I think it's largely a question of intent and portrayal.
Just on the face of things, you can distinguish between the Atlanta Braves and Cleveland Indians. "Indians" just refers to a group at large, like "Caucasians" or "Black People." "Braves" refers to a subset of a group, specifically warriors, that embody a set of characteristics that a sports team might rightly want to emulate. The "Indians" moniker doesn't do the same thing, and coupled with its Sambo-like symbol, looks to be nothing more than a racist portrayal of a group in its entirety.
The name "Redskins" is just flat out sad: it's like "Indians" only just clearly pejorative.
The parallel with names like the "Fighting Irish" or "Celtics" just doesn't exist: in those cases it's a case of people reclaiming their own heritage, rather than someone else's.
Political correctness is one thing, and might be argued in relation to a name like "Braves", but names like "Redskins" and the logo used by the Cleveland Indians are no-brainers: there's nothing respectful about them.
|