I'm hearing a lot about the "inappropriate" names of certain teams these days, so I will give my two-bits' worth. My response, in terms of First Nation monikers, is why stop over the use of at the Braves, Indians, and Redskins?
I suggest there should be a lot more push back when it comes to nasty nicknames.
Take our animals rights anarchists, er activists, , for example--please...take them.
Sorry, where was I? Oh yes, I think I speak on behalf of them in their possible outrage when teams are called the Panthers, Cougars, and Tigers. Shocking, isn't it? Animals have feelings, you know—right down to their itty-bitty claws. Think of a sweet little diamondback being the object of derision at over-paid and under-played athletes smacking little balls and spitting tobacco juice.
Do you think broncos, bucks, and blue jays like to be part of a sports enterprise, with no say or benefit from it? Hardly. Maybe even, gasp, being a mascot? I don't think so.
So all animal names have got to go, too. We need to be consistent, you know.
Even the other kind of a living creature—the human type, you know—have feelings. We should ban any name that divides one human grouping against another. I think of Canadiens: They can't even spell the name right. (Oh, actually they can, but it's the French spelling.) Well, then, what about the rest of us who aren't Canadien? Ouch.
I'm Irish , but I'm not Fighting Irish. That really makes those guys from the Emerald Isle look bad. How about the San Diego Padres? Have the PC Gestapo in the States checked with their Spanish citizens as to whether they feel good about using the name for "father" as a team name?
By the way, it also has a religious overtone: Should we mix sports and religion? I don't think so.
And the list is endless when it comes to nationalities: Yankees, Canucks, Canadians (the other spelling), Texans, and Americans. Every stakeholder needs to be consulted on this one, too.
Shouldn't all redblacks, rebels, and rangers be be surveyed first before we take the liberty of using their titles for sports enterprises? I think they should. If we want to be consistent, we should check with all royals before we use the term Royals for any team.. The same could be said about all the warriors of the world.
I know a lot of teams that have historical references, both local and national. With the desperate de-emphasis of facts and the slinking embrace of revisionism in our schools and media, all historical nods must go. Good-bye Tarheels and Volunteers; even the Blue Jackets would have to be outlawed.
You see, if those three companies won their respective battles, some others must have lost. How do you think they feel? And now the losers are left out in the cold? Unbearable.
One of the monikers that intrigues me the most is the Giants (Vancouver or New York, take your pick). Is there something wrong with being short? Are they sending a message against dwarfism with those teams? I think so. I would get rid of those nicknames as soon as possible.
You can't be too careful these days, you know.
Well, actually you can. In a culture run amok with nauseating political correctness—where, for example, it's really hard to fail someone who has failed—I think this edgy response to team names has gone too far.
Personally, because I don't have the hang-ups that I have pointed out in jest above, I never thought that Braves and Indians and Redskins had any racial connotation. Maybe I'm too naive or have too much common sense to get caught up in that skirmish.
So here's my solution: All teams should simply be numbered.. It could be any number: two examples being an area code (the Vancouver 604's), or a street number (the Taber Mains). We just can't use the number 1, as Number One suggests victory, first place, top of the heap, king of the hill.
And that would mean someone else is not Number One, and we can't have that now, can we?
No comments:
Post a Comment