-or-wolves/3z4hlnfgw73y1ewg1n9hpf7q2

Why Washington Football Team won't be 'RedWolves'

While "RedWolves" was a popular choice among fans to replace "Washington Football Team," team president Jason Wright announced on Jan. 4 that the organization wouldn't be opting for the name because of potential "legal hurdles."

Here's the statement:

Early on we understood Wolves -- or some variation of it -- was one of our fan favorites. As I've said all along, we take feedback from our fans seriously, and because of your interest in this name, we put Wolves on a list of options to explore fully. Once we began looking into Wolves, however, we became aware of a notable challenge: trademarks held by other teams would limit our ability to make the name our own. And without Wolves, variations like RedWolves wouldn't have been viable either for these and other reasons.

 

Understanding the weight and importance of our team name, and excitement around other name options -- both internally and within our fan base -- we didn't want to risk going down a route that could be dotted with legal hurdles. The prospect of years of litigation wasn't something that we wanted you, our fans, to have to bear as you begin to embrace a new brand.

In short, the name is already trademarked. The team's reported preferred choice was "RedWolves," but the name was already owned in July 2020.

[SCMunnerlyn1]

At this point just lean into it. Call them the Washington WOO WOO WOO Wolverines.

[DJ feed me moore]

6 hours ago, BurnNChinn said:

So did anyone else notice they had two different colored helmets? So can they use both? Why don’t panthers bring out a black helmet?

starting next season you can have alt colored helmets

[JawnyBlaze]

They couldn’t even make Captain 

[Move the Panthers to Raleigh]

Y’all laugh, but wait until Tepper changes our name to the Carolina Brokers

[CPantherKing]

3 hours ago, Wanderlai said:

They should have went with Red Wolves 

Red Wolves had licensing issues. Red Hogs would have been the money maker.

Fans will never accept commanders and will refer to themselves as the hogs.

[TheSpecialJuan]

I like their helmets and jerseys