My 2 cents:
 
If those of us on the list (or in the country for that matter) are in
agreement that the term "REDSKIN" is derrogatory when referring to those
of Native American hertiage, then why are the nicknames WARRIOR, CHIEF,
or INDIAN (eg, Cleveland Indians) objectionable?  Those afore mentioned
nicknames are no different that calling people from another race
SOLDIER, PRESIDENT, and ITALIAN.  Would the same people who have demanded
that these nicknames be changed object to nicknames like I mention in my
scenario?
 
PERSONAL OPINION:  Why complete change the names of the
thousands and thousands of elemenatary, high school, college and professional
nicknames that have something to do with Native Americans to non-native
american names (like St. Johns to "RED STORM"....why do that and lose the
heritage?  if they were called redmen/redskins before, change the name to
Chief/Warrior thereby perserving the tradition somewhat, but getting away
from the slang/derrogatory moniker.
 
As someone else said, I think most people when thinking of "chief" or
"warrior" perceive a brave, strong, spirited, dedicated Native American
who would fight to the death for his/her family or tribe, etc.  How
a group of people that have ancestors such as these, with these proud
traits, are insulted by sports teams choosing that name to emulate is
mind boggling to me.
 
2ND OPINION:
I think most of the time, it is the "logo" or emblem that groups get riled
up over, not the name, if the picture is depicted grossly exaggerated, or
not in a historically accurate portrayal.
 
The day the Florida State Seminoles are changed to the Florida State Sea Dogs
or something like that will be a sad day indeed.
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.