The Tickleheads?That football helmet is so badass.
The NFL team from Washington DC should adopt that and then figure out what their name should be.
The Tickleheads?That football helmet is so badass.
The NFL team from Washington DC should adopt that and then figure out what their name should be.
Yes I think it may largely be due to the word "colored" with an ed at the end. Water fountains, bathrooms, seating areas, etc... were once designated "Coloreds" or "No coloreds allowed"Ok that makes sense. It’s historical connotations are negative.
Yeah, I can see that. That's helpful. Again, not that I *need* to understand. I will respect it regardless.Yes I think it may largely be due to the word "colored" with an ed at the end. Water fountains, bathrooms, seating areas, etc... were once designated "Coloreds" or "No coloreds allowed"
Agreed. I will just say that I've always thought it was simple courtesy to call people what they wish to be called. Even if it doesn't make sense to me.Yeah, questions are good, conversations are good, other people's POV are good. Just like in other walks of life, there are generational, regional and cultural differences in our membership and the exchange of thoughts or ideas allows us to look at things differently than we might have otherwise.
This is where my annoyance on the name changes comes in. I do not believe for a second it has anything to do with anything other than politics and people in politics looking to capitalize on the current cancel culture in this country. While I understand the disdain for the name Redskins, I just do not see the same issue with names like Indians, Braves, Chiefs, Warriors, Seminoles, etc. With Redskins, certainly no one would accept a name like Brownskins, Yellowskins, etc. so it makes sense to move on from that name. Although personally I liked the logo, I understand why people wanted to have Chief Wahoo removed. But to change every name of a team where someone may potentially be offended when the team names have nothing to do with racism I just cannot get behind. Nobody at a Chiefs game is doing the Tomahawk Chop out of hate or racism.I`m not a Braves fan but go to Braves games. I love doing the "Tomahawk Chop" and I`m native american. We always have taken it as a cool thing. Chief Wahoo has a picture up in my bar. It`s just too bad people are now noticing us again for political gain.
https://joeposnanski.substack.com/p/changing-of-a-nameAnd, yes, I do know that when the change comes, a number of people will be furious and will rebel hard because they will feel cheated somehow, will feel that it is so deeply unfair that a nickname that they have connected with all their lives — a name they cannot see any harm in at all — will be put into the obsolete pile.
“It’s just a sports nickname!” they will shout. “It doesn’t mean anything! Nobody should be offended by a sports nickname!”
My greatest wish is that at least some of them will repeat those words to themselves until they see what should have been so obvious all along.
The issue that I take with this kind of attitude is that it displays a fundamental lack of understanding about what is truly problematic with these team names.This is where my annoyance on the name changes comes in. I do not believe for a second it has anything to do with anything other than politics and people in politics looking to capitalize on the current cancel culture in this country. While I understand the disdain for the name Redskins, I just do not see the same issue with names like Indians, Braves, Chiefs, Warriors, Seminoles, etc. With Redskins, certainly no one would accept a name like Brownskins, Yellowskins, etc. so it makes sense to move on from that name. Although personally I liked the logo, I understand why people wanted to have Chief Wahoo removed. But to change every name of a team where someone may potentially be offended when the team names have nothing to do with racism I just cannot get behind. Nobody at a Chiefs game is doing the Tomahawk Chop out of hate or racism.
Side note, while I am against Cleveland being forced to change their name, I do think if they go back to the Spiders that would be awesome.
I love the statement that giving the team a name that was previously used by a women's team makes. It's paying tribute and is definitely not a negative.Rockers was the name of the old WNBA team.
I'm pulling hard for Spiders.
Why do you get to decide that these names have nothing to do with racism? I understand that the name Indians isn't as blatantly racist as, say, Chief Wahoo, but it's a pretty absurd position for you to take and assume that no one finds the name Indians offensive or racist.This is where my annoyance on the name changes comes in. I do not believe for a second it has anything to do with anything other than politics and people in politics looking to capitalize on the current cancel culture in this country. While I understand the disdain for the name Redskins, I just do not see the same issue with names like Indians, Braves, Chiefs, Warriors, Seminoles, etc. With Redskins, certainly no one would accept a name like Brownskins, Yellowskins, etc. so it makes sense to move on from that name. Although personally I liked the logo, I understand why people wanted to have Chief Wahoo removed. But to change every name of a team where someone may potentially be offended when the team names have nothing to do with racism I just cannot get behind. Nobody at a Chiefs game is doing the Tomahawk Chop out of hate or racism.
Side note, while I am against Cleveland being forced to change their name, I do think if they go back to the Spiders that would be awesome.
