Anti-Redskins add to run during game 3 of NBA finals

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Native people are Canadian, so are French, British, Acadian and Metis people.

You'd be surprised how many of those communities would disagree with that statement.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

How would people feel If they changed their name to the Washington warriors and kept the logo?

Much like the Cleveland Indians (where I think they should keep the name and change the logo) I would be ok with this.

If they are going to change the name, they might as well ditch all references to Native Americans in the logo and name. Not much point in going halfway and still offending some people.

[Trumbull]

Originally Posted by terminator

Can't wait till the name is changed, it'll be fun watching Trumball cry about it.

Opposed to the enjoyment out of watching people embellish and cry about the team name now?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Native people are Canadian, so are French, British, Acadian and Metis people. A couple of those groups have seen their share of oppression/subjectation.

Irrelevant as those groups were not oppressed/subjugated for being Canadian.

Either way, you kind of cherry picked one sentence that wasn't really my point. My point is if the name opens up the logo to be racist, it should probably be changed. But the logo itself, what else is a designer supposed to do when tasked with making a cartoon Native person? If you changed the Indians' logo to a feather or a tomahak (both of which I beleive they use as well), it's still racist. So just change the name - especially since it's not even a real name anyways.

That makes your comparison rather absurd, given "Canuck" is not viewed as being a derogatory term by the affected group. So if the name is unoffensive to the associated group, the Johnny Canuck logo fails to become an apples to apples comparison.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I would change the name Indians too, and I think the writing is on the wall that they are headed in that direction.

As a Redskins fan, I'd have much less of a problem if all the leagues united to remove the Native American names and logos. I still want to know if the majority of Native Americans are against all these names though. My feeling has always been that it is a vocal minority, but I could be wrong. It seems like that community is very fractured, so I am not convinced that all the leaders claiming to be speaking for the population really represent that population. Also, to the above comment about naming it after a tribe, it seems that there are some fractions that are in favour of such names, and some against. ie the Seminoles seem to have the local Seminoles supporting the name, but other groups against it.

[habernac]

so when do the Edmonton Eskimos become a target?

[Trumbull]

Originally Posted by habernac

so when do the Edmonton Eskimos become a target?

When society completely bends over to PC.

At the moment they're only partially bent over.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You'd be surprised how many of those communities would disagree with that statement.

Yeah that's kind of my point as groups of people that MAY be offended by being grouped in with lumberjack "Canucks".

But again, that's not really my point. I personally don't see the Indians' logo as something with racist intentions. It's a cartoon native person, like the Canucks logo is a cartoon Canadian person.

It's the name that is racist and the logo stems from the name, thus making it racist.

Another way to look at it. If I was to make a TV cartoon, about native people, which referred to them as such and celebrated the heritage and way of life for many different bands, and drew the characters along the same lines as Chief Wahoo, would the cartoon be racist? Not anymore than Fat Albert and is friends are racist IMO.

Again, I'm not native so nothing I say really holds any merit, I'm just curious about other peoples opinions on it.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

That makes your comparison rather absurd, given "Canuck" is not viewed as being a derogatory term by the affected group. So if the name is unoffensive to the associated group, the Johnny Canuck logo fails to become an apples to apples comparison.

Yeah that's exactly what I'm getting at. The names Indians' and Redskins are racist. But as far as the logos are concerned, they are an extension of the team name and IMO wouldn't be racist in different context.

[Trumbull]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Yeah that's kind of my point as groups of people that MAY be offended by being grouped in with lumberjack "Canucks".

But again, that's not really my point. I personally don't see the Indians' logo as something with racist intentions. It's a cartoon native person, like the Canucks logo is a cartoon Canadian person.

It's the name that is racist and the logo stems from the name, thus making it racist.

Another way to look at it. If I was to make a TV cartoon, about native people, which referred to them as such and celebrated the heritage and way of life for many different bands, and drew the characters along the same lines as Chief Wahoo, would the cartoon be racist? Not anymore than Fat Albert and is friends are racist IMO.

