We are going back to our roots – sort of.
As everyone with a pulse knows, Washington have unveiled their new ‘Super Bowl era’ uniforms. And damn, they look fine!
They will be worn for three games this year: against the Seattle Seahawks on 2 November, the Denver Broncos on 30 November and the Dallas Cowboys in the regular-season home finale on Christmas Day (epic!).
My first response was “Awesome! We have gone back to our Redskins gear”. Looking at the old and new uniforms side by side, they are almost perfect throwback uniforms.
The helmet, jerseys, pants and socks all have their iconic three stripes back. They are things of great beauty. And I am sure that during games, fans will have to actively remind themselves it is not the Redskins out there.
Of course, the one thing missing is the iconic Redskins logo, and that is where the community remains divided.
Not a brave move
I have often argued that we should have become the Braves instead of the Commanders.
We began as the Boston Braves in 1932, before becoming the Redskins in 1933, so it would have been a return to our roots. It would have been inoffensive, retained the uniforms and logo, and kept the tradition and the Native American imagery.
The name Commanders does not evoke anything Native American and neither does the “Dubya” logo. If anything, it conjures up the image of those who fought against the Native Americans, namely the US military and their Commander in Chief.
Of course, the word “brave” has a great double meaning. It means the Native American warriors who went into battle: a proud, strong image.
It also means being courageous, which is another positive. And that is one of my issues with this Super Bowl Era outfit. Failing to bring back the Super Bowl-winning logo is not a brave move.
I tried to find antonyms for brave, to reflect the decision not to include the logo. Cowardice is too strong, so maybe faint-hearted? Thinking for longer, the word that fit best was another C word: “conservative”.
It is a safe decision, a corporate decision, a decision by committee. One that lacks passion, or conviction… or bravery.
Back… for a fifth of the season
Of course, you look at that uniform and think “If I just squint my eyes, my Redskins are back”. You can feel it in a lot of the responses from fans.
So all great then, right? Well, of course, not quite.
This is not our new official uniform for the season. This is for just three games of a 17-game regular season. That is less than 1 in 5. It is 17%.
If this was going to be our uniform for the season, I am sure I would feel differently.
It would be a rejection of the colour-rush, all red, all black uniforms of the Commanders, and a return to the classic Redskins colours, albeit without the logo. That would be a strong statement and many would feel it was the closest we will get to being the Redskins again.
But for three games a year, this is not that. It looks like a Redskins jersey and you can sell it to Redskins fans who have refused to buy or wear Commanders gear. It gets you the sales without the commitment.
If they used the old logo for those three games, that would be something. But they have not done that. And that is part of the mystery.
History and heritage
There was never anything offensive about the Redskins logo, only the name. The logo was designed by a Native American and depicts a Native American.
Indeed, it is almost the same logo that was on the “Buffalo” nickel, and that is still being minted in the US in the form of the “Gold Buffalo”. That image is no more offensive than the people it salutes.
My best guess as to why they will not use it is a fear of people using the old name when they see it. As if the name Redskins is so offensive it cannot be uttered in public.
Personally, I think it is a sad thing when history is whitewashed.
The Native Americans were the original North American inhabitants. Their story is part of the origin story of modern America, in the trade, the kindness, the diseases, the conflicts, the massacres and the broken treaties.
They were also the origin of the Washington Redskins, in lending the team their identity for almost a century. They should be celebrated, not removed.
I was very proud to be a fan who learnt about that culture, and who celebrated each reversal of history when the Redskins beat the Cowboys, our divisional rivals and “America’s team”.
If managing partner/majority owner Josh Harris truly wants to honour the past, then he must embrace it – name, logo and all – even if only for a few weeks of the year.
That said, this is a step in the right direction and, for three games of the year, I am going to be proud of our past.
Return of the Redskins?
Last year, I had a crazy notion. What if we made the Super Bowl, which we almost did, and came out wearing our Redskins gear for that game?
It was a wild dream. It had zero prospect of coming true, but it was fun to speculate.
I thought about how the fans would feel. They would go nuts… meltdown, emotional breakdown, tears of joy, stadium-breaking nuts.
We would be in the Super Bowl as the Redskins. Thirty years of misery would be erased in an instant.
This year, we have another chance to make the Super Bowl, and we are now one logo away from being the Redskins for that game. Let us drink to that thought!
HTTR
