This has been bothering me. A sports comment on Native American names/mascots...

GuilewasNK

GuilewasNK

CAGiversary!
Feedback
110 (100%)
As some of you may know I am a fan of the Washington Redskins. However, the team name has been bothering me for a long time.

I have seen several college teams change names of Native American mascots (Syracuse, St. Johns, etc.). I was wondering do any of you think the Washington will do the same? I'm all for tradition, but in today's climate, I think the name is offensive and frankly I feel like a hypocrite everytime I use the team name especially when you consider how I felt about CAGs use of "ninja". It's the "Red" part that bothers me the most. I try to refer to them simply as The Skins most of the time, which isn't much better. Now I don't subscribe to being PC or overly sensitive in every situation (for example I thought Don Imus being removed was wrong despite what he said), but this time I wouldn't mind some PC action. If you think about it, it's no different than if an African soccer team called themselves the "palefaces" or something worse. Opinions? Comments?
 
[quote name='Azumangaman']I don't think they'll change it. I agree that they should though. Not really sure why they haven't though.[/quote]


I think, and I hate to say this, it comes down to money. There is really no other reason that makes sense.

They could use a generic name like the Washington Warriors (Golden State uses that in the NBA), keep the colors, but remove the Native American logo on the helmet (which is at least not as offensive as the Cleveland Indians logo). I mean hell, the Washington Bullets changed their name to the Wizards to improve their image!
 
I think the problem is that the large majority of team mascots are animals. However, the most prevalent alternative to having an animal (especially a while back) was to have a caricature of a Native American. It comes off extremely racist, as though to suggest their like an animal or sub-human. "Palefaces" would be a poking or ribbing at white people. It doesn't seem to suggest the same thing such as a name like the "Redskins." I would support Team Palefaces because I'm pretty sure it's hard to create offensive racial slur for white people unless that white person is racist to begin with and takes it sensitively.
 
[quote name='Friend of Sonic']I think the problem is that the large majority of team mascots are animals. However, the most prevalent alternative to having an animal (especially a while back) was to have a caricature of a Native American. It comes off extremely racist, as though to suggest their like an animal or sub-human. "Palefaces" would be a poking or ribbing at white people. It doesn't seem to suggest the same thing such as a name like the "Redskins." I would support Team Palefaces because I'm pretty sure it's hard to create offensive racial slur for white people unless that white person is racist to begin with and takes it sensitively.[/quote]


I think it is somewhat subjective to a degree as well. For example, I don't think anyone sees the Minnesota Vikings as a slur to people of European descent. Part of that may be that Vikings aren't a modern group (that I am aware of) and Native Americans are.
 
[quote name='Friend of Sonic']I think the problem is that the large majority of team mascots are animals. However, the most prevalent alternative to having an animal (especially a while back) was to have a caricature of a Native American. It comes off extremely racist, as though to suggest their like an animal or sub-human. "Palefaces" would be a poking or ribbing at white people. It doesn't seem to suggest the same thing such as a name like the "Redskins." I would support Team Palefaces because I'm pretty sure it's hard to create offensive racial slur for white people unless that white person is racist to begin with and takes it sensitively.[/quote]

Miners? Oilers? 49ers?

Cowboys? Vikings? The Fighting Irish?

I'm not seeing the prejudice here. These team names all represent occupations and cultures that Americans rally around.

I also don't jive with the fiction that all American native tribes were peace-loving naturists - like all people everywhere they warred amongst themselves for a myriad of reasons before the white man ever showed up. It's true that inexcusable wrongs were dealt to people of Native American race but at the same time we shouldn't make the mistake of deifying their former existence as some sort of pacifist utopia.

I too think the Redskins name is pretty harsh. However you want to see PC-gone-awry - look at one of the schools with a more respectful native american team name that in the modern era has forbid mascots or chants, even in the face of Native American support. Some Native Americans realize that handled properly a team name can be a reminder and a celebration of their culture, not a derogatory slur.
 
This issue for the Redskins has been going on for a long time, while I agree that it is a racial slur and shouldn't be used... I don't think it will be changed any time soon. The Redskins has a largely loyal fanbase that won't give up the memories of the Redskins that easily.

It might just be easier to change the mascot to like a red lizard and continue to still call them the Redskins.
BTW, I live in the area too and am a Skins fan.
 
Yeah Camoor, but my statement is still correct. I think the majority of team mascots are animals followed up by Native American based teams. Do any of the themes you listed eclipse the amount of Native American themed teams they are? I honestly don't know, as I haven't went through a comprehensive list of pro sports teams, but I can hypothesize that the Native American teams outnumber the other non-animal teams.
I think it can be handled properly-- the idea of a tribe is something to be proud of. The unity, love, all of that. But it's been mishandled with a few teams.
 
