@the-gipper said:

Understand....though I said that two of them could certainly have different applications (not that they do in the case of the actual teams involved).

Well you're my attorney and I want to open up a string of hamburger joints and call them Mack Donalds, are we cool? I'm going to put mayonnaise and chutney on mine. Different application?

WSS

@westside-steve said:

Understand....though I said that two of them could certainly have different applications (not that they do in the case of the actual teams involved).

@oldbrownsfan said:

@wargograw said:

I have no idea what this means or who it's directed at.

WSS

@westside-steve said:

No as you should have been able to tell there is already a Golden State Warriors Kansas City Chiefs and Atlanta fucking Braves.

That's why those names are stupid names.

WSS

I have no idea what this means or who it's directed at.

These idiots are addicted to outrage.

WSS

That's why those names are stupid names.

WSS

@oldbrownsfan said:

I thought maybe the "Braves" would be acceptable but some find offense to that:

Brave

This is a word that has been used to refer to

Indian men. Used in millions of books, and

as a name for many sports teams, people are

often surprized to find that it offends Indian

people. But it does! It plays on the 'noble

courageous savage' ideal that was pinned on

Indian men long ago by early europeans. It

also dehumanizes and equates the Indian

male to something less than human. Adult

Indian males are men, NOT 'braves'....

Then I checked into Chiefs or Chieftain and that too was found to be offensive:

Chief

This is a word that is commonly given as a

nickname which incorrectly labels Indian

men. The cultural equivelant would be to

nickname all white men 'Prez' or 'King'.

The term 'chief' itself is incorrect. Indian

leaders were never 'chiefs', but headmen,

or clan mothers, and so on. Not 'chiefs'.

Native leaders were highly disrespected by

the USA. So calling someone 'Chief',

is just a way to continue that disrespect...

The university of Marquette used to be the Warriors but that is offensive as well:

Marquette University changed their team name from the Warriors to the Golden Eagles in 1994. The schools president stated:"We live in a different era than when the Warriors nickname was selected in 1954. The perspective of time has shown us that our actions, intended or not, can offend others. We must not knowingly act in a way that others will believe, based on their experience, to be an attack on their dignity as fellow human beings."

Maybe Ghandi is the answer but he is kind of skinny (weight challenged).

Exactly. People think "oh let's just give up on the Redskins thing then everything will be hunky dory." Uh no, then you'll just get the push to change something else.

Just because people aren't offended by something now doesn't mean they won't be later. I can't wait til they come after Wahoo and everyone on this thread is like "but....but...I supported you on the Redskins thing!! I thought we were friends!!" Lol

@flugel said:

wow. we just made a connection there.

@westside-steve said:

When Donald Trump-this takes off his Mexicutioner hat, I'm sure he'd love to give this some attention once he's done giving McCain some attention.

Just wait until his central intelligence informs him that ISIS isn't just some intramural splat ball team.

Stay tuned...

@the-gipper said:

Let me just preface this with I'm not prejudice - I hate everyone. Somehow - some way, while I was learning about Pocahontas in grade school - I had this Pokeahotness interrupting and threatening my cooties stage membership. I wonder what she thinks of the current events in Washington while her former daughter turned son is now feeling like a different version of half breed.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube+of+cher%27s+half+breed&FORM=VIRE3#view=detail&mid=74AA859375C228FDAFB274AA859375C228FDAFB2

@oldbrownsfan said:

(Get off my lawn...)

Brave
This is a word that has been used to refer to
Indian men. Used in millions of books, and
as a name for many sports teams, people are
often surprized to find that it offends Indian
people. But it does! It plays on the 'noble
courageous savage' ideal that was pinned on
Indian men long ago by early europeans. It
also dehumanizes and equates the Indian
male to something less than human. Adult
Indian males are men, NOT 'braves'....

Then I checked into Chiefs or Chieftain and that too was found to be offensive:

Chief
This is a word that is commonly given as a
nickname which incorrectly labels Indian
men. The cultural equivelant would be to
nickname all white men 'Prez' or 'King'.
The term 'chief' itself is incorrect. Indian
leaders were never 'chiefs', but headmen,
or clan mothers, and so on. Not 'chiefs'.
Native leaders were highly disrespected by
the USA. So calling someone 'Chief',
is just a way to continue that disrespect...

The university of Marquette used to be the Warriors but that is offensive as well:

Marquette University changed their team name from the Warriors to the Golden Eagles in 1994. The school’s president stated:"We live in a different era than when the Warriors nickname was selected in 1954. The perspective of time has shown us that our actions, intended or not, can offend others. We must not knowingly act in a way that others will believe, based on their experience, to be an attack on their dignity as fellow human beings."

Maybe Ghandi is the answer but he is kind of skinny (weight challenged).

@westside-steve said:

Of course, Warriors, to me, is a non-specific term to mean anyone who engages in battle. The Spartan Defenders of Thermopolae were "warriors", as were the Roman Legions, the Scots who fought under William Wallace, and the guys who fought in the American Revolution.

Chief somewhat the same, no? That term is not specific to Native Americans.

