Use of the Redskins mascot in Clinton remains a controversy. After I read a story about the on-going discussion recently in the Tecumseh Herald, I sent a letter to the Tecumseh and Clinton papers. Apparently it didn’t go over too well in Clinton. The following week the editor mentioned that several unprintable responses were received. Here’s mine:
Since Clinton joined the Tri-County Conference athletic league, I’ve had to write about encounters with the Redskins much more than in the past. I always cringe when I use the word “Redskins,” but it makes for a better sports story rather than writing Clinton over and over.
I cringe because to me it’s not much different than calling a team the Little Yellow Men or the Colored Boys.
I’m pleased to report that I found a solution to the dilemma for this winter season. Whenever I write Redskins, I think of the potato.
So it’s all right with me if the Redskins remain the Redskins, as long as that big painting of a Native American man comes down from the gymnasium wall and instead there’s an image of a steaming bowl of redskin potatoes.
That’s a mascot I’ll devour anytime.
I’m not so sure that the Blissfield Sugar Boys wasn’t more offensive. Then again I guess they changed their name.
At a more serious level, it is more offensive to me that people think Redskins should be viewed as offensive than I am at the use of the term for a mascot. When I think of Redskins I think of admirable qualities.
I suppose it would be no different if they were called the Clinton Enviromentalists. Some would think it a badge of honor while others would consider it derogatory.
I know what you mean. That’s how it is with me and the word chink. I think of them as persevering, resourceful and brave. Go Chinks!
At a more serious level, it is more offensive to me that people think Redskins should be viewed as offensive than I am at the use of the term for a mascot. When I think of Redskins I think of admirable qualities.
Ditto