Jump to content

Obama Weighs in on Redskins Name


Bronc24

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But when the Christian Conservatives go nuts over the Tampa Devil Rays, they become the Tampa Rays. Didn't see any Republicans crying like babies over that

 

 

Go Red Sox!

 

Didn't the Washington Wizards used to the called the Bullets in the NBA as well? Is that true about the Rays?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't the Washington Wizards used to the called the Bullets in the NBA as well? Is that true about the Rays?

 

I don't know about the Rays, my suspicion is that it's an urban myth.

 

You are correct about the Wizards/Bullets. Name was changed during the 90s because of all the crime in one of America's largest gun free zones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about the Rays, my suspicion is that it's an urban myth.

 

You are correct about the Wizards/Bullets. Name was changed during the 90s because of all the crime in one of America's largest gun free zones

 

And here's the crazy thing. Have you seen all the death and destruction those crazy Wizards cause in movies like the LOTR and The Hobbit?? Those guys are whacked man!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many Jazz joints in Salt Lake City? Maybe they needed a few or that idiot Dennis Rodman wouldn't have went off on the Mormons... ;-P

 

How 'bout Grizzlies in Memphis or Cardinals in Arizona?

 

So what you're saying is if a sports franchise has an established name, logo, or mascot that may seem outdated or out of place it's not unheard of to keep it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

So what you're saying is if a sports franchise has an established name, logo, or mascot that may seem outdated or out of place it's not unheard of to keep it?

 

Yes and no.

 

The one's with nicknames and logos that have "issues" usually change. Off the top of my head, I can think of 3 teams that have moved and fit the insensitive "issues" category.

 

The Baltilmore Bullets, The Buffalo Braves, and the Milwaukee/Boston Braves. 2 out of 3 were changed. The Milwaukee Braves moved to Georgia in 1966... Heck, the San Diego (then LA) Clippers (BFLO) were in 1980 and they still got it!

 

Yet, the Boston/Milwaukee team has had a whopping 6 nicknames. They went from Botson Braves to Boston Bees from 1936 to 1940... Then back to Braves. They moved from Milwaukee to Atlanta in 1966, Boston to Milwaukee, mid 1950's. The insensitive cultural names seem to fit certain eras.

 

Can you think of other teams w/insensitive nickname issues that moved and did/didn't change their nickname?

 

EDIT:

 

Oh, 4 teams. The Kansas City Scouts in the NHL became the New Jersey Devils. "Devil" not being the classic devil... BUT, "The New Jersey Devil". Why didn't they keep the Scouts nickname and logo (Native on horseback)? Again, late 1970's/early 1980's.

 

So, this whole being sensitive thing goes way back.

 

Off the top of my head... Another name that may be insensitive:

 

Now... The Calgary Flames never changed their name... EVEN know, they were the Atlanta Flames... A NOW obscure reference to the burning of Atlanta during the Civil War. Is "Flames" insensitive to Atlanta? It can be. I can see the argument if Atlanta objects. BUT, the nickname has since been "scrubbed."

 

Why not name the hockey team in Atlanta: The Pillagers. They can have a logo of a Union soldier, maybe good old William Tecumsah Sherman raping a Southern Belle. How tough and mean that would be... Pretty cool! They could go up against the more disciplined: Blue Jackets.

Edited by ExiledInIllinois
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes and no.

 

The one's with nicknames and logos that have "issues" usually change. Off the top of my head, I can think of 3 teams that have moved and fit the insensitive "issues" category.

 

The Baltilmore Bullets, The Buffalo Braves, and the Milwaukee/Boston Braves. 2 out of 3 were changed. The Milwaukee Braves moved to Georgia in 1966... Heck, the San Diego (then LA) Clippers (BFLO) were in 1980 and they still got it!

 

Yet, the Boston/Milwaukee team has had a whopping 6 nicknames. They went from Botson Braves to Boston Bees from 1936 to 1940... Then back to Braves. They moved from Milwaukee to Atlanta in 1966, Boston to Milwaukee, mid 1950's. The insensitive cultural names seem to fit certain eras.

 

Can you think of other teams w/insensitive nickname issues that moved and did/didn't change their nickname?

 

EDIT:

 

Oh, 4 teams. The Kansas City Scouts in the NHL became the New Jersey Devils. "Devil" not being the classic devil... BUT, "The New Jersey Devil". Why didn't they keep the Scouts nickname and logo (Native on horseback)? Again, late 1970's/early 1980's.

 

So, this whole being sensitive thing goes way back.

 

Off the top of my head... Another name that may be insensitive:

 

Now... The Calgary Flames never changed their name... EVEN know, they were the Atlanta Flames... A NOW obscure reference to the burning of Atlanta during the Civil War. Is "Flames" insensitive to Atlanta? It can be. I can see the argument if Atlanta objects. BUT, the nickname has since been "scrubbed."

 

Why not name the hockey team in Atlanta: The Pillagers. They can have a logo of a Union soldier, maybe good old William Tecumsah Sherman raping a Southern Belle. How tough and mean that would be... Pretty cool! They could go up against the more disciplined: Blue Jackets.

 

Does anyone know if the highlighted part above has been added to the TBDisms thread. That's a nice little bit of hillbillyism right there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I saw today that two members of congress wrote Roger Goodell and threaten him to publicly state his disapproval of the name Redskins, in an effort to pressure Snyder to change the name. The threat was lightly veiled in that Congress would reconsider the tax-exempt status of the NFL if the name wasn't changed.

 

Real basic question, how is the name racist? I am not even being trite, I honestly don't understand what is derogatory about the name. The vast majority of Native Americans polled don't have an issue with the name. Just curious to see what others think.

 

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw today that two members of congress wrote Roger Goodell and threaten him to publicly state his disapproval of the name Redskins, in an effort to pressure Snyder to change the name. The threat was lightly veiled in that Congress would reconsider the tax-exempt status of the NFL if the name wasn't changed.

 

Real basic question, how is the name racist? I am not even being trite, I honestly don't understand what is derogatory about the name. The vast majority of Native Americans polled don't have an issue with the name. Just curious to see what others think.

 

Thanks!

 

It has been defined in dictionaries as offensive. From Wiki:

 

""Redskin" is a racial descriptor of disputed origin for Native Americans. Although by some accounts not originally having negative intent, the term is defined in current dictionaries of American English as "usually offensive", "disparaging", "insulting", "taboo" and is avoided in public usage with the exception of its continued use as a name for sports teams."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Real basic question, how is the name racist? I am not even being trite, I honestly don't understand what is derogatory about the name. The vast majority of Native Americans polled don't have an issue with the name. Just curious to see what others think.

 

Thanks!

 

If I'm not sure about how it will be received, I try to put it into some sort of context for myself.

 

For example, which of the following would would be appropriate to say in polite conversation:

 

A. "As a Native American, how do you feel about this topic?"

 

B. "As a redskin, how do you feel about this topic?"

 

IMO using choice B is an easy way to get into a fight.

Edited by KikoSeeBallKikoGetBall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...