Renaming Sports Teams

[Bomber_fanaddict]

10 minutes ago, Noeller said:

the entire notion of nicknaming a team after an ethnicity or race is just ridiculous and makes no sense. I can't imagine the world where it DID make sense...

Maybe in 2020. But when the majority of these teams were named it was a different time. I just dont see a point in changing something that's been around for 50+ years. 

[Bigblue204]

1 minute ago, Bomber_fanaddict said:

Maybe in 2020. But when the majority of these teams were named it was a very racist time. I just dont see a point in changing something that's been around for 50+ years. 

FTFY

 

[MOBomberFan]

LOL

I saw someone suggest a wealthy indigenous group (are there any? I legit don't know) buy the Redskins and name them the Washington Black Lives Matter so that ignorant white people get a taste of their own medicine. I say it's worth a shot, hell I'd even buy a hat.

[Bomber_fanaddict]

20 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Empire means oppression. People conquered & oppressed by another. Offensive. Both England & France conquered vast tracts of land in Canada, South America & Asia. It is a sign of white oppression. Spain & Portugal in South America. Europe was a continent of racists that conquered vast continents with their Empires. White entitlement. White oppression & White settlers. 

Blue Bombers. Offensive. Named after an aircraft that reigned down terror, death & destruction from the skies onto civilian & military targets below. Snowflakes would demand Winnipeg change it's name. They would say that anything associated with war is offensive. That any team that is named after a war time bomb dropping flying machine should be banned. 

Roughriders... Offensive. Teddy Roosevelt's Roughriders. He was key in American aggression, expansion & oppression  in Panama, Cuba & the Phillipines in the 19thy century. On top of one of his famous sayings. "Walk softly & carry a big stick". He also said that he didn't think that every good Indian was a dead Indian but nine out of 10 were. And that Phillipinos were nothing but Chinese half breeds. How long until the snowflakes demand that Saskatchewan change their name?

Stampeders & Cowboys. Offensive. They are racist as they went to war with the First Nations in the US & are a symbol of White Supremacy. Cowboys also treat animals like horses & cattle cruelly. (See Calgary Stampede). How long until Snowflakes demand Calgary & Dallas change their names?

So many words. So many words offensive. 

Didnt Vince Leah nickname the Bombers after Joe Louis and the Brown Bomber?

[Booch]

People are just way too consumed now with causes and protests...and will look for anything it seems to cause a ruffling of feathers...when I played sports with Indigenous teamates...and it was often even they claimed/stated that things are getting ridiculous..straight out of the mouth of one of my longest termed friends (a Native Canadian) he said the notion of calling him..or any other of his people an Indian as opposed to a First Nation Person..Or Anishinabe or it would be offensive was plain dumb..he said "I am a effin Indian" whats the issue?? and its not any more derogatory than calling an Italian..an Italian...Or a Chinese person...Chinese...or for that matter a white person...a White person

When I played in California was called everything from Cracker..****** Tonk..White Boi..Cornfed...and some i wont say here although funny...not appropriate and was never offended and generally it was said to me by friends and associates, and fans...It's how you use a word which can make it offensive or racist within it's context moreso than the word itself

The worst treatment I was given and insulted by was oddly enough from a White Police Officer in Oakland when I was out with teamates...majority of which were not white...They got more offended by it than me and felt like they had to protect their poor lil Cnadian Corn fed ****** lol

[MOBomberFan]

Just now, Booch said:

"I am a effin Indian" whats the issue??

Pretty much the opinion of literally every native person I've ever had the gall to ask about the issue. What you call a person is nowhere near as important as how you treat them and the respect you show them.

[SpeedFlex27]

18 minutes ago, Bomber_fanaddict said:

Didnt Vince Leah nickname the Bombers after Joe Louis and the Brown Bomber?

No, the story I heard was it was a new Air Force plane in the 30's. But even if it was names after Joe Louis that won't stop the snowflakes from making it all about destruction, killing & war. We know that. 

[Rich]

3 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

No, the story I heard was it was a new Air Force plane in the 30's. But even if it was names after Joe Louis that won't stop the snowflakes from making it all about destruction, killing & war. We know that. 

The team was originally called The Winnipeg Winnipegs of all things..

