The New Jersey Devils are extremely insensitive to worshipers of Satan and should definitely change their name.
Slippery slope topic.
That would be relevant if Satan existed.
It is not a slippery slope. These are offensive names, discriminatory names, derogatory names. All you have to do is put it in a different context, if you had a team called the Washington Kikes and the symbol was a guy with a long nose counting money, you would have every single human rights related organization justifiable up your ass in a heartbeat. Nobody would put up with that type of crap, but since it is Natives it is supposedly ok.
Last edited by EddyBeers; 02-15-2013 at 12:06 AM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to EddyBeers For This Useful Post:
Ya the Indians logo and the Redskins name are pretty bad. Find it irritating lately how many people are trotting out the political correctness is running wild comment or some variation on that. Use some gd common sense, just because there have been a couple politically correct things that were stupid doesn't mean they all are and by extension it's somehow OK to call natives redskins.
Use some gd common sense, just because there have been a couple politically correct things that were stupid doesn't mean they all are and by extension it's somehow OK to call natives redskins.
You know, just because some stupid things have been done in the past doesn't mean that all things from the past is stupid. See how that goes?
Also, repeating over and over how it's "common sense" that a sports team called Redskins is a terrible thing and other people just don't understand doesn't actually make any of it true.
I really don't see a big difference to a team called Canucks. Yes, there is a difference, but I don't see a big difference.
And you know what is really racist behaviour by the way? A bunch of whiteys claiming they can speak for every other race and be the judges of what is offensive what is not. White supremacy complex at it's worst. Unless I missed something, there is zero proof in this thread that the native American in significant numbers, or any numbers actually, find these team names offensive. Just a bunch of white people talking to each other about stuff that isn't really up to them.
The Following User Says Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
You know, just because some stupid things have been done in the past doesn't mean that all things from the past is stupid. See how that goes?
Also, repeating over and over how it's "common sense" that a sports team called Redskins is a terrible thing and other people just don't understand doesn't actually make any of it true.
I really don't see a big difference to a team called Canucks. Yes, there is a difference, but I don't see a big difference.
And you know what is really racist behaviour by the way? A bunch of whiteys claiming they can speak for every other race and be the judges of what is offensive what is not. White supremacy complex at it's worst. Unless I missed something, there is zero proof in this thread that the native American in significant numbers, or any numbers actually, find these team names offensive. Just a bunch of white people talking to each other about stuff that isn't really up to them.
You should read the actual thread then, the whole thread was started with an article about how Native Americans want the names changed, so there are obviously some numbers that feel that way. So to answer your query, you did miss something.
You know, just because some stupid things have been done in the past doesn't mean that all things from the past is stupid. See how that goes?
Also, repeating over and over how it's "common sense" that a sports team called Redskins is a terrible thing and other people just don't understand doesn't actually make any of it true.
I really don't see a big difference to a team called Canucks. Yes, there is a difference, but I don't see a big difference.
And you know what is really racist behaviour by the way? A bunch of whiteys claiming they can speak for every other race and be the judges of what is offensive what is not. White supremacy complex at it's worst. Unless I missed something, there is zero proof in this thread that the native American in significant numbers, or any numbers actually, find these team names offensive. Just a bunch of white people talking to each other about stuff that isn't really up to them.
I'm actually academically trained in Native affairs, and have a wide background in Native wrote literature, sociology, and statistics. I can tell you for a fact that the name "Redskins" is, and will continue to be, the most derogatory ethnic slur that you can call a Canadian Aboriginal. The reason why "Redskins" is different than "Canucks" is because the word "Redskins" has an actual racial history of domination and control from Colonial to post-Confederation.
Even the study, which we were quick to dismiss for its poor survey question still found that over (statistically) 270,000 Aboriginals would be offended by the name "Redskin" as a football team. I'm not sure what else you need to be convinced that there is something in your reasoning that is very, very flawed.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Cole436 For This Useful Post:
You know, just because some stupid things have been done in the past doesn't mean that all things from the past is stupid. See how that goes?
Also, repeating over and over how it's "common sense" that a sports team called Redskins is a terrible thing and other people just don't understand doesn't actually make any of it true.
I really don't see a big difference to a team called Canucks. Yes, there is a difference, but I don't see a big difference.
And you know what is really racist behaviour by the way? A bunch of whiteys claiming they can speak for every other race and be the judges of what is offensive what is not. White supremacy complex at it's worst. Unless I missed something, there is zero proof in this thread that the native American in significant numbers, or any numbers actually, find these team names offensive. Just a bunch of white people talking to each other about stuff that isn't really up to them.
Yeah a bunch of whiteys claiming they speak for every other race and being the judges of what is offensive and what is not, is what this is about. A bunch of whiteys went ahead and used FN people as mascots and used their names to embellish their franchises without consulting the people involved. That more or less put them as less then human or as characterizations that weren't complementary. That they haven't spoken up much, doesn't take into consideration that they have a lot of worse problems to deal with, like just being considered full partners in our society which after years of being demeaned, they have had a hard time speaking up until recently.
