There has been a lot of discussion about the team name of the Washington Redskins. many prominent politicians of one particular party have made political hay out of the controversy. But given that group's almost unanimous hatred of another political idea, I am surprised that they haven't taken aim at another sports team.

At the moment the communists appear to have a team in the National League of baseball. They proudly proclaim their allegiance yet not one word of anger is leveled at them. These fellow travelers have flouted our own democratic ideals for decades despite their comrades being called before the House Unamerican Committee for lesser crimes. Why has no voice been raised against the unpatriotic Cincinnati REDS?

I thought "Redskins" referred to their being a variety of peanut.

Didn't it used to be the Cincinnati Redlegs? Or am I crazy?

I loved the Patent Office's recent decision about the Redskins, though it may not win on appeal. Check out reason #5.

quote:

Cincinnati REDS

Doesn't that mean they're Republican?
I'll never understand American politics.

quote:

Doesn't that mean they're Republican?

Most emphatically not.

I agree with z - the "red state" phenomenon. And I used to like the color red, too.

Ahhh - I found that in the 1880s it was the Cincinnati Red Stockings, and they changed it to the Reds in 1890. Then prior to the 1953 season they changed their name to Redlegs because of the rampant anti-communism - though another Wikipedia site says they were the Redlegs from 1954-1959 and the Reds from 1960 to present. It must have been in that 1953-4 time when it happened, right along with the McCarthy hearings.

Obviously non-patriotic since if they were they would be called the Red, White, and Blue Stockings. And they may be under investigation by the FBI since one player is J. J. Hoover. A relative of J. Edgar? Coincidence? I think not.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: <Proofreader>,

Apparently there was an e-mail going around about the naming controversy. Here is part of it from an article in a paper. I'm just reporting... some of this isn't my opinion.

Excerpts from an unattributed email sent to the Chicago Tribune states that the writer is insulted “by the racially charged name of the Washington Redskins” and suggests that “they change the name to the ‘Foreskins’ to better represent their community, paying tribute to the dick heads in Congress.

“We must be careful not to offend,” he continues. “And in the spirit of political correctness and courtesy, we must move forward. Let’s ditch the Kansas City Chiefs, the Atlanta Braves and the Cleveland Indians. If your shorts are in a wad because of the reference the name Redskins makes to skin color, then we need to get rid of the Cleveland Browns.

“The Carolina Panthers obviously were named to keep the memory of militant Blacks from the ‘60s alive. Gone. It’s offensive to us white folk. The New York Yankees offend the Southern population. Do you see a team named for the Confederacy? No! There is no room for any reference to that tragic war that cost this country so many young men’s lives.

“I am also offended by the blatant references to the Catholic religion among our sports team names. It’s totally inappropriate to have the New Orleans Saints, the Los Angeles Angels or the San Diego Padres.

“Then there are the team names that glorify criminals who raped and pillaged. We are talking about the horrible Oakland Raiders, the Minnesota Vikings, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the Pittsburgh Pirates!

“Now, let us address those teams that clearly send the wrong message to our children. The San
Diego Chargers promote irresponsible fighting or even spending habits…The New York Giants and the San Francisco Giants promote obesity, a growing childhood epidemic… The Cincinnati Reds promote downers/barbiturates… The Milwaukee Brewers – well that goes without saying... Wrong message to our children.

So, there you go. We need to support any legislation that comes out to rectify this travesty…

“And as a die-hard Oregon State fan… it might also make some sense to change the name of the Oregon State women’s athletic teams to something other than the Beavers.”

quote:

Originally posted by Proofreader:


“And as a die-hard Oregon State fan… it might also make some sense to change the name of the Oregon State women’s athletic teams to something other than the Beavers.”

Fear not! Women of age to play athletic games at Oregon State are almost all shorn of their pelts. It seems to be the style these days. That way the tattoos show up better.

