Ann Sheridan [letters, Aug. 11] missed the point in her response to Kay B. Stevens's Aug. 7 Close to Home piece about Washington's football moniker ["Bench This Offensive Stereotype"].
Ms. Sheridan referred to sports teams that are named after animals as examples comparable to the Redskins, but nothing is offensive about using animal names.
The controversy has arisen about "Redskins" because it is a racist nickname for Native Americans. There is no "honoring" involved with such nicknames and cartoonish caricatures, silly mascots and dances that have nothing to do with real Native American culture.
Oranges aren't apples, so they shouldn't be compared.
BRIAN EDWARD NEWELL
In her letter responding to Kay B. Stevens's comments in favor of erasing the word "Redskins" from our vocabulary, Ann Sheridan asked: "Should People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals bring suit against the use of Coyotes, Panthers, Mighty Ducks, Grizzlies, Hornets, Ravens, Eagles, Rams, Colts, Broncos, Bruins, Huskies, Marlins, Bulldogs, Orioles and Red Wings?"
However, a "Red Wing" isn't an animal or even a part of an animal. Those (including me) who grew up in "Hockeytown" (otherwise known as Detroit) know that a red wing is a reference to a tire -- a flying tire, to be precise. So, it's safe to assume the name won't concern PETA.