Again, I'm not native so nothing I say really holds any merit, I'm just curious about other peoples opinions on it.



Yeah that's exactly what I'm getting at. The names Indians' and Redskins are racist. But as far as the logos are concerned, they are an extension of the team name and IMO wouldn't be racist in different context.

The name Indians is now racist? Haha. Wow.

In my short time living in the US I got a little primer on how they think concerning individual rights, as well as interpretations of language. And honestly I like their way of thinking better. A logo is not racist, racism is racist. Racism is an intent, and I've yet to see any racist intent from this team's name, logo, or anything. Only around the time the Redskins were making it to the Super Bowl did suddenly anyone take issue with it, since then there's been overwhelming American support to keep the name as is, I've never once heard the word Redskin used in a pejorative sense while in the states, versus the n-word and other things I'm seeing it compared to, where I have quite often.

Here in Canada we're leaps and bounds more sensitive to the issue of natives, while this being a good thing here, discounts the issue south in the US.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Irrelevant as those groups were not oppressed/subjugated for being Canadian.



That makes your comparison rather absurd, given "Canuck" is not viewed as being a derogatory term by the affected group. So if the name is unoffensive to the associated group, the Johnny Canuck logo fails to become an apples to apples comparison.

But there are a lot of arguments being tossed about here. I don't know that being oppressed or the terms being derogatory are even the biggest arguments.

It seems that there are some against the names, some against the faces of the logos (ie, Redskins, Blackhawks, Indians), some against words and pictures that represent arrows, arrowheads, tomahawks, etc, some against just the use of Native American symbols and cultures in sports in general.

I feel like they have a right to be upset about all those things because they are things that belong to their culture. There is some onus on them though to provide some statistics of what their whole community thinks of these various things. If Goodell is claiming 90% of Native Americans are okay with the Redskins, then I'm going to believe him until someone proves otherwise.

[Daradon]

I'm not sure the US is a shining example on how to view racism (or what is racist or not).

You may like it better, but that's not really here or there.

[Trumbull]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

But there are a lot of arguments being tossed about here. I don't know that being oppressed or the terms being derogatory are even the biggest arguments.

It seems that there are some against the names, some against the faces of the logos (ie, Redskins, Blackhawks, Indians), some against words and pictures that represent arrows, arrowheads, tomahawks, etc, some against just the use of Native American symbols and cultures in sports in general.

I feel like they have a right to be upset about all those things because they are things that belong to their culture. There is some onus on them though to provide some statistics of what their whole community thinks of these various things. If Goodell is claiming 90% of Native Americans are okay with the Redskins, then I'm going to believe him until someone proves otherwise.

Difference between them and us is, they don't allow natives to control policy. They recognize the way natives were treated centuries ago and already give them special treatment with tax exemptions, but other than that, it's really not necessary. The US doesn't belong to natives, there's more reason to believe Blackhawks, Indians, Braves, Redskins, etc. are respectful toward the heritage of that region. Very few people think anything of those names, until some PC movement came along and told them they should.

Originally Posted by Daradon

I'm not sure the US is a shining example on how to view racism (or what is racist or not).

You may like it better, but that's not really here or there.

This issue is about an American football team, so how the US views racism is far more relevant than not. It's more logical to suggest how we think in Canada is what's irrelevant.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I love the anti-PC jargon. It's like being politically correct is a bad thing.

Yes sometimes PC is goes too far out of context, but racial slurs isn't one.

One thing that I think is being argued effectively by nfotiu is whether Native Americans do indeed find the term to be racist.

Yes numerous tribes have spoken out against redskins, but are they a vocal minority, or is the term truly racist?

Personally I think it is and the amount of outcry is enough for me to agree. However, I don't know if this is a vocal minority.

I am totally fine with an accredited polling company putting together a questionnaire to find out.

So my questions would be:

At what point do we as a society accept Redskin as a racial slur? 30% respond yes, 50%?

Secondly, is it appropriate to conduct a poll to determine if n*gger is actually offensive to African Americans or has the PC police gone too far? Are there official statistics on this?