Quote

In 1935, before an exhibition game against North Dakota State (NDSU), Winnipeg Tribune sports writer Vince Leah decided to borrow from Grantland Rice, who labelled Joe Louis as "The Brown Bomber". He called the team the "Blue Bombers of Western football". Up to that point, the team had been called the "Winnipegs". From that day forward, the team has been known as the "Winnipeg Blue Bombers". In that same year, the Blue Bombers, Calgary Bronks, and Regina Roughriders formed the Western Interprovincial Football Union as the highest level of play in Western Canada.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_Blue_Bombers

[17to85]

2 hours ago, Bigblue204 said:

some quick digging shows that A) Eskimos were also know as the Esquimaux (which was the original spelling of Eskimo) and also the Elks. It was also "given to them" as a literal insult.

Was it an insult though? I always thought it was a misunderstanding.... the one group called them Eskimos and the white folks just thought that was what they were called. Sort of the same way we wound up with canada.

[Bomber_fanaddict]

39 minutes ago, Rich said:

The team was originally called The Winnipeg Winnipegs of all things..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_Blue_Bombers

I think the only way around all of this is to just go back to calling every team their city/province/state name lol.

British Columbia British Columbians

Calgary Calgarians

Edmonton Edmontons

Saskatchewan Saskatchewans

Winnipeg Winnipegs

Toronto Torontarians

Montreal Montrealers

Ottawa Ottawas

Hamilton Hamiltons 

 

Then no one can complain

[Floyd]

10 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Was it an insult though? I always thought it was a misunderstanding.... the one group called them Eskimos and the white folks just thought that was what they were called. Sort of the same way we wound up with canada.

It’s a derogatory Cree term that was accidentally adopted by non-indigenous - you are correct

Inupiat and western arctic still use it but probably easiest just to change it

was thinking huskies might work but that also actually was a derogatory name for Inuit culture  and Edmonton yellow heads is hard to chant 

[Eternal optimist]

13 hours ago, Noeller said:

see, now there's the thing: If the team was all Inuit players, then they get to call it that. 

Hold on, isn't this establishing what is - or isn't, acceptable based upon a groups skin color or ethnicity? Wouldn't this be a step backwards?

[ALuCsRED]

11 hours ago, Bomber_fanaddict said:

I think the only way around all of this is to just go back to calling every team their city/province/state name lol.

British Columbia British Columbians

Calgary Calgarians

Edmonton Edmontons

Saskatchewan Saskatchewans

Winnipeg Winnipegs

Toronto Torontarians

Montreal Montrealers

Ottawa Ottawas

Hamilton Hamiltons 

 

Then no one can complain

Or the soccer method:

British Columbia Canadian Football Club (or the BCCFC) - Maybe it's time to change the name of British Columbia to just Columbia, since Colombia is spelled with an "o" and BC has Columbia spelled with a "u"

Calgary Canadian Football Team (CCFT)

Edmonton Green & Gold (EGG) - but they wear yellow...

Saskatchewan Canadian Football Club (SCFC)

Winnipeg's True Football Club of Canadian Football (WTFCCF)

Toronto Football Club (TFC) - This should bring more people to the games (mistakingly)

Hamilton Footballers of Canadian Football (HFCF)

Ottawa RedBlacks (ORB)

Montreal Argent, Rouge et Bleu (MARB))

Edited July 9, 2020 by ALuCsRED

[Tracker]

32 minutes ago, ALuCsRED said:

Or the soccer method:

British Columbia Canadian Football Club (or the BCCFC) - Maybe it's time to change the name of British Columbia to just Columbia, since Colombia is spelled with an "o" and BC has Columbia spelled with a "u"

Calgary Canadian Football Team (CCFT)

Edmonton Green & Gold (EGG) - but they wear yellow...

Saskatchewan Canadian Football Club (SCFC)

Winnipeg's True Football Club of Canadian Football (WTFCCF)

Toronto Football Club (TFC) - This should bring more people to the games (mistakingly)

Hamilton Footballers of Canadian Football (HFCF)

Ottawa RedBlacks (ORB)

Montreal Argent, Rouge et Bleu (MARB))

Still hard to chant.

[Bigblue204]

13 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Was it an insult though? I always thought it was a misunderstanding.... the one group called them Eskimos and the white folks just thought that was what they were called. Sort of the same way we wound up with canada.

