Use of Native American Imagery in Sports

[Mayo]

Originally Posted by Crown Royal

No, I'm saying just because they do something it doesn't mean it is okay for someone else.

To get to my original point - as forum debates otherwise become endless

1: There is division even among Native Americans about the offensiveness of these sport team names. Native American highschools would not continue to be naming themselves the Redskins if it were a heinously offensive name similar to the N word.

1a: Dave is irrelevant - I'm not bothering with his post of a single Yahoo article from a group funded to have a certain viewpoint on the subject

2:I think there is enough of a controversy over the names that they should change them

[FlamesAddiction]

Imagine that a foreign nation invaded Canada and put Canadians on reserves. Then they established professional sports franchises named after Canadians or Albertans, and used buffoonery to mock us (or in the case of the Red Skins, worse).

I think people would be a little ticked off. Heck, imagine if a team from Ontario or Quebec named a team the "Albertans" and used a red-necked cowboy caricature to represent it. I am sure people from Alberta would be angry about it.

[Barnet Flame]

Hamilton Hosers could work.

[Crown Royal]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Imagine that a foreign nation invaded Canada and put Canadians on reserves. Then they established professional sports franchises named after Canadians or Albertans, and used buffoonery to mock us (or in the case of the Red Skins, worse).

I think people would be a little ticked off. Heck, imagine if a team from Ontario or Quebec named a team the "Albertans" and used a red-necked cowboy caricature to represent it. I am sure people from Alberta would be angry about it.

It's like if we started a team called the frogs and had a caricature of a french person as a logo

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by getbak

They're on the list, they're just not as high on the list as the Redskins and Indians.

If you subscribe to The Athletic, they had a story last week about the issue: https://theathletic.com/1888307/2020...american-logo/

Shouldn't be, Black Hawk was a military leader and remains a cultural hero from Illinois, there is nothing negative about the name or jersey at all. I think the sac and fox nation would march in protests if the Hawks changed their brand.

[David Struch]

Mayo, and anyone else who believes the polls show that Natives aren't too offended by these names should go ask them yourselves.

Go to your local First Nation and ask people, see what kind of response you'll get LMAO!

It's doesn't matter anyway what the Natives Peoples' think, Sports team racist stereotypes only listen when sponsors speak.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

I do think there are differences among teams using Native American mascots.

Blackhawks: I don’t think this one is particularly egregious, and it seems to be more or less respectful- the Blackhawks jersey is consistently ranked as one of the best in the sport, for whatever that’s worth.

Braves: to me, this is akin to Warriors etc - it’s a military role in a society. The tomahawk chop is aggressively racist.

Chiefs: Chief is an office. The leader of the tribe. A team can be the Chiefs, the Kings, the Senators... it’s a position of power. Again, we see the aggressively racist tomahawk chop (with the accompanying aggressively racist Peter Pan music) make an appearance, which is vastly more disrespectful than the name Chiefs.

Indians: This one’s racist. Native Americans aren’t Indians. My wife is Bengali. She’s Indian. Chief Wahoo is aggressively racist; he’s a racist caricature, and there’s a reason he isn’t on the hat anymore. Brockmire had the right idea, change their name to the Cleveland Colonizers and make the logo a Virginian in a powdered wig holding a bloody bayonet between his teeth.

Redskins: Obviously racist. Call someone a redskin, see how respectful it sounds. There’s no way to refer to anyone by *insert colour * skin and not be racist. Stop doing it.

I think you can use tribal names - Florida State is the Seminoles, Illinois has the Fighting Illini, and I think you could argue you’re invoking the spirit of those cultures, and I think that with a little tact and care, there is a way to tastefully pull that off. I think that requires a lot of awareness, and I’m thoroughly unconvinced America is in possession of such awareness in its current state.

The difference between, say, the Fighting Illini and the Irish is that America didn’t wipe the Irish off the map, they were just ####ty to them when they arrived in New York.

There are local tribes in all these jurisdictions- reach out to them and see if there’s a way to invoke Native American imagery in a way that tells the story of these people and raises awareness about their respective plights. Because those are real and need to be taken seriously.

And to Dan Snyder, from one white skin to another, go #### yourself.

North Dakota State changed from Fighting Sioux a few years ago under pressure from the NCAA.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by David Struch

New Scientific Study Reaffirms that Native Peoples Are Deeply Insulted by the Washington Football Team's Name:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 12, 2020


https://news.yahoo.com/offensive-nat...141500930.html

Pointless to argue facts with someone who literally has their own head shoved up their ass, but good fight.

Originally Posted by Darth Tkachuk

Offense is taken, not given in these instances. But those that go against the narrative must be canceled. The modern religion of woke demands that its worshipers set out to destroy all that may offend someone.

