Use of Native American Imagery in Sports

[Aarongavey]

As we get close to another NFL season I think it is time to crack out the Redskins fight song

"Scalp em, swamp em, we will take em big score
Read em, weep em, touchdown, we want heap more"

All the posters who think the name is not racist can chant that classic fight song for the non racist Washington Redskins.

[Weitz]

I actually saw that on CBC last night, they did a report on the name. I think it was from a while ago and the replayed it but it was still good.

I couldn't believe they feel it isn't racist and then the played the original fighting song.. filled with racism if you ask me.

[Split98]

Thought this was why this thread got bumped, but Simms and Dungy are digging the dagger pretty deep into Washington here. I doubt they can remain the 'Redskins' for too much longer after this:

Simms, Dungy will try not to use 'Redskins' on TV
Simms will work the Thursday night package the network acquired this season and will have Giants-Redskins on Sept. 25. He isn't taking sides in the debate over whether Washington's nickname is offensive or racist. But he says he is sensitive to the complaints about the name, and his instincts now are to not use Redskins in his announcing.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/football/nf...n-tv-1.2739908

Kinda has been another thing puzzling me. First, I agree with those thinking the name should be changed. Second, with all of the public outcry and people being sensitive and offended by it... why push forward just to keep your team name? Typically if a brand offends someone, and the point against keeping it has any merits... you change the name.

But if they manage to keep this up all season and any other broadcasters follow suit, this could be the end of the battle.

[corporatejay]

What does "we want heap more" mean?

[mennoknight]

it means the writer of the song thought that First Nations people were too stupid to say "heaps" more (i.e. the fans are requesting that hey, if you could please help us out football players, we would like to see you score another touchdown or two).

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Split98

Thought this was why this thread got bumped, but Simms and Dungy are digging the dagger pretty deep into Washington here. I doubt they can remain the 'Redskins' for too much longer after this:


http://www.cbc.ca/sports/football/nf...n-tv-1.2739908

Kinda has been another thing puzzling me. First, I agree with those thinking the name should be changed. Second, with all of the public outcry and people being sensitive and offended by it... why push forward just to keep your team name? Typically if a brand offends someone, and the point against keeping it has any merits... you change the name.

But if they manage to keep this up all season and any other broadcasters follow suit, this could be the end of the battle.

Meh. Means nothing. You think Simms and Dungy have any influence on Snyder and the NFL? Dungie himself is a hypocrite with his anti-gay comments regarding Michael Sam. Being a bigot he's the last person that should be getting involved. I have listened to Washington beat writers on Sirius NFL radio and they are in defense of the name and site that there has yet to be a single large scale US poll that wasn't overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the name.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Meh. Means nothing. You think Simms and Dungy have any influence on Snyder and the NFL? Dungie himself is a hypocrite with his anti-gay comments regarding Michael Sam. Being a bigot he's the last person that should be getting involved. I have listened to Washington beat writers on Sirius NFL radio and they are in defense of the name and site that there has yet to be a single large scale US poll that wasn't overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the name.

By themselves? No. But my hope is that others follow suit

[Senator Clay Davis]

The only thing that will change the name is money. Donald Sterling was a known racist for at least a decade before the was booted out of the NBA. So why was he booted when he was? Because the league was facing a player and sponsor boycott. In terms of racist things he did, the tapes of Sterling rank somewhere near the bottom of the list, but because they were the most public comments, that was the end for him.

Same applies here. Until the Redskins and the NFL start shedding money from this, nothing will change at all. Broadcasters refusing to say the name is completely irrelevant to getting the name changed. Sponsors or players boycotting or merchandise sales going in the toilet are the only path to a change here.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Meh. Means nothing. You think Simms and Dungy have any influence on Snyder and the NFL? Dungie himself is a hypocrite with his anti-gay comments regarding Michael Sam. Being a bigot he's the last person that should be getting involved. I have listened to Washington beat writers on Sirius NFL radio and they are in defense of the name and site that there has yet to be a single large scale US poll that wasn't overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the name.

So you do agree that the Redskins is a hateful, bigoted, racist name and those that support the name are supporting a long history of a bigoted franchise but your issue is with Dungy commenting because he made some bigoted comments and therefore should not comment?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

So you do agree that the Redskins is a hateful, bigoted, racist name and those that support the name are supporting a long history of a bigoted franchise but your issue is with Dungy commenting because he made some bigoted comments and therefore should not comment?

