It was over 170 years ago, what are you still so proud about? I don't get it either, but I also don't get why folks are so angry...
I just don't understand why people would care if they did change the name. the team has no heritage, no history, who cares? to me, even though I find redskins much more offensive, i could understand backlash if the name was changed. people care about the redskins, they have history, tradition.
people of Mexican decent fought against Santa Ana and for Texas Independence at the time. There were many on the side of the Texans in 1836. I don't see why all groups of people in Texas can't be proud of the name.
Should we cancel the 4th of July since its over 200 years ago? What are we still so proud about? It has nothing to do with team heritage or history and everything to do with Texas/Houston/US heritage and history. Saying that the year 1836 is offensive is saying that it is something we should be ashamed of.
This is pretty gay but oh well. I just hope they do NOT call them TOROS. Just call them Houston FC and leave it at than so no one can complain about PC stuff. On another note, I didn't want to start a new thread on this but I was watching ESPN this morning and they showed the World Baseball Classic logo and it struck me immediately that it was very similar to the Spanish La Liga (Spain's professional futbol league) logo (almost a rip off)I just found that interesting.
who said you should be ashamed of it? you talk about people need to get over it when it looks like you are the one taking it personally as well. its not like this is something hispanics want to have removed from history books.
This is very disappointing. Terrible move by the club if they go through with it. As for the "Lonestars", sure it has a Texas-y feel to it, but it's also cliche' and tired. 1836 was unique and special.
Note to self, get mom to get t-shirt of 1836... I'm not sure of the negative conotations, although I'm not offended, but I think a name change is silly...It took a while for me to get use to it and now I like it...
Non sequitur. If the franchise were in a city that was founded in 1941, then no I wouldn't be--unless they used a cessna or fighter pilot as the mascot maybe! Houston was founded in 1836--that was the point of the mascot. Though not Hispanic myself, I speak Spanish and have many Hispanic relatives. My wife is Mexican. None of us are upset about the annual 2 March celebrations or observances. Many of us have children who are taken to Washington-on-the-Brazos in 7th grade Texas History class and we're not upset about that. I think it's disingenuous, then, to be upset about this logo. As I said earlier, PCBS.
You probably wouldn't be, but there would be some that would. I completely understand the point of the name and I think it's silly that some are apparently offended. Thanks, but I already knew that. I'm not arguing that this is a good decision by any means. This is exactly why I'm not convinced that they're being honest with us. I haven't heard any Hispanic leaders that have come out against the name. I really think this is a marketing issue. Of course you could. It's a free country. Of course, I haven't heard a single specific quote by a Hispanic leader (and I could be wrong) in any of these links where they criticize the name.
But don't you long for a culture where we learn to think critically rather than cow-towing to every illogical sensitivity? Wasn't meaning to state the obvious, just outlining the non sequitur. Sorry! Interesting. It'll be interesting to see what develops.
Gee I dont know something about people finding the date that our city was founded offensive kinda pisses me off a little bit, granted its only a small few who must be complaning.
Source I don't remember her publicly saying anything but she claims to so it must be true. sylvia_garcia@pct2.co.harris.tx.us - If anybody wants to let her know how they feel.
Of course I do. Of course, does one saying they won't buy tickets to the games if they change their name make them any better than those who are supposedly offended by the name? No, it does not. They're being illogical as well. Thanks.
Umm..yeah, that's kinda the point. People still have a since of pride/history about whatever their 'heritage' is. You have that - as you should - over something that happened over 170 years ago. And yet you think it rediculous that it means something - although in this case from the other side, in a negative sense - to a certain group (adn not even perhaps a large number from that group, but that's beside the point). It also has to do with their heritage/history. Even though it happened 170 years ago. Why doesn't it go both ways?