My social action group did a huge amount of work to change our Community College's mascot and newspaper name (Chief and Chieftain..not so much the names but the cartoon logos, respectively ), but of course we shot down time and time again.

I read a ton of Psychological articles from anything about both children and adult perception of Native Americans when they were fans of these "offensive" teams and, while I know there is data to support the other side, the data was shocking. When it came to ideas about their culture, how they referred to native Americans, among other things.

After about a year we finally convinced the board and the student government to allow for it to be included in the student election ballot, and it lost 52-48 or something like that.

We did an exit poll time thing, and nearly everyone said that it was at least offensive, but it was "tradition". UGH! I hate when people use tradition as their only argument.
 
They could keep the Native American influence but change the name. Take the Braves for example, i see no problem with that name. I think the key would be to use a name that is positive rather than an old, outdated term.

I wouldn't use the name of an actual tribe, but something that isn't seen as stereotyping the Native Americans.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am not bothered by this at all. I wouldnt mind if they were change and I dont mind if they stay the same.

I guess the questions I would have to ask myself is would I be offended if a team was called The Darkies or something. And I dont really have a answer to that.

The only thing I can say about it is this. Most of the time people are not thinking of Indians even while seeing, talking, and chanting anything to do with sports. I can talk about the Washington Redskins all day and not ever make a connection with Native Americans.
 
I'm not bothered at all either. Half of my family is native American, and they could give two shits. In fact, they are proud of it.

The fine difference here is that the team is proudly using the indian as their mascot. They aren't making fun of indians. They aren't bashing indians. They aren't demeaning indans in any way. If they were, then it changes everything.

Saying their skin is red is not racist, it's a fact. So referring to indians as redskins is not inherently racist, depending on how you use it.

But, the only honest way to put this issue to rest would be to somehow put it up to vote for all indians. If I owned the team, I would change the name only if I had proof that the majority of indians were offended.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Saying their skin is red is not racist, it's a fact.[/QUOTE]

!?!?!?!

The fuck!?! You're on a roll today. A fact? Pfffffffffffffffffffffff.

I would like the Redskins to change their name - keep the logo. Give 'em a name like "Piscataway," since they were a tribe historically from the area.

I don't mind the Florida Seminoles, for one example. I don't think ethnic groups are off limits, but "Redskins" is too much for me.

But Cleveland's Chief Wahoo is more bothersome to me than anything your NFL team does.

cleveland_indians.gif
 
The Indians logo is much worse than the Redskins logo. If you can get the Indians to change their logo and/or name, then we can have a discussion.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']!?!?!?!
The fuck!?! You're on a roll today. A fact? Pfffffffffffffffffffffff.
[/QUOTE]

Brownish red, yes, or the term wouldn't exist otherwise. Lots of races are different colors, you may or may not have noticed - but talking about it isn't racist.
 
Oh, Chief Wahoo. It amazes me that you're still around.

'Course, they recently changed over to that stupid mascot Slider (which has absolutely nothing to do with the Indians). He's like a giant Sesame Street reject.
 
I bet all you uber-PC types cream your jeans every time we get a new team with a generic non-threatening name such as "The Nationals", or "The Wizards". The last team named after something likely to kill you was the Houston Texans.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Brownish red, yes, or the term wouldn't exist otherwise. Lots of races are different colors, you may or may not have noticed - but talking about it isn't racist.[/QUOTE]

So... every Mexican has a wet back then?
 
[quote name='speedracer']They should just be the Skins. It's one of the cooler names anyway.[/QUOTE]

That would make for a lousy and still potentially offensive (to those ignorant of the subcultural history) logo:

skinheads.jpg
 
[quote name='Friend of Sonic']So... every Mexican has a wet back then?[/QUOTE]

Nice try.

Wet back is a term to describe anyone from south of the border that swam to gain illegal entry into the country. If used to describe someone from a southern country that does not meet that criteria, it would be derogatory, wouldn't it?

In order to make your analogy accurate, the Washington Redskins would have to be called the Washington Wagon Burners or Washington Scalpers.
 
So if "redskin" is cool, why not "negro" or "darkie" or "spook"? After all, we're just describing hues, right?

:roll:

Also, assuming that one racial group has an identical hue that can/should be reduced to a one-color word is silly. I've never seen a truly "white" white person (even albinos aren't "white"), I've never seen a truly black black person, and I've never seen a truly red Native American.

Which is *why* terms like Native American are superior terms, and not just PC garbage.
 
It's simply because Indians, as a whole, don't mind being called Redskins, if it's portrayed in a noble historic Indian warrior type of way. It's not historically a derogatory term like those you provided.