Yes it was. Calgary didnt call them the eskimos out of respect. They did so as an insult. In the same way I call the riders criders. Or inbreds. Or sister cousins. Or stupid. Or bad at football. Or ugly. Or bad at math. Or incapable of holding intelligent conversations. Etc etc etc.

[Bigblue204]

14 hours ago, Booch said:

People are just way too consumed now with causes and protests...and will look for anything it seems to cause a ruffling of feathers...when I played sports with Indigenous teamates...and it was often even they claimed/stated that things are getting ridiculous..straight out of the mouth of one of my longest termed friends (a Native Canadian) he said the notion of calling him..or any other of his people an Indian as opposed to a First Nation Person..Or Anishinabe or it would be offensive was plain dumb..he said "I am a effin Indian" whats the issue?? and its not any more derogatory than calling an Italian..an Italian...Or a Chinese person...Chinese...or for that matter a white person...a White person

When I played in California was called everything from Cracker..****** Tonk..White Boi..Cornfed...and some i wont say here although funny...not appropriate and was never offended and generally it was said to me by friends and associates, and fans...It's how you use a word which can make it offensive or racist within it's context moreso than the word itself

The worst treatment I was given and insulted by was oddly enough from a White Police Officer in Oakland when I was out with teamates...majority of which were not white...They got more offended by it than me and felt like they had to protect their poor lil Cnadian Corn fed ****** lol

I'd invite you to walk up to random people and use those names. It's easy for us to get confirmation from those who know us, I have friends who feel the same way booch. But to then extrapolate that to an entire population is borderline insane. So then the question becomes how many people need to be/say their insulted before its appropriate for you to change? That's a personal question for everyone.

[TBURGESS]

15 hours ago, Bigblue204 said:

This is an incredibly stupid take. the "group of people" are Inuits, the people the name references and they (maybe not all, but at least a portion) decided it was an insulting/degrading name. How is that not enough? But because a name has been used for a long time, there's no need to change it? That's literally not how anything works...in any industry...ever. Change happens. both willingly and by force. 

some quick digging shows that A) Eskimos were also know as the Esquimaux (which was the original spelling of Eskimo) and also the Elks. It was also "given to them" as a literal insult. "Likewise Calgary's responded with insults about Edmonton's northern latitude and frigid weather, calling the city's residents "Esquimaux" (an archaic spelling of "Eskimos", referring to the indigenous people of the Canadian Arctic, properly called Inuit)."

So "perfectly fine" by whose standard?

Not even all the Inuit have a problem with Eskimo or maybe we should start saying the "E" word. A portion of a group of people think that the word that's been used for that group of people for a hundred years or more is now racist. How is that enough for a forced change?

If your going to use Wikipedia at least tell the whole story. The Eskimos have been the Eskimos since 1949. Formerly known as: The "Esquimaux" 1897 to 1910, the "Elks" in 1922, which is before they joined the CFL. It wasn't just Calgary media who insulted Edmonton. It also Edmonton media insulting Calgary. Eskimo refers to Inuit, Yupik and Aleut so no, they aren't all properly called Inuit. Eskimo is an all encompassing word, like Indian for all the southern tribes. (Note: 'Indian' is now considered racist by some)

The word Inuit was adopted in 1977. Some Yupik in Alaska and Russia object to being called “Inuit,” which is not a word in their language, but they accept Eskimo. They use the "E" word among themselves like Black folks use the "N" word among themselves. Eskimo supposedly means "Raw Meat Eaters" in Algonquin. What's insulting/degrading in that anyway? I love tartar.

In short, Eskimo is perfectly fine for a lot of people, including some of those who are called Eskimos.

 

Edited July 9, 2020 by TBURGESS

[Floyd]

Elks would be good.

[Jpan85]

If they can change their name so to can Edmonton

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/20/business/dreyers-eskimo-pie-name-change.html

[baxter]

9 minutes ago, Floyd said:

Elks would be good.

At least they could keep their logo if they were the Elks.
 

[Bigblue204]

3 minutes ago, baxter said:

At least they could keep their logo if they were the Elks.
 

And it has history behind it.

[TrueBlue4ever]

15 hours ago, Bigblue204 said:

That is a legit question. The only ones who can answer are the people it's referencing. A lot of them seem to think it is. The Edmonton Inuit wouldn't be "wrong" per say, but it would be a dumb team name as far as I'm concerned. So would the Winnipeg Polish. Or the Toronto Italians. IF Irish people start saying they feel like the "fighting Irish" name is racist, then the conversation should take place. It's not up to other people to decide what is and what isn't insulting to someone else. Any younger sibling will know, that just because your older brother said his punches didn't hurt you, didn't mean he was right.

