Worst Team Nickname in Pro NA Sports

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by pilight

I share the distaste for alliteration.

Capricious calamity, heinous heathen! For I dig double letters, lively!

That's why my OOTP league has the Cincinnati Cyclones, Richmond Rebels, Sacramento Scorpions, and Indianapolis Indians. Gotta go all out on awesome alliterations!

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Westheim

Capricious calamity, heinous heathen! For I dig double letters, lively!

That's why my OOTP league has the Cincinnati Cyclones, Richmond Rebels, Sacramento Scorpions, and Indianapolis Indians. Gotta go all out on awesome alliterations!

He must hate Marvel Comics.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Ty Cobb

Washington Commanders...In a town overpopulated with government types, I get it...this name was decided by an unelected committee. It shows.

Fun fact I discovered recently: if you go to the NFL's website and go to the standings section, if you select any previous season, the teams are shown using their current location and nicknames instead of those used in that earlier year.

For example, the 1983 standings show the Indianapolis Colts instead of Baltimore Colts, Tennessee Titans instead of Houston Oilers, Las Vegas Raiders instead of Los Angeles Raiders, Los Angeles Chargers instead of San Diego Chargers, Arizona Cardinals instead of St. Louis Cardinals, and of course Washington is shown with its present moniker.

On top of all that, the New York Giants are missing entirely from the standings.

Sloppy work, NFL. Damned sloppy work.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by Westheim

Capricious calamity, heinous heathen! For I dig double letters, lively!

That's why my OOTP league has the Cincinnati Cyclones, Richmond Rebels, Sacramento Scorpions, and Indianapolis Indians. Gotta go all out on awesome alliterations!

And one of those is an actual team! Sacramento had a PCL club called the Solons (after an ancient Roman senator; Sacramento is of course the state capitol). Then there’s the New York Jets and the Nets (later New Jersey and now Brooklyn). When team tennis was a thing in the 70s they had a team called the New York Sets…

To me, alliteration is fine. I also tend to exclude the old times names because those tend to be just things local sportswriters called their team instead of just repeating the city name over and over again. The White Stockings and Red Caps literally wore white socks and red hats, the Philadelphia Athletics were originally the sports arm of the Philadelphia Athletic Club, the Pirates stole a player… I don’t think you see teams really naming themselves until much later on; even the names as of 1903, which are pretty close to what we have now, are largely based on those old sportswriter names.

There’s just no excuse for calling a team The Angels Angels in the 1960s.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by Amazin69

Yes, the WHL usage predates the controversy, but at this point it is like the Washington Redskins, where a term initially no more biased than "colored people" [NAACP] has become awkward through its use by bigots. If one had to go, so should the other, IMO

You're seriously equating the two? I never advocated for them getting rid of the Redskins name either, but at least with it there was the sense that there at least might be a number of native americans who were offended by it. But Canucks? I'm a Canadian and in my 47 years I've never even heard of Canuck being used as a derogatory term. And while I am from Vancouver, I don't like hockey so I have no special affinity for the Vancouver Canucks. If you polled the population, I'd be surprised if more than even just 1% had heard of it being used derogatively. If some rando in the US wants to use it as one, fine, that's their issue, but I don't think that's any reason for us to be offended by it.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by kq76

You're seriously equating the two? I never advocated for them getting rid of the Redskins name either, but at least with it there was the sense that there at least might be a number of native americans who were offended by it. But Canucks? I'm a Canadian and in my 47 years I've never even heard of Canuck being used as a derogatory term. And while I am from Vancouver, I don't like hockey so I have no special affinity for the Vancouver Canucks. If you polled the population, I'd be surprised if more than even just 1% had heard of it being used derogatively. If some rando in the US wants to use it as one, fine, that's their issue, but I don't think that's any reason for us to be offended by it.

I do remember Dave Letterman calling Paul a “filthy Canuck” in the 90s as part of some bit or other, and Paul getting uncomfortable with it to the extent that he asked Dave to stop using it, so there’s that. That said, I don’t even think the Great White North album uses it and that thing is full of Canadian stereotypes…

[Ty Cobb]

Deleted as error corrected. Thank you!

[kq76]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

I do remember Dave Letterman calling Paul a “filthy Canuck” in the 90s as part of some bit or other, and Paul getting uncomfortable with it to the extent that he asked Dave to stop using it, so there’s that. That said, I don’t even think the Great White North album uses it and that thing is full of Canadian stereotypes…

Maybe it's something the older generation is more aware of. Paul Shaffer is from my in-laws generation so I'll try to remember to ask them the next time I see them.

