Out of the Rafters
- Aug 18, 2008
- Reaction score
I think moving on past all of those names would be nice. I think it's all in due time.Mind you, what's the difference between Tribe/Braves/Chiefs?
And why are the Indianapolis Indians still a thing? Not enough protesting, probably zero times ever for a little farmhand team. No, attack the big money organization instead.
Washington's football team name was incredibly racist, so it went down first. We had a really racist logo and a semi-problematic name so we were up next.
Atlanta has had a ton of controversy about the Tomahawk chop. "Braves" is interesting--it's talking specifically about a job/role/class (the warriors) instead of a group of people. I'm not intimately familiar with their past, so I could be very wrong here, but if it's just the name, I think they can be fine with it. I don't think it's denigrating a group of people. Could it be changed? Sure. Is it exactly the same as the Cleveland Indians? I don't think so.
Chiefs is similar to the Braves. Again, I'm not going to pretend to know everything about their history, but just the name? If it's not really used to denigrate indigenous people, so I think it can be fine.
Indianapolis Indians is probably still around because they're a minor league team that nobody knows about. I'm surprised they haven't changed yet. If I were them, I'd get on with that sooner rather than later.
By the way, do you actually think the tens of people protesting outside the stadium were the reason for the name change? It wasn't some vindictive outside attack--it was the organization choosing to move away from a problematic history and wanting to be better moving forward.