At least Indiana has an innocuously named basketball team. The Indiana Pacers? https://www.google.com/search?..._Pacer%3B1900%3B1000

I saw this post somewhere on Facebook, I think - and I believe it was posted by z (though I couldn't locate it again). It's very illustrative - a linguist's view of Redskins. It was written by Geoffrey Nunberg, the linguist who testified at the Redskins' trademark proceedings.

Yes, I posted a link to it. I shared Nunberg's original link.

On Facebook? I couldn't find it when I went back to read it. I finally found it in Google.

I think it's so interesting when courts employ linguists or use the dictionary for their decisions. I have to say, Geoffrey convinced me. I was on the fence before as I know there are other teams with Indians, like the Kansas City Chiefs or the Atlanta Braves or the Cleveland Indians. But he satisfactorily allayed my concerns with that.

Z's FB post is in The Morphology of Peevology group.

Ahhhh...I was searching on his old blog and his personal facebook, but I forgot about that. Makes sense.

POSTED ON BEHALF OF PROOFREADER

Here is a local news story about team names.

Perhaps if they change it to something more representative of most members of congress: Washington Foreskins. Would Nancy Pelosi complain about its being exclusionist?

PS: What's Mr Nunberg think of this company?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tecumseh_Products

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Geoff,

Funny, arnie.

Geoff, my understanding from Nunberg's response above is that "redskin" itself is a slur. Makes sense - it's about the color of skin. However, Braves, Chiefs, etc., aren't slurs. BTW, I forgot that we have such a team in Chicago - the Blackhawks.

I'd love to read the other sides's linguist's remarks.

I'm in the US right now, and I've been told that if we change the name of the Redskins team, we also have to change the name of Oklahoma because it means "red people". We can't have it both ways.

But of course you can have it both ways. One term is offensive and the other is not. Etymology is irrelevant.

It's true about Oklahoma - apparently it is from the Choctaw words okla and humma, meaning "red people"

"Red people" likely because of the color of the ochre paint they used on their faces for decorative purposes. I doubt it had anything to do with their actual skin color.

I don't know, Geoff. Here is a site that says there is controversy. Some say it comes from red skin of the Indian, while others say it's from red being the Choctaw tribe's symbolic color of life. Interestingly, it was hard finding much detail on the name of Oklahoma.

quote:

Interestingly, it was hard finding much detail on the name of Oklahoma.

Easy if yu look it up in Wikipedia

"Etymology
The name Oklahoma comes from the Choctaw phrase okla humma, literally meaning red people. Choctaw Chief Allen Wright suggested the name in 1866 during treaty negotiations with the federal government regarding the use of Indian Territory, in which he envisioned an all-Indian state controlled by the United States Superintendent of Indian Affairs. Equivalent to the English word Indian, okla humma was a phrase in the Choctaw language used to describe Native American people as a whole. Oklahoma later became the de facto name for Oklahoma Territory, and it was officially approved in 1890, two years after the area was opened to white settlers."

Slightly off point but related to names, when did "junkman" and "scavenger" morph into "American Picker"?

I am always a little leery of Wikipedia, but I suppose I shouldn't be.

Isn't Wikipedia a "work in progress,' and not necessarily written by authorities in whatever is posted? Annnnd, aren't even experts liable to error? I have seen entries change over time as better information comes to light.

quote:

Isn't Wikipedia a "work in progress,' and not necessarily written by authorities in whatever is posted? Annnnd, aren't even experts liable to error? I have seen entries change over time as better information comes to light.

FAKE NEWS! (I think)

Is this inauguration fake news? I can hope...

Keep your TVs on another station (without the inauguration) tomorrow. I've heard then the records will show many didn't watch the inauguration. I am going to the Women's March in Chicago on Saturday.

Yes, Wikipedia is a written by amateurs, and I think you have to be skeptical. Yet, you must be skeptical of everything you read. There was a recent post of mine (in the Accents thread) where I reported what a website said, and goofy clarified that it was wrong. I should have done more checking!