Boston Crusaders

[BRASSO]

... I am disappointed that our nations capital continues to accept one of it's major sports teams to be named the Washington Redskins.

Yes. The " Washington Redskins " moniker is offensive to lots of people... the mere mention of it makes a lot of people uneasy, upset, angry. On a whole host of what appears to many to be legitimate grievances, and over a very long period of time too. All self respecting Native Americans... and even all most non Native Americans... should demand that this NFL franchise drop the offensive and thoroughly discredited " Washington " from this NFL franchise name. Its long ovedue, All other Pro teams should likewise drop the offensive to most moniker " Washington " from its name as well. Most people are justifiably embarrassed when they hear the term " Washington ". Even in otherwise civil and polite society too. Its now part of our collective national consciousness. Its an offensive name that conjures up all manner of negative thoughts. One that most of us can all agree on now too. Thus, it needs to go. Drop the " Redskins" moniker too. House Speaker John Boehner should introduce his own Bill in Congress to change the name. Just call the NFL franchise there in D.C. the " Capitol Orangeskins " instead of the Redskins... or the" Capitol Tanners " , or " the D.C. Lobbyists ", or some such. Or Harry Reid could introduce a bill to call them the " D.C Taxandspenders ". Change is needed to reflect the changing times, imo.

Edited November 25, 2013 by BRASSO

[jjeffeory]

Yes. The " Washington Redskins " moniker is offensive to lots of people... the mere mention of it makes a lot of people uneasy, upset, angry. On a whole host of what appears to many to be legitimate grievances, and over a very long period of time too. All self respecting Native Americans... and even all most non Native Americans... should demand that this NFL franchise drop the offensive and thoroughly discredited " Washington " from this NFL franchise name. Its long ovedue, All other Pro teams should likewise drop the offensive to most moniker " Washington " from its name as well. Most people are justifiably embarrassed when they hear the term " Washington ". Even in otherwise civil and polite society too. Its now part of our collective national consciousness. Its an offensive name that conjures up all manner of negative thoughts. One that most of us can all agree on now too. Thus, it needs to go. Drop the " Redskins" moniker too. House Speaker John Boehner should introduce his own Bill in Congress to change the name. Just call the NFL franchise there in D.C. the " Capitol Orangeskins " instead of the Redskins... or the" Capitol Tanners " , or " the D.C. Lobbyists ", or some such. Or Harry Reid could introduce a bill to call them the " D.C Taxandspenders ". Change is needed to reflect the changing times, imo.

Huh? I never got worked up over this name, nor have I taken it in a derogatory manner, but it probably shouldn't be discussed in this forum anyway. Stupid me thought the team got its name in honor of coach "Lone Star" Dietz. The team was owned by the Boston Braves but they didn't want to be called the same thing as the baseball team and got the Redskins moniker.

What caught my attention negatively about the post was that all "self respecting" line. I respect myself just fine, thanks. This name issue has been in the news lately, too. What I've come to the conclusion is that there are more non-native Americans commenting on the issue than Native Americans. I've never heard the term used like some other bad words that should never be used, and frankly the name was kinda a source of pride to a few native americans around. Using the same logic, I guess we need to do away with the Indians, Braves, Mountaineers, Fighting Irish, Sooners, Hokies, Seminoles, Illini, Rebels, Knights, and pretty much any other human-like names as mascots. Any of those could offend someone. Probably should do away with Blue Devils, Cavaliers, Bluecoats, Scouts, Crusaders, and Cadets too.

I do agree that being associated with Washington is embarrassing though. Funny thing is that the non-locals working on Capitol Hills and inside the beltway are what's embarrassing, not the locals. They're great, hard working people. What DC needs is more drum corps in the area...

Edited November 25, 2013 by jjeffeory

[BRASSO]

Using the same logic, I guess we need to do away with the Indians, Braves, Mountaineers, Fighting Irish, Sooners, Hokies, Seminoles, Illini, Rebels, Knights, and pretty much any other human-like names as mascots. Any of those could offend someone. Probably should do away with Blue Devils, Cavaliers, Bluecoats, Scouts, Crusaders, and Cadets too.

