Drop ‘Redskins’ name? Time to take a stand.

[Avril]

I wasn't alluding to anything; I had no idea there existed such a team.

All right, fine. There will not be a team called the White Trashies.

[ganzfeld]

I'm pretty sure the Crackers didn't have a stereotypical white dude (Alfred E Newman... nah that would be Cleveland) on their uniforms because Cracker just means like Cracker Jack, not the word for white folk that's not even in the same ballpark as Redskins. I think your "N_____s" comparison is much closer, Avril.

They go through this kind of hand wringing every few years, even though it was pointed out at least 30 years ago that the name is offensive, but they never change it. I was a Washington fan as a kid but even then it really bothered me.

[erwins]

Cracker referring to people has nothing to do with Cracker Jack. As used by the Atlanta Crackers, I'm sure it was being used as a term for white southerners. It is now seen primarily pejoratively, but it has been embraced by some. As a kid growing up in central Florida, I thought "Florida Cracker" was just a synonym for native Floridian--and someone must have taught me that. (Not, probably, my parents, neither of whom was a Florida native). I'd say the same people who clung to the confederate flag with pride were probably the ones embracing the term "cracker." In fact, there probably still are some who do. And I agree that it doesn't remotely compare to the "Redskins" or other pejorative terms for minorities.

[ganzfeld]

I stand corrected! However, another reason for the origin of the team name has been suggested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracker_(pejorative)

[Hero_Mike]

FWIW, "cracker" is very offensive and some people use it as a substitute for "white trash".

Also, FWIW, I think that "Redskins" needs to go, but I find it always a bit of a cash grab whenever a team redesigns their logo, team colours, and so on. I think that maybe Washington should keep its colours and maybe even the feathers on the logo, and call themselves the "Braves", like they used to be.

But that's the question then - is "Braves" offensive? In my opinion, it's like calling your team the "Warriors" - it's meant to make them sound tough and violent, but it is not meant to be disrespectful. Same with "Vikings" or "Spartans" or "Trojans" or "Centurions". That's a whole lot different than "Indians" or "Redskins", which are not meant to be respectful at all. And that's entirely the opposite of, say, naming a team as "Chiefs", as that can be respectful. Just avoid any stereotypical depictions of indigenous peoples, and you have a name which means "leader" and implies strength and superiority. There just seems to be no way to make "Redskins" inoffensive, short of going the route of the potatoe...

In that case they'd have to move the team to Idaho...

[thorny locust]

I think you might possibly get away with "Braves" without the feathers; but not in combination with the feathers. "Warriors" doesn't apply to any particular cultural group; a very large number of different cultures have the "warrior" concept. "Braves" by itself might arguably mean "hey, look how brave we are!" But "Braves" combined with feathers implies strongly that it's being used to mean "male Native American"; it sounds to me like the equivalent of "squaw", which is taken by many to be pejorative, and "brave" itself in this specific context is taken by some to be pejorative.

The Vikings, Trojans, and centurions are to the best of my knowledge no longer around, though it's true that their descendents are. There are people living in a modern city on the site of and named for ancient Sparta; if they start getting publicly upset about the use of the name for sports teams, maybe those names should be changed also. But I don't think that's really equivalent to "Braves", let alone to "Redskins", as it's pretty much the proper name for the city; "braves" was a general term for Native American/American Indian males, and not their own term.

[GaryM]

Originally Posted by thorny locust

There are people living in a modern city on the site of and named for ancient Sparta; if they start getting publicly upset about the use of the name for sports teams, maybe those names should be changed also.

According to the BBC, the Lesbians (from Lesbos) went to court with the Homosexual and Lesbian Community of Greece to get them to change their name. Not sporting-related, just was reminded of it by your Sparta comment.

[erwins]

Originally Posted by Hero_Mike

FWIW, "cracker" is very offensive and some people use it as a substitute for "white trash".

It can be. But as I said above, and as is explained in the cite ganzfeld posted, in some contexts it isn't. (In particular in Florida and Georgia.)

[thorny locust]

Originally Posted by GaryM

According to the BBC, the Lesbians (from Lesbos) went to court with the Homosexual and Lesbian Community of Greece to get them to change their name. Not sporting-related, just was reminded of it by your Sparta comment.

That's sort of an interesting variation, in that presumably neither the Homosexual and Lesbian Community of Greece nor the people who live on Lesbos think that the word "Lesbian" is itself derogatory. Though I suppose the problem may have been that some of the people who now live on Lesbos may think that it's derogatory to imply that they prefer same-sex sexual relationships. (I expect the HLCG disagrees with them about that, if so.) Or was it more along the lines of a trademark dispute, "We had the name first, and this is causing confusion!"?

[GaryM]

Originally Posted by thorny locust

That's sort of an interesting variation, in that presumably neither the Homosexual and Lesbian Community of Greece nor the people who live on Lesbos think that the word "Lesbian" is itself derogatory. Though I suppose the problem may have been that some of the people who now live on Lesbos may think that it's derogatory to imply that they prefer same-sex sexual relationships. (I expect the HLCG disagrees with them about that, if so.) Or was it more along the lines of a trademark dispute, "We had the name first, and this is causing confusion!"?

It seems to be about people confusing Lesbians with lesbians. From Der Spiegel:

The matter was brought before an Athens court in early June. The gallery filled with residents of the island of Lesbos, along with homosexual men and women.

"My wife is a Lesbian, my daughter is a Lesbian and I am a Lesbian," Lambrou's witness began, to laughter from the gallery.

"Do you hear those people laughing?" the witness asked the judge. "All of Greece is laughing about it. And now you can imagine how we are treated abroad."

[TallGeekyGirl]

They should call themselves the Washington Boar-Hogs.

1. Boars have a reputation for ferocity, so that would work well with a football team.

2. They could still call themselves colloquially 'the Skins,' only it would be short for the 'Pigskins,' a reference to boars and an old-fashioned term for footballs.

3. Since the team is already often called "The Hogs" by its fans, they could continue doing so.

4. "Boar-Hogs" has two syllables with the same inflection as "Redskins," so the song "Hail to the Redskins" could still be sung without having to change much.

That's my vote.

[ganzfeld]

The Hogs were only the offensive line. (Plus, nobody wants to be a Boar.)

[damian]

What about calling themselves "The Reds".

Come On You Reds!!!!!!!

[erwins]

Cincinnati's baseball team already has that name. (Though I guess there is a Cardinals team in both the NFL and MLB, so it wouldn't be unprecedented).

[GenYus234]

The MLB Cardinals in St Louis were named after the NFL Cardinals (who had come from Chicago but were in St Louis at the time), so I'm not sure it would be exactly the same thing. There might be copyright or trademark issues, depending on how broad the Cincinnati claims are.

[firefighter_raven]

Since it's Washington DC, they could be the 'Filibusters' . When they play the Bronco's or the Colts then they could call it 'Filly-busting' or the Eagles 'Philly-Busting'

[Nick Theodorakis]

Originally Posted by GenYus234

The MLB Cardinals in St Louis were named after the NFL Cardinals (who had come from Chicago but were in St Louis at the time), so I'm not sure it would be exactly the same thing. There might be copyright or trademark issues, depending on how broad the Cincinnati claims are.

The baseball team in St. Louis adopted the name "Cardinals" in 1900, 20 years before the NFL came into existence. The Chicago (NFL) Cardinals did not move to St. Louis until 1960.

Nick