Use of Native American Imagery in Sports

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

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

One is a marginalized minority group and the other two aren't?

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by flameswin

The minorities are offended in most cases. That's usually where these movements start. Maybe you're confusing CP'ers discussing it in a thread as being the source of the desire for change, but Natives have been very vocal about certain sports team logos.

Most polls I've seen referenced list the opposition as very minimal towards Redskins. Things like the Chief Wahoo logo - yes there's been strong opposition too.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Most polls I've seen referenced list the opposition as very minimal towards Redskins. Things like the Chief Wahoo logo - yes there's been strong opposition too.

Then you clearly didn't see the "poll" where they protested a Redskins game. Or you know, the protests that have been going on for 25 years...

[Texas Blueliner]

Originally Posted by strombad

Then you clearly didn't see the "poll" where they protested a Redskins game. Or you know, the protests that have been going on for 25 years...

Well there ya have it. The polls don't matter, protests do. Someone get the Westboro Baptists on the line so we can enact some changes.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Texas Blueliner

Well there ya have it. The polls don't matter, protests do. Someone get the Westboro Baptists on the line so we can enact some changes.

Being facetious is definitely the best way to disguise lacking a point.

Perhaps you'd like to compare something relevant? Westboro Baptist protests are a great indicator that Westboro Baptists find the things they protest offensive. Much in the same way that a 25 year protest by different Native American groups is a great indicator that "Redskins" is offensive.

Good effort though!

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by gargamel

One is a marginalized minority group and the other two aren't?

Aren't they a marginalized minority group due to their small population and not because a football team uses the name "Redskins"?

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Aren't they a marginalized minority group due to their small population and not because a football team uses the name "Redskins"?

The name "Redskins" isn't the cause of their marginalization, but the rules are different when making a caricature of a group that has the power to define itself than when the group is relatively powerless against the majority.

Having a team called the Yankees located where the majority of the fans are Yankees is very different than having teams called the Redskins and the Indians located where a tiny fraction of the fans are Native Americans.

For a better comparison, imagine if a CFL team was named the Yankees and had a stereotypical gun toting obese American for a mascot. Or if, instead of the Vancouver Canucks, it was the Nashville Canucks, with an igloo dwelling, moose f***ing, polite lumberjack as a mascot. And then, every time the Canucks scored, the fans did the lumberjack chop, pretending to chop something down while chanting with an over-the-top, mocking Canadian accent. And then imagine that the history of Americans in Canada or of Canadians in the U.S. was similar to the history of Native Americans in North America. Then, maybe the names that you're talking about would be a fair comparison to the use of Native American imagery in sports.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by neo45

How the hell does that seem logical to you? A washington Nfl team has a racist name so now everything First Nations is off limits?

Why stop at sports teams then, Calgary has no business naming roads Deerfoot or Crowchild

I don't really see why its that illogical at this point? I can't fathom going to lengths to change one team name whilst allowing other similar ones to stand by despite the industry or brand.

For you to sprout out names of roads that are not even comparable to marketed brands/franchises when the topic is clearly brands etc is completely off base.

[Texas Blueliner]

Originally Posted by strombad

Being facetious is definitely the best way to disguise lacking a point.
Perhaps you'd like to compare something relevant? Westboro Baptist protests are a great indicator that Westboro Baptists find the things they protest offensive. Much in the same way that a 25 year protest by different Native American groups is a great indicator that "Redskins" is offensive.

Don't need to when you make it for me. The Westboro Baptists a no more an indicator of the consensus opinion of all Baptists than a group of protesters at a Redskins games is a of all Native Americans. This is why the polls mentioned earlier, which you disregarded, are important.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Texas Blueliner

Don't need to when you make it for me. The Westboro Baptists a no more an indicator of the consensus opinion of all Baptists than a group of protesters at a Redskins games is a of all Native Americans. This is why the polls mentioned earlier, which you disregarded, are important.

Thanks for exemplifying a complete lack of comprehension regarding the point.

How, exactly, is a poll (of unknown origin), polling an unknown group, polling an unknown number of people, better than a 25 year history of multiple different tribes speaking out against "Redskins" as racist in nature and generally offensive?

I get that you're being purposely obtuse, but it's not necessary in this discussion. I'm not sure what exactly you're going for by bringing up the Westboro Church while speaking in support of a poll which you have no idea the origin or content of.

[PaperBagger'14]

Read from this what you will but at what point does a vocal and extremely minuscule portion of a visible minority get to make changes which do not represent the opinion of the vast majority of said group?

http://editor.annenbergpublicpolicyc..._09-24_pr2.pdf

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

Read from this what you will but at what point does a vocal and extremely minuscule portion of a visible minority get to make changes which do not represent the opinion of the vast majority of said group?

http://editor.annenbergpublicpolicyc..._09-24_pr2.pdf

That study is close to a decade old and the talk of the Redskins name being offensive has really gained steam in the past few years. While I expect the numbers are still fairly low as that study shows, I do believe it is likely that the "yes" percentage has grown by at least a couple percent.

I can't help but wonder when seeing surveys like this if the people outspoken about the change are actually Native Americans or if it is white folk deciding it is offensive and trying to speak for other races like we have always done.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

That study is close to a decade old and the talk of the Redskins name being offensive has really gained steam in the past few years. While I expect the numbers are still fairly low as that study shows, I do believe it is likely that the "yes" percentage has grown by at least a couple percent.

