Use of Native American Imagery in Sports

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

Can you provide a link with a study to show that aboriginal people think these names are offensive?

I will provide a link where a study proved that aboriginals did not think that they are offensive.

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycent...s_09-24_pr.pdf

As someone who enjoys polling and worked at a polling firm in a different lifetime, I find the polling question offensive:

The questionthat was put to them was “The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn’t it bother you?”

Hard to know what you are answering when the question is so articulately phrased.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

How bout the San Diego Padres? Named after Spanish priests.

So little boys should be offended?


What? Too Soon?

[Puppet Guy]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

Columbus Blue Jackets might be offensive to the Southern states as well as the to the British perhaps. If someone is anal enough. It all can get as narrow as you want once you start digging into the history of a name

speaking of the Columbus Blue Jackets and digging into a name, this should throw a new wrinkle into the discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Jacket

Blue Jacket or Weyapiersenwah (c. 1743 – c. 1810) was a war chief of the Shawnee people, known for his militant defense of Shawnee lands in the Ohio Country. Perhaps the preeminent American Indian leader in the Northwest Indian War, in which a pan-tribal confederacy fought several battles with the nascent United States, he was an important predecessor of the famous Shawnee leader Tecumseh.

Blue Jacket participated in Dunmore's War and the American Revolutionary War (allied with the British), always attempting to maintain Shawnee land rights. With the British defeat in the American Revolutionary War, the Shawnee lost valuable assistance in defending the Ohio Country. The struggle continued as white settlement in Ohio escalated, and Blue Jacket was a prominent leader of the resistance.
On November 3, 1791, the army of a confederation of Indian tribes, led by Blue Jacket and Miami Chief Little Turtle, defeated an American expedition led by Arthur St. Clair, governor of the Northwest Territory. The engagement, known as the Battle of the Wabash or as St. Clair's Defeat, was the crowning achievement of Blue Jacket's military career, and the most severe defeat ever inflicted upon the United States by Native Americans. Traditional accounts of the battle tend to give most of the credit for the victory to Little Turtle. John Sugden argues that Little Turtle's prominence is due in large measure to Little Turtle's self-promotion in later years.
Blue Jacket's triumph was short-lived. The Americans were alarmed by St. Clair's disaster and raised a new professional army, commanded by General Anthony Wayne. On August 20, 1794, Blue Jacket's confederate army clashed with Wayne at the Battle of Fallen Timbers, just south of present-day Toledo, Ohio. Blue Jacket's army was defeated, and he was compelled to sign the Treaty of Greenville on August 3, 1795, ceding much of present-day Ohio to the United States.
In 1805, Blue Jacket also signed the Treaty of Fort Industry, relinquishing even more of Ohio. In Blue Jacket's final years, he saw the rise to prominence of Tecumseh, who would take up the banner and make the final attempts to reclaim Shawnee lands in the Ohio Country.

[FlamesAddiction]

I'm actually surprised that there are people who grew up in Canada and didn't know that Eskimo is considered a slur by Inuits and Innus. I thought this was pretty much established.

I have heard that some people think "canuck" is an insult, usually non-Canadians though.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Puppet Guy

speaking of the Columbus Blue Jackets and digging into a name, this should throw a new wrinkle into the discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Jacket

The Blue Jackets name is an homage to the American Civil War... clearly displayed in every logo they have, their cannon... etc.

Even at that, an homage to the Weyapiersenwah is hardly offensive (given what you quoted).

[blankall]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

How bout the San Diego Padres? Named after Spanish priests.

Names taken from specific groups and done in a classy way are not offensive.

It's terms like "Redskin", "Indian", "Eskimo", etc.. where you have pure racial connotations that are often associated with ridiculous racial stereotypes.

The Cleveland Indians' logo, one of the worst offenders:



Can you imagine a team named the "Blackies" with a characteristic exagerating cartoon of a black man for a logo?

Terms like "Brave", "Seminole", "Aztec", etc... I would not call racist, as long as they are used in classy ways. The idea behind such names is to draw parallels to the bravery of those groups and the sporting teams who bear their names. They also refer to a specific culture/group, as oppossed to a general racial stereotype. They'd fit in with names like "Padres", "Spartans", "Celts" etc... We don't have any teams called the "Whiteys" or the "Crackers".

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I'm actually surprised that there are people who grew up in Canada and didn't know that Eskimo is considered a slur by some Inuits and Innus. I thought this was pretty much established.

I have heard that some people think "canuck" is an insult, usually non-Canadians though.

Fixed.

