Goodbye Sioux

[The Yen Man]

Although I agree the Sioux name changing is dumb, I can see why some people would be offended the the Redskins. That's clearly a term to depict a race by their skin colour. If I had a team called the Calgary Negros, and had a black guy on there, I'm sure people would be offended. So why is it different for the Red Skins?

[troutman]

Not a flattering logo for the Cleveland Indians:

[You Need a Thneed]

There is absolutely no difference between the Fighting Sioux, and the Fighting Irish. Is Notre Dame being forced to change their nickname too?

[Displaced Flames fan]

I agree Redskins and Indians (specifically the Cleveland logo) could be understandably offensive.

When you have a logo designed by the people it represents how on earth can it be offensive?

Good call on the Fighting Irish. Exact same thing.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I agree Redskins and Indians (specifically the Cleveland logo) could be understandably offensive.

I would agree that those COULD be offensive (IMO, the Redskins should change their name). However, there is absolutely nothing offensive about Chiefs and Braves. Both of those are titles of honour.

[The Yen Man]

Yah, the only one I think people would have an issue with is the Redskins. Everything else I think are perfectly fine. I agree taht Chiefs and Braves are in the same category as Blue Jackets.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I would agree that those COULD be offensive (IMO, the Redskins should change their name). However, there is absolutely nothing offensive about Chiefs and Braves. Both of those are titles of honour.

It can depend on how they're used though, the Braves used to have a mascot that I could see being seen as offensive. It's often a pretty fine line, but I think it's pretty clear that when the supposedly offended group supports the name there should be no issue. That's the case with Florida State and Central Michigan, and should have been the case for North Dakota if not for one tribes refusal to allow its members to either approve or disapprove of the name.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by valo403

It can depend on how they're used though, the Braves used to have a mascot that I could see being seen as offensive. It's often a pretty fine line, but I think it's pretty clear that when the supposedly offended group supports the name there should be no issue. That's the case with Florida State and Central Michigan, and should have been the case for North Dakota if not for one tribes refusal to allow its members to either approve or disapprove of the name.

Utah would be another.

[Hack&Lube]

What's next? The end of the Chicago Blackhawks?

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

There is absolutely no difference between the Fighting Sioux, and the Fighting Irish. Is Notre Dame being forced to change their nickname too?

Yes its pretty stupid. And the indians/natives or whatever is more politically correct these days were as a majority proud to have the Fighting Sioux as the name, as has been pointed out above.

Maybe the Blue Jackets should consider a name change. Fighting Sioux = reference to a time of war. Blue Jackets = reference to a time of war.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

There is absolutely no difference between the Fighting Sioux, and the Fighting Irish. Is Notre Dame being forced to change their nickname too?

Well, it's mostly over-political correctness/white guilt. The Irish didn't have their land taken away from them, Notre Dame has a historical irish population and members of their club. How many real people of Sioux heritage are there on the Fighting Sioux? I would guess none and possibly never a single one. That's just playing devil's advocate though.

I agree though, it's just a name and the fiasco is riculous.