Why in the heck are there 14 teams in the American League and 16 teams in the National League. Would't it make sense to take one team from the National League and move them to the American. Also right now there are 4 Divisions with 5 teams, one with six and one with 4. Then we could have a nice round total of six divisions with 5 teams each. Does anybody really give a rat's behind about the Astros - just move them from the National League Central to the American League West and everything would be hunky dory.

 

 

EAST	W	L	PCT	GB	HOME	ROAD	RS	RA	DIFF	STRK	L10
*-NY Yankees	95	67	.586	-	51-30	44-37	804	668	+136	Won 4	7-3
y-Baltimore	93	69	.574	2	47-34	46-35	712	705	+7	Lost 1	6-4
Tampa Bay	90	72	.556	5	46-35	44-37	697	577	+120	Won 1	8-2
Toronto	73	89	.451	22	41-40	32-49	716	784	-68	Won 3	7-3
Boston	69	93	.426	26	34-47	35-46	734	806	-72	Lost 8	1-9
CENTRAL	W	L	PCT	GB	HOME	ROAD	RS	RA	DIFF	STRK	L10
x-Detroit	88	74	.543	-	50-31	38-43	726	670	+56	Won 1	8-2
Chicago Sox	85	77	.525	3	45-36	40-41	748	676	+72	Won 1	4-6
Kansas City	72	90	.444	16	37-44	35-46	676	746	-70	Lost 1	2-8
Cleveland	68	94	.420	20	37-44	31-50	667	845	-178	Lost 1	6-4
Minnesota	66	96	.407	22	31-50	35-46	701	832	-131	Lost 5	3-7
WEST	W	L	PCT	GB	HOME	ROAD	RS	RA	DIFF	STRK	L10
x-Oakland	94	68	.580	-	50-31	44-37	713	614	+99	Won 6	8-2
y-Texas	93	69	.574	1	50-31	43-38	808	707	+101	Lost 3	3-7
LA Angels	89	73	.549	5	46-35	43-38	767	699	+68	Lost 2	6-4
Seattle	75	87	.463	19	40-41	35-46	619	651	-32	Won 2	3-7
National League
EAST	W	L	PCT	GB	HOME	ROAD	RS	RA	DIFF	STRK	L10
*-Washington	98	64	.605	-	50-31	48-33	731	594	+137	Won 2	6-4
y-Atlanta	94	68	.580	4	48-33	46-35	700	600	+100	Won 1	7-3
Philadelphia	81	81	.500	17	40-41	41-40	684	680	+4	Lost 2	4-6
NY Mets	74	88	.457	24	36-45	38-43	650	709	-59	Won 1	5-5
Miami	69	93	.426	29	38-43	31-50	609	724	-115	Lost 1	3-7
CENTRAL	W	L	PCT	GB	HOME	ROAD	RS	RA	DIFF	STRK	L10
x-Cincinnati	97	65	.599	-	50-31	47-34	669	588	+81	Lost 1	5-5
y-St. Louis	88	74	.543	9	50-31	38-43	765	648	+117	Won 1	7-3
Milwaukee	83	79	.512	14	49-32	34-47	776	733	+43	Lost 1	4-6
Pittsburgh	79	83	.488	18	45-36	34-47	651	674	-23	Lost 1	4-6
Chicago Cubs	61	101	.377	36	38-43	23-58	613	759	-146	Won 1	2-8
Houston	55	107	.340	42	35-46	20-61	583	794	-211	Lost 1	5-5
WEST	W	L	PCT	GB	HOME	ROAD	RS	RA	DIFF	STRK	L10
x-San Francisco	94	68	.580	-	48-33	46-35	718	649	+69	Lost 1	5-5
LA Dodgers	86	76	.531	8	45-36	41-40	637	597	+40	Won 1	8-2
Arizona	81	81	.500	13	41-40	40-41	734	688	+46	Lost 1	4-6
San Diego	76	86	.469	18	42-39	34-47	651	710	-59	Won 1	4-6
Colorado	64	98	.395	30	35-46	29-52	758	890	-132	Won 1	6-4

My gripe is that teams with names like Warriors, Chiefs, Braves, Chieftans etc which are, in my opinion, laudatory, have had to chang their names. The most offensive name of all is without question "Redskins" and yet they do not have to change their name. Redskins has always, always, been used in a derogatory manner, never in a positive light. So it's the hypocrisy which bothers me.

Of course nothing will happen since 90% of Congress have season tickets and don't want to offend Snyder or whomever owns the team these days

 

 

Colleges and Universities

 

Marquette University changed their team name from the Warriors to the Golden Eagles in 1994. ."^[28]

Also in 1994, St. John's University (New York) changed the name of its athletic teams from the Redmen to the Red Storm after the university was pressured by American Indian groups who considered Redmen a slur. ^[29]

Miami University began discussion regarding the propriety of the Redskins name and images in 1972^[30], and changed its team nickname to Redhawks in 1996.^[31]

Seattle University changed the nickname of their mascot from Chieftains to Redhawks in 2000.