My wife grew up in Canada and is Inuit, Inupiaq to be exact. She didn't know it was a slur. Many of her family self describe with the word.





ed

[Puppet Guy]

Originally Posted by Split98

The Blue Jackets name is an homage to the American Civil War... clearly displayed in every logo they have, their cannon... etc.

Even at that, an homage to the Weyapiersenwah is hardly offensive (given what you quoted).

yeah, they're absolutely named for the Civil War. Just thought it'd be a fun bit of trivia to add.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

It is ridiculous, but the fact remains that someone, somewhere finds it offensive.

There's a point where people have to realize they don't have the right not to be offended.

Originally Posted by blankall

Terms like "Brave", "Seminole", "Aztec", etc... I would not call racist, as long as they are used in classy ways.

So who determines what is and is not 'classy'? Because you know that it isn't going to be consistent.

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

My wife grew up in Canada and is Inuit, Inupiaq to be exact. She didn't know it was a slur. Many of her family self describe with the word.

Case in point, different people will interpret or perceive the meanings of these words differently. It all boils down to context and how it's used. Anything can be disparaging given the right context.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

It's fine.

Leave it up to a bunch of liberal ninny writers to be offended by a sports franchise logo/name.

Political correctness needs to end.

Well, as long as you've blessed it and forgiven everyone then it's okay.

[pylon]

I have never really had an issue with it personally. And I have personally never viewed it as derogatory. If anything I think it kinda honors them in a way, but naming our most fearless, elite warriors after them.

But then I don't read as much into it as some people I guess.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Fyp.

Anyways, personally I think the Redskins, Blackhawks etc. are really quite beautiful logos and are unique to North America.

Of course you do. You wouldn't be you if you did find it offensive.

[#-3]

I think the City of Buffalo should change its name, before the Bison are offended, because everyone knows that Buffalo are an African Animal. While that City was named in honour of local North American animals, more accurately known as Bison.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

There's a point where people have to realize they don't have the right not to be offended.
So who determines what is and is not 'classy'? Because you know that it isn't going to be consistent.Case in point, different people will interpret or perceive the meanings of these words differently. It all boils down to context and how it's used. Anything can be disparaging given the right context.

You can't see the difference between the Siminoles logo and the Cleveland Indians logo. I'm just as anti-PC as many of you, but some of these logos and names are extreme. The Indians, Blackhawks, Eskimos, and Redskins all need to go.

[Phil Russell]

Political Corectness: the term is shorthand for "I can't keep up with how society is changing and attitudes are evolving and I wish I could just go back to the old days when it was OK to call whoever whatever." Good times.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by blankall

You can't see the difference between the Siminoles logo and the Cleveland Indians logo. I'm just as anti-PC as many of you, but some of these logos and names are extreme. The Indians, Blackhawks, Eskimos, and Redskins all need to go.

Sure I can. One is an overly cartoony caricature and one is a less cartoony representation, but still draws on racial features. I'm actually surprised you don't have a problem with the Siminoles logo.

Big image:

Spoiler!

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

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.

Probably because 50-100 years ago, no one cared if they offended minoritieas because racism was totally acceptable to the average Joe. Not so much now.

Slavery, segretagion, racist sports team names, are all things that were around long before it became an issue for the general public (read: "White people") that that doesn't mean they weren't offensive to the minorities they were aimed at, nor that they shouldn't have been/be changed.

"What's that? Black people can only sit at the back of the bus? Fine by me. Now, let's go watch the Redskins play!"

[Super Nintendo Chalmers]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

I always refer to the Montreal Canadiens as the Habs as that is how i have always known them.
Would Habs be considered an insult? as some Montreal fans don't like it but some on the other hand refer themselves as Hab fans.

Habs is derived from Les Habitants, which refers to the original French settlers of Quebec. I don't see how that is an insult.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Sure I can. One is an overly cartoony caricature and one is a less cartoony representation, but still draws on racial features. I'm actually surprised you don't have a problem with the Siminoles logo.

Big image:

Spoiler!

One has also been given a blessing to be used by the Seminole tribe

[Armchair Quarterback]

Originally Posted by Super Nintendo Chalmers

Habs is derived from Les Habitants, which refers to the original French settlers of Quebec. I don't see how that is an insult.

It's true that it refers to the original French settlers of Quebec but today it is considered an insult because the "habitant" way of life was associated with cultural and econommic backwardness for a long time (see for example Fernand Ouellet's Economic and Social History of Quebec). If you don't believe me, go to Quebec and call someone there an habitant. You're sure to get a good smack in the face.