Use of Native American Imagery in Sports

[the2bears]

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?

How many people does it take for you? If you happen to keep using a word, and one person tells you they find it offensive, will you keep using it anyway? Or ask them to find 100 others, so they've reached an arbitrary plateau?

[Erick Estrada]

The bottom line here is that people have their opinions on the topic and the topic is great debate for media and folks but the name isn't changing.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

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

To be honest, "major publications" are meaningless in this debate. As noted above, it is sponsors and advertisers that will rule the day, and I doubt they are prepared to walk away from the NFL at this point. It will be a while yet before those with real power to pressure change begin to do so.

[Vulcan]

I've come to the conclusion that arguing with EE is as about as useful as and enlightening as arguing with a rock. In fact in a few years when the Redskins change their name, EE will claim he was all for it.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by the2bears

How many people does it take for you? If you happen to keep using a word, and one person tells you they find it offensive, will you keep using it anyway? Or ask them to find 100 others, so they've reached an arbitrary plateau?

It's not how many it takes for me. It's how many it takes for society. Is one good enough? One hundred? One thousand? I don't know but you have to be careful when you set presidents.

I may not use that word in front of that person out of courtesy for that but does it mean that joe blow in another city can't use that word to someone that doesn't find it offensive? That's the issue.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I've come to the conclusion that arguing with EE is as about as useful as and enlightening as arguing with a rock. In fact in a few years when the Redskins change their name, EE will claim he was all for it.

Why because I have my own mind and opinion? Because I'm not scared to voice my opinion even if it differs from others or doesn't conform that means I'm a rock? Your last sentence is laughable as you obviously don't know me at all.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

To be honest, "major publications" are meaningless in this debate. As noted above, it is sponsors and advertisers that will rule the day, and I doubt they are prepared to walk away from the NFL at this point. It will be a while yet before those with real power to pressure change begin to do so.

Its a slippery slope for the sponsors. Yes, they want to be politically correct. However, the bottom line is money. Which group holds the bigger threat to the sponsors bottom line? A small group of people, although a growing group, who find the name offensive? Or the large group of people who will boycott your product if you try to force the name change of thier beloved NFL team?

[Schraderbrau]

Change the name and logo. Its gonna mean a pile of money for the team in new merch sales. The NHL brings out new 3rd jerseys every year and make a fortune off of them. A team would make a pile of money on all the new stuff. Sure it would cost some money to make the change but the gain would far outweigh the loss.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

What about Fighting Irish?

Based on it's origins and meanings, I would think it's closer to that of Warriors or Trojans, neither of which I find particularly shocking or intentionally offensive.

That said, I'm not Irish or Native America, so it's not exactly my place to say what in particular is offensive to others. Nor do I think we need to take the "ban one? BAN THEM ALL!" approach that some are arguing. These things are situational, as we grow as a society, we try to fix mistakes. Native American groups and major sport working in consortium to gain the level of understanding and respect is a good thing. If it means a couple names change, that's OK too. Is a sports name so important that it's worth offending a very vocal group of people? I know you mentioned boycotts, but in the same breath that EE mentioned sponsors, there will be fans waiting to take their place.

On the other hand, bringing up other cultures and saying they should be offended by these things is just an attempt at deflecting the issue away from Native Americans IMO. Totally useless. Let the issue be the issue.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

It's not how many it takes for me. It's how many it takes for society. Is one good enough? One hundred? One thousand? I don't know but you have to be careful when you set presidents.

I may not use that word in front of that person out of courtesy for that but does it mean that joe blow in another city can't use that word to someone that doesn't find it offensive? That's the issue.

No, that's not it. These are not two cases of isolated word usage - this is something in the public forum via all the media information following a team and its day-to-day activities, results, etc.

[Poe969]

nm

[Itse]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

Why is it ok to dress like a Viking and not a native american?

This actually has a really simple answer: because what North Americans think of vikings is irrelevant even to the people who might under some marginal conditions be associated with vikings (but really almost never are).

On the other hand, what North Americans think of native Americans (and yes those groups overlap) affects the lives of native Americans every day. Which means that responsible, moral people should either help or at least not hinder the slow process of getting rid of harmful native American stereotypes.

Hypothetically if there was a place where Scandinavians were significantly racially discriminated against, in that cultural context it would not be okay to dress up as a caricature viking. But since there really isn't, we're free game.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Itse

This actually has a really simple answer: because what North Americans think of vikings is irrelevant even to the people who might under some marginal conditions be associated with vikings (but really almost never are).

On the other hand, what North Americans think of native Americans (and yes those groups overlap) affects the lives of native Americans every day. Which means that responsible, moral people should either help or at least not hinder the slow process of getting rid of harmful native American stereotypes.

Hypothetically if there was a place where Scandinavians were significantly racially discriminated against, in that cultural context it would not be okay to dress up as a caricature viking. But since there really isn't, we're free game.