You gotta help me see this. What's your logo going to be? A guitar? The letter R? The letter C? They already have that. An intertwined C and R? We already have one of those. In game music possibilities are already endless aren't they?I was literally just posting that when you did. I actually like the Rockers as the team name. The merchandizing and in game music possibilities are endless.
People who get really agitated about 'cancel culture' are primarily just pissed that they now have to hear everyone's opinions about stuff they like.This is so pathetic that the cancel culture movement is doing this. They already dropped Chief Wahoo logo. I'd be pretty pissed if I was an Indians fan or any fan of the Chiefs, Braves, Blackhawks because these liberal cancel culture assholes will be out for them next.
Winning back to back World Series titles isn't interesting? Including a Series-winning walkoff homer?Seriously, though: it should be the Spiders.
They’d be crazy not to grab onto the authentic history of having been the team to lose the most games in a season. It’s not a great distinction, but it happened like 120 years ago, and it’s more interesting than anything, say, the Blue Jays have ever done.
Plus, think of the cool Halloween tie-ins you could have in years when the Spiders made the postseason!
I watched those Series and enjoyed them. I was a Fred McGriff fan as a child, for whatever reason — I think I had a baseball card? (My favorite Sox player in those years: Mike Greenwell).Winning back to back World Series titles isn't interesting? Including a Series-winning walkoff homer?
I like this exercise and agree with a lot of your list...but the Blue Jay's do not belong on the generic list. 2nd Canadian team...only current Canadian team. A mini-dynasty in our lifetimes, the Sky Dome, the record attendance, a sweet logo and at times great uniform.This isn't in any particular order. I could keep going, through the Astros (who recently became much more interesting), the Mets, Dodgers, Phillies, Pirates, Braves, White Sox, Rays, Orioles. The teams that it would be hardest to come up with something interesting about are the candidates for the most generic team.
- The Brewers are a team, I guess. They used to be in the AL?
- The most interesting thing about the Rangers had been that the summer weather in Arlington is so horrible that they chew up pitchers, but now they have an eye-rollingly ugly covered stadium, so that won't be an issue. Maybe they're more interesting now because of how horrible their park is.
- The Padres have had plenty of interesting players — from Gwynn to Dock Ellis — but the most interesting things about the team is its ballpark and their mostly terrible history of uniforms.
- The Nationals are pretty anonymous, I guess.
- And I really think the Blue Jays are at the top of this list.
- The Padres have had plenty of interesting players — from Gwynn to Dock Ellis — but the most interesting things about the team is its ballpark and their mostly terrible history of uniforms.
The White Sox are an original AL team who were the focus of a legendary cheating scandal. That’s not generic, at least by my standards. You are of course free to adopt your own.I like this exercise and agree with a lot of your list...but the Blue Jay's do not belong on the generic list. 2nd Canadian team...only current Canadian team. A mini-dynasty in our lifetimes, the Sky Dome, the record attendance, a sweet logo and at times great uniform.
The White Sox belong on that list. Extreme 2nd fiddle in their own city, easily least popular of the cities' 5 major sports teams, play in an area that has a very violent reputation, have had relatively little success the last 50 years.
How the Rays are not on that list is also inexplicable.
This is the best argument I’ve seen TBH.How many other ballparks could you regularly watch people having sex AND a ballgame? Point Jays.
Are any of these things unusual or distinctive? The SkyDome was what, the fifth domed stadium in MLB? Was it the first that opened? I don’t remember.If for nothing else than the Sky Dome and what it meant to new ballparks, they're hardly boring, even if you seemingly want to overlook the World Series wins, Joe Carter, big time trade acquisitions (Rickey, Cone, Alomar, etc) and stealing Clemens. Plus, Hard Rock Cafe.
I’ve been told by American Indian activists that they favor “Indian” over “Native American” because the latter is purely a change to make white people feel better about all the bullshit they’ve put American Indians through. “So,” the thinking goes, “that’s what you called us when you were wiping us out and sticking us on shitty land, now you own it.” Most refer to themselves in terms of their tribe (Lakota, Odjibwe, Blackfeet), so it’s not really as relevant, anyway.My understanding, from the few Native Americans who are my friends, is that the term Indian is not considered offensive. And perhaps it is even a point of pride, in that white Europeans were so ignorant of where they had arrived.
I mean, they thought they were in India. Jokes on them.
Apologies if this is not accurate. I've never had a deliberately specific conversation about this.
