Originally Posted by Hookem Horns
Yes, no one ever despises their "nasty" enemies.
Just like those "nasty" enemy Redskins, Pirates and Buccaneers were never despised and were looked up to by everyone for being such honorable men. I am sure the people in the Carolinas also love and look forward to hurricanes so much that they named their NHL team after that enjoyable weather phenomenon.
Also I am quite sure no one in New Jersey despises the Devil since he is such an honorable creature. Now technically the team was named after the legendary "New Jersey Devil" who supposedly terrorized the residents of New Jersey in the 1800's however must have won the affection of the citizens there since they named their NHL team after him.
Did anyone name a team "Pirates" or "Buccaneers" when those two groups were making the high seas a dangerous place? Now lets just leave the current Somali Pirates situation out of this and talk about the Pirates and Buccaneers that are the actual focus of those names. Those names were used long after anyone with first hand knowledge of Pirates and Buccaneers had ceased to draw breath and named after a romanticized idea of what they were like. That can almost be said about the Redskins. The name is what it is but the symbolism associated with the Washington Redskins clearly is not disparaging or negative. Misguided perhaps but there is no drunken "injun" on the side of the helmet and they don't reenact raids with pretend settlers being killed at halftime. They're trying to work the whole "Noble Indian" angle. Like I said maybe misguided in this day and age but certainly not disparaging in intent or practice.
They should just change it anyway to put an end to all the "sand-in-the-vagina crybaby caterwauling". That or change the mascot to a red potato. I'd give anything to see that. Put a big red potato on the side of the helmet with a press release telling everyone protesting to now STFU.