I could be wrong. Poll Indians and find out. If they take offense then the team should change names.

But what I find ironic about all this is everyone trying to define what is and isn't, or should or shouldn't, be derogatory for any particular group, without input from the group. That's the problem with PC these days...
 
I see a 16-year old lawsuit to change the name, and numerous petitions (of the laughable online variety) calling for it to be changed.

What scant evidence there is doesn't support the idea that Native Americans "don't mind," and I would challenge you to prove "don't mind" as opposed to "aren't motivated to protest it."
 
For the Redskins the name is worse than the logo. It doesn't seem like an inherently offensive image to me, besides that it's like the logo is actually a picture of a native american with feathers on the picture (wtf is with that anyway?). The Indians though, that image is pretty fucked up.
 
[quote name='soonersfan60']I've got a simple solution... keep the name, but change the mascot to a potato:

[/quote]

Now that my friends, is levity. :lol:
 
This is a joke thread, right? Please tell me that no one is really insulted by this...

What's next, ban the Reds name because of communist implications?
Ban the Rams and Dolphins because PETA will protest?
Ban the Angels because some people do not like religious references?

Geez... you guys have such thin skin! Let's just call everyone Team1, Team2, Team3, etc...

Heck I wouldn't mind if someone renamed the Cubs the Chicago Polaks or Chicago Catholics... I'd find it quite funny... and it might help them win a playoff game or two!
 
[quote name='BigT']This is a joke thread, right? Please tell me that no one is really insulted by this...

What's next, ban the Reds name because of communist implications?
Ban the Rams and Dolphins because PETA will protest?
Ban the Angels because some people do not like religious references?

[/quote]

No, this isn't a joke thread and your examples aren't comparable to the Redskins name.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Brownish red, yes, or the term wouldn't exist otherwise.[/quote]Not necessarily. Story goes that the first people a lot of Europeans ran across painted themselves red. Said people went extinct, I think, but the name stuck.

And even if I just pulled that story out my fucking ass, do you assume that a Blackfoot has black feet?
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']As some of you may know I am a fan of the Washington Redskins. However, the team name has been bothering me for a long time.

I have seen several college teams change names of Native American mascots (Syracuse, St. Johns, etc.). I was wondering do any of you think the Washington will do the same? I'm all for tradition, but in today's climate, I think the name is offensive and frankly I feel like a hypocrite everytime I use the team name especially when you consider how I felt about CAGs use of "ninja". It's the "Red" part that bothers me the most. I try to refer to them simply as The Skins most of the time, which isn't much better. Now I don't subscribe to being PC or overly sensitive in every situation (for example I thought Don Imus being removed was wrong despite what he said), but this time I wouldn't mind some PC action. If you think about it, it's no different than if an African soccer team called themselves the "palefaces" or something worse. Opinions? Comments?[/quote]

I wouldn't give the colleges too much credit. I believe they were forced to change their names or they would be subject to a ban from NCAA tournaments.
 
Some other Possible Choices:
Washington Negros
Washington Beaners
Washington Crackers
Washington Chinks

Any of those would be quickly argued down, but I don't think there is enough indian firepower to protest against it. They could easily drop the name to the Washington Skins. Quick and Easy.
 
[quote name='BigT']This is a joke thread, right? Please tell me that no one is really insulted by this...

What's next, ban the Reds name because of communist implications?
Ban the Rams and Dolphins because PETA will protest?
Ban the Angels because some people do not like religious references?

Geez... you guys have such thin skin! Let's just call everyone Team1, Team2, Team3, etc...

Heck I wouldn't mind if someone renamed the Cubs the Chicago Polaks or Chicago Catholics... I'd find it quite funny... and it might help them win a playoff game or two![/quote]


I LOVE how this comes from the Homophobe that can't stand gays getting married.

We have thin skin? No, you do.
 
It's racist and should be changed, end of story. Citing tradition as a reason to keep something offensive around is ridiculous. There are a lot of utterly offensive traditions which began before (intelligent) people knew better. Don't even get me started on Chief Wahoo. Native Americans have come out and said they find these names offensive - that alone should be enough to change it. It's a freaking sports team for god's sake, do we really need to argue for keeping it called a ridiculous name just because you don't want to have to buy a new starter jacket?

I can't believe someone actually thinks the term "redskin" isn't offensive and is "fact." So let's walk around calling everyone whities, darkies, yellowmen, etc. Come on. Native Americans have been screwed enough, I think this concession is reasonable. I'm not even Native American (okay, like 1/16th or something), and I find it insulting and annoying. I'm with you, OP.

The Cleveland Indians won't sniff a championship until they change that horrible mascot, I'm convinced of it..
 
