Use of Native American Imagery in Sports

[Hyde]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Isn't a Celtic or Yankee a real human? Ever seen the Celtic mascot? What's the difference?

The term Yankee is often used as a derogatory term for an American that is true. However is it not lumping an entire culture. The term Celtic however is not its relating to the Celts or their languages, which constitute a branch of the Indo-European family and include Irish, Scottish Gaelic, Welsh, Breton, Manx, Cornish, and several extinct pre-Roman languages such as Gaulish.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Hyde

The term Yankee is often used as a derogatory term for an American that is true. However is it not lumping an entire culture. The term Celtic however is not its relating to the Celts or their languages, which constitute a branch of the Indo-European family and include Irish, Scottish Gaelic, Welsh, Breton, Manx, Cornish, and several extinct pre-Roman languages such as Gaulish.

Yeah it is. Lumping all Americans under Yankee is lumping the whole culture under one term.

So it's ok that we lump the Welsh, Scottish, Irish, etc.. under the name Celt but not Indian?

I agree that Indian and Redskin are derogotory terms of course, but I also agree with EE that if you're changing one you're changing all of them. Which is tough because someone, somewhere will find anything offensive. People don't associate Redskin with Natives (at least not today) they associate with the Football team. I had a kid on my hockey team call me a Redskin the other day because my face was red from the cold. I told him he shouldn;t use it and explained what the background was, but he had no idea what it meant beforehand. Isnt that a good thing?

[Vulcan]

The Yankees (name can be traced to the Dutch who originally settled the area) and the Celtic ( large population of Irish in Boston) names are people describing their own culture from the area of the team, not taking someone elses culture, as the native names do. As has been said blacks using the N word amongst themselves doesn't give others the right to use it.

[Texas Blueliner]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

As has been said blacks using the N word amongst themselves doesn't give others the right to use it.

Doesn't mean others don't take offense to it. Same goes for gay, Jewish, and Muslim people, for examples. If I have a certain percentage of Native American ancestry does that make it ok for me to use it?

That word and the term redskin aren't apt comparisons as one has long been used and is still frequently used as a racial slur, the other isn't.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Texas Blueliner

Doesn't mean others don't take offense to it. Same goes for gay, Jewish, and Muslim people, for examples. If I have a certain percentage of Native American ancestry does that make it ok for me to use it?

That word and the term redskin aren't apt comparisons as one has long been used and is still frequently used as a racial slur, the other isn't.

I don't know but if you're native it probably isn't any of my business what you want to call yourself but Blacks don't like being called the N word by whites and natives don't like being called Redskins. I don't feel right about calling others derogatory names whatever their differences. It's called respect for our fellow humans.

[Texas Blueliner]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

and natives don't like being called Redskins.

Nobody is calling them Redskins, it just doesn't happen. Not on TV, not in the movies, not even in the most uncivilized areas of the "deep south" United States. The only time the term is ever used is in reference to the Washington team.
And you might want to reconsider using the collective term "Native Americans."

A 1995 Census Bureau survey that asked indigenous Americans their preferences for names (the last such survey done by the bureau) found that 49 percent preferred the term Indian, 37 percent Native American, and 3.6 percent "some other name." About 5 percent expressed no preference.
Moreover, a large number of Indians actually strongly object to the term Native American for political reasons. In his 1998 essay "I Am An American Indian, Not a Native American!", Russell Means, a Lakota activist and a founder of the American Indian Movement (AIM), stated unequivocally, "I abhor the term 'Native American.'" He continues:
It is a generic government term used to describe all the indigenous prisoners of the United States. These are the American Samoans, the Micronesians, the Aleuts, the original Hawaiians, and the erroneously termed Eskimos, who are actually Upiks and Inupiaqs. And, of course, the American Indian.
I prefer the term American Indian because I know its origins

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/fts...200504A16.html

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Texas Blueliner

Nobody is calling them Redskins, it just doesn't happen. Not on TV, not in the movies, not even in the most uncivilized areas of the "deep south" United States. The only time the term is ever used is in reference to the Washington team.

