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.