Title makes it sound like this is my only one of the season.
May be. Remains to be seen
Anyway mostly it's a generic title meant to encompass two articles I came across that I don't want to talk about in two different posts.
The Wall Street Journal has an article entitled "What's the Point of Cheerleading?" Such a title is more appropriate for an editorial it would seem, but I have to be honest, I nodded me head in a agreement for a second. Unfortunately it's not a great piece of journalism really only highlighting the high injury rate and then chastising cheerleaders for being whiners because the catastrophic injury rate in football is so much higher. So once again we have all athletic endeavors being measured against football.
The only helpful question the article asked was whether cheerleading has moved too far afield (hehe) from its original purpose. Unfortunately it does not really ponder that issue too much deferring instead to a history of the practice and noting, at the end, that UConn recently replaced its cheerleading team with a spirit squad. Not sure if this was just football cheering or all cheering. There are different cheer teams for different sports and of course a resulting hierarchy.
An LA Times columnist takes up another questionable practice--Native American team names/mascots. Actually it's not a questionable practice at all. It's just absolutely wrong. The late Myles Brand made a concerted effort to rid such naming practices and mascots from NCAA member schools, but in the world of professional sports they still exist and remain difficult to get rid of. One of the biggest offenders is the NFL team from Washington--this is how everyone should refer to them and some media outlets do indeed. But others keep using the term "redskin" in conjunction with the team thus approving of the use of a blatantly racist term.
A group that long ago brought a lawsuit against the team trademark is renewing their fight. Unfortunately the NFL has sided with Washington and is even paying some of their legal fees! One of the plaintiffs describes it as "fighting Pepsi backed by Coke."