I can't help but wonder when seeing surveys like this if the people outspoken about the change are actually Native Americans or if it is white folk deciding it is offensive and trying to speak for other races like we have always done.

That's exactly it, speaking on behalf of others. The most recent survey (and far from scholarly) I could find asks the general population. The one thing that I find surprising in this poll is the wording, instead of the answer being posed as "do not find the name offensive" this article has people saying "they oppose a name change".

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...r-name-change/

[Alberta_Beef]

White guilt is a hell of a thing.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

That study is close to a decade old and the talk of the Redskins name being offensive has really gained steam in the past few years. While I expect the numbers are still fairly low as that study shows, I do believe it is likely that the "yes" percentage has grown by at least a couple percent.

I can't help but wonder when seeing surveys like this if the people outspoken about the change are actually Native Americans or if it is white folk deciding it is offensive and trying to speak for other races like we have always done.

I think the best case of this is the University of North Dakota. They were called the Fighting Sioux for most of their existence. A tribe of Sioux voted and wanted it to stay in place. The NCAA threaten sanctions against the school if they didn't change it. The name ended up being dropped (they haven't added a new name yet).

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

White guilt is a hell of a thing.

How does that apply to Oneida Nation and several other Native American groups that are actively protesting the name and have been for years.

I personally find it frustrating that a group of people have the nerve to denounce others as being "politically correct" when they don't have a horse in the race. Perhaps it's white guilt that is causing some of the anti-PC folk to go overboard in the defense of racism (and other equally deplorable stuff) to make themselves be able to feel okay.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

How does that apply to Oneida Nation and several other Native American groups that are actively protesting the name and have been for years.

I personally find it frustrating that a group of people have the nerve to denounce others as being "politically correct" when they don't have a horse in the race. Perhaps it's white guilt that is causing some of the anti-PC folk to go overboard in the defense of racism (and other equally deplorable stuff) to make themselves be able to feel okay.

Have a read from the first article I posted, that should prove your point wrong about "not having a horse in the race". The only polls of people identifying as Natives that we have to base decisions off of show that the majority are not offended. Here I'll even link the survey for you again:

http://editor.annenbergpublicpolicyc..._09-24_pr2.pdf

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

How does that apply to Oneida Nation and several other Native American groups that are actively protesting the name and have been for years.

I personally find it frustrating that a group of people have the nerve to denounce others as being "politically correct" when they don't have a horse in the race. Perhaps it's white guilt that is causing some of the anti-PC folk to go overboard in the defense of racism (and other equally deplorable stuff) to make themselves be able to feel okay.

I never said no Native American's are offended. But it seems to me the studies among Native American people show a small percentage of them are actually offended.

I doubt they exist but I bet polls among Caucasians would show a significantly higher percentage of people that think it is offensive.

White people need to push the agenda of what they feel is best for other races. They think they are changing things for the better but in the end the more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

Have a read from the first article I posted, that should prove your point wrong about "not having a horse in the race". The only polls of people identifying as Natives that we have to base decisions off of show that the majority are not offended. Here I'll even link the survey for you again:

http://editor.annenbergpublicpolicyc..._09-24_pr2.pdf

I was specifically referring to the "white guilt" comment.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

I never said no Native American's are offended. But it seems to me the studies among Native American people show a small percentage of them are actually offended.

I've seen a poll where it says that most aren't offended and I've seen a poll where it says most are offended. Honestly, I'm not sure that it matters. At what percentage do we decide that the number of people that are offended are significant enough that it is then acceptable to change the teams name? Is it a simple majority at 51%? Perhaps, even 40% will do? My personal opinion is that it makes no difference what these surveys say. When there are several Native American groups actively protesting the name because it is a racist monicker, I think it's safe to say that the name is considered offensive to at least some Native Americans.

I doubt they exist but I bet polls among Caucasians would show a significantly higher percentage of people that think it is offensive.

Do you mean today or like 10 years ago? Because 10 years ago the majority of hetersexuals thought that equal rights for the homosexual community was a non-starter. Further back, but within my lifetime, the majority of white people thought that racial segregation between whites and blacks wasn't a bad idea. Not too long ago a significant population of Europe thought it was okay to exterminate Jews and Gypsies. Ten years ago nobody really talked too much about the 'Redskins' name. I think ten years from now we'll likely look back with some embarassment that this was even a debate.

White people need to push the agenda of what they feel is best for other races. They think they are changing things for the better but in the end the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Oh boy, I don't know where to start with this. First of all, I think it's foolish to think you can generalize what all "white people" want to do. I have no idea if you're white or not. I don't really care either. I'm taking your opinion as your individual opinion and not as that of fans of Alberta beef everywhere.

Secondly, the cliche you stated about "the more things change the more they stay the same"... tell that to european Jews or African Americans or the LGBT community or any number of oppressed people who were denied equal treatment under the law because they looked different, prayed to a different God or literally loved their fellow man. Things changed a hell of a lot and it was for the better. Hopefully they continue to do so.

To be clear, I am not equating the name of a sports team to that of racial segregation, genocide or gay bashing. But the name of the team is a derogatory racial term. Just because we and many Native Americans have gotten used to hearing it over the last few decades doesn't make it less derogatory.

I honestly can't believe peole are even debating whether this name should be changed. I'd love to hear a really good pro-Redskin argument but the only arguments I've heard thus far are the anti-anti-Redskin arguments.