Regardless, I'm of the opinion that we choose what to be offended by. And if the people who are called something aren't offended by the term, then I don't think it should be a big deal, just ignore the name-callers.

Originally Posted by Ty Cobb

[That’s not my quote.

Oops, sorry. I'm not sure how that happened. I guess I was going to reply to 2 different posts then only replied to one. I corrected it.

[Bluenoser]

I'm curious where the idea came from that the Canucks were promoted to the NHL from the WHL?

They were an expansion franchise, never existed before then.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

I'm curious where the idea came from that the Canucks were promoted to the NHL from the WHL?

They were an expansion franchise, never existed before then.

Probably whatever qualifies as "brains" that sit under the tocques of those silly Canadians and their maple syrup...

OOO LOOK AT ME I HAVE FREE HEALTH CARE DIABETES MEDS DON'T COST ME $500 A MONTH IF I'M NOT IN INSURANCE HUR DUR I AM A CANADIAN HUR DUR

[kq76]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Probably whatever qualifies as "brains" that sit under the tocques of those silly Canadians and their maple syrup...

OOO LOOK AT ME I HAVE FREE HEALTH CARE DIABETES MEDS DON'T COST ME $500 A MONTH IF I'M NOT IN INSURANCE HUR DUR I AM A CANADIAN HUR DUR

What's diabetes, a brand of soda pop? I don't think we have that up here.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by kq76

What's diabetes, a brand of soda pop? I don't think we have that up here.

I'm not surprised. It's the American Disease. But you can get it by drinking a certain kind of soda pop!

[Amazin69]

Originally Posted by kq76

You're seriously equating the two? I never advocated for them getting rid of the Redskins name either, but at least with it there was the sense that there at least might be a number of native americans who were offended by it. But Canucks? I'm a Canadian and in my 47 years I've never even heard of Canuck being used as a derogatory term. And while I am from Vancouver, I don't like hockey so I have no special affinity for the Vancouver Canucks. If you polled the population, I'd be surprised if more than even just 1% had heard of it being used derogatively. If some rando in the US wants to use it as one, fine, that's their issue, but I don't think that's any reason for us to be offended by it.

"Akin to" is not "equating", tyvm. I am well aware that more people were eventually offended by the Washington nickname. The similarity is that neither name was intended to offend. (The team was originally the BOSTON Redskins before the franchise was moved; the name was a reference to the colonists disguising themselves as Natives for the Boston Tea Party sabotage.)

And "Canuck" was definitely part of the "Archie Bunker lexicon", the bigoted insults for other nations which certain Americans spewed at the entire world. Limeys, Frogs, Krauts, Dagos, Polacks, Rooskies, Micks, and so forth.

Clawson (who was trying to sabotage a Presidential Election, so not "some rando") was looking for a way to smear Muskie as a bigot (since the Repub embrace of the Southern segregationists had left them open to charges of bigotry, and Clawson wanted to both-sides it), and recalled that there was anti-Canadian bigotry in New Hampshire (which was big deal back then, before Jimmy Carter made Iowa relevant) and if Muskie (from neighboring Maine) could be portrayed as such, it could hurt his chances. (The Nixon team practically jizzed themselves when it worked, Muskie lost his cool attacking the paper that printed the false story, and eventually withdrew, allowing George McGovern, a weaker candidate, to win the nomination.)

I'm sorry if you're too young to recall this, or even All in the Family, but certain Americans hated people for national origins, not just race. Ask any Hunkie or Wetback. I'm not saying the name needs to be changed (I thought the Washington situation was an overreaction), but the poll is about names in general, and the actual history of Canuck as a slur makes me personally more uncomfortable than trying to stretch "Sabretooth Tiger" to "Chris Hanson will visit you."

JMO, ffs.

[Amazin69]

Originally Posted by kq76

What's diabetes, a brand of soda pop? I don't think we have that up here.

Haha. So funny.

As in the U.S., diabetes in Canada is particularly a danger among the Native peoples, which I find ironic in light of your previous diatribe.

(It certainly kills more First Nations people than Dan Snyder and the Chief White Calf logo ever did.)

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Amazin69

. . . certain Americans hated people for national origins, not just race.

That is true of certain people in every country that has ever existed in the history of the planet.

