Do you really think that the Redskins fans and organization "respects" and "reveres" the Native American community?Skjellyfetti wrote: I mean, it doesn't matter that mascots are things that are respected and/or revered, either
[/quote]The Modern-day Native American subculture? Maybe or maybe not. But no one chooses a mascot unless it's something that's considered mighty. Nicknames aren't picked to be fatuous. It's not that hard to understand.[/quote]Pwns wrote:Do you really think that the Redskins fans and organization "respects" and "reveres" the Native American community?Skjellyfetti wrote: I mean, it doesn't matter that mascots are things that are respected and/or revered, either
What is mighty about:Pwns wrote:The Modern-day Native American subculture? Maybe or maybe not. But no one chooses a mascot unless it's something that's considered mighty. Nicknames aren't picked to be fatuous. It's not that hard to understand.
I think you've missed the point. Teams weren't named to be offensive. Generally, that's not a good marketing strategy.89Hen wrote:What is mighty about:Pwns wrote:The Modern-day Native American subculture? Maybe or maybe not. But no one chooses a mascot unless it's something that's considered mighty. Nicknames aren't picked to be fatuous. It's not that hard to understand.
Red Sox
White Sox
Reds
Phillies
Yankees
Orioles
Blue Jays
Dodgers
Cubs
Twins
Browns
Padres
Ravens
Cardinals
Blue Jackets
Blues
Ducks
Pacers
Pelicans...
That's not what PWNS said.Ibanez wrote:I think you've missed the point. Teams weren't named to be offensive. Generally, that's not a good marketing strategy.89Hen wrote: What is mighty about:
Red Sox
White Sox
Reds
Phillies
Yankees
Orioles
Blue Jays
Dodgers
Cubs
Twins
Browns
Padres
Ravens
Cardinals
Blue Jackets
Blues
Ducks
Pacers
Pelicans...
Well, the Ducks did start out as the "Mighty Ducks" until the more effeminate ducks in the population got upset and protested. Hence the dropping of the adjective "mighty". That fowl was corrected.89Hen wrote:What is mighty about:Pwns wrote:The Modern-day Native American subculture? Maybe or maybe not. But no one chooses a mascot unless it's something that's considered mighty. Nicknames aren't picked to be fatuous. It's not that hard to understand.
Red Sox
White Sox
Reds
Phillies
Yankees
Orioles
Blue Jays
Dodgers
Cubs
Twins
Browns
Padres
Ravens
Cardinals
Blue Jackets
Blues
Ducks
Pacers
Pelicans...
cowardly chickens er i mean chanticleers89Hen wrote:What is mighty about:Pwns wrote:The Modern-day Native American subculture? Maybe or maybe not. But no one chooses a mascot unless it's something that's considered mighty. Nicknames aren't picked to be fatuous. It's not that hard to understand.
Red Sox
White Sox
Reds
Phillies
Yankees
Orioles
Blue Jays
Dodgers
Cubs
Twins
Browns
Padres
Ravens
Cardinals
Blue Jackets
Blues
Ducks
Pacers
Pelicans...
Skjellyfetti wrote:My hometown AAA baseball team...
Montgomery Biscuits!!
Cower in fear of our mighty mascot!
I'm not sure where you're going with this anymore. Should minorities only be offended if racial slurs are uttered in a joking or non-serious fashion?Pwns wrote:Most of those are MLB nicknames. In general, it still applies. How many nicknames are chosen in a jocular or non-serious manner? I honestly don't know how those MLB nicknames came about, but I doubt that they were.
BTW, teams also weren't intergrated for a long time. That was a good marketing strategy when it started.Ibanez wrote:Teams weren't named to be offensive. Generally, that's not a good marketing strategy.
Pwns wrote:Most of those are MLB nicknames. In general, it still applies. How many nicknames are chosen in a jocular or non-serious manner? I honestly don't know how those MLB nicknames came about, but I doubt that they were.
BTW, I'm guess this is the case because MLB has some of the oldest franchises... ones that were around in the 30's like the Redskins. Can you think of any examples of teams post 1960 that have even close to an offensive name? Indians, Braves, etc... all very old franchise names.Pwns wrote:Most of those are MLB nicknames.
Chanticleer isn't offensive...it's just stupid. What a ridiculous mascot. Ugh. Don't get me started on our mascot...CID1990 wrote:cowardly chickens er i mean chanticleers89Hen wrote: What is mighty about:
Red Sox
White Sox
Reds
Phillies
Yankees
Orioles
Blue Jays
Dodgers
Cubs
Twins
Browns
Padres
Ravens
Cardinals
Blue Jackets
Blues
Ducks
Pacers
Pelicans...
Stupidity is offensive.Ibanez wrote:Chanticleer isn't offensive...it's just stupid. What a ridiculous mascot. Ugh. Don't get me started on our mascot...CID1990 wrote:
cowardly chickens er i mean chanticleers
Good point. I concede.bandl wrote:Stupidity is offensive.Ibanez wrote:
Chanticleer isn't offensive...it's just stupid. What a ridiculous mascot. Ugh. Don't get me started on our mascot...
the people of New Delhi have been very upset for several years now.bandl wrote:Apparently the team name "Indians" is offensive to the tune of $9 billion.
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-bas ... wahoo-logo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It's not the name. It's the logo.bandl wrote:Apparently the team name "Indians" is offensive to the tune of $9 billion.
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-bas ... wahoo-logo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
kalm wrote:As mentioned before, Snyder is a ginormous douche, Indians have gotten the shaft and deserve our compassion, but government shouldn't decide what's offensive.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or5IFSVAIAk[/youtube]bandl wrote:Apparently the team name "Indians" is offensive to the tune of $9 billion.
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-bas ... wahoo-logo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