1. The exception to this name has been going on far longer than "cancel culture" has existed (also cancel culture is not a real thing, it's just what racists and bigots say when their racist and bigoted activities are disrupted.)
2. Being singled out or described based only on the color of your skin is a long and well recognized aspect of racism. Racism is not something someone needs to take offense too, it should by nature be offensive to all of righteous intent.
3. There is a significant attempt by the far right to label anyone who is against racism or bigotry as part of some conspiracy or religion or cult. This is absolute projection- the cult exists on one end and the rest of us with a healthy, mature variety of opinions should not be set together by an aggrieved minority who wishes they could still have segregated bathrooms.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Pointless to argue facts with someone who literally has their own head shoved up their ass, but good fight.



1. The exception to this name has been going on far longer than "cancel culture" has existed (also cancel culture is not a real thing, it's just what racists and bigots say when their racist and bigoted activities are disrupted.)
2. Being singled out or described based only on the color of your skin is a long and well recognized aspect of racism. Racism is not something someone needs to take offense too, it should by nature be offensive to all of righteous intent.
3. There is a significant attempt by the far right to label anyone who is against racism or bigotry as part of some conspiracy or religion or cult. This is absolute projection- the cult exists on one end and the rest of us with a healthy, mature variety of opinions should not be set together by an aggrieved minority who wishes they could still have segregated bathrooms.

Check out all these far right bigots.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainmen...eech-1.5641645

J.K. Rowling, Salman Rushdie and Margaret Atwood are among dozens of writers, artists and academics to argue against ideological conformity in an open letter in Harper's Magazine.

The names hail from a host of different sectors, from cognitive scientist Noam Chomsky to activist Gloria Steinem, jazz great Wynton Marsalis to chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov to Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers.

Academics on the list of more than 150 signatories hail from American universities such as Princeton, Yale, Harvard Law, Brown, Rutgers and more.

In addition to Atwood, other Canadian signatories include political pundit David Frum, longtime New Yorker writer Malcolm Gladwell, former federal Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff and literary critic and writer Jeet Heer.

[Darth Tkachuk]

Remember how they changed our NATIONAL ANTHEM for PC reasons? The "all of us command" bull####? I choose to be offended by the part about god in the anthem, as i'm an atheist, and I demand it be changed.

Seriously, this is all nonsense, and I'm honestly disturbed by the number of wanna be SJW's here that feel that this is actually an issue. Offense in these instances is taken, not intended. Context matters.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Check out all these far right bigots.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainmen...eech-1.5641645

Go Search the actual article posted in Harper's instead of the poor CBC article describing it. Not one mention of "Cancel Culture" which is undoubtedly a buzz term created by the far right to demonize people who want to live in an equal world; many of whom have diverse and disparate views from each other.

P.S. you should look into more recent JK Rowling crap before claiming she is a paragon of virtue.

Edit: Now that I have read the full Harper's article, I have absolutely no doubt that you have not. I agree with the Harper's Article, which is arguing against the demonization of opposing view points. Not once does it say we should be tolerant of abject bigotry or racism because to not do so would be canceling a valid viewpoint. Further, the CBC article you linked, though poorly written and titled, does go on to describe how many of the signatories are now shamed because they didn't know who else was signing it at the time and would now retract.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Darth Tkachuk

Remember how they changed our NATIONAL ANTHEM for PC reasons? The "all of us command" bull####? I choose to be offended by the part about god in the anthem, as i'm an atheist, and I demand it be changed.

Seriously, this is all nonsense, and I'm honestly disturbed by the number of wanna be SJW's here that feel that this is actually an issue. Offense in these instances is taken, not intended. Context matters.

Yeah, you getting offended about the word change in the national anthem away from just men is not in any way comparable to indigenous peoples discomfort with troubling imagery/ terminology in Sports teams that people become fanatics for.

having a team named the Redskins in washington DC is no different than having a team in BC named the "yellow tunnel diggers"

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Darth Tkachuk

Remember how they changed our NATIONAL ANTHEM for PC reasons? The "all of us command" bull####? I choose to be offended by the part about god in the anthem, as i'm an atheist, and I demand it be changed.

Seriously, this is all nonsense, and I'm honestly disturbed by the number of wanna be SJW's here that feel that this is actually an issue. Offense in these instances is taken, not intended. Context matters.

I feel like you meant to post this in the comments section of the Calgary Sun and not here.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Darth Tkachuk

Remember how they changed our NATIONAL ANTHEM for PC reasons? The "all of us command" bull####? I choose to be offended by the part about god in the anthem, as i'm an atheist, and I demand it be changed...

You are upset by the decision to change this line in the anthem from:

"True patriot love in all thy sons command"

to

"True patriot love in all of us command"?

You do realize that at least half the population in Canada is female and that women comprise a not-insignificant percentage of the armed forces, right?

Also, it is weird that you complain about this as a change made to placate "atheists," when the only reference to God in the anthem is still there.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I feel like you meant to post this in the comments section of the Calgary Sun and not here.

