Use of Native American Imagery in Sports

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

The path to change likely comes from sponsors and advertisers demanding it

There's a line up of sponsors that will gladly take their place. The NFL is too powerful. Nike didn't take long to jump back on the Vick bandwagon. There's too much money at stake for Nike, Reebok, Coke, etc to be the brand of the NFL than to lose massibe exposure just for politics as it's business and people get fired when sales decrease.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

Again, I fail to see why that matters. It shouldn't matter what the history of a culture or race of people was. Everyone should be treated with the same respect.

I agree with the bolded. That shouldn't mean a person can draw the conclusion that "since Vikings are okay, then Native Americans are okay as well" as symbols for teams.

History matters, though, in the sense that Native Americans were severely mistreated (this is, think, a tremendous understatement). They are still marginalized and not treated equally. Their depiction in sports adds and continues this.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Well obviously some people think the other names are offensive or the Chiefs wouldn't be reaching out to natives to cover their buts.

I don't think you guys realize that the Redskins name probably won't change anytime soon if ever. Snyder and the NFL have too much money and power to be bullied even by the government.

The "Redskins" name will be changed within the next 3 years, IMO.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

So it's only insensitive when a small handful of people protest as that's really the crutch of the whole Redskins thing as it was all started by a small group. There's still a large portion of native americans that aren't bothered by the name. To me the issue is that you either eliminate them all or leave them alone as it's preferential treatment to a minority to just change the Redskins name and not the Blackhawks, Braves, etc.

At one time there was only a small handful of blacks who protested against black racism. It didn't make racism right.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Really though whether you dress up as an Indian or Viking what should that have to do with the history of either race? The term "Viking" actually means "pirate" or "raider" yet has been attached northern Europeans. You can argue that Norwegians could be offended by the use of Viking. Ironically it was Native Americans that drove the Vikings out of North America btw.

With the Redskins at least you can make a case that some natives find the name offensive but what exactly is offensive about a Chief or an Indian for that matter?

If the group that's targeted finds it offensive, that's good enough for me. Not going to pretend as a middle-age white guy I can understand, and not going to presume to speak for any other group.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

The "Redskins" name will be changed within the next 3 years, IMO.

That is overly optimistic.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

There's a line up of sponsors that will gladly take their place. The NFL is too powerful. Nike didn't take long to jump back on the Vick bandwagon.

This is true. I watched the Snyder interview on ESPN over the weekend and it leaves me less optimistic that we are close to having the name changed - particularly if what he says about the support from fellow owners and the league is true.

But when it does change I think it will be in response to sponsor/advertiser demands - how soon that happens is something I don't know.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by neo45

The answer is nothing.... The team name Redskins is horribly offensive but will be gone soon enough and hopefully this debate goes with it. Is there another example of a racist logo/team name that hasn't already been dealth with? The Indians ditched their logo, Western Canada HS became the RedHawks, and anything with "fighting" in the title has been dropped.


It has been shown in this thread that American Indians aren't even paricularly offended by the most racist of these offerings.

Which is bizarre because when that name was formed, it was because...they wore red uniforms. Had nothing to do with natives...at least that's how it was told to me many many moons ago.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

At one time there was only a small handful of blacks who protested against black racism. It didn't make racism right.

LOL are you actually trying to use that as some sort of comparison?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

The "Redskins" name will be changed within the next 3 years, IMO.

Doubtful at best...unless Snyder dies or sells the team. Neither one is likely.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

But when it does change I think it will be in response to sponsor/advertiser demands - how soon that happens is something I don't know.

What CEO's or executives of major sponsors are going to put their jobs on the line? Really? You think Coke would leave the opening to rival Pepsi or the other way around to sponsor the biggest sport in North America? It's something that would have to be shareholder driven and money is the only thing that drives shareholders.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

LOL are you actually trying to use that as some sort of comparison?

Racism is racism.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by the2bears

If the group that's targeted finds it offensive, that's good enough for me. Not going to pretend as a middle-age white guy I can understand, and not going to presume to speak for any other group.

Does the "group" as a whole really find it offensive or a small part of the group? This is the problem for me as you can have 100 people in the US that find the term Yankees offensive but does that mean it's really offensive to americans?

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Really though whether you dress up as an Indian or Viking what should that have to do with the history of either race? The term "Viking" actually means "pirate" or "raider" yet has been attached northern Europeans. You can argue that Norwegians could be offended by the use of Viking. Ironically it was Native Americans that drove the Vikings out of North America btw.

Just to clear something up:
- The term "Viking" was not just attached to Northern Europeans arbitrarily, it was part of our language, meaning either "expedition" or "seafarer". Later, it became synonymous with "raider". It referred more to a person who did a specific thing, rather than a people. In the last 100 years or so, it became associated with Norsemen of the Viking Era in general, but it does not actually refer to a race or any people that have existed for about 1000 years.

Bringing up Vikings to me doesn't make sense. It is not offensive, nor is it close to the same as Indian. Viking is more along the lines of "Knight" or "Pirate". Just because the names were at one time more specific to a certain area of the world, doesn't mean they directly apply to a people in the same way Indian does.

The Vikings were not only never a "people" per say, but they were also never marginalised. It is probably more believable to say your name celebrates a strong, conquering group that history looks romantically upon (and is used as a marketing tool profusely, even in Scandinavia), as opposed to a people who you conquered and disparaged for most of your history with them.

So no, you can't argue Scandinavians are offended by the promotional use of the term "Viking". It's probably more offensive to suggest we would be, honestly.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Does the "group" as a whole really find it offensive or a small part of the group? This is the problem for me as you can have 100 people in the US that find the term Yankees offensive but does that mean it's really offensive to americans?

A small part of the group is good enough for me. Particularly when the term is so clearly a slang. If even if it a small number of the relevant group that find it offensive - that's good enough for me.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Which is bizarre because when that name was formed, it was because...they wore red uniforms. Had nothing to do with natives...at least that's how it was told to me many many moons ago.

Ahh, yeah, about that...

[Chill Cosby]

A more apt comparison to the term "Indian" would be Arabs, or Jews, I think.

Would the Oklahoma Arabs be fine?
Would the Florida Jews?

This whole Viking/Yankee nonsense is... nonsense! lol.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

A more apt comparison to the term "Indian" would be Arabs, or Jews, I think.

Would the Oklahoma Arabs be fine?
Would the Florida Jews?

This whole Viking/Yankee nonsense is... nonsense! lol.

What about Fighting Irish?

[burn_baby_burn]

Not sure if anyone caught this from the article I posted from the KC Star. Earlier article back in June. About the woman leading the fight against the Washington NFL team saying the Chiefs should be on guard.

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt...cle618354.html

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Doubtful at best...unless Snyder dies or sells the team. Neither one is likely.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

That is overly optimistic.

When major publications have already stopped using the name of the team, it'll snowball from there.