I do agree that being associated with Washington is embarrassing though. Funny thing is that the non-locals working on Capitol Hills and inside the beltway are what's embarrassing, not the locals. They're great, hard working people. What DC needs is more drum corps in the area...

There was a DCI World Class Div. Corps from Quebec in the 70's ( pretty good Corps too ) that called themselves " the Offensive Lions ". It was not their nick name either. It was their formal name, and how they were announced to the audience before they started their show. I have no idea if the PETA animal rights organization felt offended by this name at the time however.

Edited November 25, 2013 by BRASSO

[jjeffeory]

There was a DCI World Class Div. Corps from Quebec in the 70's ( pretty good Corps too ) that called themselves " the Offensive Lions ". It was not their nick name either. It was their formal name, and how they were announced to the audience before they started their show. I have no idea if the PETA animal rights organization felt offended by this name at the time however.

I remember seeing some of their scores. I always pictured the cowardly lion from the Wizard of Oz when hearing that name.

[Tim K]

There was a DCI World Class Div. Corps from Quebec in the 70's ( pretty good Corps too ) that called themselves " the Offensive Lions ". It was not their nick name either. It was their formal name, and how they were announced to the audience before they started their show. I have no idea if the PETA animal rights organization felt offended by this name at the time however.

My guess is that at the time Offensive Lions competed, PETA was too busy standing outside Filene's Basement and Kakas Furs on the day after Thanksgiving pouring red paint on women wearing or buying fur coats!

Edited November 25, 2013 by Tim K

[Jeff Ream]

Hell, just do like they did in the old days: call em by town. Bashtahn, chicago, Gahfield etc

[N.E. Brigand]

What I've come to the conclusion is that there are more non-native Americans commenting on the issue than Native Americans. I've never heard the term used like some other bad words that should never be used, and frankly the name was kinda a source of pride to a few Native Americans around. Using the same logic, I guess we need to do away with the Indians, Braves, Mountaineers, Fighting Irish, Sooners, Hokies, Seminoles, Illini, Rebels, Knights, and pretty much any other human-like names as mascots.

Per wikipedia, "Redskin is a racial descriptor of disputed origin for Native Americans. Although by some accounts not originally having negative intent, the term is defined by 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 .... Slang identifiers for ethnic groups based upon physical characteristics, including skin color, are almost universally slurs, or derogatory, emphasizing the difference between the speaker and the target." As indicated in that article, there are polls that show Native Americans are not troubled by the name, but also reasons to question the validity of those polls.

[Ghost]

As indicated in that article, there are polls that show Native Americans are not troubled by the name, but also reasons to question the validity of those polls.

Maybe the author wishes a different poll outcome from other sources.

[drmr27]

So if it ever gets to the point that BAC would have to go through a name change operation ( breath NOT being held here) I think they could get the name "27th Lancers" for real cheap. No one seems to be using it right now.

[N.E. Brigand]

Maybe the author wishes a different poll outcome from other sources.

I don't follow you. (For starters, who is "the author"?) But that's OK; better not to let the conversation get too far off topic. So...

One major difference between "Redskins" and "Crusaders" as possible terms of offense is that objections to the former come from (or on behalf of) the people being named or disparaged while objections to the latter do not: it is people who claim that their ancestors were wronged by the Crusaders who (sometimes) object to the term: mostly Muslims of the near-East, of course, though Jewish people have grounds for alarm, as well.

Some corps names might be objectionable on the first grounds; other on the second.

Edit: This is amusing. While looking for something else, I discovered that in 1993, two high schools from eastern Ohio merged. These were Mingo H.S., whose mascot was the Indians, and Wintersville H.S., whose mascot was the Golden Warriors. Together, they became Indian Creek H.S., and their new mascot was and remains ... the Redskins! (Their band had been strongly competitive in the early- to mid-1980s; I see a BOA, er MBA, Finalist trophy from 1982 in this

). Edited November 27, 2013 by N.E. Brigand