Use of Native American Imagery in Sports

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by flamesfan1297

Good riddance, people are sensitive nowadays, everyone is so worried about being "correct"

Apparently not everyone!

[Texas Blueliner]

I'll admit that as a Cleveland Indians fan I am biased and hope the logo and name are retained. Just thought I would share this:

But where did the word "redskin" come from? Many dictionaries and history books say the term came about in reference to the Beothuk tribe of what is now Newfoundland, Canada. The Beothuk were said to paint their bodies with red ochre, leading white settlers to refer to them as "red men."
According to Smithsonian historian Ives Goddard, early historical records indicate that "Redskin" was used as a self-identifier by Native Americans to differentiate between the two races. Goddard found that the first use of the word "redskin" came in 1769, in negotiations between the Piankashaws and Col. John Wilkins. Throughout the 1800s, the word was frequently used by Native Americans as they negotiated with the French and later the Americans.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/...ory-of-redskin

[Fredrik]

Originally Posted by Texas Blueliner

I'll admit that as a Cleveland Indians fan I am biased and hope the logo and name are retained. Just thought I would share this:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/...ory-of-redskin

Interesting how the meaning of a word change... Man United-supporters still sings an old (50-60´s something) about how they are "going to Old Trafford and we´re gay". Et al "We´re happy", not homosexual.

[Texas Blueliner]

Originally Posted by Fredrik

Interesting how the meaning of a word change...

Exactly, is the term redskin actually used in a derogatory manner in modern society? I imagine the ManU fans are perfectly fine singing "gay" as its a traditional song and they understand the original intention of the word.

[Fredrik]

Originally Posted by Texas Blueliner

Exactly, is the term redskin actually used in a derogatory manner in modern society? I imagine the ManU fans are perfectly fine singing "gay" as its a traditional song and they understand the original intention of the word.

But perhaps the difference here is they choose to sing about themselves, not a third party?

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by Texas Blueliner

I'll admit that as a Cleveland Indians fan I am biased and hope the logo and name are retained. Just thought I would share this:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/...ory-of-redskin

At one point not that long ago "Negro" was a perfectly acceptable way of describing an African-American. However, if there was a team called the Brooklyn Negroes I don't think it would go over too well.

Society changes and with it what is considered acceptable changes. It's not a matter of simply being politically correct. That's a shallow white-wash (if you'll pardon the pun) of the issue.

[Texas Blueliner]

Originally Posted by Fredrik

But perhaps the difference here is they choose to sing about themselves, not a third party?

Good point..

early historical records indicate that "Redskin" was used as a self-identifier by Native Americans to differentiate between the two races.

[Red Slinger]

^ Right. So, if Native Americans want to call themselves Redskins (or African Americans want to use the 'N' word) that is their perogative. Non-natives don't get the same privaledge.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Well thank goodness your focused on the important things.

Really it's a football team name. How important is it really? The term Yankee is a derogatory term as well and IMO you either take all these names tongue and cheek or you have to change them all as I'm not a big fan of picking and choosing which derogatory term takes precedence over the other and that's basically what's being asked here.

Personally I feel any new professional sports franchises obviously shouldn't be choosing new names based on derogatory terms but I'm not a big fan of changing historical franchise names just to make a very small group of people happy. When it comes to being politically correct I feel there's a line where enough is enough because if you end up trying to make everyone happy you end up making nobody happy.

[Poe969]

I'm sure there has to be a PC way to rename things, I mean the people in Edmonton came up with a "proper" name for their team instead of just calling them the Edmonton Greasers, they came up with oilers....

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Poe969

I'm sure there has to be a PC way to rename things, I mean the people in Edmonton came up with a "proper" name for their team instead of just calling them the Edmonton Greasers, they came up with oilers....

I still believe Mullet Heads is a more politically correct name for them.

[Poe969]

or the Edmonton Garbage Blanc's

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I'm not a big fan of changing historical franchise names just to make a very small group of people happy.

So basically, because there are so few native Americans that are vocal about issues like this, you can just ignore how they feel. That's a great moral guideline. Especially considering the reasons why there are so few native Americans.

Even more generally, you're pretty much saying that being racist is totally excusable, as long as it serves the greater good of not being slightly inconvenienced.

When it comes to being politically correct I feel there's a line where enough is enough because if you end up trying to make everyone happy you end up making nobody happy.

