Quote:
Originally posted by bold_n_brazen
I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. Honestly.
But I think I'd be really offended if someone fielded the Long Island Heebs or the Boca Raton Kikes. So I can see your point.
And I agree with you. St. Johns' change to the Red Storm wasn't such a big deal.
|
Except for the fact that "Red Storm" is a stupid name for a team.
As for Thurgreed's question. I can understand Native Americans being offended by the characature, and I would not have a problem with it being eliminated, although I'm not sure that the terms "Indians, Braves, Warriors" and that ilk themselves are offensive or necessarily
meant to be offensive. I think it's a fine line, really. I don't know if you recall when Bill Clinton came to throw out the first pitch when Jacobs Field opened, but he wore a hat with the script "C" rather than the logo. By the same token, I don't know if the logo for the Redskins or the Blackhawks is inherently offensive, although certainly the name of the former is.
I know for a fact that the name of the Cleveland Baseball team was taken in honor of one of the early captains of the team who was Native American. So I guess the question is, should all team names/mascots which relate to people rather than animals, etc. be disallowed, because someone somewhere is bound to be offended? I mean, if that's the case, then names like Yankees, Mariners, Pirates, Celtics, etc. should go too, or just those that relate to racial minorities? That seems kind of stupid to me, too.
