Originally Posted by infantrycak
I never thought about it at all.
Get serious. Like there was some overwhelming anti-Indian demographic when they selected the name which was going to sell more jerseys. That is just ridiculous.
I am sure Marshall was trying to piss off his Indian head coach with a derogatory term.
Right -- it's just comical to suggest that a pro sports owner in the 1930's didn't respect minorities. Even in 1933, you don't think there were other options besides "Redskins" that might be a little less inflammatory?
Would you support it if we did it here? Say the Texans hired a half Hispanic head coach and McNair made him dress up in a 10 foot sombrero and poncho during games. Then he's sitting around thinking of a new team name for the Texans to honor Texas' Hispanic roots and their new coach:
"Well, we could name them the Matadors, the Warriors, the Vaqueros, or the Wetbacks."
"Hmm... let's go with Wetbacks. that sounds like the most respectful and honorable name."
75 years later, that name would still suck.
George Marshall bought the Redskins in 1932 and owned them until he died in 1969. How many other Native Americans did he honor besides the coach he fired in 1934? What about the other three plus decades, when he was going out of his way to trumpet his racism (playing "Dixie" before the "Star Spangled Banner")? If he was so eager to honor Native Americans he had a great chance to do so -- owning a team where no other race was apparently allowed employment. Why not at least hire Jim Thorpe for PR -- who actually played for the Boston Braves before Marshall bought them?