Sitting back across the ocean Europeans often have this idealized view of the natives here and don't realize how they have been treated over the years. I don't know how this will turn out but yeah, the First Nations people should be the ones who decide and the Washington Redskins team shouldn't have any say about it.
First, I stand corrected on that article, thanks Eddy, and sorry. Forgot where this started.
Sorry for this being too long, too tired to put together compact thougths and prioritize.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vulcan
That more or less put them as less then human or as characterizations that weren't complementary.
Thing is, we don't live in the 18th or 19th or 20th century anymore. Symbols are what they represent now. Unless of course you want to argue that the swastika is totally ok because it's an ancient symbol dating back to times of the Indus-culture.
Symbols are also not the thing itself. Meanings, such as primitivity, can be attached to and detached from them. Symbols can also be re-interpreted, and this has been done countless times over the history. To me it's far from obvious that the current image of Blackhawk is offensive to any actual person, living or dead.
This is why names should be handled on a case-by-case basis, not by blanket statements.
Redskins, not cool, Indians... eh. Blackhawks? Cool.
That's the thing. Not fanatically stating that all names of such history should be changed.
Quote:
That they haven't spoken up much, doesn't take into consideration that they have a lot of worse problems to deal with, like just being considered full partners in our society which after years of being demeaned, they have had a hard time speaking up until recently.
Possible, but there is nothing really in this thread that convinces me of that. The one small poll quoted had a lot more people in it than were quoted in the OP link.
Quote:
Sitting back across the ocean Europeans often have this idealized view of the natives here and don't realize how they have been treated over the years.
Oh look, you totally made an comically ignorant generalization of about a billion people there. Kind of funny.
Quote:
I don't know how this will turn out but yeah, the First Nations people should be the ones who decide and the Washington Redskins team shouldn't have any say about it.
I agree that propably that name should go, but there is such a thing as the law, which states that someone does own the image and the brand, and you need to prove your argumentation before you can tell them to do anything about what is theirs. Also, and this is coming from a dirty commie, it really is not fair to ask someone to spend millions to rebrand their product just because some people don't like it. There has to be a little more to it.
This case might have that, but I have seen little evidence of it here, and I think it's been poorly argumented for, except by "it's common sense", worded in many different ways. And "common sense" argument is often a cover for not really having a point.
I do agree that it's best left up to the "natives" for the lack of perfect solutions. (Although personally I think of it as a kind of a ridiculous term, since they are no more or less native than anyone else born on that continent. But then again I also think that all nationalism is essentially proto-fascism anyway, so maybe it's just the anarchist in me.)
However some on this thread have decisively stated that the Blackhaws should change their name, no questions asked from anyone. When it's really none of our business. Which is typical whitey supremacy complex.
On a more personal level, I think it's ridiculous and counter-productive for people living today to want to self-identify as 18th and 19th century "indians" or their descendants. Because seriously, in my eyes that's what this is about. They might prefer to call themselves First Nations, native Americans or what ever, but when they start throwing fits over imagery that is clearly pop culture "indian", they are in effect saying that they want to own "being indian". I think that's just dumb and the last thing they should be doing. I know that's not a nice thing to say, but I think it's a fair comment in this discussion.
To me it would make much more sense to detach themselves from it. And no, this does not mean detaching yourself from your culture, because "indians" are already almost completely detached from anything actually native American. Just like pop culture vikings are in effect completely separate from historical vikings, which is one reason why the two sets of images can peacefully co-exist without anybody being bothered by it. (Except for some historians.)
The real question is this;
Is this name-changing business of any use?
Hiding away native American warrior imagery does not make people of native American heritage any more rich or white. Does it make the "dirty redskin" stereotype any less dirty and primitive? I think that's questionable. It does make it less warriorlike. Whether this is good or not is hard to say.
There will also always be racism. Doing "something" for the sake of being "sensitive" does not necessarily help anything, but can actually end up being something that inflames racial tensions. For example by touching something that is precious to millions of mostly white males for reasons many of them will not understand. (If you really wanted to play devils advocate, you could argue that cultural sensitivity goes both ways. Exotic warriors of all kinds are an important part of sports culture.)
And again, this whole thing stinks like whitewashing. "Instead of doing anything about this, let's hide these symbols so we don't have to deal with it." Just ask post WWII Germans how much hiding your old symbols will do to detaching yourself from past stigmas.
Even more generally, I dislike the idea that history is somehow owned by someone. If you ask me, nobody living today has anything to do with "indians". I feel this is one of those things that does as much to keep the culture of victimization alive as much as it does to leave it behind us.
lol, now you're going all politcal-religious on me here by pushing your ideas that Satan doesn't exist as a fact. HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My values and beliefs are being opressed so you should definitely stop. Religion/race are protected under the same chartered right so I don't see how one can pick and choose.
