A Fox Station TV license is being challenged over "Redskins"

[bing101]

This is Dumb because KTTV aka Fox 11 Los Angeles is not in Redskins Territory. All KTTV got in Trouble for was airing segments where the NFL on Fox Host mentions the score and stars of the Redskins. I thought WTTG the Fox O&O in Washington DC has more Redskins games than KTTV though. Los Angeles is not even in a football territory.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/banzhaf-kttv-license-challenged-over-redskins/135299

[jeffandnicole]

"it was akin to profanity"

Um, ok.

I think there will be no problem for those in the LA area to watch the Redskins R******* game on Dec 1.

[Brandon]

The Redskins could keep their name.  All they need do is change their mascot to a potato. 

/OK, bad joke.

[bugo]

I live in the heart of Indian country in Oklahoma (I live in Creek Nation) and EVERY SINGLE Native American I've talked to about the Redskins issue has said that they have no problem with the name. One guy's words were verbatim "I don't give a shit". It's mostly whiny white liberals and a few racist Indian chiefs from up north with chips on their shoulders. Real Indians aren't usually offended by the name. Many consider it an honor.

[Pete from Boston]

I live in the heart of Indian country in Oklahoma (I live in Creek Nation) and EVERY SINGLE Native American I've talked to about the Redskins issue has said that they have no problem with the name. One guy's words were verbatim "I don't give a shit". It's mostly whiny white liberals and a few racist Indian chiefs from up north with chips on their shoulders. Real Indians aren't usually offended by the name. Many consider it an honor.

All I know is anecdotal: someone close to me was a federal employee in the West who had to do a lot of public outreach.  The indigenous people in the area found "Native American" to be offensive and patronizing; whatever the origin, they had identified their whole lives as (and insisted on being called) "Indian," and were not dissuaded from this just because it had been decried by a movement of people far outside their community.

[bugo]

I've met Indians who hated being called Native Americans, and I've met Native Americans who hated being called Indians. Sometimes you just can't win. Most natives don't care one way or the other. Around here, use "Indians" and you'll be alright.

[corco]

I live in the heart of Indian country in Oklahoma (I live in Creek Nation) and EVERY SINGLE Native American I've talked to about the Redskins issue has said that they have no problem with the name. One guy's words were verbatim "I don't give a shit". It's mostly whiny white liberals and a few racist Indian chiefs from up north with chips on their shoulders. Real Indians aren't usually offended by the name. Many consider it an honor.

All I know is anecdotal: someone close to me was a federal employee in the West who had to do a lot of public outreach.  The indigenous people in the area found "Native American" to be offensive and patronizing; whatever the origin, they had identified their whole lives as (and insisted on being called) "Indian," and were not dissuaded from this just because it had been decried by a movement of people far outside their community.

I know that in my capacity as a government employee, I am supposed to use "American Indian" as opposed to "Native American" when referring to the state's tribal lands.

[bugo]

Why does it matter what we call them? They're (usually) cool so I prefer to just call them "friend". I have so many friends with Native blood and I'm sure some of my friends who I think of as "white" or "black" have Native blood. It's Oklahoma.

[corco]

It's a complicated issue, but my understanding of Oklahoma is that the tribal populations in Oklahoma are much more assimilated than they are in Montana, the Dakotas, Wyoming, Arizona, or most of the rest of the west.

The reservations in Montana tend to view themselves as sovereign entities, many still feel the US is a foreign occupation, and they're really not interested in full assimilation(and they are substantially "friendlier" than the Sioux/Shoshone/Arapahoe/Navajo lands in the Dakotas/WY/AZ). They respect the US government to the extent that the US now more or less allows tribes to self-govern within reason, and we do provide tribes with benefits to offset our taking of their land, but they aren't friendly towards this situation.

Oftentimes, they're interested in economic development, but they hold strong to their own cultural values and want that development to occur on their terms, which turns off outside investment, leading to the situation of poverty. That being said, they make that decision, and for the most part they seem to be comfortable with it. Some tribes handle this differently than others, but in a cursory look it's pretty clear that the tribes with the least material wealth are the ones that hold strongest to their own cultural values.

