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.
Threaded Mode