‘Warriors’ for our gridders is no improvement
I commend Gene Simkins’s desire to change the offensive name of the Washington Redskins [“Washington Warriors: A name that would serve our NFL team well,” letters, Jan. 22], but I don’t like his choice of the name “Warriors.”
Football is a contest, a fun event, despite the violence. But it is not a war, even if some of the thugs in the stands think it is. At this time of war fatigue in the nation, let us focus instead on the positive aspects of our sporting events. They are pleasurable competitions that spohould always end up with a handshake — a symbol of mutual respect and peace.
So why don’t we, instead of “Warriors,” call them the “Washington Peacemakers”?
Leon Schwartz, Silver Spring
Gene Simkins suggested that the Washington Redskins be renamed the Washington Warriors, stating “perhaps the word can be accepted on its own merits.” Ah, but some of us who remember the Golden State Warriors’ epic upset of the Washington Bullets in the 1975 NBA finals — blanking us four games to none — will never accept adopting that cursed name for our town under any circumstances. Keep searching.
Howard Mortman, McLean
“Redskins” is bad enough, but the use of the term “warrior” for our soldiers is part of the slide toward unfettered militarism that’s come along with sanctioned torture and drone strikes on U.S. citizens. Warriors offends the tradition of our citizen-soldiers and turns their memory into professional warmakers, not peacemakers.
I’d rather see the Redskins change their name to something that reflects the determination of the average man who can rise to great challenges. While the term “Grunts” would be endearing, perhaps we should consider calling our team the Washington Citizens. We then could point out that while they’re citizens, they aren’t fully represented, thus we have to struggle, both on and off the field.
John Chelen, Washington