Mascot Names

2,108 Views | 5 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by blungld
RealBear65
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Washington Foreskins.
This an e-mail sent to Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune after an article he published concerning a name change for the Washington Redskins.

Dear Mr. Page: I agree with our Native American population. I am
highly jilted 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.

As a die-hard 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 (especially when they play Southern California. Do we really
want the Trojans sticking it to the Beavers???

As for the Redskins name I would suggest they change the name to the
"Foreskins" to better represent their community, paying tribute to the
dick heads in Washington DC.
bearingup
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Is this supposed to be humor? If you were the field goal kicker, this one missed very wide right.
XXXBEAR
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Washington Wokesters
CalBearPete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The author of this is trivializing an issue that has to be addressed or our society will continue to shame itself. Sorry, this misses the mark in 2020.
operbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Nothing like being "woke" to be devoid of a sense of humor.
Operbear
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That letter is an impressive hybrid of two logical fallacies in one: sort of a slippery straw man slope.

First of all, no, if we change Redskins not every beloved mascot is in danger and no not every mascot offends someone ("so why change any of them").

Two, the difference between say a Redskin and a Viking is that in one example you have a minority group who were slaughtered, lied to, cheated, denigrated, and the term Redskin is a historical disparaging moniker that is connected to justifying and ignoring those injustices. It's an ongoing insult and those being insulted are here now as a living minority group in the country that abused them and are telling us they are offended.

The term Viking is not denigrating a group and there is no group who is offended by it, nor are there people offended by the Saints, or any other slippery slope straw man example.

This argument is a typical status quo grievance of reverse claims of victimhood by the people who are not the victims or the ones being offended. Their position is self-centered as "I'm not offended so why should anyone else be." Ironically, these same people typically claim that everyone else is so sensitive but are the first to expect society to jump to action if THEY are ever offended like say by kneeling during the anthem or two men holding hands or if the cashier says Happy Holidays.
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
operbear said:

Nothing like being "woke" to be devoid of a sense of humor.
Nothing like calling people woke to attempt to elevate a sophomoric letter that is devoid of a sense of humor.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.