The Lakota in southern South Dakota, for instance, have the ability to take, tomorrow, a $1 billion settlement from the federal government in exchange for taking the Black Hills. They aren't interested in doing that, because they hold strong to the belief that the Black Hills are their land. These are the very poorest counties in the country. There's no question they could use that money, but it is their choice not to take it, and if they are comfortable with that choice that is their decision.

It's a different situation up here entirely, probably for a bunch of reasons. Population density is a lot lower up here, so there was less pressure from white people trying to take the land and even really interact with them in the first place. The non-native population up here is newer- white people have only been in Montana in any sort of quantity for 150 years or so, and before that there was only minimal contact. Oklahoma natives have been in contact with white people for almost double that length, when you factor in their relocation from the east.

My guess, when you look at the fact that Shannon County, one of the very poor Pine Ridge Lakota counties, just voted overwhelmingly to change its name to Oglala-Lakota County, is that it's not just pansy white liberals that want to change the name. Shannon County is 94% American Indian, and 80% of its population voted in favor of that name change. I'm not sure if that's a clean proxy to "redskin" but that tells me that it's not right to quickly dismiss the argument for changing the name as invalid. The pansy white liberals and activists are the ones with the financial and social ability to voice the concern, but at the ballot box it looks like fairly "normal" Indians, at least in certain areas of the country, also take issue with naming.

It's still a really complicated issue though. For simplicity, if everybody in Oklahoma found "redskin" to be acceptable, and everyone in South Dakota found "redskin" unacceptable, I don't quite know what that means. Is the native population in Oklahoma more valid in their opinion? Why? Is the native population in South Dakota more valid in their opinion? Why? They're opinions that are emotional and go straight to the heart.

My thought at the end of the day, though, is that if the name does change, it will sting at first for some folks. That sucks. But that will easily be healed with time. It's only a team name. In the big scheme of things, it's pretty unimportant.

[bugo]

Indians should be more worried about the horrendous care they receive in Indian hospitals than the name of a silly sports team. I've been in the Indian Hospital in Claremore and it's not a pretty sight.

[jwolfer]

I think that all people of Scandinavian heritage need to rise up and protest and demand that the horrible racist xenophobic name of the Minnesota Vikings be changed. The name perpetuates negative stereotypes of all Nordic peoples. We need to lobby Congress to have hearings specially the Congress people of Scandinavian heritage this is a travesty and must be changed immediately

[Pete from Boston]

I think that all people of Scandinavian heritage need to rise up and protest and demand that the horrible racist xenophobic name of the Minnesota Vikings be changed. The name perpetuates negative stereotypes of all Nordic peoples. We need to lobby Congress to have hearings specially the Congress people of Scandinavian heritage this is a travesty and must be changed immediately

As soon as the local indigenous Scandinavians–whose homeland was conquered and seized by the United States, and whose culture and social structure was forcibly diluted, and whose people have since lived in poverty and a purgatory of identity and political status as a result–realize that it's insensitive to rub salt in the wound when a sports company gets rich using a cartoonish representation of them...

...then I'm sure you'll see that. 

Until history and reality get rewritten, though, that situation doesn't exist.

Best way of making the point about these team names I ever saw was an ad that simply had this text (team names stylized in sports-brand scripts):

"Atlanta Negroes
New York Jews
Los Angeles Japs
Cleveland Indians

How would you feel?"

(The details may be off, as it was twenty years ago, but you get the point.)

[leroys73]

A long time friend of mine is Indian and an Okie.  He calls himself an American as in US citizen.  He worked for the BIA until retirement last year.  He calls his people "Indins".

His take is, get over it.  It has been Indian since white man came here. The Redskins name has been that for how many years now? 

He does like to keep his heritage and appreciates his tribe's history.   