[Ty Cobb]

I'm not the classical "ugly American", but I never remember Cancuk being anything other than the team name...or a dig at our northern neighbors. Often it was combined with other things to do so. Canucklehead, for example, was a favorite slur among the waitress class here in my home town, as they saw a lot of Ontario residents. Of course, I've also heard pepsi, snowfrog, and peasouper. Heck, if I'm in a racially diverse area, I'm even loathe to utter the term "Canadian" as many of the ill informed brutes with IQ's to match their shoe size now use it as a derogatory term for blacks. The bottom line—there is darkness in the hearts of all people regardless of their defining characteristics. I'm trying to better myself...and if I can better others at the same time, that's great.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by Amazin69

"Akin to" is not "equating", tyvm. I am well aware that more people were eventually offended by the Washington nickname. The similarity is that neither name was intended to offend. (The team was originally the BOSTON Redskins before the franchise was moved; the name was a reference to the colonists disguising themselves as Natives for the Boston Tea Party sabotage.)

And "Canuck" was definitely part of the "Archie Bunker lexicon", the bigoted insults for other nations which certain Americans spewed at the entire world. Limeys, Frogs, Krauts, Dagos, Polacks, Rooskies, Micks, and so forth.

Clawson (who was trying to sabotage a Presidential Election, so not "some rando") was looking for a way to smear Muskie as a bigot (since the Repub embrace of the Southern segregationists had left them open to charges of bigotry, and Clawson wanted to both-sides it), and recalled that there was anti-Canadian bigotry in New Hampshire (which was big deal back then, before Jimmy Carter made Iowa relevant) and if Muskie (from neighboring Maine) could be portrayed as such, it could hurt his chances. (The Nixon team practically jizzed themselves when it worked, Muskie lost his cool attacking the paper that printed the false story, and eventually withdrew, allowing George McGovern, a weaker candidate, to win the nomination.)

I'm sorry if you're too young to recall this, or even All in the Family, but certain Americans hated people for national origins, not just race. Ask any Hunkie or Wetback. I'm not saying the name needs to be changed (I thought the Washington situation was an overreaction), but the poll is about names in general, and the actual history of Canuck as a slur makes me personally more uncomfortable than trying to stretch "Sabretooth Tiger" to "Chris Hanson will visit you."

JMO, ffs.

The difference as I see it is, what is a "Canuck"? It's a Canadian. As far as I understand it, there's nothing more to it. It doesn't imply we're stupid or poor or even that we all live in igloos. It simply identifies our nationality. You might as well just replace it with the word Canadian.

"Redskin", however, implies something very different. It implies the person is not white and given the America's history of racism (and I use the term America as all of the Americas, not just USA) that's problematic. It implies the person isn't a full person and that they don't deserve all the rights a person is entitled to. People can say the name was intended to honour natives, or that it has nothing to do with Boston's Phips Proclamation Act of 1775 that put a bounty on their blood-soaked scalps, or whatever else they want to say or ignore, but identifying someone based on their skin colour is, or at least should be, simply out of bounds in today's society. I'll admit, I grew up thinking the name and logo was pretty cool, but I didn't have the understanding I do now and, as a result of now having that understanding, I do think its time was up. I just never got on the bandwagon because I didn't have a good grasp of how the first peoples in general felt about it and I felt uncomfortable about the rest of us imposing our own feelings on them.

If the word Canuck, however, really was thought of by Canadians to have a pejorative meaning, I don't think it would have been used as a nickname in 1945 by the PCHL team or in 1952 by the WHL team or in 1970, after the great awakening of the 60s mind you, by the NHL team. And while I've heard of plenty of calls by fans for the team to change their jerseys or logos throughout the years, I've never heard a fan call for a change to the name. Maybe one day something will come up that will prove its time is up too, but until then it seems as about as benign a team name as one can get.

If you really want to hang out on the end of that limb, however, drawing parallels between those two, be my guest.

Originally Posted by Amazin69

Haha. So funny.

As in the U.S., diabetes in Canada is particularly a danger among the Native peoples, which I find ironic in light of your previous diatribe.

(It certainly kills more First Nations people than Dan Snyder and the Chief White Calf logo ever did.)

I obviously know what diabetes is, I'm at risk of it myself. I was simply returning the playfulness of others and referencing the notion that we're thought as being healthier than Americans when we're actually probably pretty close to the same in that.

[Syd Thrift]

Yeah I think at worst it’s similar to “cracker”, which rarely gets used anymore either (and which has also gotten Twitch streamers suspended for using). I don’t get the sense that it’s even as bad as “cracker” which is at worst a word that is punching down at class, but YMMV I guess.

[Cobra Mgr]

My general rule is that human DNA is off limits as a mascot.

[Ty Cobb]

So…Vikings? Warriors? Kings?