The Braves and The Chiefs could potentially get away with keeping the names, but everything else, logo/chants/etc etc all very much show heavy indigenous influences. We'd be willingly ignorant to say they aren't referencing those things with the names. As for the people not finding their rec teams insulting..again if they are from that ancestry and are fine with calling themselves that, cool...When's the last time an indigenous person played for any of the teams mentioned? Never mind a vast majority of the team being composed of them?

And yes we should go on and on to reactify the mistakes of the past. That is literally the only thing to do. Snowflake is often thrown around by people who are also complaining (I'm not saying you are booch) about other people complaining. So who is the real snowflake here? People who are saying a racist name/caricature is being used, or those who are unwilling to change a name of a sports team? Seems like priorities might be a bit backwards.

To add to what Noeller was saying...why would anyone WANT their teams name to be about a certain group of people? Especially when said group has told them it's insulting? 

The bolded part is an open question I have. Who really are the "many who seem to think" that the name is offensive? I hear a lot of social justice warriors (Troy Westwood springs to mind) claim that the name is offensive to many, but have the actual potentially offended group actually been asked?

Here is what Jordan Tootoo, Inuit NHL player, had to say, and it's a lot more eloquent and thought out than most people on either side of the debate who have taken a hard stand have presented:

 

My position is this.

We should all understand what the term means to the Inuk people. My father’s generation connects this term to describe who they are. He would refer to himself as an Eskimo. My generation refers to itself as Inuk. What is important to me is that people understand this. And, when referring to the Inuit people to the Inuit people, they respect that we refer to ourselves today as Inuk. 

I understand there are names of sports teams that bring back feelings of oppression for people and I can see why those names should be changed. 

So, this makes me ask the question, does the term Eskimo for the Edmonton franchise bring back feelings of oppression for Inuk people? For me, it does not. That is NOT a reason to keep the name. There could be others for whom it does create those feelings. But for me, it does not. 

I encourage the franchise to explain why they chose the name Eskimos in the first place. Was it racially charged, or, was it because of admiration for the ability of the Eskimos to thrive in cold climates, for their mental and physical toughness and for their resilience? My point is that context really does matter. And, they need to be honest with themselves and with the public. Truth goes a long way. 

In closing, the name of the Edmonton Eskimos is not objectionable to me. This does not mean they should keep the name. But, I think the discussion should be around how the Inuk people feel about it. Some might feel pride. Some might feel hurt. Either way, that is the group that should be consulted. 

My opinion is that the discussion is important, but that we should not knee-jerk react because someone tells me that others are offended without hearing from the supposed "offended" group, and I do see a lot of that happening. When North Dakota looked at the "Fighting Sioux" nickname, they actually talked with the 10 Native tribes in the area, and apparently 8 of the 10 were happy with the name and saw it as a sign of respect bestowed on the local indigenous peoples. Two did not share that view, and the name got changed. No one died as a result of the debate either way, so in the end this is not a big world issue.

My concern is the slippery slope. Does Fighting Irish stereotype a sect of society? Yankee is considered a derogatory term for northern U.S.'ers from the south (or for the U.S. as a whole from foreign nations), but since the North won the Civil War, does it get a pass since the North is not marginalized as the victors? Or because Yankees are seen as mainly white people, and have not been subjected to institutionalized racism, so slang words for them are not deemed offensive? Canadiens either singles out French Canadians, or excludes English-speaking Canadians - either way you are marginalizing one group. Canuck was a Dutch term meant to insult French Canadians I have read somewhere, and it is often used by Americans as a jokingly derogatory term for all Canadians (oh those Yankees!), but if we are in on the joke, does that matter? The UN Human Rights Code describes discrimination based on its effect, and not its intent, so even if no one sees derogatory intent in the nickname "Canuck", even those it would want to disparage, I guess according to the UN that doesn't matter. But how far do we take all this?

And the last time I checked, Native American groups in the US are fighting for their land and opposing an oil pipeline, and had to deal with systematic extermination from the white settlers, aided by the US Cavalry and cowboys, and that doesn't seem to garner the same concern as the name Fighting Sioux did. Perhaps we can fix the real problems and not get in a twist over the dog and pony show of team nicknames so we look like we are socially woke? I'm not saying "well we can't fix everything, so why fix anything?" and willing to ignore this issue, but let's be grounded in our discussions and not assume what others think, and deign to speak for them. 