If these groups didn't take the stance of "People are not mascots" you might have a point, but the fact of the matter is that this is the stand these groups always take. So by their definition it is wrong to name any team after a group of people.

If they want to get rid of offensive names names like the Redskins fine, but there is nothing offensive about Chiefs, Seminoles or others. They are no more offensive than the Vikings, Celtics, Fighting Irish... etc.

[5by5]

It's the word "Skins" that is the problem. Although I don't believe there is any racism intended (today anyways, not so sure about inception), it is offensive. I really don't think there is any debate on this. Would White/Pale Skins, Brown Skins, Yellow Skins, Black Skins be acceptable for any current sports franchise team name? NOT. If Washington's name was the Red Warriors there would not be an issue. In my opinion the name Chiefs is not racist.

[5by5]

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?

FWIW, my American ex-wife found the word Yankee very offensive. I wouldn't go dropping that slang/twang in the backwoods of Tennessee if I were you.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

If these groups didn't take the stance of "People are not mascots" you might have a point, but the fact of the matter is that this is the stand these groups always take. So by their definition it is wrong to name any team after a group of people.

You are commenting on a different thing than I commented on. I was answering to the question "why is it bad to caricaturize native Americans" which is a somewhat different question than "is it OK for the Chiefs to be called the Chiefs".

If they want to get rid of offensive names names like the Redskins fine, but there is nothing offensive about Chiefs, Seminoles or others. They are no more offensive than the Vikings, Celtics, Fighting Irish... etc.

While I don't necessarily disagree with your basic stance, I'll make a few comments.

First, "these groups" quite obviously don't always take the stance you claim they take. In fact the last article linked in this thread described a decisively different view from the one you're claiming.

"It’s a key point, then, that Learned and his group are not pushing for the team to ban fans from wearing war bonnets or war paint, or any other misuse of American Indian symbols. Learned admits he is personally offended by people wearing war bonnets without regard to the cultural significance they carry — were worn by men preparing for real battle, and possible death. To make this point in his meeting with the Chiefs, Learned asked how it would look if people dressed up as U.S. soldiers to watch a football game.

But Learned’s group is hoping to win the battle for hearts and minds with words and thought, not lawyers and aggression."

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt...#storylink=cpy

What you were using is a so-called a "weak man argument".

(In short it's like the straw man argument, but instead of attacking a completely fabricated enemy, you attack what you see as "the weakest link", generally the most radical or irrational subgroup among the group you wish to attack. In effect your projecting that groups weak opinion as representative of the whole groups opinion. The "weak man" is a really powerful rhetorical tool, or a trap that's really easy to fall into, depending on whether or not you're using deliberately. It's also great for starting flame wars due to it's divisive nature.)

Second;
Whether or not something is racist does not depend on what you do, but how it affects people.

So basicly, it's irrelevant that the Chiefs is technically the same kind of name as the Vikings or the Fighting Irish, since the Irish or the Scandinavians are not in significant threat of suffering from racism but the native Americans are. As long as native Americans are suffering from racism, simple inconsiderate action can cause indirect harm to them.

Note that I'm not saying that the Chiefs being Chiefs is harmful as such. More importantly, the native American representatives that the Chiefs are working with are not saying that either. What they don't want to see is the caricatures, and they want to help the Chiefs and their fans to be able tell the caricature apart from the reality. Which can be surprisingly hard, if you don't actually know that culture.

[burn_baby_burn]

The Chiefs may need to consider a clever way to ban war bonnets from being worn in the stadium. I don't think it is a common thing to wear war bonnets and war paint. I go to a game in Arrowhead almost every year and I don't see that many dressed up like that. However it only takes one. At the University of Mississippi some were offended by the waving of the Confederate battle flag. The President knew he had a fight if he outright banned it. So he banned the flag handles sighting a safety issue. The Chiefs need to come up with something similar.

[RyZ]

Would any white folk be offended if this was the sports logo of a team?

I for one wouldn't at all. In fact, I would buy this tshirt if I ever saw it in a store and would wear it in public frequently.

Even if it said "Whities" or "Crackers" it wouldn't change a thing for me.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by RyZ

Would any white folk be offended if this was the sports logo of a team?

I for one wouldn't at all. In fact, I would buy this tshirt if I ever saw it in a store and would wear it in public frequently.

Even if it said "Whities" or "Crackers" it wouldn't change a thing for me.

Oh as a white person you wouldn't be offended at wearing that? Well, then case closed on this whole debate.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by RyZ

Would any white folk be offended if this was the sports logo of a team?

I for one wouldn't at all. In fact, I would buy this tshirt if I ever saw it in a store and would wear it in public frequently.

Even if it said "Whities" or "Crackers" it wouldn't change a thing for me.

I wouldn't be offended by it, either. What is your point, though?