Use of Native American Imagery in Sports

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

No, they just think you are oversensitive, doesn't mean they don't understand.

If they understood they'd come up with some better arguments. Also the oversensitive argument is reaching for "the bottom of the barrel.".

14. The Comparative Virtue Excuse: "There are worse things."

As for EE's argument, maybe the owner will never change it, it hasn't anything to do with me not liking it.

[Hackey]

Wouldn't it be beneficial to change the name of the team? That sounds like some massive sales figures. I could really care less so I haven't really followed the arguments. Obviously the offensive side is easy to understand. What is the argument for not changing it? Not giving into demands? Don't think its a big deal? Something with the long time fan base?

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

If they understood they'd come up with some better arguments. Also the oversensitive argument is reaching for "the bottom of the barrel."

Except that's what it comes down to. One side things you are over-sensitive, and you think they are not sensitive enough. No one will change the others mind, regurgitating your opinion over and over again won't change a thing, just like us regurgitating ours won't do any good.

In the end all that matters is ownership doesn't want to change the name and he has no incentive to do so; in fact with the monetary costs involved in changing the name, he has more incentive not to change it.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Wouldn't it be beneficial to change the name of the team? That sounds like some massive sales figures. I could really care less so I haven't really followed the arguments. Obviously the offensive side is easy to understand. What is the argument for not changing it? Not giving into demands? Don't think its a big deal? Something with the long time fan base?

It will probably cost as much or more to re-brand everything than they will make in sales.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

Except that's what it comes down to. One side things you are over-sensitive, and you think they are not sensitive enough. No one will change the others mind, regurgitating your opinion over and over again won't change a thing, just like us regurgitating ours won't do any good.

In the end all that matters is ownership doesn't want to change the name and he has no incentive to do so; in fact with the monetary costs involved in changing the name, he has more incentive not to change it.

I'm pointing out that the sensitivity argument is a lousy argument. For me it's either I do the right thing or I don't. I'm an old man but I'm always learning and willing to change as I learn. Some here could learn from that example.

My guess as someone else is pointing out, that they'd make big money by changing the name. Why else does our local hockey team change it's uniform every few years?

[Vulcan]

Here's Tim and Sid on the subject. Starts at about 1:06:00 to about 1:20:00.

The Redskin's name refers to the scalp of a native with a government reward. So much for an adult male, less for an adult female and less again for a child under 12. If you approve of this, I don't know what to say.
Here I'll quote this again.

They paid well – 50 pounds for adult male scalps; 25 for adult female scalps; and 20 for scalps of boys and girls under age 12.

http://pmd.fan590.com/podcasts/tim-s...20---5-7pm.mp3

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I'm pointing out that the sensitivity argument is a lousy argument. For me it's either I do the right thing or I don't. I'm an old man but I'm always learning and willing to change as I learn. Some here could learn from that example.

My guess as someone else is pointing out, that they'd make big money by changing the name. Why else does our local hockey team change it's uniform every few years?

It's not a lousy argument at all, but I get it this is your thing arguing the same point over and over and over again until you are blue in the face. I am not wasting time arguing it with you because frankly I don't care if they change the name or not and care even less what you think they should do with the team.

But changing the name =/= changing a uniform, especially in the NFL where there revenue sharing is the most extreme in professional sports. Unlike a uniform change which is rarely more than changing a few stripes and maybe a small tweak to the logo, changing the name would likely require tons of changes to their stadium branding, their advertising and literally everything associated with the team. Should the Redskins ever decide to change their name, about the only time I can see them willing to do so would be when they build/move into their new stadium (which is still in the planning stages).

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Here's Tim and Sid on the subject. Starts at about 1:06:00 to about 1:20:00.