[spooky]

I think that all people of Scandinavian heritage need to rise up and protest and demand that the horrible racist xenophobic name of the Minnesota Vikings be changed. The name perpetuates negative stereotypes of all Nordic peoples. We need to lobby Congress to have hearings specially the Congress people of Scandinavian heritage this is a travesty and must be changed immediately

As soon as the local indigenous Scandinavians–whose homeland was conquered and seized by the United States, and whose culture and social structure was forcibly diluted, and whose people have since lived in poverty and a purgatory of identity and political status as a result–realize that it's insensitive to rub salt in the wound when a sports company gets rich using a cartoonish representation of them...

...then I'm sure you'll see that. 

Until history and reality get rewritten, though, that situation doesn't exist.

Best way of making the point about these team names I ever saw was an ad that simply had this text (team names stylized in sports-brand scripts):

"Atlanta Negroes
New York Jews
Los Angeles Japs
Cleveland Indians

How would you feel?"

(The details may be off, as it was twenty years ago, but you get the point.)

This was about the Cleveland Indians logo, but it certainly helps put it in perspective.

[Pete from Boston]

[jwolfer]

I think that all people of Scandinavian heritage need to rise up and protest and demand that the horrible racist xenophobic name of the Minnesota Vikings be changed. The name perpetuates negative stereotypes of all Nordic peoples. We need to lobby Congress to have hearings specially the Congress people of Scandinavian heritage this is a travesty and must be changed immediately

As soon as the local indigenous Scandinavians–whose homeland was conquered and seized by the United States, and whose culture and social structure was forcibly diluted, and whose people have since lived in poverty and a purgatory of identity and political status as a result–realize that it's insensitive to rub salt in the wound when a sports company gets rich using a cartoonish representation of them...

...then I'm sure you'll see that. 

Until history and reality get rewritten, though, that situation doesn't exist.

Best way of making the point about these team names I ever saw was an ad that simply had this text (team names stylized in sports-brand scripts):

"Atlanta Negroes
New York Jews
Los Angeles Japs
Cleveland Indians

How would you feel?"

(The details may be off, as it was twenty years ago, but you get the point.)

Not discounting the suffering of people. The history of the world is full of people be conquered, raped, pillaged and enslaved etc.
I can lament the past and feel sorry for my ancestors and get angry about those who were brutalized by the Normans, the Vikings, the Romans, the Mongols to name a few. Or just know my past and live my life now not stuck with what happened to my ancestors

[Brandon]

^^ And these are different than that asinine leprechaun that Notre Dame uses?

And don't get me started on the mispronunciation of the Boston Celtics.  It's pronounced "Kelt" with a hard "C".

[Pete from Boston]

Not discounting the suffering of people. The history of the world is full of people be conquered, raped, pillaged and enslaved etc.
I can lament the past and feel sorry for my ancestors and get angry about those who were brutalized by the Normans, the Vikings, the Romans, the Mongols to name a few. Or just know my past and live my life now not stuck with what happened to my ancestors

There's a famous line that gets repeated a lot when people talk about 'getting over it' and putting the past behind you, and that is "Who today talks of the suffering of the Armenians?"  This was Hitler's reasoning that society would move on after he eliminated the Jews from Europe and presumably elsewhere, because they "got over it" before. 

Last I checked, there's not a statute of limitations on murder.  Why do people seem to think there should be when the victims number in the thousands or millions? 

[jwolfer]

Not discounting the suffering of people. The history of the world is full of people be conquered, raped, pillaged and enslaved etc.
I can lament the past and feel sorry for my ancestors and get angry about those who were brutalized by the Normans, the Vikings, the Romans, the Mongols to name a few. Or just know my past and live my life now not stuck with what happened to my ancestors

There's a famous line that gets repeated a lot when people talk about 'getting over it' and putting the past behind you, and that is "Who today talks of the suffering of the Armenians?"  This was Hitler's reasoning that society would move on after he eliminated the Jews from Europe and presumably elsewhere, because they "got over it" before. 