"Most out of touch with reality post of the year goes too..."

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Darth Tkachuk

Remember how they changed our NATIONAL ANTHEM for PC reasons? The "all of us command" bull####? I choose to be offended by the part about god in the anthem, as i'm an atheist, and I demand it be changed.

Seriously, this is all nonsense, and I'm honestly disturbed by the number of wanna be SJW's here that feel that this is actually an issue. Offense in these instances is taken, not intended. Context matters.

So when the Redskins were founded you believe the name was selected in tribute?

How about the old Indians logo. How was that not designed to be a chariccature. In those two cases offence seems to have been intended.

[Crown Royal]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Pointless to argue facts with someone who literally has their own head shoved up their ass, but good fight.



1. The exception to this name has been going on far longer than "cancel culture" has existed (also cancel culture is not a real thing, it's just what racists and bigots say when their racist and bigoted activities are disrupted.)
2. Being singled out or described based only on the color of your skin is a long and well recognized aspect of racism. Racism is not something someone needs to take offense too, it should by nature be offensive to all of righteous intent.
3. There is a significant attempt by the far right to label anyone who is against racism or bigotry as part of some conspiracy or religion or cult. This is absolute projection- the cult exists on one end and the rest of us with a healthy, mature variety of opinions should not be set together by an aggrieved minority who wishes they could still have segregated bathrooms.

I'm sorry but cancel culture is absolutely a thing. Yes, many do as you suggested, there is no denying that; but cancel culture goes far beyond racists and bigots; outrage culture also feeds cancel culture and people have lost their livelihoods over unjust circumstances, simply because they were found guilty in the court of public opinion.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Go Search the actual article posted in Harper's instead of the poor CBC article describing it. Not one mention of "Cancel Culture" which is undoubtedly a buzz term created by the far right to demonize people who want to live in an equal world.

P.S. you should look into more recent JK Rowling crap before claiming she is a paragon of virtue.

I don't make any claims about her virtue, making claims on her virtue instead of debating what she's saying is the actual problem.
There is little to no difference between "cancel culture" and what they are actually talking about, it's pretty much the same phenomenon. Do some people use that term to justify actual racism? Yes. But there's also a sliver of people that make flimsy or even false claims about racism or other forms of bigotry, as their own attempt to virtue signal, or even their way of using power against others. Both are happening. It's up to sane people to try to keep a grip on reality.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Igottago

I don't make any claims about her virtue, making claims on her virtue instead of debating what she's saying is the actual problem.
There is little to no difference between "cancel culture" and what they are actually talking about, it's pretty much the same phenomenon. Do some people use that term to justify actual racism? Yes. But there's also a sliver of people that make flimsy or even false claims about racism or other forms of bigotry, as their own attempt to virtue signal, or even their way of using power against others. Both are happening. It's up to sane people to try to keep a grip on reality.

JK Rowling is mad she can’t be transphobic. It’s unclear whether she is prejudiced or just ignorant between the difference between gender and sex.

Not really the best champion for this.

Where Cancel culture is concerning is in the journalism and academic field. (Note that Wendy Mesley not being able to say N*** is not included in this concern) but there needs to be Academic and journalistic freedom from boundary pushing in those fields. It isn’t as big of issue as many make it out to be.

Outside of that people who make their living in public opinion losing their livelihood because public opinion changes is not a concern. So celebrities and entertainers being canceled is not a concern. Unless of course you are also concerned that a celebrity is created. The rise of celebrity culture certainly is.

If I no longer read Harry Potter because the author has views that I don’t agree with that is a perfectly reasonable outcome.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Igottago

I don't make any claims about her virtue, making claims on her virtue instead of debating what she's saying is the actual problem.
There is little to no difference between "cancel culture" and what they are actually talking about, it's pretty much the same phenomenon. Do some people use that term to justify actual racism? Yes. But there's also a sliver of people that make flimsy or even false claims about racism or other forms of bigotry, as their own attempt to virtue signal, or even their way of using power against others. Both are happening. It's up to sane people to try to keep a grip on reality.

There's a large difference between Cancel Culture and what they discuss in the Harper's article- please go read it. And again, many signatories to the Harper's article later retracted or were uncomfortable once they found out who else signed it.

are there incidents of false virtue signalling leading to poor societal outcomes? Yeah, I can think of some notable ones. E.g. those white ladies who burnt down a wendys in the states in the name of George Floyd. But the list of incidents of racism leading to poor societal outcomes would be much longer... Deflecting from the main point of this conversation (eliminating racist imagery from pro sports) and saying it's an element of cancel culture is certainly the act of a racist or bigot who is trying to change the nature of the conversation. It's not about "too many things getting shut down for opinions". it's about these specific teams continuing to use imagery that is obviously injurious for sections of the population.