Commanders and Guardians don't need to revert to racist names to be great again
Help me out, Wisconsin. Please, no one tell President Donald Trump that Milwaukee used to have an MLB team called the Braves or that Marquette University used to be known as the Warriors. I don't want to jump into the way-back machine.
You might have heard Trump is urging the Washington Commanders and the Cleveland Guardians to revert to their former team names, which included derogatory terms based on racist caricatures.
He even suggested that if the Commanders did not change their name back, he would obstruct the NFL team's efforts to build a new $3.7 billion football stadium in Washington, DC.
This stance is part of Trump's agenda to "Make America Great Again," even if it offends Native Americans who have criticized the previous names and images for decades. This can be seen as his latest attempt at what he believes is patriotism. I'm afraid he wants to take America so far back to a time when there was separate water fountains for Black and White people.
Trump claims Native Americans 'want this to happen'
In a July 20 post on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump claimed that Native Americans want the names reverted.
"There is a big clamoring for this," wrote Trump. "Our great Indian people, in massive numbers, want this to happen. Their heritage and prestige is systematically being taken away from them. Times are different now than they were three or four years ago."
I'm uncertain how many Native Americans Trump consulted to conclude that "massive numbers" want the name changed back. Even if that were true – which I doubt – it raises the question of why they would like the name to be reverted in the first place.
Take our poll: Trump wants Washington Commanders to revert to old name. Should they? | Opinion Forum
Following George Floyd's killing by a Minneapolis police officer, there was a renewed effort to remove Confederate statues seen as symbols of slavery and racism and to eliminate racist sports team names. By the end of 2020, nearly 100 Confederate monuments had been taken down, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Efforts begun in the Biden administration to rename offensive and derogatory place names – including many in Wisconsin – were halted by Trump-appointed Interior Secretary Doug Burgum.
The Washington football team rebranded as the Commanders in 2022 following the controversy surrounding their original name. Similarly, the Cleveland baseball team changed their name to the Guardians in 2021 after going by their original name since 1915.
Neither Washington nor Cleveland appears willing to cave to pressure to revert to names they used in the past simply to appease Trump, and they should firmly stand by this decision.
Furthermore, if Trump interferes with the Commanders' efforts to secure a new stadium, the NFL should consider legal action. This could prevent Trump from targeting other teams in similar ways. What would stop him from pushing teams to return to leather helmets or reinstating outdated rules intended to protect players?
Milwaukee Brewers, Marquette Golden Eagles changed names
Imagine what will happen if Trump discovers Milwaukee's past? Before moving to Atlanta in 1966, the MLB franchise used a logo with a laughing Native American with a mohawk and feather.
What about my alma mater, Marquette University? Will he pressure the school to change from the Golden Eagles back to 'the Warriors,' which in 1961-71 featured Willie Wampum, a Native American with a giant cartoonish head and Indigenous clothing?
I must admit that I had a hard time adjusting to the name changes for Washington and Cleveland. The team change for the nation's capital was especially difficult for me because, as a football historian, I remember the great battles between the Washington (derogatory name) and the Green Bay Packers.
Do you remember the 1983 football game between Washington and Green Bay at Lambeau Field, which became the second-highest scoring game in Monday Night Football history? Washington's quarterback, Joe Theismann, and the Packers' quarterback, Lynn Dickey, combined to throw for nearly 800 yards. The Packers won the game 48-47 with a field goal by Jan Stenerud.
Opinion: Trump bans AP and words he doesn't like. 'Free speech' was never about the First Amendment.
This game quickly made the Washington team my second favorite. Although its logo featured an image of Blackfeet Chief Two Guns White Calf, I didn't find anything wrong with the depiction of the Native American with a red face.
For years, I hadn't fully understood the significance and racial implications of the derogatory name and imagery associated. That changed after a conversation with one of my former editors, Ricardo Pimentel.
He posed a thought-provoking question: "James, what if the Washington team was called the Washington N-words?" While no one would ever take it that far, his words made me rethink and recognize the impact of such imagery.
This is something that Trump should consider before interfering with professional sports. Instead, he might want to focus on delivering on promises he made to the American people, you know about releasing the Jeffrey Epstein case files and lowering egg prices.
James E. Causey is an Ideas Lab reporter at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, where this column originally appeared. Reach him at jcausey@jrn.com or follow him on X: @jecausey
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
12 minutes ago
- Business Insider
China says it wants the world to work together to govern AI. The US, not so much.