The Redskin's name refers to the scalp of a native with a government reward. So much for an adult male, less for an adult female and less again for a child under 12. If you approve of this, I don't know what to say.
Here I'll quote this again.





http://pmd.fan590.com/podcasts/tim-s...20---5-7pm.mp3

Dear god. What savagery, which is ironic because the racists used to call the First Nations savages.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by t0rrent98

found this. Some dude had too much time on their hands and decided to incorporate the crying Michael Jordan's face into all 30 team logo's.

http://imgur.com/a/Yuxcl

The Nashville Predators. I can't breathe.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Wouldn't it be beneficial to change the name of the team? That sounds like some massive sales figures. I could really care less so I haven't really followed the arguments. Obviously the offensive side is easy to understand. What is the argument for not changing it? Not giving into demands? Don't think its a big deal? Something with the long time fan base?

It's all about the 'brand'. The Washington Redskins are valued at 2.85 Billion. The Washington Football Team in the NFL is probably worth 1.8 or so, so Daniel Snyder says the brand is worth a billion dollars. Which may or may not be true, but it's possible given other franchise valuations

[Resolute 14]

The Supreme Court of the US rules that trademarks may not be denied or canceled due to perceived offensiveness. Ruling came as a result of a different case, but it will cut this avenue of attack against the Redskins off at the knees.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...st-be-allowed/

[sureLoss]

3 year bump

in the current climate, sponsors have asked the Redskins to change their name, prompting a "review" by the owner. I guess money really talks.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1279067390198927360

[getbak]

With the mention of honouring the military, I bet the new name will be the Red Tails, so that they can claim they're honouring the Tuskegee Airmen.

[Flamenspiel]

I always liked the old basketball name the “Bullets” and was a fan of that team lead by Hayes and Unseld, getting rid of that was the worst rebranding in history and continues to ba a failure. Perhaps the football team can take that name.

[Bingo]

In these times it's tough.

I try and figure things out but as a white man you quickly realize it's not yours to analyze. How could you possibly?

But isn't there a difference between say the Red Skins and Braves? Indians and Blackhawks? Can you no longer refer to a culture/people at all?

I'm Irish ... but the Celtics and Fighting Irish don't bother me, and honestly the Irish logo is about as caricature as you can get!

What about the Vikings? Trojans? Dallas Cowboys? Closer to home ... Canucks?

Apologies if I've offended anyone with any of that ... certainly not my intent.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Bingo

In these times it's tough.

I try and figure things out but as a white man you quickly realize it's not yours to analyze. How could you possibly?

But isn't there a difference between say the Red Skins and Braves? Indians and Blackhawks? Can you no longer refer to a culture/people at all?

I'm Irish ... but the Celtics and Fighting Irish don't bother me, and honestly the Irish logo is about as caricature as you can get!

What about the Vikings? Trojans? Dallas Cowboys? Closer to home ... Canucks?

Apologies if I've offended anyone with any of that ... certainly not my intent.

Just speaking from my perspective, Red Skins and Indians just have a more viscerally uncomfortable feeling when I see or say them, specifically Red Skins. Braves seems more honorary and the Blackhawks have a more complex context for their name. And while the iconography of all teams' logos and images can be debated (and the Indians at least dropped that caricature from their merchandise), I've always thought the Blackhawks logo looked so beautifully elegant and elaborate. One of the best in sports, IMO. I don't see how it's offensive, but that's not my call to make.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Bingo

In these times it's tough.

I try and figure things out but as a white man you quickly realize it's not yours to analyze. How could you possibly?

But isn't there a difference between say the Red Skins and Braves? Indians and Blackhawks? Can you no longer refer to a culture/people at all?

I'm Irish ... but the Celtics and Fighting Irish don't bother me, and honestly the Irish logo is about as caricature as you can get!

What about the Vikings? Trojans? Dallas Cowboys? Closer to home ... Canucks?

Apologies if I've offended anyone with any of that ... certainly not my intent.

I don't think people have a huge problem with the name Braves or Indians (I think this is preferred nomenclature in the U.S.) but the Indians logo is offensive as hell and I believe the Braves have dropped this logo:





The issue with the Braves and/or Chiefs is the Tomahawk Chop.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bingo

In these times it's tough.