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Trumbull

This issue is about an American football team, so how the US views racism is far more relevant than not. It's more logical to suggest how we think in Canada is what's irrelevant.

???

It's not illogical to suggest there are moral standards. An extreme example, but slavery is still racist. It doesn't matter if the country that is doing it feels it is or it isn't.

As well, sometimes an outsiders view is the most unbiased. Actually often it is, and I'm not just saying for issues like this. It's fresh eyes to look at the situation.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Trumbull

The name Indians is now racist? Haha. Wow.

Yes. They are not Indians. That is not where they come from or where they reside. People who are from and live in India are Indians. I agree racism is in the intent, so maybe labeling the name Indian's as racist is incorrect (depending on the context) but a) why leave that up to interpretation? and b) It's just flat out wrong, so why are people still using it?

In my short time living in the US I got a little primer on how they think concerning individual rights, as well as interpretations of language. And honestly I like their way of thinking better. A logo is not racist, racism is racist. Racism is an intent, and I've yet to see any racist intent from this team's name, logo, or anything. Only around the time the Redskins were making it to the Super Bowl did suddenly anyone take issue with it, since then there's been overwhelming American support to keep the name as is, I've never once heard the word Redskin used in a pejorative sense while in the states, versus the n-word and other things I'm seeing it compared to, where I have quite often.

The word was conceived as racist and is still racist. And as said above, if you're using the US as your standard for racism, you are already very far behind.

Here in Canada we're leaps and bounds more sensitive to the issue of natives, while this being a good thing here, discounts the issue south in the US.

No it doesn't. Racism is universal and global and not subject to a specific country's opinions on it. Redskin is a derogatory term for all Native people, whether they live in the States or know what football even is makes no difference.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Trumbull

The name Indians is now racist?

Well it's just plain wrong. It would be like having a team the Detroit Japanese whose logo is a big black guy.


One thing that I think is being missed (in general not attributing directly to the above quoted poster) is the issue of systemic racism.

If we see images and hear racial slurs on a daily basis we become desensitized to them and become accepting of them. Yet, they are still degrading to the people the slur is against.

Why are we more "sensitive" in Canada? Because we understand this.

[Trumbull]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I love the anti-PC jargon. It's like being politically correct is a bad thing.

Yes sometimes PC is goes too far out of context, but racial slurs isn't one.

One thing that I think is being argued effectively by nfotiu is whether Native Americans do indeed find the term to be racist.

Yes numerous tribes have spoken out against redskins, but are they a vocal minority, or is the term truly racist?

Personally I think it is and the amount of outcry is enough for me to agree. However, I don't know if this is a vocal minority.

I am totally fine with an accredited polling company putting together a questionnaire to find out.

So my questions would be:

At what point do we as a society accept Redskin as a racial slur? 30% respond yes, 50%?

Secondly, is it appropriate to conduct a poll to determine if n*gger is actually offensive to African Americans or has the PC police gone too far? Are there official statistics on this?

I have no idea what you mean by "we as a society", this issue is regarding a US football team. It has nothing to do with society outside of that context.

As for your dispute with polls, they've been regularly taken since the issue popped up, and while there shows a slight dip in support for the name, it's very clear if you're able to objectively gauge support for something, support for the Redskins name is going nowhere for a very long time.

Nextly, calling something racist, even if it's a group that's saying they find it racist, does not inherently make it so. What matters is the context upon which the word is said or used. There's more than sufficient logic in the notion that if these team names were really "racist", they would not be accepted, especially from fans of that team, never mind such wide support from the American football viewing audience, a league which is ridiculously sensitive to the issue of racism (and everything else) already. In order for something to be racist, racist intent needs to be shown, and on this issue it fails to pass that muster.

So this is why I see no logic in following along with this PC belief that a team must change their name based on these highly flawed rationales.

Originally Posted by MattyC

Yes. They are not Indians. That is not where they come from or where they reside. People who are from and live in India are Indians. I agree racism is in the intent, so maybe labeling the name Indian's as racist is incorrect (depending on the context) but a) why leave that up to interpretation? and b) It's just flat out wrong, so why are people still using it?