At this weekend's World Artificial Intelligence Conference in Shanghai, boxing robots thrilled the crowd. But the real heavyweight bout is between the US and China over the future of AI. The theme of the Shanghai conference, which was organized in part by the Chinese government and lasts until Monday, is "global solidarity in the AI era." In his keynote address, Chinese Premier Li Qiang called for a new global organization to coordinate responses to AI advancements. "Overall, global AI governance is still fragmented. Countries have great differences, particularly in terms of areas such as regulatory concepts, institutional rules," he said, speaking in Chinese. "We should strengthen coordination to form a global AI governance framework that has broad consensus as soon as possible." Li's pitch contrasted with comments made by US President Donald Trump earlier in the week. On Wednesday, the US president released his " AI Action Plan" and signed three executive orders. All of them, Trump said, were designed to free AI companies from regulatory burdens. "From this day forward, it'll be a policy of the United States to do whatever it takes to lead the world in artificial intelligence," he said before signing his executive orders. Trump's doctrine will likely benefit American AI companies. Many of them, like OpenAI, Meta, and Google DeepMind, submitted recommendations to the president and praised the new policies. However, it's an open question whether forgoing stricter regulations in the United States will benefit humanity. AI industry leaders have long warned about the threats AI could pose — everything from disinformation and economic inequality to total loss of all human control. In 2023, a group of prominent AI scientists, including OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis, and Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, signed a one-sentence statement calling for AI regulation. "Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war," it said. Altman said last year that AI could have a "negative impact way beyond the realm of one country." He said the tech should be regulated by an "international agency looking at the most powerful systems and ensuring reasonable safety testing." One way to do that is through an agreed-upon global framework similar to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which is enforced by the United Nations and which all but four countries have signed. The UN tech chief, Doreen Bogdan-Martin, told the AFP on Saturday that the world urgently needed a global deal to regulate AI. "We have the EU approach. We have the Chinese approach. Now we're seeing the US approach. I think what's needed is for those approaches to dialogue," she said. The Trump administration, however, is likely to hinder any such international agreement. Beyond its own effort to loosen restrictions at home, it has largely dismissed other global collaborations in favor of its America First policy. At the Shanghai conference, Geoffrey Hinton, a computer scientist known as the Godfather of AI, said international cooperation on AI would be difficult. He said few countries agree on basics like how misinformation should be policed. He said there was one subject, however, on which the whole world seems aligned: Humans should not let AI supersede their control. "So on that particular issue, it should be easy to get international collaboration," he said at the conference, adding, however, that it "may be difficult with the current US administration." "But rational countries will collaborate on that," he said.
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump deal with Europe underlines new standard of (at least) 15% tariffs
One thing was clear about a vague trade deal announced Sunday by President Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen: a headline tariff rate of 15% on European goods. It's the latest example of a new tariff floor for Trump that has been backed by other recent deals and letters, including one with Japan this past week that also saw a 15% rate. "We'll have a straight simple tariff of anywhere between 15% and 50%," Trump asserted. Both Trump and von der Leyen highlighted the 15% rate Sunday after their meeting in Scotland. Trump claimed a 'straight-across tariff of 15%' for 'automobiles and everything else,' adding that US exports to Europe would face a 0% rate. Von der Leyen confirmed the 15% tariffs 'across the board and inclusive," adding that it would bring stability and predictability to US-Europe relations. Comments later in the day from the European Commission President suggested that it might be a little more complex and that the deal also included "zero for zero tariffs on a number of strategic products" including aircraft components and other products like some minerals. Trump added that the deal includes hundreds of billions of dollars in new EU purchases of U.S. energy as well as military equipment. The 15% rate may get a mixed reaction in Europe after negotiators had previously pushed for free trade (or more recently a 10% rate), but it's a halving from the 30% tariffs Trump promised in a letter earlier this month. Sunday's agreement with the European Union — America's largest trading partner — comes following agreements with Vietnam, the Philippines, and Indonesia with saw tariff rates of between 19% and 20%. Only one negotiation has seen Trump agree to a tariff below 15% — a pact with the UK in May — with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent writing earlier this month that "usually the first person who makes a deal makes the best deal." Some details unclear Trump also said Sunday that many of the remaining countries facing a deadline of