^[36] Subsequently all of the colleges previously using the nickname Indians change them; Arkansas State University to Red Wolves, Indiana University of Pennsylvania to Crimson Hawks, McMurry University to War Hawks, Midwestern State University to Mustangs, Newberry College to Wolves, University of Louisiana at Monroe to Warhawks, and Catawba College to Catawba Indians with approval of that tribe. ^[37] The College of William and Mary (The Tribe) changed its mascot to the Griffin to keep feathers in its logo. Both Alcorn State University^[38] and Bradley University kept the nickname Braves but change their mascots, while the Chowan University Braves became the Hawks. The Carthage College Redskins became the Red Men, and the Southeastern Oklahoma State University Savages changed to Savage Storm. The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Fighting Illini kept the nickname as referring to the state, not Native Americans, but stopped using the Chief Illiniwek image and mascot in 2007. The University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux has stopped using their name and logo after many appeals, negotiations this several tribes, and the involvement of the state government.^[39][40] Four additional colleges originally on the "hostile and abusive" list: Central Michigan University (Chippewas), Florida State University (Seminoles), Mississippi College (Choctaws) and University of Utah (Utes) were granted waivers to retained their nicknames after gaining support from those respective tribes.

[edit]

Perry:

While I often agree with the views you have presented on the program, on this one you are absolutely wrong. Moreover, I found each of the explanations you offered to be wholly unpersuasive and, to some degree, indicative of the thinking that led to the adoption of these offensive names in the first place.

As an initial matter, I think it is important to make some important distinctions. To me (and I believe to many), naming a team after an actual tribe to honor that tribe is quite different from naming a team after the caricaturization of a group (or a common physical attribute of that group). Thus, in my view, "Florida State Seminoles" is not offensive, whereas "Redskins" and "Screaming Savage" (the ACTUAL NAME of the retired Braves logo) are both offensive -- the former blatantly so because it is a reference to the physical attribute, and the latter because is a stereotypical distillation of the Native American which, not coincidentally, was the very stereotype used to justify their genocide. By the same token, Chippewas, Sioux, Mohicans, Blackhawks and the like are acceptable in my view (provided, of course, the associated imagery is not caricaturized or stereotypical). As you well know, several of these teams have close relationships with, and the blessings of, the tribes they represent. I would even go so far as to say particular roles within the tribes (i.e., Braves, Scouts, Chief, etc.) are also acceptable.

"Redskins", however, is very different. It is an obvious reference to a physical difference between those being ostensibly "honored" and those assigning the name, and not in a flattering light. Such references rarely are. The name is akin to naming a team after the noses of certain minority ethnic groups, the lips of others, the eyes of yet others. It is NOT honorific. It is objectification and caricaturization, plain and simple. Suppose you wanted to honor the contributions of the Tuskegee Airmen by naming a team after them. Would you name them the "Blackskins" or the "Airmen"? Which makes more sense and which suggests something more sinister? Which is honorific and which is demeaning?

I am not convinced by your argument that "Redskins" is honorific. I will grant you that the logo is outstanding -- a representation that suggests pride, regality, and strength. The name, however, undercuts and overshadows all that the image conveys and, basically, sucks. For the Redskins organization to trot out dozens of high school administrators as if to say "See, a lot of people are doing it, so it's ok" is shameful. The number of people engaging in an activity does not determine the rightness of that activity. But more importantly, it is offensive in itself to claim that one is honoring a people about whom there is so much to admire by making reference to something as base their skin. Out of all of the awe-inspiring attributes one can choose to convey admiration for Native American people, the only one they could identify was their skin color?

Your argument regarding intent is similarly unpersuasive. Words matter, and we should not act as if they don't. Through this argument, you sound like those who sling the n-word around without hesitation, claiming that they intend the word to mean something far different from its history (and, sometimes, even its present). My response is always, "Well, what do you intend that word to mean? Then use those words instead."

Additionally, I note that you took a call from a caller who took no offense to the term "Redskins", but who was admittedly only part Native American. First, the term itself and the logo clearly do not refer to someone who is only part Native American, so to solicit the opinion of someone to whom the slur is not directed sheds no light on the issue. As a Black man (who, by the way, is part Cherokee), I am not qualified to speak on the offensiveness of slurs directed towards Asian people, or Latino people or Slavik people, etc. However, you then doubled down on this condescending tactic by proclaiming that, if the majority of the people decide that something isn't offensive, then it shouldn't be deemed offensive. Perry, you couldn't be more wrong. You are talking about the caricaturization of ethnic MINORITIES through references to their ethnic attributes that many of them say are offensive, but your response is that the majority gets to decide whether it's offensive?? Do you hear what you are saying? Really? I think a valuable part of belonging to this world body politic is understanding and respecting the views of others, as opposed to requiring the imposition of the views of the group to which, conveniently, you belong. (And please, don't give me the line about Italians as a group versus the Polish versus the Irish, etc. We are talking about ethnicity, not nationality).

Unfortunately, most of what is dismissed as "political correctness" is having to contend with the voices and viewpoints of those who did not have a voice previously. While I am no fan of PC run amok -- and certain of it is and has -- I do believe it has merit in some instances, such as this, even if it means that you have to unlearn many of the lies you have accepted, through no fault of your own. That was just the way the world was defined by those who chose to acknowledge some voices, chose not to acknowledge others, and then assigned definitions and "truth" based on those choices. Don't perpetuate that mistake. By the way, they are Native Americans because they are the native people of the Americas. They are not "Indians" solely because Christopher Columbus thought he had landed somewhere wholly different. To acknowledge that costs you nothing, but may mean the world to them.

In closing, USC sucks. Thank you.

Ken
_________________________________