Guys. Stop. My "ignore" file is filling up.
"Fans have become more entitled than anything. So they're starting to question our motives for the game, or how we approach the game. The ones that do question -- like who are you? Just shut up and watch the game tonight." --Kevin Durant on players' lack of effort in regular season games.
Massachusetts and Connecticut probably don't need to change their names -- as long as they're giving tribute and not mocking -- the Algonquian tribes who named the regions after "the great hill" and "long tidal river".
But anything with a "New" in its name smacks of too much "manifest destiny". Sinatra should just change his lyrics now: "I'd like to be a part of it: the place where we get wood to make bows." (translation of Mannahata, courtesy of the Lenape peoples).
Let's just remove all team nicknames so absolutely no one can be offended.
Championships since purchase by John Henry group: Red Sox 4 Yankees 1
The Red Sox are 8-1 in their last 9 postseason games against the Yankees.
Most of the states have names that come from Indian words.
And at least 4 states (Kansas, Utah, Iowa and Illinois) are actually named for either local tribes or confederations of local tribes. But the difference is none of them try to depict their namesake Native Americans via mascots that can be viewed as condescending, disrespectful, or flat out insulting.
It's not the use of tribal names per se that cause the offense; it's the mascots their portrayals.
Of course, Washington Redskins was a flat out racial slur, so that is a bit different. That one had to go no matter what...
To me at least, there is a difference when one group of people tells another they are being insulted. It's one thing if, say, a member of the Seminole tribe tells Florida State they do not like how the mascot portrays them. It' a completely different matter when some white guy says that mascot is insulting to Seminoles (unless he has consulted with them)....