Now that anybody can use the term 'Washington Redskins', I insist upon being called Irvine Washington Redskins Welsh.
— Irvine Welsh (@WelshIrvine) June 18, 2014
Out in the cold I imagine Stu :hmmmWonder where that leaves the CFL's Edmonton Eskimos?
Wonder where that leaves the CFL's Edmonton Eskimos?
You might be missing the point a bit there. I think Washington could have a team called the "Indians" without too much problem (see Mumbai, IPL cricket).
But the Edmonton WhiterThanWhiteSkins, or worse, SealBashers, might have a bit more difficulty being accepted.
I agree with the bold bit.I think that would be viewed with the same mock horror and disdain that the Redskins name has attracted after years of use. I don't see a justifiable point to be made by comparing a team in Mumbai using the name Indians [because that's what they are] with a team using the term Indians in Washington. Like it or not the indiginous people resident in the good old USofA at the time of our colonial invasion werent indians or red indians.
I still think it is a storm in a teacup.
I agree with the bold bit.
They should just call them the Washington Piscataways or some such.
Alternatively, keep the Redskins but only on the condition that another team is set up called the White Skins or Black Skins or Yellow Skins or.... am I beating this to death with a club like the SealBashers yet? :-)
Pensylvania PissCats might? Especially at home games!:surp@I like the idea of the Washington Piscataways. Nobody would object to that would they :hmmm
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.