JK, I don't have religious beliefs at all. Just talking here. Whatever, I don't care. "Redskins" is pretty rough, I'll agree. IMO Blackhawks is classy and a great tribute.
Location: Chicago Native relocated to the stinking desert of Utah
Exp:
The Jersey Devil was, like Bigfoot, in the West, a legendary beast that was supposed to have roamed the pine forests in New Jersey! It did, alledgedly, have some satanic attributes, cloven hooves, horns, bat wings, but the name of the New Jersey Devils was not an overt religious reference, but, a nod to a local folk legend.
And you know what is really racist behaviour by the way? A bunch of whiteys claiming they can speak for every other race and be the judges of what is offensive what is not. White supremacy complex at it's worst. Unless I missed something, there is zero proof in this thread that the native American in significant numbers, or any numbers actually, find these team names offensive. Just a bunch of white people talking to each other about stuff that isn't really up to them.
Is ok for this whitey to think that the logos are offensive without pretending to speak for ANYONE else?
That said, I hear the Vancouver Tar Babies will be our next NBA team.
Is ok for this whitey to think that the logos are offensive without pretending to speak for ANYONE else?
Everybody has a right to their opinion, so in that sense, absolutely.
But I do think a common hindrance to trying to improve the situation of *enter a group of non-whites here* is white people trying to fix things.
No matter how good the ideas tend to sounds to "us", historically speaking what ever we try, it has a very high propability of backfiring or being completely useless. It also has a high propability of leading to half-measures and overreactions, and tends to strengthen the existing power-dynamics instead of changing them. And honestly I do think "white superiority complex" is a significant factor that is almost impossible to avoid. I often catch myself with it.
I'm not at all against political correctness. I'm 100% behind trying to improve the situation of the descendants of so-called native Americans. Show me the studies, make arguments that are better grounded in methodology of empowerment and improvement of ethnic relations, give me polls done among First Nations and I'm 100% behind you some native person/group.
But when people sound all "won't someone think of People of First Nations", I get very cynical and would rather err on the side of doing nothing.
I really don't see a big difference to a team called Canucks. Yes, there is a difference, but I don't see a big difference.
Imagine a team called the Helsinki Soviets, then multiply that by genocide. That's essentially what every native-themed sports team is. Particularly the Redskins.
That said, I hear the Vancouver Tar Babies will be our next NBA team.
This actually reminds me why I don't see a problem with some names and logos. Franchises aren't trying to name their teams this way today. You look at the Redskins and they were named in 1936 after a name change from Braves. Even reading more about the Redskins name and it was changed to that to honor the bravery and fight that this group showed back in that time. The list goes on and on with these names that we would find offensive if a team were to name it today but that's not the case. There are names that are 50-100 years old and it seems for the most part the groups that are supposed to be offended aren't.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by henriksedin33
Not at all, as I've said, I would rather start with LA over any of the other WC playoff teams. Bunch of underachievers who look good on paper but don't even deserve to be in the playoffs.
There are names that are 50-100 years old and it seems for the most part the groups that are supposed to be offended aren't.
The issue is that in the particular case of native-themed names, people are standing up and saying they are offended.
I like the Blackhawks name, jersey, and logo, but the entire tradition and history of any sports team means exactly NOTHING when compared to the suffering and subjugation of any single human, let alone an entire race of humans.
I would be in favour of not only changing the name of the Blackhawks, but of re-engraving the Stanley Cup to retroactively effect the name-change.
Imagine a team called the Helsinki Soviets, then multiply that by genocide. That's essentially what every native-themed sports team is. Particularly the Redskins.
You keep saying that and I keep not believing you. I think we're starting to reach a point where I at least don't have more to say.
As to your analogy, no way that can work. I'm a privileged white guy from a free country, and I hope that I will never be able to relate.
As to genocide, worth mentioning I think; during WWII Finns had camps for Russian POW:s and even civilians that were third in fatality rates after the ones Hitler and Stalin put up. IMO you can say that we did as much to them than they did to us in the two wars. We also had an active eugenics policy as late as 1960's, later than pretty much anyone else in the world. (Wasn't directed towards Russians though.)
So basicly our role in recent history is more like that of the nazis than the jews.
More relevantly, some of the worst things Finland has done to Saami people and Roma people were born out of attempts to help them. So vestigia terrent, basicly. Finnish government tends to be pretty careful about "helping other people" these days, and I'm with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by driveway
The issue is that in the particular case of native-themed names, people are standing up and saying they are offended.
Show it to me in significant numbers, and show me that there isn't an equal number of the same people who think they are cool, and then we'll talk more.
As far as I see this is really just about the placement of "the line" anyway, not the need for it to be somewhere.
As I said, I see a world of difference between "Redskins" and "Blackhawks". I'm pretty much with you on "Redskins". "Indians", yeah, theoretically I think you could make it work, but in practice better to just change it. With Blackhawks I need more convincing. Case by case.
Sorry.
