NFL Team Mascots Changes?

[SW_Mustang]

Here's a different one, Yakima Valley Community College used to be the Indians the time PC name changes was the rage with schools like St John's changing names. What did they change to? The Yaks, not as in the animal but a slang term for the local tribe the city is named after with the tribe's approval.

University of Utah has something similar, albeit "Utes" is just the name of the tribe - to my knowledge.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/educatio...n-tribe-signs/

[Redwing]

"Take the Native American tribe issue. If a few tribes are good with a name, but one isn't, it's an uproar."

You'll have to excuse me for not picking up on the context. To my knowledge, Yankees/Canucks is not a "Native American tribe issue" - but Washington certainly is.

Care to elaborate on what you mean? I'm just trying to understand more than anything.

Take the Washington issue out of it.

My point is that if a few are unhappy about a name or whatever, even though most are OK with it...(including the potential group in the name), there seems to be a core that wants to remove it. So, take the Fighting Sioux and North Dakota. There was a majority that were good with the name and in fact some honored by it. But a handful did not. So, they were forced to remove it.

Now for grins, I threw in Yankee and Canuck. Many are cool with these names. I am. But, there are thousands that aren't. Say what you will, the way Yankee MIGHT be used could be derogatory. So shouldn't the Baseball team drop that name since it does offend some? Same with Canuck. Sure most are cool with it, but not everyone. So how is that different than a tribe name? I'm pointing out some inconsistencies.

For me, I'm not offended so I admit it's a bit hard for me to relate to people that get bent about team names. I'll respect their opinion, but my nature is that I'm not sure there are names out there that I'd want dropped. Others are highly offended, so I'll accept their concerns.

[SW_Mustang]

That is true to my knowledge as well. It's just a general slur - not targeted at any specific geographical location.

The Cincinnati Saltines is a nice middle ground.

[twolfbenchwarmer]

"Take the Native American tribe issue. If a few tribes are good with a name, but one isn't, it's an uproar."

You'll have to excuse me for not picking up on the context. To my knowledge, Yankees/Canucks is not a "Native American tribe issue" - but Washington certainly is.

Care to elaborate on what you mean? I'm just trying to understand more than anything.

[Wildcat Khan]

Uh. please keep things in context. My post was about Yankee/Canucks. Not with Washington.. Washington is different than say "Hurons" or "Fighting Sioux" etc.

Here's a different one, Yakima Valley Community College used to be the Indians the time PC name changes was the rage with schools like St John's changing names. What did they change to? The Yaks, not as in the animal but a slang term for the local tribe the city is named after with the tribe's approval.

[Wildcat Khan]

Bobcats and Hornets aren't politically incorrect. They're critters, and as far as I know everyone is cool with using them for team names. If not, PETA and the ASPCA would have complained already. Also, they were the Charlotte Hornets originally. Michael Jordan (the team's majority owner) changed it from Bobcats back to the Hornets in 2014, the name that most Charlotteans preferred.

For that, New Orleans also had to change to the Pelicans so Charlotte could have the name back. When Charlotte came back into the league, it was still the New Orleans Hornets. For example if the NFL expanded with a new team in Oakland, then a few years later Las Vegas changes from the Raiders it would be like Oakland going back to being the Raiders.

[SW_Mustang]

Uh. please keep things in context. My post was about Yankee/Canucks. Not with Washington.. Washington is different than say "Hurons" or "Fighting Sioux" etc.

"Take the Native American tribe issue. If a few tribes are good with a name, but one isn't, it's an uproar."

You'll have to excuse me for not picking up on the context. To my knowledge, Yankees/Canucks is not a "Native American tribe issue" - but Washington certainly is.

Care to elaborate on what you mean? I'm just trying to understand more than anything.

[Redwing]

I can assure you that's not the case in this particular instance, the majority of natives find it offensive. I know there are contradicting studies.

Lots of things are offensive, but they continue to exist - maybe it has to do with the fact that this particular instance is a racial slur.

Uh. please keep things in context. My post was about Yankee/Canucks. Not with Washington.. Washington is different than say "Hurons" or "Fighting Sioux" etc.

[Turbonium]

The game play itself wasn't impacted, but the broadcasts were permeated by rhetoric discussion of protests. I tuned in to tune out. The networks made a choice, and so did I.

Guess I never really felt like politics was discussed by the announcers during the game, it would've at least given them something else to say though.

[SW_Mustang]

I actually find the name Hornets highly offensive.

Reminds me of that one time I got stung as a child.

[SW_Mustang]

In today's culture, it seems that if it's offensive to one, that means it's too offensive. Take the Native American tribe issue. If a few tribes are good with a name, but one isn't, it's an uproar.

I can assure you that's not the case in this particular instance, the majority of natives find it offensive. I know there are contradicting studies.

Lots of things are offensive, but they continue to exist - maybe it has to do with the fact that this particular instance is a racial slur.

[Redwing]

I'm all for abolishing the Yankees. Oh... you mean the team name.

Those two terms are derogatory, technically - but they are not racial slurs, for one thing.

Also - something to think about, but if a group of Americans chooses to refer to themselves as "Yankees," is that the same thing as a group of people from the UK calling those same people "Yankees?" Substitute that word for "redneck," "deplorables," or "punks." All three are derogatory terms, yet all three have been embraced by the same group those words intended to humiliate. Is that the way society should operate? That's up for debate - but that's the way society operates.

That's why, when a civil rights group from Minneapolis threatened to sue the Warroad High School over their Native American name and imagery, they were stopped pretty quickly - by a group of Native Americans from Warroad.

https://www.twincities.com/2014/08/1...al-group-says/

Just something to think about.

In today's culture, it seems that if it's offensive to one, that means it's too offensive. Take the Native American tribe issue. If a few tribes are good with a name, but one isn't, it's an uproar.

[BlazerDawg]

I have never noticed politics impacting the actual game itself, not sure how it's not an escape still. They put the ball on a tee and kickoff and the next 60 minutes of game play is the exact same as it was...

The game play itself wasn't impacted, but the broadcasts were permeated by rhetoric discussion of protests. I tuned in to tune out. The networks made a choice, and so did I.

[CALUPA69]

I actually find the name Hornets highly offensive.

Well all you need to do in order to change it is get several million other folks of like mind, organize them and convince several mega corporations that your feelings are relevant. Or were you just being a d$#@head about it ??? Thought so.

[Turbonium]

Entertainment is supposed to be an escape from life's troubles. I quit watching the NFL when it became nothing more than another avenue for politics.

I have Native American ancestry through my maternal grandmother. I was raised as a Redskins fan due to Sam "Slinging Sammy" Baugh being a relative on my mother's side. In his later years he preferred to be called "Sam".

I adopted the Chiefs as my AFC preference specifically because of the arrowhead logo and the nickname, and I entered each season hoping for a Redskins/Chiefs Superbowl. Now I just don't care.

If college football turns from entertainment into intrusive politics, I'll quickly lose interest in it too.

I have never noticed politics impacting the actual game itself, not sure how it's not an escape still. They put the ball on a tee and kickoff and the next 60 minutes of game play is the exact same as it was...

However, I have lost interest in the NFL and most professional sports beyond hockey and soccer but only because of the amount of time the games actually take to sit down and watch. I'll gladly watch the 7 minutes of highlights of the Super Bowl rather than wasting 3+ hours on mostly commercials and announcers saying the same thing over and over.