Last I checked, there's not a statute of limitations on murder.  Why do people seem to think there should be when the victims number in the thousands or millions?

I am not saying "get over it" or forget. But why be stuck in a horrible time in the past and relive the animosities and grieviences. It is apart if history. There was warring between native American tribes. The Aztecs were brutal to other native american peoples. But Mexicans don't generally bemoan the brutality of the Aztecs

[vdeane]

Time is a major component.  The Aztecs (or the Mongols, or even Alexander the Great) all did their brutality centuries ago.  In contrast, there are still people alive today who were directly affected by the Holocaust.  While nobody today bemoans the actions of the Aztecs, if you teleported someone from a conquered tribe in that time period to the present day, they probably wouldn't easily "get over it" if at all.

[jeffandnicole]

Time is a major component.  The Aztecs (or the Mongols, or even Alexander the Great) all did their brutality centuries ago.  In contrast, there are still people alive today who were directly affected by the Holocaust.  While nobody today bemoans the actions of the Aztecs, if you teleported someone from a conquered tribe in that time period to the present day, they probably wouldn't easily "get over it" if at all.

And now we celebrate the Aztecs by naming a car after them.

[bugo]

I think that all people of Scandinavian heritage need to rise up and protest and demand that the horrible racist xenophobic name of the Minnesota Vikings be changed. The name perpetuates negative stereotypes of all Nordic peoples. We need to lobby Congress to have hearings specially the Congress people of Scandinavian heritage this is a travesty and must be changed immediately

I agree! It paints Scandinavians as savages.

The Notre Dame Fighting Irish must be changed because of the negative stereotype that Irishmen are hot tempered and will fight at the drop of a hat.

The Saint Mary's Gaels must be changed as well as it is named after an ethnic group. We are Gaels, not zoo animals and we shouldn't have a team named after us.

After all, fair is fair. If we're going to change one mascot because it is "racist" then we must change them all.

[jwolfer]

Time is a major component.  The Aztecs (or the Mongols, or even Alexander the Great) all did their brutality centuries ago.  In contrast, there are still people alive today who were directly affected by the Holocaust.  While nobody today bemoans the actions of the Aztecs, if you teleported someone from a conquered tribe in that time period to the present day, they probably wouldn't easily "get over it" if at all.

True

[bugo]

A long time friend of mine is Indian and an Okie.  He calls himself an American as in US citizen.  He worked for the BIA until retirement last year.  He calls his people "Indians".

His take is, get over it.  It has been Indian since white man came here. The Redskins name has been that for how many years now? 

He does like to keep his heritage and appreciates his tribe's history.   

That parallels my experience with Oklahoma Indians. The northern tribes seem to be thin skinned and whiny about the whole thing, while the Oklahoma tribes just don't give a fuck. Hell, one of the local high schools is Union High School, and their mascot is, get ready for it, the "Redskins". Nobody cares. A vote was put up and the name was overwhelmingly approved. Union High has a lot of Native Americans that go to school there.

Oklahoma Indians = cool. I've always heard horror stories about how badly racist Native Americans are to whites, but I've never detected a single bit of racism from an Indian outside one experience that can be chalked up to too much cheap 3.2 beer, and I'm not even sure that this was racism or just a bunch of drunk guys who were taking care of their land. We were stopped to take pictures of a bridge and several cars pulled up and started questioning us. After a few minutes, they decided we were cool and left. I'm down with the red man, and the red man is down with me.

[bugo]

Time is a major component.  The Aztecs (or the Mongols, or even Alexander the Great) all did their brutality centuries ago.  In contrast, there are still people alive today who were directly affected by the Holocaust.  While nobody today bemoans the actions of the Aztecs, if you teleported someone from a conquered tribe in that time period to the present day, they probably wouldn't easily "get over it" if at all.

True

It doesn't matter. Would the Armenian genocide be less hurtful if it had happened 500 years ago? What about the Holodomor? Are the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition's evil actions forgiven because so much time has passed?