http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/fandom/post/_/id/12057/time-to-rethink-native-american-imagery This article, as you would expect, tries to make a case for canceling ‘native American’ names and imagery for sports teams, as some schools have already done. The writer does touch on the expected counterpoints, such as “What about Vikings or Fighting Irish?” and responds that those names refer “to themselves.” Well, obviously not completely, if much at all. But he extends this request to pro teams, as well as college and high school. 2 in particular which are supposedly offensive are the name Redskins and the big-smiling Chief Wahoo of the Cleveland Indians. However, one justification for the use of such imagery he does persuade in favor of, which is if licensing fees are involved, noting that Florida State has always had an agreement with the Seminoles to use their name and image. So what do we think of this? Are team names like Indians, Fighting Sioux, Chippewas, et al, derogatory to native Americans? Or just names which refer to their physical characteristics or warlike image [Braves, Redskins, (Hawaii) Rainbow Warriors]? And then caricatures, like Chief Wahoo, or rallying war cries and the “tomahawk chop?” And is this any different from names and imagery such as the USC Trojan and his sword, Notre Dame and its green-clad little Irishman putting up his dukes, Spartans, Vikings, Rebels,… finally names like Jayhawks (terrorists?) Texans (anti-Mexican?), and those that can be either insult or compliment—Cowboys, Aggies, Raiders, Pirates…? And licensing fees for their use? To whom, or what? Maybe a tribe can be paid off, but Indians in general, or Irish? And where might it all lead? Animal rights groups trying to forbid Cowboys, Whalers, Archers...? If there is one facet of this I may have taken seriously in the past, it is some religious/church groups which have wanted to do away with those that use Devils or Demons as part of the name. Perhaps with that, some of us might begin to understand some of the sensitivities.