I try and figure things out but as a white man you quickly realize it's not yours to analyze. How could you possibly?

But isn't there a difference between say the Red Skins and Braves? Indians and Blackhawks? Can you no longer refer to a culture/people at all?

I'm Irish ... but the Celtics and Fighting Irish don't bother me, and honestly the Irish logo is about as caricature as you can get!

What about the Vikings? Trojans? Dallas Cowboys? Closer to home ... Canucks?

Apologies if I've offended anyone with any of that ... certainly not my intent.

I think the thing is you just can’t compare being Irish (or Danish in my case) to the marginalization of aboriginals in North America.

There is a whole lot that needs to be overcome with regards to the one group vs the others. Referring to Danes as being always drunk might be stupid and rude (as are all generalizations based on people’s race, nationality etc.) but the difference is the relative power dynamics and standing of the groups involved. IMO of course.

In other words, one house is burning. The other is standing just fine in no danger. I’d expect the burning house to get special treatment.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Bingo

In these times it's tough.

I try and figure things out but as a white man you quickly realize it's not yours to analyze. How could you possibly?

But isn't there a difference between say the Red Skins and Braves? Indians and Blackhawks? Can you no longer refer to a culture/people at all?

I'm Irish ... but the Celtics and Fighting Irish don't bother me, and honestly the Irish logo is about as caricature as you can get!

What about the Vikings? Trojans? Dallas Cowboys? Closer to home ... Canucks?

Apologies if I've offended anyone with any of that ... certainly not my intent.

I do think there are differences among teams using Native American mascots.

Blackhawks: I don’t think this one is particularly egregious, and it seems to be more or less respectful- the Blackhawks jersey is consistently ranked as one of the best in the sport, for whatever that’s worth.

Braves: to me, this is akin to Warriors etc - it’s a military role in a society. The tomahawk chop is aggressively racist.

Chiefs: Chief is an office. The leader of the tribe. A team can be the Chiefs, the Kings, the Senators... it’s a position of power. Again, we see the aggressively racist tomahawk chop (with the accompanying aggressively racist Peter Pan music) make an appearance, which is vastly more disrespectful than the name Chiefs.

Indians: This one’s racist. Native Americans aren’t Indians. My wife is Bengali. She’s Indian. Chief Wahoo is aggressively racist; he’s a racist caricature, and there’s a reason he isn’t on the hat anymore. Brockmire had the right idea, change their name to the Cleveland Colonizers and make the logo a Virginian in a powdered wig holding a bloody bayonet between his teeth.

Redskins: Obviously racist. Call someone a redskin, see how respectful it sounds. There’s no way to refer to anyone by *insert colour * skin and not be racist. Stop doing it.

I think you can use tribal names - Florida State is the Seminoles, Illinois has the Fighting Illini, and I think you could argue you’re invoking the spirit of those cultures, and I think that with a little tact and care, there is a way to tastefully pull that off. I think that requires a lot of awareness, and I’m thoroughly unconvinced America is in possession of such awareness in its current state.

The difference between, say, the Fighting Illini and the Irish is that America didn’t wipe the Irish off the map, they were just ####ty to them when they arrived in New York.

There are local tribes in all these jurisdictions- reach out to them and see if there’s a way to invoke Native American imagery in a way that tells the story of these people and raises awareness about their respective plights. Because those are real and need to be taken seriously.

And to Dan Snyder, from one white skin to another, go #### yourself.

[Crown Royal]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

I don't think people have a huge problem with the name Braves or Indians (I think this is preferred nomenclature in the U.S.) but the Indians logo is offensive as hell and I believe the Braves have dropped this logo:





The issue with the Braves and/or Chiefs is the Tomahawk Chop.

The Braves stopped using that logo 30 years ago, since the 1990 season this has been their logo:


The Indians started using a letter logo as their primary logo in 2014 and have been slowly phasing out the Chief Wahoo logo since, I do believe it is completely gone now.