Nicknames/Mascots

I think I wrote about this before, but there was a column in the newspaper today about "mascots [that] offend Native Americans." 

No doubt, names such as "Redskins" are offensive--racist, negative in nature.  No matter how hard defenders of such nicknames argue ("But we don't mean it to be offensive!"), the bottom line is they are offensive.

But not all names associated with Indians are offensive.  In fact, many aren't, despite the feelings of, as the column notes, "the supposedly injured party."  "Why not change?" the columnist asks.  "Offense is in the eye of the offended."  But are they really offensive?  I say many aren't.

Why is "Warriors" exclusively identified with Native Americans?  (OK, symbols that accompany them might be different.)  "Chiefs" is a word derived from Latin/French.

I recall the Huron tribe expressing its displeasure when Eastern Michigan changed its nickname to Eagles--just what we need, more Eagles.  The Chippewas have often spoken of the pride in the Central Michigan nickname.  These people see a compliment in that schools identify wiht their tribes the desired characteristics of their athletes and teams. 

So, are Vikings, Spartans, and Fighting Irish also "offensive?"  If not, and Hurons and Chippewas are, why not?  That someone says he or she is "offended" doesn't make it so.  Imagine the victims if we all claimed we are "offended?"  Gee, I could clean up from The Godfather movies and all the other television shows and films depicted Italians in a negative light! 

It's always good to walk a mile in another's shoes, to have some feeling for others.  But sometimes we can be too sensitive.