[Bigblue204]

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

Not even all the Inuit have a problem with Eskimo or maybe we should start saying the "E" word. A portion of a group of people think that the word that's been used for that group of people for a hundred years or more is now racist. How is that enough for a forced change?

If your going to use Wikipedia at least tell the whole story. The Eskimos have been the Eskimos since 1949. Formerly known as: The "Esquimaux" 1897 to 1910, the "Elks" in 1922, which is before they joined the CFL. It wasn't just Calgary media who insulted Edmonton. It also Edmonton media insulting Calgary. Eskimo refers to Inuit, Yupik and Aleut so no, they aren't all properly called Inuit. Eskimo is an all encompassing word, like Indian for all the southern tribes. (Note: 'Indian' is now considered racist by some)

The word Inuit was adopted in 1977. Some Yupik in Alaska and Russia object to being called “Inuit,” which is not a word in their language, but they accept Eskimo. They use the "E" word among themselves like Black folks use the "N" word among themselves. Eskimo supposedly means "Raw Meat Eaters" in Algonquin. What's insulting/degrading in that anyway? I love tartar.

In short, Eskimo is perfectly fine for a lot of people, including some of those who are called Eskimos.

 

The bolded part is again an incredibly stupid take. "Only some people think this is racist!" lol. No need to change I guess.

I haven't stated anywhere that there is a consensus in the inuit community about the name. There likely never will be. And to ask for a consensus is asinine. It's just not how anything is done for the most part. "A portion of a group of people think that the word....is now racist. how is that enough for a forced change?" You can't see how stupid that comment is? Yes I took words out, I did so to remove your attempt at justifying racism.

I'm not sure how what you shared from wikipedia is any more in favour of keeping the name then what I shared...name was given as an insult...some people are ok with it...some people aren't...Yup that's the story.

In short, some people are totally fine with Eskimo. Some people are not. Yup that pretty much sums up what we're talking about.

[TrueBlue4ever]

1 minute ago, Bigblue204 said:

The bolded part is again an incredibly stupid take. "Only some people think this is racist!" lol. No need to change I guess.

I haven't stated anywhere that there is a consensus in the inuit community about the name. There likely never will be. And to ask for a consensus is asinine. It's just not how anything is done for the most part. "A portion of a group of people think that the word....is now racist. how is that enough for a forced change?" You can't see how stupid that comment is? Yes I took words out, I did so to remove your attempt at justifying racism.

I'm not sure how what you shared from wikipedia is any more in favour of keeping the name then what I shared...name was given as an insult...some people are ok with it...some people aren't...Yup that's the story.

In short, some people are totally fine with Eskimo. Some people are not. Yup that pretty much sums up what we're talking about.

Careful throwing around the "stupid" label. That is unnecessary in my view. We are allowed to express opinions and should not be slagged if it differs for another's. There are people who believe in vaccination, but some who don't. Should we automatically change polio and measles protocols for kids because some are offended by vaccinations? That could be a parallel to your position. (I exaggerate of course, but the way to win that argument is to back up the scientific evidence pro and con in the vaccine discussion, rather than throwing out the "stupid take" vitriol as a fact when it amounts to opinion only).

How about discussing why someone else's point of view may be misguided, not just calling it an incredibly stupid take because you don't see things that way. Cite the people who are offended and why they are offended, and not just assume they must be because you have decided for them. Discussion, not name-calling please.

[Bigblue204]

12 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

The bolded part is an open question I have. Who really are the "many who seem to think" that the name is offensive? I hear a lot of social justice warriors (Troy Westwood springs to mind) claim that the name is offensive to many, but have the actual potentially offended group actually been asked?

Here is what Jordan Tootoo, Inuit NHL player, had to say, and it's a lot more eloquent and thought out than most people on either side of the debate who have taken a hard stand have presented:

 

My position is this.

We should all understand what the term means to the Inuk people. My father’s generation connects this term to describe who they are. He would refer to himself as an Eskimo. My generation refers to itself as Inuk. What is important to me is that people understand this. And, when referring to the Inuit people to the Inuit people, they respect that we refer to ourselves today as Inuk. 