We don`t get agitated. We just wish you`d all chillout and quit being pissed off about everything.People who get really agitated about 'cancel culture' are primarily just pissed that they now have to hear everyone's opinions about stuff they like.
It`s sports and fun. If I meet someone down here in the south that is a Red Sox fan we have a common bond immediately. That is somewhat similar to naming a team after Indians to me.I’d ask anyone that says it’s to honor NA culture, what else do they do to honor NA culture.
This is where I have a problem, but I`m not offended. You saying we were destroyed, awful things happened to both settlers and Indians. We are still here as a race (if you want to group us).I’ve been told by American Indian activists that they favor “Indian” over “Native American” because the latter is purely a change to make white people feel better about all the bullshit they’ve put American Indians through. “So,” the thinking goes, “that’s what you called us when you were wiping us out and sticking us on shitty land, now you own it.” Most refer to themselves in terms of their tribe (Lakota, Odjibwe, Blackfeet), so it’s not really as relevant, anyway.
But regardless, what we call a particular race or ethnicity is beside the point in this case, even if the name itself isn’t offensive. The issue is appropriating the name of a group America has essentially destroyed for the purposes of entertainment.
Not to Godwin the thread, but it really isn’t a far off analogy to imagine a Düsseldorf soccer team naming itself The Jews. Sure, “Jew” isn’t in and of itself offensive; it’s the context that makes it wrong as a matter of principle. And removing an offensive logo doesn’t solve the issue.
And unlike Braves, Chiefs, hell even Vikings, the name isn’t based on the particular actions or occupations of the parties referenced. It’s a name based on their race. It’s the difference between “Caucasians” and “Knights”.
It was the first with a working retractable roof (Olympic Stadium in Montreal had one, but it didn't work). That led to retractable roofs on a bunch of new stadiums since...Houston (x2), Phoenix (x2), Miami (x2), Arlington (x2), Seattle, Milwaukee, Atlanta, Indianapolis, New York (x2).Are any of these things unusual or distinctive? The SkyDome was what, the fifth domed stadium in MLB? Was it the first that opened? I don’t remember.
How would that be any different if the team were named the Cleveland Jabberwockys?It`s sports and fun. If I meet someone down here in the south that is a Red Sox fan we have a common bond immediately. That is somewhat similar to naming a team after Indians to me.
Dead Honky Memorial RoadI'm just going to assume "Dead Honky Road" is in the lead.
I think you are correct.This parallel Blue Jays discussion might be revealing how old we all are, because if you’re in your late-30s/early-40s, I can imagine that you have some pretty clear memories of those back-to-back WS championships. They might be the first World Series winners you can recall at all - certainly two of the first I can recall. And they were memorable teams! If you’re talking post-2000, then they have not done much of interest, although I’d argue the Jose Bautista bat flip as the most iconic baseball image of the past decade. (Not sure what number two on that list is.) Does that make them interesting? I’d still say Texas and San Diego are less interesting personally.
ETA: also I think Skydome is now the 7th oldest home park in MLB? Someone check my work on that one.
*WHOOOOOOOOOOOSH*We don`t get agitated. We just wish you`d all chillout and quit being pissed off about everything.
That's a pretty wild stat!!Are any of these things unusual or distinctive? The SkyDome was what, the fifth domed stadium in MLB? Was it the first that opened? I don’t remember.
Someone wins the World Series every year. The Jays were by my count the thirteenth team to win consecutive WS titles.
Joe Carter seems pretty unremarkable as a fan favorite slugger who played for a bunch of teams, but made a mark with one. Good player, but he benefited from playing an era when you could get MVP votes with a sub-.300 OBP.
Maybe another way to put this would be that Adam Lind is ninth on the Jays‘ top HR hitter list. Boston’s is Jimmy Foxx. NY’s is Derek Jeter. Even the Mariners, who came in with Toronto, have a much more interesting list.
I said "essentially destroyed." Your point is well taken, and I should have instead said "nearly destroyed."It`s sports and fun. If I meet someone down here in the south that is a Red Sox fan we have a common bond immediately. That is somewhat similar to naming a team after Indians to me.
This is where I have a problem, but I`m not offended. You saying we were destroyed, awful things happened to both settlers and Indians. We are still here as a race (if you want to group us).
Wasnt there one they had with more teams than that?
Maybe, but the one with 3 caps got all the pub.Wasnt there one they had with more teams than that?
Too late.I think the name "Redskins" might be available soon.
View: https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/1283120848770129920The Onion
@TheOnion
Jerry Jones Changes Team’s Name To Redskins Now That It’s Available https://bit.ly/2ZrmhfZ