And you might want to reconsider using the collective term "Native Americans."



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/fts...200504A16.html

So because you don't hear people using a known racist term, it's totally fine?

Get over yourself.

Oh, and:
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/aihmterms.html

Pretty clearly states Native American is acceptable.

[Texas Blueliner]

Originally Posted by strombad

So because you don't hear people using a known racist term, it's totally fine?

Get over yourself.

Oh, and:
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/aihmterms.html

Pretty clearly states Native American is acceptable.

Try not to take it so personally, strom. Vulcan said they hated being called Redskins and I just said nobody is doing such a thing.

In regards to the article which quotes the same guy who abhors the term, only the American Heritage Dictionary editors clearly state it to be acceptable. The Cherokee writer says its ok, but that the actual tribe is preferred as it is respectful and not a simplification of who they are.

Then she correctly points out "What matters in the long run is not which term is used but the intention with which it is used." Looking at the origin of Redskin and the fact that the entire organization is named for this term would lead one to believe that the intention is certainly not to offend or to be a joke. This name identifies not only the players, but all personnel involved including the front office/owners. It is meant to symbolize strength, bravery, loyalty, etc.

[Mister Yamoto]

This thread was on Calgarypuck within the last month.http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...ht=land+indian

Post # 7 makes fun of the font they use.
Post # 26 suggests that no one should go to Westbrook Mall after dark because you might have to encounter natives
Post # 30 calls them Indian givers
Post # 38 posts picture of the girl in her hoodie
Post # 39 In typical Calgarypuck style, we make fun of her because she has a messy kitchen
Post # 41 Got a life expectancy greater than 40, thank a white man
Post # 73 Suggests that maybe the whites should have just killed the indians off 200 years ago
Post # 75 Forget about it, lets blame the muslims


Nobody really seemed to have a problem with any of this. Oh sure, there was the regular internet bantering. But no where near the resistance that there is on this forum against the Washington Redskins.

It's the typical CP morality thread 2 handed approach. One hand is to pat yourself on the back, and the other is to point your finger at someone else.

If the Washington Redskins were to change their nickname tomorrow, that would not make one lick of difference for native rights, native quality of life, natives in jail, elderly natives, young natives or any native in any situation.

But if the Washington Redskins were to change their nickname tomorrow, the Jiri Hrdinas and the Strombads of the world would all be able to give themselves a great big pat on the back. Because in their minds they have done something. When in fact, they have done nothing at all.

How about instead of trying to change the name of a football team, we try to change the way we think?

Keep Redskins. Stop I don't wanna go to the mall, because i might see indians

[Mister Yamoto]

nm

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Mister Yamoto

This thread was on Calgarypuck within the last month.http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...ht=land+indian

Post # 7 makes fun of the font they use.
Post # 26 suggests that no one should go to Westbrook Mall after dark because you might have to encounter natives
Post # 30 calls them Indian givers
Post # 38 posts picture of the girl in her hoodie
Post # 39 In typical Calgarypuck style, we make fun of her because she has a messy kitchen
Post # 41 Got a life expectancy greater than 40, thank a white man
Post # 73 Suggests that maybe the whites should have just killed the indians off 200 years ago
Post # 75 Forget about it, lets blame the muslims


Nobody really seemed to have a problem with any of this. Oh sure, there was the regular internet bantering. But no where near the resistance that there is on this forum against the Washington Redskins.

It's the typical CP morality thread 2 handed approach. One hand is to pat yourself on the back, and the other is to point your finger at someone else.

If the Washington Redskins were to change their nickname tomorrow, that would not make one lick of difference for native rights, native quality of life, natives in jail, elderly natives, young natives or any native in any situation.

But if the Washington Redskins were to change their nickname tomorrow, the Jiri Hrdinas and the Strombads of the world would all be able to give themselves a great big pat on the back. Because in their minds they have done something. When in fact, they have done nothing at all.

How about instead of trying to change the name of a football team, we try to change the way we think?

Keep Redskins. Stop I don't wanna go to the mall, because i might see indians

Oh, this is gonna get good now!

