Off-Topic Forum

Why have several retailers removed Washington Redskins merchandise but left Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, Chicago Blackhawks, and Kansas City Chiefs merchandise on their shelves? 

Seems fishy to me if one's fully on-board this runaway train. 

Right.

Where does it end?

And are the Irish offended by the Notre Dame logo, but ok with selling Irish named beers and foods?

I am ok with people sharing different opinions about team names, without name calling.

I have been a Redskins fan since childhood, and always saw the logo and team song coming from an attitude of respect and honor.

If the name changes, I will move my allegiance elsewhere, just like when the Bullets changed to Wizards a long time ago.

Hey wait...did I just agree with a cowboys fan?  Amazing..,ha ha

Mark

Nike started it.  Granted, those Redskins shirts they pulled from their site were made in a sweatshop by a 10-year-old Chinese kid making 22 cents an hour.  But who's counting?

The Redskins and Indians have been receiving much more backlash than the other teams over the years. Chicago says they aren't changing their name or logo because they're honoring Chief Black Hawk, not using a derogatory name. Atlanta is considering getting rid of the Tomahawk Chop but doesn't plan to change their name. Haven't seen anything on KC but the "Chiefs" name isn't offensive.

I agree with the comment on the Chinese kid at 22 cents/hour, however Nike does the same thing with their $200 pair of shoes.  And it doesn't end there....jeans, shirts, etc...

The Washington team is a straight up slur, which is the principle issue. On top of that, the team has long been adamant that they have no intention of changing the name, drawing further ire. Nike has pulled all apperal from sale, meaning that any company that has a contract to sell Nike merchanidse can be found in breach of contract and may no longer be able to sell any Nike gear. Since Nike has exclusive rights to NFL merchandise, if they don't want to sell it anymore, then no one gets to buy it.

The Blackhawks are named after 86th infantry division, which was in turn named after Blawk Hawk, a Sauk war chief. Native groups are nearly unanimously opposed to the logo, but seem to be split on the name itself.

The Chiefs are named after KC Mayor Harold Roe Bartle, whose nickname was "Chief". The Chiefs have only been asked by Native groups to address offensive behavior such as headresses and the tomahawk chop, and not the name.

The Braves has a basis in Native sterotypes, but they have moved towards a much more generic interpretation of the name in the past few years, such as tweaks to the logos and changing the mascot from Chief Noc-a-Homer, to Homer the Brave, to Blooper, who has zero connection to any Native imagery at all. They are currently working with the Cherokee and Muscogee Nations to alter any team traditions that may be viewed as offensive to natives, and likely won't be bring back the chop next season.

As per Notre Dame, it was founded as a Catholic instiution. There is some debate on the origin of the moniker, but it likely comes from the large body of Irish students that were found at the nations premier Catholic University, which is to be expected. This is similar to how Canadians have no problems with the Vancouver hockey team being called the Canuks, but would likely have some problems with an American team using the name.

And if you stop being a fan because they change the name, then I really question your actual commitment to the team. Team names and logos don't win games, the players and coaches do. Dan Snyder's horrendous ownership descisions are a much better reason to not want to be a fan anymore.

Right, the Bullets and Wizards stink no matter which name they use.

Try being a Toronto Maple leaf fan lol

And here by the title of the thread I thought you were talking about my Dolphins.  Of course, someone probably thinks it is animal abuse and will demand a name change for them too.

Exactly, where does it end?  I am hearing a lot about George Washington being a racist slave owner so people are tearing down his statues.  So are the Washington Redskins now only going to be half racist when they become the Washington Warriors (name I heard being considered)?  Considering George Washington owned slaves will they now consider renaming the nations capital so as not to offend anyone?  

It does seem to be a pretty racist name, but this could open the floodgates as Bruno said about the Dolphins.