Aug. 1 would face a letter dictating rates, saying they would be be 'very universal for most' and that the European deal is 'the big one.' The president said three to four additional countries could be in for deals in the coming days while most nations would simply get letters. In any case, the 15% baseline is a shift — even from recent weeks. Trump earlier this month said that many countries would see a rate of 'probably 10% or 15%, we haven't decided yet.' Even last Sunday, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told CBS: "You should assume that the small countries... will have a baseline tariff of 10%." This new standard is also notable fulfillment of an oft-made campaign trail promise that saw the then-candidate pledge to create a "ring around the collar" of the US economy with a blanket rate of between 10% and 20%. Fulfilling that pledge — which was often dismissed as unrealistic at the time — has now become not only accepted but even a plus for markets after six months of Trump's second term have seen threats of higher duties that have reordered world trade actions. The recent announcement of the deal with Japan with a 15% tariff on goods like autos was welcomed by traders and helped fuel rises in US markets as well as the Japanese Nikkei 225, which immediately surged on the news. Japanese automakers in particular saw a jump after that deal as those companies celebrated a lowering of auto tariffs from 25% to 15%. European automakers now find themselves in a similar position. Trump, meanwhile, says he has no plans to amended his other sector specific tariffs as part of the European Union deal — even as Von der Leyen suggested they would largely be covered by the deal. There are 50% tariffs currently levied on steel and aluminum (with planned duties at the same rate on copper), and Trump said Sunday that those tariffs are a "worldwide thing that stays the way it is." Trump also reiterated his promises of sectoral tariffs on semiconductors and pharmaceuticals to be rolled out, which could be much higher than 15% — unless Europe gets a carveout. And Von der Leyen suggested the 15% rate would apply in comments later Sunday when she said the 15% rate would apply to "the vast majority of EU cars, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals" as she called the rate "a clear ceiling." Also on Sunday, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said that a new semiconductor tariffs are nearly ready and would be unveiled in about "two weeks time." This story has been updated with additional developments. Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices
CNBC
43 minutes ago
- CNBC
U.S. trade deal offers initial relief but leaves Europe on the backfoot
After an initial sigh of relief at the U.S. and European Union avoiding further escalation by striking a trade agreement, concerns have grown that the framework deal is "unbalanced" and leaves Europe on the backfoot. The two trading partners on Sunday announced an agreement that includes a 15% tariff rate on most EU goods to the U.S. Some goods like aircraft components and certain chemicals are not set to be hit by tariffs, while autos will see duties reduced to the 15% rate. The agreement also includes provisions for the EU purchasing U.S. energy and increasing its investments in the country. The agreement halves the 30% tariff rate U.S. President Donald Trump had threatened the EU with and avoids any further escalation through for example countermeasures. Yet analysts and economists remain cautious as to the impact on both sides as negotiations are still set to take place. "It's a climb down from a much worse place," Cailin Birch, global economist at The Economist Intelligence Unit, told CNBC's "Europe Early Edition" on Monday. However, she noted, "a 15% tariff is still a big escalation from where we were pre-Trump 2.0." Birch also pointed out that a lot of uncertainty remains, with details about the steel and pharmaceutical sector still being unclear. European leaders struck similar notes overnight, with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz saying that while the EU was able to protect its core interests, he would have welcomed further easing of transatlantic trade. France's minister for Europe, Benjamin Haddad, meanwhile said in a Google-translated social media post that while the deal would bring "temporary stability" to some sectors, it is "unbalanced" overall. Holger Schmieding, chief economist at Berenberg, warned that while the "crippling uncertainty" was over, the damage for Europe is more frontloaded in comparison to the long-term impact on the U.S. "The deal is asymmetric. The US gets away with a substantial increase in its tariffs on imports from the EU and has secured further EU concessions to boot. In his apparent zero-sum mentality, Trump can claim that as a "win" for him," he said. As it will take some time for U.S. consumers to feel the impact of tariffs, Trump's supporters may not immediately realize they are being hurt by the president's policies, Schmieding explained. This may encourage Trump to continue to pursue economic policies that are "bad" for the U.S., he added. The Economist Intelligence Unit's Birch meanwhile pointed out that the U.S. also did not get everything it may have wanted from the deal. "Both sides are, are kind of set back a bit from this deal," she said. "The U.S. didn't make any headway on a lot of issues that have in recent history been critical to their trade approach to the EU. So agricultural standards, the tech industry regulating standard that has been a big bugbear, there was no real mention of those standards whatsoever," Birch explained, acknowledging that the deal is not yet done.
