Use of Native American Imagery in Sports

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

50 years ago if you were black in the U.S. you weren't allowed to vote.

I don't think that's accurate.

Edit: man, the answer is definitely hard to confirm. I thought JFK got a huge percentage of black votes. Weird.

Edit 2: It appears black men could vote as of 1869, but there were other restrictions such as literacy tests, gender, etc. that applied to whites and poor people but more often to black Americans. It wasnt until 1965 that all the hang ups were abolished by the Voters Rights Act (although, some could argue that other more sophisticated road blocks have been enacted as recently as 2000 and 2004).

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

Well, I cant speak for the poster you're quoting, but I'm interested in where the line is drawn. Is it for all names based on or in reference to Natives/Indians/Aboriginals/First Nations? Or just ones that are tied to negative connotations/perceptions? Genetic references v. specific tribes?

There's no issue with referencing a culture whatsoever, that's not the argument.

The argument is using offensive terms or imagery to reference them.

I see no issue with the Chiefs or Braves, but the ones in question are not 'honouring' a culture, they're insulting them.

The three teams that have been under fire I see are deservedly so. The involvement of other teams have only been brought up by those mocking this standpoint. The Redskins, the Blackhawks and the Indians are the only 3 I see being blatantly ignorant.

So that's the line. If you're blatantly offending someone with no regard for respect... then it shouldn't be the name and/or logo of your sports franchise.

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

Well, I cant speak for the poster you're quoting, but I'm interested in where the line is drawn. Is it for all names based on or in reference to Natives/Indians/Aboriginals/First Nations? Or just ones that are tied to negative connotations/perceptions? Genetic references v. specific tribes?

Think about it in terms of what the symbol represents. Does the symbol invoke an idea of stereotyping and dominance?

Names such as "Chiefs" or "Natives" (Indians as well, that extent) invoke only imagery of the ethnic group themselves. It's not trying to sell an ideology with it.

An example would be the difference between calling a team "The Romans" and "The Guido's". "Romans" would be nothing more than calling back to a historical mythology. "Guido's" send a racist message about the certain group.

Does that clear that issue?

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

My points is most of these team names are probably at least 50 years old, some closer to 100. It was not a problem in the part so why worry about it now? They want someone to re-brand something that has been alive longer than most of the people complaining, you don't find that a little ridiculous?

Hey I'm offended, so you need to spend millions and millions of dollars to change something that has been around 70+ years.

...yes.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

I don't think that's accurate... at all. Or even close.

My understanding that until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 - in practice very few blacks could practically vote.

But I'm far from an expert. One of our American friends could clarify though it is a bit off topic.

I think the point is well made though by others who have also compared the overall situation today with 50 years ago.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

I don't think that's accurate... at all. Or even close.

Poll taxes were in place in various states until 1966, the only people who had to pay them were black people (or more specifically non-whites as they had exemptions for the white folk that allowed them by and large to not pay the tax), so they had to pay to play may be a better way to explain it.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

Yankees, Vikings, Giants could all be deemed offensive if you are American, Norweigan or obese. Cleveland Browns to.

The fact that is pretty much the go to counter argument pretty much sums up just how little basis there is to argue against changing these names.

[polak]

The Human Beings!

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

My points is most of these team names are probably at least 50 years old, some closer to 100. It was not a problem in the part so why worry about it now? They want someone to re-brand something that has been alive longer than most of the people complaining, you don't find that a little ridiculous?

Hey I'm offended, so you need to spend millions and millions of dollars to change something that has been around 70+ years.

"Hey, it wasn't an issue that Blacks couldn't vote in the past, why does it matter now?"
Said by 1860's White Americans.

Simple answer, times change and views change. What was acceptable before is no longer now. Like drunk driving, cigarette advertising and segregated water fountains. These were all accepted at one point in time.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Split98

There's no issue with referencing a culture whatsoever, that's not the argument.

The argument is using offensive terms or imagery to reference them.