That's just an irrelevant platitude.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Really it's a football team name. How important is it really? The term Yankee is a derogatory term as well and IMO you either take all these names tongue and cheek or you have to change them all as I'm not a big fan of picking and choosing which derogatory term takes precedence over the other and that's basically what's being asked here.

Personally I feel any new professional sports franchises obviously shouldn't be choosing new names based on derogatory terms but I'm not a big fan of changing historical franchise names just to make a very small group of people happy. When it comes to being politically correct I feel there's a line where enough is enough because if you end up trying to make everyone happy you end up making nobody happy.

So your POV is that folks should take racist terms "tongue in cheek".

Is there much disagreement at all that the Redskins is anything but a dated and offensive name? We can debate where the line is but is it not easy to agree that this one specific name is particularly over the line? So why not just solve that one.

And thanks for bolding a typo in my post. The arguments in this thread weren't quite immature enough and needed to be dragged down.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Itse

So basically, because there are so few native Americans that are vocal about issues like this, you can just ignore how they feel. That's a great moral guideline. Especially considering the reasons why there are so few native Americans.

Even more generally, you're pretty much saying that being racist is totally excusable, as long as it serves the greater good of not being slightly inconvenienced.

That's just an irrelevant platitude.

Please explain to me how the Redskins football team affects the daily life of these people? Please? The name attached to a sports franchise has been going on for close to 100 years and honestly how has that factored in the daily existence of these people? I think we have to be sensible here as I feel we are starting to dissolve our history in the name of being politically correct. The origin of the name is still debated today so at the end of the day you have a small group that chooses to interpret the name as a negative even though there's not indisputable evidence. At the end of the day you can't force them to change their interpretation but you also have to realize that interpretation is a personal choice. Is it going to get to the point one day where brown skinned people take offense to the Cleveland Browns? Where do you stop if you leave everything to interpretation?

I stand firm in that I believe you cannot pick and choose which derogatory franchise names take precedence over others so if you force the Redskins to change their name you have to do it to the Yankees, Indians, etc. Do them all or do none.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

So your POV is that folks should take racist terms "tongue in cheek".

Is there much disagreement at all that the Redskins is anything but a dated and offensive name? We can debate where the line is but is it not easy to agree that this one specific name is particularly over the line? So why not just solve that one.

And thanks for bolding a typo in my post. The arguments in this thread weren't quite immature enough and needed to be dragged down.

I wasn't aware that it was blatant racism. I was aware that some choose to interpret it that way. The debate goes back hundreds of years and there's no way now to know the true origin only how certain groups have decided to interpret as fact that it is a racist term.

[Igottago]

I'm not sure how the Cleveland Indians one hasn't been under more scrutiny. It seems to be overtly mocking the entire group of people. It would be the same as calling a team the Negroes and having some type of blackface character as the logo.

I think if enough native people are offended by Redskins, Indians, or whatever else, then it is an issue. When these organizations are propping up something that reminds them of their marginalization then it is a problem, and it doesn't really matter how any other ethnic group views it, as they aren't the ones targeted by the name. Instead of getting all up in arms about preserving history, the team and their fans should be embracing an opportunity to look towards a more forward thinking and inclusive era.

[Hyde]

In my own personal opinion the term "Redskin" is a racial descriptor of Native Americans and I am speaking as one.

I mean come on the term derives from the use of colour to define a people. I'm sorry but identifiers for ethnic groups based upon physical characteristics, including skin colour, are almost universally slurs, or derogatory as one is emphasizing the difference between to people. In today's society I do understand there is a risk of being too politically correct but this should not be case/example as to why.

Now did the Washington Redskins name their team with this in mind. I doubt it, but that should hardly matter. The Cleveland Indians personally I find even more racist and offensive. Same with the Brave fans doing the tomahawk chop.

Native American culture is being used as a mascot - we are real human beings not characterizers for sporting fans amusements.

[strombad]

I've made it pretty clear that I think the Cleveland logo as well as the Redskins name are inappropriate, but I'm not so on board with the argument being from a stance of "we're not mascots".

To me, something like the Moosejaw Warriors (with Native American symbolisation in the logo) seems like fair use. That is on par with the Dallas Cowboys, the Minnesota Vikings, Boston Celtics, etc.

I think as long as logos and names are not racist in nature and produce a sense of pride instead of a lame caricature, then that's fair use of human history. I don't agree with the "we're not mascots" line of thinking, but I firmly believe that any name or logo derived from an actual people should evoke a sense of pride, not embarrassment.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Hyde

Native American culture is being used as a mascot - we are real human beings not characterizers for sporting fans amusements.

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