No. I have an issue with a bigot accusing someone of racism. I agree that some natives may take offense to the name and also understand that a many of them do not care nor take offense and in fact some take pride in it. I believe you can use a lot of names like Browns, Indians, etc in a racial context but sentence and turn them into spiteful words however we are talking team names here. Goodell was asked if he would walk up to a native and call him "Redskin" to his face. He said no as it's the name of a football team.

One of the Washington columnists went to one of the reserves and was stunned by the poor conditions and made a point that here's these people living in deplorable conditions and nobody cares but when a small group of them take offense to a team name it's national news because the real issues like natives living in slums doesn't sell newspapers or make for good news stories. He's right.

[JiriHrdina]

So that logic is that because there are bigger issues that need to be dealt with - it is OK to have an NFL team use a racial slur?

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

No. I have an issue with a bigot accusing someone of racism. I agree that some natives may take offense to the name and also understand that a many of them do not care nor take offense and in fact some take pride in it. I believe you can use a lot of names like Browns, Indians, etc in a racial context but sentence and turn them into spiteful words however we are talking team names here. Goodell was asked if he would walk up to a native and call him "Redskin" to his face. He said no as it's the name of a football team.

One of the Washington columnists went to one of the reserves and was stunned by the poor conditions and made a point that here's these people living in deplorable conditions and nobody cares but when a small group of them take offense to a team name it's national news because the real issues like natives living in slums doesn't sell newspapers or make for good news stories. He's right.

It is the name of a football team whose fight song includes their desire to scalp their opponents, seems like a fairly racial context to me.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

So that logic is that because there are bigger issues that need to be dealt with - it is OK to have an NFL team use a racial slur?

Until the inevitable collapse of the universe following the expansion of the big ban occurs, all other problems are trivial. Let's solve that one before we worry about the small stuff.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

So that logic is that because there are bigger issues that need to be dealt with - it is OK to have an NFL team use a racial slur?

What do you care about more Jiri? Honestly I bet most Americans and Canadians would want the name of a football team changed before providing better conditions for natives to live because we don't really have a vested interest in their day to day living conditions. We want to stick it to the man (Snider and the NFL). We want to show the NFL that we are evolved and cognitive of minorities because that makes us feel good about ourselves. It makes us feel evolved. Not a single native will benefit from it but lots of North Americans will feel good about it and really that's all that counts now is the majority feeling like they are do-gooders even when they aren't doing anything. At the end of the day having the Redskins name changed would be a giant headline, politicians would pat themselves on the back and the regular majority would feel good about this big positive they influenced but for the native Americans continuing their day to day lives in lousy conditions it would be a very, very small victory. But really it's not even about them anymore as it's about us as always.

[fatso]

Originally Posted by jirihrdina

so that logic is that because there are bigger issues that need to be dealt with - it is ok to have an nfl team use a racial slur?

nm

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

What do you care about more Jiri? Honestly I bet most Americans and Canadians would want the name of a football team changed before providing better conditions for natives to live because we don't really have a vested interest in their day to day living conditions. We want to stick it to the man (Snider and the NFL). We want to show the NFL that we are evolved and cognitive of minorities because that makes us feel good about ourselves. It makes us feel evolved. Not a single native will benefit from it but lots of North Americans will feel good about it and really that's all that counts now is the majority feeling like they are do-gooders even when they aren't doing anything. At the end of the day having the Redskins name changed would be a giant headline, politicians would pat themselves on the back and the regular majority would feel good about this big positive they influenced but for the native Americans continuing their day to day lives in lousy conditions it would be a very, very small victory. But really it's not even about them anymore as it's about us as always.

You convinced me, the real victims are Snyder and the NFL who merely want to continue years of using a racist name. The hypocrites are the people who point out that it would take approximately 1.5 billable hours for the Redskins and NFL lawyers to change the name, 1.5 billable hours too much if you ask me because those hours could be used to alleviate the living conditions of Native Americans.

It is similar to those who insisted that African Americans stop being referred to as "boy" or N*****" by white Americans. Those white do gooders made it all about themselves while the plight of the African Ameican was staring them in the face. How about helping out on that before you start on some useless crusade to change what names people are called. That cause takes 1.5 hours longer than anyone should ever spend on changing the name.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

What do you care about more Jiri? Honestly I bet most Americans and Canadians would want the name of a football team changed before providing better conditions for natives to live because we don't really have a vested interest in their day to day living conditions. We want to stick it to the man (Snider and the NFL). We want to show the NFL that we are evolved and cognitive of minorities because that makes us feel good about ourselves. It makes us feel evolved. Not a single native will benefit from it but lots of North Americans will feel good about it and really that's all that counts now is the majority feeling like they are do-gooders even when they aren't doing anything. At the end of the day having the Redskins name changed would be a giant headline, politicians would pat themselves on the back and the regular majority would feel good about this big positive they influenced but for the native Americans continuing their day to day lives in lousy conditions it would be a very, very small victory. But really it's not even about them anymore as it's about us as always.