The Israeli "Tribes" had Chiefs? As did African Tribes, Nomadic Arabic Tribes, Mongol Tribes etc. etc. No?

Braves does, to me, seem more specific to Native Americans.

On the other hand....perhaps the Cleveland Indians could adopt a somewhat different smiling face mascot:

Any takers?

And feigning out rage is a great way to get attention and attention is the goal.

WSS

@jrb12711 said:

I believe political correctness is a huge problem in our country today. If Washington would keep the Indian face and change the name to the Braves, Chieftains, Warriors etc...some one will find a way to be offended. There are many mascots we can find fault with. The fighting Irish because everyone knows the Irish can't handle their liquor and fight with everyone when drunk. Why does Pittsburgh honor the pirates? Weren't pirates a bunch of thieving murderers?

A college team Louisiana Lafayette uses the Rajin Cajuns for a mascot. The original mascot was a bulldog. In the early 1960’s as an effort to “fire up” the football team, Coach Russ Faulkinberry called his team the Raging Cajuns since 95 percent of the football team was from the Acadiana area [i.e., ethnically Cajun]. It was then decided by the Sports Information Director, Bob Henderson, to honor the team and the Cajun heritage by calling them the Raging Cajuns. The first Ragin’ Cajun mascot was Cajun Man.

This was protested by African American activists who resented the association of the multi-racial and -ethnic University with a white ethnicity. From another perspective, the mascot was questioned on the grounds that “Cajun” had once been a nasty racial slur.

Apparently the University lost Cajun Man when he graduated, so he was replaced by Cajun Chicken. Cajun Chicken was later replaced by Cayenne, a chili pepper, the University’s current mascot.

Still, the disappearance of the Cajun Man has not led to the disappearance of the controversy over the mascot, kept alive with the term “Ragin’ Cajuns.” In Blue Collar Bayou, Jaques Henry and Carl Bankston III report that in 1997 Louis Farrakhan protested that the state funding of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette amounted to the state using “African American and Creole tax dollars… to promote a white culture.”

The Redskins might be the exception and needs to be changed? I don't know. Our local school uses the name Redskins. I just believe political correctness is a slippery slope and where does it all end?

WSS

@westside-steve said:

@the-gipper said:

The guy that chose the name: George Preston Marshall.....was an avowed racist. He did not allow black players onto his team until the 60s when the Civil Rights Act was passed and he was threatened with being disallowed to play in the government owned stadium there in DC. He acquiesced, but it was not done voluntarily.

And by all accounts, despite what he says, I do not think his attitude toward Native Americans was any better than his attitude toward blacks.

So.....yes, given who chose the name.....there certainly theoretically could have been a racist element to the selection....but you are right, it seems incongruous that he would purposely choose a demeaning name. It is likely he did so out of ignorance more than anything else.

And the Joe Lewis Cleveland Browns hook just sounds ridiculous to me.

The Brown Bommber might make sense had there actually been any black people on the team and somebody really wanted to honor Joe but...

WSS

Zombo said:

Thanks Zombo, I can always count on you for a laugh when I need one.

But to the comment, you can never tell if folks in the area have sense or not.

@oldbrownsfan said:

Just so you know, that study has been HEAVILY criticized and really, to me anyway, is largely irrelevant. Here's a pretty practical article that really highlights that:

http://ipclinic.org/2014/02/11/11-reasons-to-ignore-the-10-year-old-annenberg-survey-about-the-washington-football-teams-offensive-name/

A more recent (and more complete) study found that 67% find it offensive, and only 20% disagreeing:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/lindseyadler/native-americans-offended-by-racial-slur#.ut9Kg9GOKn

To repeat myself here, I wouldn't even argue that the world is over correcting some to a PC society. However, I will never be opposed to names, landmarks or other materials that lend themselves to overtly racist principles being removed.

@oldbrownsfan said:

That may mean simply that they did not take umbrage to the name....not that it is not offensive.

Example.....it really doesn't bother me if someone were to call me a Honky, Cracker or some such because I am white. Or that they would call me a Mick because I am of Irish descent.

Just because I do not take offense...does not mean that it is not offensive.

Again, remember, if you buy the theory that the Browns are named for Joe Louis the Brown Bomber then you are accepting that "our" team too is essentially the "Brownskins"

Fortuneatly we have an out by saying it is really named after Paul Brown...not Joe Louis. (and it probably really is named after Paul Brown....but the counter theory exists.

@westside-steve said:

The guy that chose the name: George Preston Marshall.....was an avowed racist. He did not allow black players onto his team until the 60s when the Civil Rights Act was passed and he was threatened with being disallowed to play in the government owned stadium there in DC. He acquiesced, but it was not done voluntarily.

And by all accounts, despite what he says, I do not think his attitude toward Native Americans was any better than his attitude toward blacks.

So.....yes, given who chose the name.....there certainly theoretically could have been a racist element to the selection....but you are right, it seems incongruous that he would purposely choose a demeaning name. It is likely he did so out of ignorance more than anything else.

In 2004, the National Annenberg Election Survey asked 768 people who identified themselves as Indian whether they found the name “Washington Redskins” offensive. Almost 90 percent said it did not bother them.