The word was conceived as racist and is still racist. And as said above, if you're using the US as your standard for racism, you are already very far behind.

No it doesn't. Racism is universal and global and not subject to a specific country's opinions on it. Redskin is a derogatory term for all Native people, whether they live in the States or know what football even is makes no difference.

Why leave that up to interpretation? Because the English language is entirely full of interpretation. Interpreting what someone means is the only value to language, and if there is no viewed racism here, if that word is not used (anymore or at all), then it's simply not racist.

Person X stubs their toe on a chair, spews out the N word, they're racist against blacks now? According to you, it doesn't matter what their intent is, it only matters what someone else thinks of it. The slippery slope of this and attempt to control language in this manner is, while not a novelty, still ridiculous.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Well it's just plain wrong. It would be like having a team the Detroit Japanese whose logo is a big black guy.


One thing that I think is being missed (in general not attributing directly to the above quoted poster) is the issue of systemic racism.

If we see images and hear racial slurs on a daily basis we become desensitized to them and become accepting of them. Yet, they are still degrading to the people the slur is against.

Why are we more "sensitive" in Canada? Because we understand this.

Excellent point. The very fact that people are so used to it is the biggest problem with it, not a sign that it is ok.

[Trumbull]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Well it's just plain wrong. It would be like having a team the Detroit Japanese whose logo is a big black guy.


One thing that I think is being missed (in general not attributing directly to the above quoted poster) is the issue of systemic racism.

If we see images and hear racial slurs on a daily basis we become desensitized to them and become accepting of them. Yet, they are still degrading to the people the slur is against.

Why are we more "sensitive" in Canada? Because we understand this.

What systemic racism against natives exists in the US? I'm interested, apparently we know in Canada more than they do about their own societal happenings.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Trumbull

Why leave that up to interpretation? Because the English language is entirely full of interpretation. Interpreting what someone means is the only value to language, and if there is no viewed racism here, if that word is not used (anymore or at all), then it's simply not racist.

Person X stubs their toe on a chair, spews out the N word, they're racist against blacks now? According to you, it doesn't matter what their intent is, it only matters what someone else thinks of it. The slippery slope of this and attempt to control language in this manner is, while not a novelty, still ridiculous.

Yes language is up to interpretation. It's also at the subjectation of what is deemed correct, acceptable or derogatory. Indian is not the correct thing to call a Native person. They are not Indian.

Shouting N- when stubbing your toe is obviously not racist. But the term is derogatory and shouldn't even be used. If you want to use derogatory terms outside of context and claim them to be not derogatory, well you're just plain wrong and your mindset needs to change.

Example: As a kid, it was pretty standard to call peope fags. If your friend was being an idiot, he was a fag. If you didn't like someone, they were a fag. As a kid I had no idea it was a derogatory term for gay people, or that people around me may have been unintentially offended by it. So, as a kid was I homophobic? No. That doesn't mean the term is less derogatory and the kid shouldn't be educated to not use it. And adults that still use these terms loosely should be educated as well, not celebrated for conserving some outdated traditional term that is rooted in subjectation, incorrectly indentifies an entire group of people. And those who still use the terms should be shamed, and rightfully so. No different than smokers, religious fanatics, or anyone else that prides themselves on going about their lives refusing to update their knowledge on simple things.

As an adult I'm much more concious of using words like that at all. Does it happen sometimes by accident? Yeah, its tough to remove stuff like that from automation. But if I ever do/did use the word I apologize to those around me whether any of them are gay or not. Why? Because personally I take offense to those words because they are rooted in hate and shouldn't be used purely because they are reminiscent of a time when it was OK to think yourself above someone else. Whether you are hateful when you say them or not makes no difference.

I have friends that use N- when referring to their buddies very casually. I personally don't like it and make it known when they do. The best thing for those words to do is just disappear. Black people did something different and decided to own it rather than fight it. I'm not sure it's the best way to go about it but that's up to them. I won't use the word.