I see no issue with the Chiefs or Braves, but the ones in question are not 'honouring' a culture, they're insulting them.

The three teams that have been under fire I see are deservedly so. The involvement of other teams have only been brought up by those mocking this standpoint. The Redskins, the Blackhawks and the Indians are the only 3 I see being blatantly ignorant.

So that's the line. If you're blatantly offending someone with no regard for respect... then it shouldn't be the name and/or logo of your sports franchise.

Thanks. I wasn't trying to inflame, I just have never given this much thought and had no idea the background to any of the names.

[trackercowe]

The Chicago Blackhawks logo is commonly regarded as the best logo in sports; while I doubt it would even be changed just to appease a small percentage of the population, it would be a tragedy in itself if somehow the organization was forced to change it.

I could see how the Redskins name/logo could be considered offensive, but Washington already changed the Bullets to the Wizards (a change many people hate), and I doubt the fans in Washington would be thrilled at having to make another change.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

My understanding that until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 - in practice very few blacks could practically vote.

But I'm far from an expert. One of our American friends could clarify though it is a bit off topic.

I think the point is well made though by others who have also compared the overall situation today with 50 years ago.

Ya, I had to dig and the answer was not as clear cut as I had thought.

Don't mean to bog down the discussion on minor issues - your point is well taken.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The only Native American thing that I think can be viewed as truly offensive is the Cleveland Indians logo. Good God is that ever an over the top stereotype. Otherwise most of them aren't that offensive.

[tete]

UND Athletics has ditched their name "the Fighting Sioux" after a North Dakota state plebescite voted overwhelmingly to dump it. Interesting that they're not allowed to pick a new name until 2015...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univers...kota_athletics

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

or they should stop being so oversensitive.

Why are these names suddenly an issue now? No one complained of the names 50 years ago.

This is just yet another sign of the wussification of our society. if it could possible be taken in a negative context you have to change it!

#### this PC Bull####, its to the point where its pathetic.

Why stop 50 years ago? 150 years ago no one complained that women and minorities couldn't vote. Why should that have changed?

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

Thanks. I wasn't trying to inflame, I just have never given this much thought and had no idea the background to any of the names.

No worries, can't say that I'm too upset about the issue... just insanely confused by the oppositions standpoint.

[dammage79]

Names that are okay to this white guy, Blackhawks.

Redskins is Blatantly racist therefore should not be used. Same goes for the Cleveland Indians.

Braves, not sure yet, a quick read on Wiki shows the name stands as to honor Native American warriors, but then goes on to state that James Gaffney of Tamanny Hall (democrats) in NYC who used Native American figureheads as their mascot named the team when he bought them in 1912.
Tamanny Hall was a fairly corrupt political group so I guess you could be offended. But that is just a brief history on how they came to be the Braves.

[hayduke's dad]

When I was in high school 20 years ago a team in our league from a reserve had 2 sets of hockey jerseys.

1 was the chicago blackhawks logo. The other was a picture of a wagon on fire. If the people who are from the minority deemed to be having racist names against them don't find it offensive why should anyone else?

[Split98]

Aside from the argument for and against the name changing... why didn't Washington take the addition of RGIII to be their platform for a rebranding?

They didn't have much positive hype going for them before him, they have been under fire for their team name for a while (and it won't subside)... why not take advantage of their NEW team under RGIII and rebrand a... NEW team?

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by tete

UND Athletics has ditched their name "the Fighting Sioux" after a North Dakota state plebescite voted overwhelmingly to dump it. Interesting that they're not allowed to pick a new name until 2015...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univers...kota_athletics

What I found interesting about this issue is that if UND got the 2 applicable bands/tribes (I don't mean to be using an offensive term... if those are offensive) to state that they support the Fighting Sioux name/logo, UND could keep it.

One of the bands supported the name, the other couldn't be bothered to cast a vote. Finally to settle the controversy, the issue went to plebescite.