Why does to be a choice? Should efforts be made to improve the bigger problems? Yes. Do those efforts get in the way of the right decision being made when it comes to the naming of the Redskins? No.
Both can happen. And just because enough progress isn't being made overall doesn't and shouldn't give the NFL and Snyder an out.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by Split98

Thought this was why this thread got bumped, but Simms and Dungy are digging the dagger pretty deep into Washington here. I doubt they can remain the 'Redskins' for too much longer after this:


http://www.cbc.ca/sports/football/nf...n-tv-1.2739908

Kinda has been another thing puzzling me. First, I agree with those thinking the name should be changed. Second, with all of the public outcry and people being sensitive and offended by it... why push forward just to keep your team name? Typically if a brand offends someone, and the point against keeping it has any merits... you change the name.

But if they manage to keep this up all season and any other broadcasters follow suit, this could be the end of the battle.

When I heard about that I was wondering if Simm's could be in jepardy of losing his job because of stipulations in his contract? I have no idea what would be in his contract or how it would be worded. However, one would think that the NFL would have stipulations regarding a boycot or refusal to say team names or locations, for whatever reason, in a contract with a play by play or on air commentator. Especially when the Network is owned and operated by the NFL.

It's obvious that the NFL is not going to remove the team name at this time. So one would think that they would try to neutralize a situation where a tv commentator employed by the league is bringing extra scrunity to the situation.

[Arya Stark]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

What do you care about more Jiri? Honestly I bet most Americans and Canadians would want the name of a football team changed before providing better conditions for natives to live because we don't really have a vested interest in their day to day living conditions. We want to stick it to the man (Snider and the NFL). We want to show the NFL that we are evolved and cognitive of minorities because that makes us feel good about ourselves. It makes us feel evolved. Not a single native will benefit from it but lots of North Americans will feel good about it and really that's all that counts now is the majority feeling like they are do-gooders even when they aren't doing anything. At the end of the day having the Redskins name changed would be a giant headline, politicians would pat themselves on the back and the regular majority would feel good about this big positive they influenced but for the native Americans continuing their day to day lives in lousy conditions it would be a very, very small victory. But really it's not even about them anymore as it's about us as always.

Guess we should have allowed slavery to continue until the black people's living conditions were as good as the white folk. We also should have not landed on the moon until cancer was cured, what a waste of money. We could have cured cancer! Thanks, moon.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

What do you care about more Jiri? Honestly I bet most Americans and Canadians would want the name of a football team changed before providing better conditions for natives to live because we don't really have a vested interest in their day to day living conditions. We want to stick it to the man (Snider and the NFL). We want to show the NFL that we are evolved and cognitive of minorities because that makes us feel good about ourselves. It makes us feel evolved. Not a single native will benefit from it but lots of North Americans will feel good about it and really that's all that counts now is the majority feeling like they are do-gooders even when they aren't doing anything. At the end of the day having the Redskins name changed would be a giant headline, politicians would pat themselves on the back and the regular majority would feel good about this big positive they influenced but for the native Americans continuing their day to day lives in lousy conditions it would be a very, very small victory. But really it's not even about them anymore as it's about us as always.

You sound like a racist white. Who are you to say that no First Nation would benefit?

The issues facing First Nations is this paternalization, acceptance of racism, and general inequality. Let me paint you a picture of a former workplace of mine a few years ago. We were desperate for laborers and would hire anyone in a heart beat. A native guy walks in and applies off the street. HR didn't look him in the eye, immediately asked if he would pass a A+D test, interrupted his responses, and then told him that they weren't hiring. This guy was young, in physical shape and clean cut but has seen a days work. 2 hours later a 40 year old white dude (going on 60) who looked like a career doper got a hand shake and promise of a call back.

I've worked in industry long enough to know how people feel about First Nations around the job site. But I've been on a reserve site and see people chatting with each other like any other tailgate. They don't feel comfortable in their own country.

The best thing for First Nations, IMO, is not land treaties and INAC benefits, but things like the Red Skins changing their name.