OFFENSIVE TEAM NAMES

 

Dear Mr. Page [of the Chicago Tribune] ...

 

I agree with our Native American population. I am highly insulted by the racially charged name of the Washington Redskins. One might argue that to name a professional football team after Native Americans would exalt them as fine warriors, but nay, nay. We must be careful not to offend, and in the spirit of political correctness and courtesy, we must move forward.

 

Let's ditch the Kansas City Chiefs, the Atlanta Braves and the Cleveland Indians. If your shorts are in a wad because of the reference the name Redskins makes to skin color, then we need to get rid of the Cleveland Browns.

 

The Carolina Panthers obviously were named to keep the memory of militant Blacks from the 60's alive. Gone. It's offensive to us white folk.

 

The New York Yankees offend the Southern population. Do you see a team named for the Confederacy? No! There is no room for any reference to that tragic war that cost this country so many young men's lives.

 

I am also offended by the blatant references to the Catholic religion among our sports team names. Totally inappropriate to have the New Orleans Saints, the Los Angeles Angels or the San Diego Padres.

 

Then there are the team names that glorify criminals who raped and pillaged. We are talking about the horrible Oakland Raiders, the Minnesota Vikings, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the Pittsburgh Pirates!

 

Now, let us address those teams that clearly send the wrong message to our children. The San Diego Chargers promote irresponsible fighting or even spending habits. Wrong message to our children.

 

The New York Giants and the San Francisco Giants promote obesity, a growing childhood epidemic. Wrong message to our children.

 

The Cincinnati Reds promote downers/barbiturates. Wrong message to our children.

 

The Milwaukee Brewers. Well that goes without saying. Wrong message to our children.

 

So, there you go. We need to support any legislation that comes out to rectify this travesty, because the government will likely become involved with this issue, as they should. Just the kind of thing the do-nothing Congress loves.

 

 

 

As a diehard Oregon State fan, my wife and I, with all of this in mind, suggest it might also make some sense to change the name of the Oregon State women's athletic teams to something other than "the Beavers."

:lol2:

It's so easy to be sarcastic and glib about just about anything these days. Life is a Twitter feed.

It's so easy to be sarcastic and glib about just about anything these days. Life is a Twitter feed.

 

Agreed. But sarcastic and glib are funny, and his overarching point of our oversensitivity is pretty spot on, IMO.

He left out the St. Louis Cardinals. That should offend Catholics as well.

He left out the St. Louis Cardinals. That should offend Catholics as well.

And the N.O. Saints. There's bound to be an atheist group ticked off at that one.

Agreed. But sarcastic and glib are funny, and his overarching point of our oversensitivity is pretty spot on, IMO.

 

Oversensitivity is a matter of perspective though, is it not?

 

The name seems pretty terrible to me and I think I derive that opinion -- at least partially -- from the massive group of Native American tribes that seem to want it changed.

 

It's not all that funny. Its humor comes from the same place as a group of kids that mess with a homeless guy for their entertainment. It's really just spiteful. Native Americans for most of this country's history just didn't count and their opinions certainly weren't heard. Now they are and a lot of people don't like what they have to say.

Oversensitivity is a matter of perspective though, is it not?

 

The name seems pretty terrible to me and I think I derive that opinion -- at least partially -- from the massive group of Native American tribes that seem to want it changed.

 

It's not all that funny. Its humor comes from the same place as a group of kids that mess with a homeless guy for their entertainment. It's really just spiteful. Native Americans for most of this country's history just didn't count and their opinions certainly weren't heard. Now they are and a lot of people don't like what they have to say.

What about those Native Americans who have come out publicly and said they think it's simply not a big deal and aren't offended in the least?

And I hope you aren't making the stretch that homeless folks are essentially what the Native Americans are now, are you?

What about those Native Americans who have come out publicly and said they think it's simply not a big deal and aren't offended in the least?

And I hope you aren't making the stretch that homeless folks are essentially what the Native Americans are now, are you?

 

No. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't thinking about it, but it would have been somewhat disingenuous and that's just too far and doesn't help anyone or this discussion.

 

There are a few Native Americans who have come out and said it individually. Are they the ones that Dan Snyder went out and found and then paraded to the media?

 

I've yet to see a single confederation, nation, or tribe suggest anything other than a name change. Certainly there are tribes that have said nothing, but all the ones that have spoken, have spoken against the name.

No. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't thinking about it, but it would have been somewhat disingenuous and that's just too far and doesn't help anyone or this discussion.

 

There are a few Native Americans who have come out and said it individually. Are they the ones that Dan Snyder went out and found and then paraded to the media?

 

I've yet to see a single confederation, nation, or tribe suggest anything other than a name change. Certainly there are tribes that have said nothing, but all the ones that have spoken, have spoken against the name.

For the record, I suppose I'm just not wired to be easily offended, and that undoubtedly makes me a little less understanding of situations like this. But with that aside, where does it stop? And I think that's what the author of the letter was getting to.

For the record, I suppose I'm just not wired to be easily offended, and that undoubtedly makes me a little less understanding of situations like this. But with that aside, where does it stop? And I think that's what the author of the letter was getting to.

 

I'm not easily offended myself, but when there is this massive surge of voices saying "We don't like this representation of who we are." then I feel compelled to listen. I'm not universally against Native American mascots even. In fact, I love the logo. I really like the suggestion of the chief of the local Patawomeck Tribe who said that he'd support changing the name to the Washington Potomacs (not only is the river named for them but they're an actual local tribe who once inhabited the land in that area) and would do his best to get a plurality of his tribe to support it and get behind the team's new name.

 

I love it when teams are named after local tribes if the tribe is in agreement with that use of their identity.

For the record, I suppose I'm just not wired to be easily offended, and that undoubtedly makes me a little less understanding of situations like this. But with that aside, where does it stop? And I think that's what the author of the letter was getting to.

 

For me the line is simple. Is it a name/term you would use in normal conversation. Meaning you are talking to a group of Native Americans. Would you be ok addressing them as Redskins?

For me the line is simple. Is it a name/term you would use in normal conversation. Meaning you are talking to a group of Native Americans. Would you be ok addressing them as Redskins?

I don't think I'd label them in conversation. I don't think they'd approve of Indians either.

....and I'm curious about another part of this issue. Do you have to be a full-blood tribal Native American to be offended? What about all of the diluted heritage in most of us? Like most of us from EKY who will claim "Cherokee" in us whether it's true or not, what about those folks? Should they also be offended?

....and I'm curious about another part of this issue. Do you have to be a full-blood tribal Native American to be offended? What about all of the diluted heritage in most of us? Like most of us from EKY who will claim "Cherokee" in us whether it's true or not, what about those folks? Should they also be offended?

 

You look like a paleface to me.