strength, ferocity, toughness or warrior ethics. Sports teams are never named for things that the players or fans despise.
I accept that my statement may be controversial. There are, of course, a great many emotional concerns over names of many sports franchises at the moment. It is not my point to be disrespectful towards Native American people or the very real concerns facing them.
That being said, in some cultures, calling someone a "dog" is a serious insult. And yet, some sports teams are named for bulldogs because of the connotation of toughness and tenacity associated with that particular breed. Pigs are considered unclean animals in many cultures. Yet, some teams are named for razorback pigs because those animals are considered fierce and dangerous and thus by association, worthy opponents.
The term "statesmen" evokes more respect than the term, "politician" or the term, "government bureaucrat". Not one of those terms conjure up a sense of a victorious sports team, however.
To reiterate my initial point, sports teams are not named for things the sport or the players would not respect.
A final point that I would like to mention is that football, which is considered a more aggressive sport than baseball, tends to favor names that suggest tougher, more fierce things. Chicago's football team is named the Bears, while its baseball team is named the Cubs. Songbirds like orioles and cardinals are considered appropriate names for baseball teams, but birds of prey like eagles and falcons are names for football teams.
My ultimate point here is to encourage some deep thinking regarding the hows and whys of naming sports teams.
= new reply since forum marked as read
