Off-Topic Forum

Mark, yes, I believe we're on the same page ironically. 

Two things bother me about these decisions; one that has been avoided in discussion. So Nike, Walmart, Target, etc. are free to make choices on what product they will sell, but by making this choice they are admitting their complicity in what they're now disavowing. And isn't that what a lot of this is about, reparations for wrongs done. So they stopped selling a few items, but they made a lot of money off them over the years. Others surely are having to pay for past sins, even though they've shown remorse, yet these same big companies will fire employees to appease the loud masses. What's the difference?

Secondly, as has been pointed out: where does it stop? It's not so far fetched to believe the mob will come after others once this feeding has ended. They will find other things that will be deemed offensive and the media will surely be the lead in spreading the untrue gospel. The logic of team names and mascots that were meant to honor and build team pride to be considered offensive seems wrongly construed. Is that what organizations do, pick names to offend? Or do they select names that reflect a characteristic they hope to inspire their team onward?

As I implied in the OP, these companies don't really seem all in to me.

The Washington franchise should've changed their name a long time ago.  It is straight-up offensive.  Can you imagine how offensive it would be to have a team named the New York N*****s?  It has the exact same negative connotation.

I disagree with that comparison, and Washington Post polls over the years also show that the Native Americans they asked about this don't consider the name offensive by an overwhelming majority.

Change their name from Redskins to Native Americans.

That's fine, let Daniel Snyder change it to that if he wants. But the point of this is that companies are singling out Washington but it's funny how they've removed their items but you can still find Pat Mahomes and Kansas City Chiefs stuff for sale. I wonder why?

Change the names and lets get this over with. 40 years from now today's kids will not remember.    I hate the idea of thought police especially by hypocritical companies like Nike.   If they want to help people, bring back jobs to the US and help the unemployed here.   Same with the big sports stars they pay the big bucks to.  If they truly want to help people, have them put pressure on Nike to bring jobs back.

You do bring up a more practical point of view, Joe, as always.

I like splinte's idea, just make it a potato and Al! Is well..except the potatoes of other colors will want a team also.

Yankees is a not so nice tern that some southern people use for folks from the north. Are they next?

I am not sure why it is so hard to just respect and honor our differences.  If we all were the same, it would be pretty boring.

Mark

Oh come on, they are not the only ones being made that way.

This whole conversation is ridiculous to me. First off the name Redskins is not offensive it is just a name. I am half Eastern Cherokee and I find no name offensive. What I do find offensive is all this  cancel culture crap and the attempts to rewrite American history. Like all nations (yes even native American ones) we have good and bad in our past. Are we the same nation today as we were 200 years ago ...No will we be the same 200 years from now ...No. I don't know about anyone else but I use sports and entertainment to get away from the political and societal conflicts that we are forced to face in our daily lives. I don't care for politics or activism intruding on those rare moments of relaxation and when they do I will simply walk away.