I understand there are names of sports teams that bring back feelings of oppression for people and I can see why those names should be changed. 

So, this makes me ask the question, does the term Eskimo for the Edmonton franchise bring back feelings of oppression for Inuk people? For me, it does not. That is NOT a reason to keep the name. There could be others for whom it does create those feelings. But for me, it does not. 

I encourage the franchise to explain why they chose the name Eskimos in the first place. Was it racially charged, or, was it because of admiration for the ability of the Eskimos to thrive in cold climates, for their mental and physical toughness and for their resilience? My point is that context really does matter. And, they need to be honest with themselves and with the public. Truth goes a long way. 

In closing, the name of the Edmonton Eskimos is not objectionable to me. This does not mean they should keep the name. But, I think the discussion should be around how the Inuk people feel about it. Some might feel pride. Some might feel hurt. Either way, that is the group that should be consulted. 

My opinion is that the discussion is important, but that we should not knee-jerk react because someone tells me that others are offended without hearing from the supposed "offended" group, and I do see a lot of that happening. When North Dakota looked at the "Fighting Sioux" nickname, they actually talked with the 10 Native tribes in the area, and apparently 8 of the 10 were happy with the name and saw it as a sign of respect bestowed on the local indigenous peoples. Two did not share that view, and the name got changed. No one died as a result of the debate either way, so in the end this is not a big world issue.

My concern is the slippery slope. Does Fighting Irish stereotype a sect of society? Yankee is considered a derogatory term for northern U.S.'ers from the south (or for the U.S. as a whole from foreign nations), but since the North won the Civil War, does it get a pass since the North is not marginalized as the victors? Or because Yankees are seen as mainly white people, and have not been subjected to institutionalized racism, so slang words for them are not deemed offensive? Canadiens either singles out French Canadians, or excludes English-speaking Canadians - either way you are marginalizing one group. Canuck was a Dutch term meant to insult French Canadians I have read somewhere, and it is often used by Americans as a jokingly derogatory term for all Canadians (oh those Yankees!), but if we are in on the joke, does that matter? The UN Human Rights Code describes discrimination based on its effect, and not its intent, so even if no one sees derogatory intent in the nickname "Canuck", even those it would want to disparage, I guess according to the UN that doesn't matter. But how far do we take all this?

And the last time I checked, Native American groups in the US are fighting for their land and opposing an oil pipeline, and had to deal with systematic extermination from the white settlers, aided by the US Cavalry and cowboys, and that doesn't seem to garner the same concern as the name Fighting Sioux did. Perhaps we can fix the real problems and not get in a twist over the dog and pony show of team nicknames so we look like we are socially woke? I'm not saying "well we can't fix everything, so why fix anything?" and willing to ignore this issue, but let's be grounded in our discussions and not assume what others think, and deign to speak for them. 

Yes! This, it's up to the people who the name refers to decide how they feel about it. 

And yes, Edmonton has gone through this process, though I don't know how big of a "survey" they took before. https://www.iheartradio.ca/am800/news/eskimos-consider-name-change-1.3943312 Tha'ts from 2018. I believe the results were, no consensus. So we aren't changing. Which is one take...but no consensus still means some people had an issue with it. So how many is enough before change happens?

As for the slippery slope. I find it ironic that the people who use the terms snowflake, SWJ etc etc can't get past sports teams changing their name. Like it's some kind of law of nature that will impact society to a large degree. If the bombers decided to change their name, I'd give exactly zero fucks. Assuming they didn't change it to the riders. This year should be showing everyone that sports are nice, but they are also on the very bottom of what's important in society in the grand scheme of things. Change happens. Societies evolve, and what was once deemed acceptable becomes unacceptable. This is not unique to our time, or our society.

I had a work colleague who was a practicing Wiccan. I had the utmost respect for this person well before I knew her religious beliefs. We were discussing religions one day hers came up and I refereed to the hers as a pagan religion. I didn't do it out of disrespect, it's just what I thought it was called. She corrected me, told me why it was an insult to her and her people and I didn't/don't call it that anymore. Nor will I say to random people that they are pagans, because I don't know who will be and who won't be insulted by that term. So for me, it was 1 person being insulted by a term that was enough for me to stop using it. That number may be different for other people. But when people are saying they're insulted by a name...the conversation should take place as to why and how it can be rectified.