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Texas Blueliner

Try not to take it so personally, strom. Vulcan said they hated being called Redskins and I just said nobody is doing such a thing.



In regards to the article which quotes the same guy who abhors the term, only the American Heritage Dictionary editors clearly state it to be acceptable. The Cherokee writer says its ok, but that the actual tribe is preferred as it is respectful and not a simplification of who they are.



Then she correctly points out "What matters in the long run is not which term is used but the intention with which it is used." Looking at the origin of Redskin and the fact that the entire organization is named for this term would lead one to believe that the intention is certainly not to offend or to be a joke. This name identifies not only the players, but all personnel involved including the front office/owners. It is meant to symbolize strength, bravery, loyalty, etc.

Don't worry, nothing taken personal at all.

"Redskin" is racist. It's collectively agreed upon as racist. If you're going to take the quote from that writer and assume it means you can use a racist term when describing Native Americans, then you're simply daft.

Redskin is a racist term, it has been (and still is) used as a racist term, and is not appropriate for a sports team.

The argument you're trying to make doesn't exist, you're just making yourself sound obtuse. If you really think that term is appropriate, then I implore you to make your way to the Tsuu T'ina reserve and start calling everyone "Redskin". See how well it goes over. I'd love for you to do it and record your findings. Let me know how acceptable and appropriate everyone finds it. Because after all, a middle aged white man telling them they shouldn't be offended by it is definitely going to work.

Please, let me know how it goes for you.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Mister Yamoto

This thread was on Calgarypuck within the last month.http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...ht=land+indian

Post # 7 makes fun of the font they use.
Post # 26 suggests that no one should go to Westbrook Mall after dark because you might have to encounter natives
Post # 30 calls them Indian givers
Post # 38 posts picture of the girl in her hoodie
Post # 39 In typical Calgarypuck style, we make fun of her because she has a messy kitchen
Post # 41 Got a life expectancy greater than 40, thank a white man
Post # 73 Suggests that maybe the whites should have just killed the indians off 200 years ago
Post # 75 Forget about it, lets blame the muslims


Nobody really seemed to have a problem with any of this. Oh sure, there was the regular internet bantering. But no where near the resistance that there is on this forum against the Washington Redskins.

It's the typical CP morality thread 2 handed approach. One hand is to pat yourself on the back, and the other is to point your finger at someone else.

If the Washington Redskins were to change their nickname tomorrow, that would not make one lick of difference for native rights, native quality of life, natives in jail, elderly natives, young natives or any native in any situation.

But if the Washington Redskins were to change their nickname tomorrow, the Jiri Hrdinas and the Strombads of the world would all be able to give themselves a great big pat on the back. Because in their minds they have done something. When in fact, they have done nothing at all.

How about instead of trying to change the name of a football team, we try to change the way we think?

Keep Redskins. Stop I don't wanna go to the mall, because i might see indians

You know it's possible to dislike the comments in that thread as well as disliking the Redskins name. I believe that's the thread I got into trouble for reporting someone's post as racist before the board could delete it.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Mister Yamoto

This thread was on Calgarypuck within the last month.http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...ht=land+indian

Post # 7 makes fun of the font they use.
Post # 26 suggests that no one should go to Westbrook Mall after dark because you might have to encounter natives
Post # 30 calls them Indian givers
Post # 38 posts picture of the girl in her hoodie
Post # 39 In typical Calgarypuck style, we make fun of her because she has a messy kitchen
Post # 41 Got a life expectancy greater than 40, thank a white man
Post # 73 Suggests that maybe the whites should have just killed the indians off 200 years ago
Post # 75 Forget about it, lets blame the muslims


Nobody really seemed to have a problem with any of this. Oh sure, there was the regular internet bantering. But no where near the resistance that there is on this forum against the Washington Redskins.

It's the typical CP morality thread 2 handed approach. One hand is to pat yourself on the back, and the other is to point your finger at someone else.

If the Washington Redskins were to change their nickname tomorrow, that would not make one lick of difference for native rights, native quality of life, natives in jail, elderly natives, young natives or any native in any situation.

