The Burnt Umbers. The Taupes.
Apparently, beaver is a shade of brown. The Cleveland Beavers actually sounds pretty good.
How about the Steamers.
Sounds like the Beaver Cleavers.
Really? I thought they were going to come up with something.
I’m guessing it won’t be the Cleveland Injuns.
The Colorado Rockies might object to that.
I like spiders. They’re cute.
This article from NBC Sports says the name is in the running to become permanent.
Team president Jason Wright said in an interview with ESPN that the teams’ current Washington Football Team moniker is “definitely in the running” to be the long-term solution for the clubs nickname.
I guess Redskins is now available.
Just out of curiosity, is anybody objecting to ‘crusaders’ as a name?
Cleveland Crusaders. Georgetown Jihadists. It’s all good.
Should we object to calling informal ticket-sellers “scalpers”? Just trying to keep up on this stuff.
Hur hur hur
Rest assured, everyone is in awe of your effort.
Wasn’t the blatant offensiveness the team mascot/logo and the crowd’s “tomahawk chop”?
Here’s old Chief Wahoo, for the curious:
There’s nothing inherently offensive about “Indian,” but it’s probably not a good idea to name your sports team after an ethnic group (or vague ethnic category) in general. It’s just a bad look. But Tha Chief is far more blatantly #problematic as you can see. They got rid of him a couple years ago.
I think the tomahawk chop is more of an Atlanta thing.
Speaking of the Atlanta Braves, Here is the Wiki page on their mascots, Chief Noc-A-Homa and Princess Win-A-Lotta (the former “retired” in 1985, the latter “retired” in 1984). I’ll leave it to you to decide the offensiveness degree and levels.
He was played by a real Native American, so what’s the problem…?
Use of stereotypes?
I was being sarcastic. I mean… “Noc-A-Homa”? I laughed, but it’s just so cringeworthy that people thought this was okay, even in that era.