Most Indians do not think that the Redskins' name is offensive:
Poll: Skins' Nickname Offends Few Indians

Fri Sep 24, 8:40 PM ET


WASHINGTON - A poll of American Indians found that an overwhelming majority of them are not bothered by the name of the Washington Redskins (news).

Only 9 percent of those polled said the name of the NFL team is "offensive," while 90 percent said it's acceptable, according to the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey, released Friday.


Annenberg polled 768 Indians in every state except Hawaii and Alaska from Oct. 7, 2003, to Sept. 20, 2004.


The survey found little disparity between men and women or young and old. However, 13 percent of Indians with college degrees said the name is offensive, compared with 9 percent of those with some college and 6 percent of those with a high school education or less. Among self-identified liberals, 14 percent found the term disparaging, compared with 6 percent of conservatives.


The franchise began in Boston as the Braves but was purchased in 1932 by George Preston Marshall, who changed the name to honor head coach William "Lone Star" Dietz, an American Indian. The team kept its monicker after moving to the nation's capital in 1937.


The name and feather-wearing mascot have since been challenged.


A panel of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office canceled the team's trademarks in 1999 on the grounds that the name disparages American Indians in violation of federal trademark law. But last year, a federal judge ruled the team can keep its name, finding insufficient evidence to conclude it is an insult to American Indians.


Some Indian leaders are still pressing their case, noting that many schools with similar mascots referencing Indians have made name changes in recent years.
Click to expand...

It's only bleeding heart liberal weenies (like you guys) who are trying to ruin things for everyone else. 90% of Indians are cool with it; I'm sure that 99% of Redskins fans would rebel if the name was changed...
 
I find it interesting that there is two pages on such a nonsense issue, when things such as Abramoff's exploitation of Native American casinos has been barely discussed.

If I was Native American, I'd care a hell of a lot less about silly mascots, and a hell of alot more about the group of establishment assholes (R) who used tribal rivalries and legislative trickery to take advantage of Native Americans.
 
[quote name='BigT']It's only bleeding heart liberal weenies (like you guys) who are trying to ruin things for everyone else. [/quote]


If you think a name change is going to "ruin things" you are mistaken. There is precedent in collegiate sports in regards to name change for native american names and things turned out fine. There is also precedent for general name changes in sports (Washington Bulletts become the Washington Wizards).
 
I guess they changed the Bullets name to Wizards either because they felt that bullets would be considered a reflection of Washington's high crime rate or they were just big fans of Cinemaware's TV Sports Basketball.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']There is also precedent for general name changes in sports (Washington Bulletts become the Washington Wizards).[/quote]

I, for one, hate the new pussified team names.

The wizards? WTF, this isn't a magnet-school chess team, it's the NBA. We should call the DC team the nukes, the theme song could be "you dropped a bomb on me" THAT would be badass

Also the Houston Texans? WTF - call them the gunslingers. It's what we're all thinking anyway.
 
[quote name='camoor']I, for one, hate the new pussified team names.

The wizards? WTF, this isn't a magnet-school chess team, it's the NBA. We should call the DC team the nukes, the theme song could be "you dropped a bomb on me" THAT would be badass

Also the Houston Texans? WTF - call them the gunslingers. It's what we're all thinking anyway.[/quote]

But those names can possibly offend someone... we can't have any of that! :roll:

That's one the Washington team is now named after a team from an obscure basketball video game: http://www.mobygames.com/game/turbo-grafx/tv-sports-basketball/screenshots/gameShotId,115484/
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Zombies = worst team name ever.

Unless you're playing Mutant League Football.[/quote]

"Send in the Troll!" =memories of Mutant League...
 
Nah, I always went with the all-alien team.

... which backfired horribly any time I had to play on the ice field, of course. Motherfuckers got no traction.
 
bumping this thread instead of starting a new one...

WASHINGTON -- A group of American Indians who find the Washington Redskins' name offensive wants the Supreme Court to take up the matter.

The group late Monday asked the justices to review a lower court decision that favored the NFL team on a legal technicality.

The seven Native Americans have been working through the court system since 1992 to have the Redskins trademarks declared invalid. A U.S. Patent and Trademark Office panel ruled in their favor in 1999, but they've since suffered a series of defeats from judges who ruled that the plaintiffs waited too long to bring their suit in the first place.

A lawyer for the group says he'd like to see the court decide once and for all whether the Redskins name defames Native Americans.
Click to expand...
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4474771


keep your eye on this. the washington redskins might be changing their name. personally, i think redskins is offensive. i dont think their logo is offensive like good ol chief wahoo of the cleveland indians, but the name could be changed. maybe use a dc area tribe for the name.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top