But if the Washington Redskins were to change their nickname tomorrow, the Jiri Hrdinas and the Strombads of the world would all be able to give themselves a great big pat on the back. Because in their minds they have done something. When in fact, they have done nothing at all.

How about instead of trying to change the name of a football team, we try to change the way we think?

Keep Redskins. Stop I don't wanna go to the mall, because i might see indians

Exactly this.

1. White people did some terrible things to groups of people (Indians/Natives, Africans and others) back in the day.

2. These terrible things led to a lot of these groups struggling today economically/socially and other ways.

3. White people feel guilty about this and want to feel like they are making things better except the vast majority of these people don't want to actually do anything or give anything up to do this. The real issues like high addiction levels or high youth suicide rates are tough to solve and require being more than an internet poster.

So bitching about things like this is what we get. No matter that most of the people who this is actually directed appear to not be offended (at least from what I've seen). We know what's best for you. You should be offended when called Indian or by a football team called Redskins.

If they people affected are offended... then change the name. If not, then leave it.


EDIT: Just to clarify - I'm not pro keeping the name. Honestly, it should probably be changed. But I'm am against this faux outrage that people try to show about this.

[PeteMoss]

Should probably change the name of the state Oklahoma while we are at it:

The state's name is derived from the Choctaw words okla and humma, meaning "red people".[8] It is also known informally by its nickname, The Sooner State, honoring the European settlers, and the Indian Appropriations Act of 1889, which opened the door for white settlement in America's Indian Territory

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by strombad

The argument you're trying to make doesn't exist, you're just making yourself sound obtuse. If you really think that term is appropriate, then I implore you to make your way to the Tsuu T'ina reserve and start calling everyone "Redskin". See how well it goes over. I'd love for you to do it and record your findings. Let me know how acceptable and appropriate everyone finds it. Because after all, a middle aged white man telling them they shouldn't be offended by it is definitely going to work.

Please, let me know how it goes for you.

Such a poor argument. People don't like to be referred as a group. If you go down there and start calling them all Indians/Braves/Blackhawks/Natives, they wouldn't like that either. If you go New York draped in a Canadian flag and start calling everyone Yanks they won't like it. Go to Norway and start calling them Vikings and they won't like it. Etc Etc.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Such a poor argument. People don't like to be referred as a group. If you go down there and start calling them all Indians/Braves/Blackhawks/Natives, they wouldn't like that either. If you go New York draped in a Canadian flag and start calling everyone Yanks they won't like it. Go to Norway and start calling them Vikings and they won't like it. Etc Etc.

Except that's not what I'm basing my argument on. I was simply suggesting that if he believes that Native Americans are wrong, and that "Redskin" is an appropriate term, then he should feel comfortable using that very term.

But hey, nice red herring. I get it, you're a privileged white man who knows more about what minorities have a right to take issue with than those minorities do. Must be a nice position to be in.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by strombad

Except that's not what I'm basing my argument on. I was simply suggesting that if he believes that Native Americans are wrong, and that "Redskin" is an appropriate term, then he should feel comfortable using that very term.

But hey, nice red herring. I get it, you're a privileged white man who knows more about what minorities have a right to take issue with than those minorities do. Must be a nice position to be in.

That is about the exact opposite of what I said but nice effort.

i said if the minority is offended than the name should be changed. If its just a bunch of people telling the minorities they should be offended... then who cares.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

That is about the exact opposite of what I said but nice effort.

i said if the minority is offended than the name should be changed. If its just a bunch of people telling the minorities they should be offended... then who cares.

The minorities are offended in most cases. That's usually where these movements start. Maybe you're confusing CP'ers discussing it in a thread as being the source of the desire for change, but Natives have been very vocal about certain sports team logos.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

That is about the exact opposite of what I said but nice effort.



i said if the minority is offended than the name should be changed. If its just a bunch of people telling the minorities they should be offended... then who cares.

Then you're completely out of touch with the issue and I'm not sure why you even bothered saying it. Actually minorities are offended by it, if you somehow missed that, then perhaps you should give it a bit more effort.