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
"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.
The Redskins could keep their name. All they need do is change their mascot to a potato. :spin:
/OK, bad joke.
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.
Quote from: bugo on November 05, 2014, 09:57:30 PM
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'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.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 05, 2014, 11:18:55 PM
Quote from: bugo on November 05, 2014, 09:57:30 PM
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.
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.
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 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tim-giago/black-hills-claims-settle_b_533267.html) 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.
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.
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
Quote from: jwolfer on November 06, 2014, 07:00:33 AM
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.)
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.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 06, 2014, 07:30:09 AM
Quote from: jwolfer on November 06, 2014, 07:00:33 AM
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.)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FbSScg55.png&hash=d91c853af18b68ce4870a167791b2083eb4722b7)
This was about the Cleveland Indians logo, but it certainly helps put it in perspective.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tworiverstribune.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F09%2F1839mascotcartoon.jpg&hash=437071024849f6af935f53bc134c9c1c43374ca5)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.calamitiesofnature.com%2Fimages%2Fcleveland_indians.gif&hash=6112c4fbe95b82115104be364e7d83027d065444)
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 06, 2014, 07:30:09 AM
Quote from: jwolfer on November 06, 2014, 07:00:33 AM
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
^^ 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".
Quote from: jwolfer on November 06, 2014, 09:08:23 AMNot 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?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 06, 2014, 09:48:56 AM
Quote from: jwolfer on November 06, 2014, 09:08:23 AMNot 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
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.
Quote from: vdeane on November 06, 2014, 01:55:01 PM
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.
Quote from: jwolfer on November 06, 2014, 07:00:33 AM
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.
Quote from: vdeane on November 06, 2014, 01:55:01 PM
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
Quote from: leroys73 on November 06, 2014, 07:55:27 AM
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.
Quote from: jwolfer on November 06, 2014, 02:48:23 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 06, 2014, 01:55:01 PM
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?
Quote from: bugo on November 06, 2014, 02:55:29 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on November 06, 2014, 02:48:23 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 06, 2014, 01:55:01 PM
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?
If it happens to you or your parents its more real than your 4x great grandmother being raped.. You can feel empathy, understand emotions but its just not as palpable and " real". More of an abstract.. Sort of like reading about a mom of 4 dying in a car accident across town. You have a moment of sadness but you go on to the next story in the news. Now if it were your sister or mom you would be devastated.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 06, 2014, 08:39:10 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.calamitiesofnature.com%2Fimages%2Fcleveland_indians.gif&hash=6112c4fbe95b82115104be364e7d83027d065444)
Before the Braves moved to Atlanta from Milwaukee, the city's baseball team was the Crackers. There had also been at one point a Negro League team called the Atlanta Black Crackers. Interestingly, the Braves wore Black Crackers throwbacks in honor of Civil Rights Weekend as recently as 2011:
http://projects.ajc.com/gallery/view/sports/braves/braves-phillies-051411/10.html
As far as I can tell, the Black Crackers did not have a mascot.
Another interesting story revolves around the Fightin' Whities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_Whites):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Ft2X3Ebz.png&hash=4479fe01fca7e321d38d741cf0bed0198969decf)
As for the nickname of the professional baseball team from the Mistake on the Lake, it's named after a baseball player. I think his name was Chief Sockalexis but I could be mistaken.
What bugs me is the use of the term "African Americans" for people with dark skin. What's wrong with using a term equivalent to caucasian for them, especially since 9/10s of them aren't from Africa and you'd have to go back several generations to find true African natives?
We have at least two high school teams in my area whose nickname is "Indians" and one of them has an unofficial nickname of "The Tribe." A now-closed school's nickname was Navajos. Whether or not they had permission from the Navajo Nation to use the name in the same way as Florida State does Seminoles is beyond me.
I saw a story about protests about the Redskins' nickname at a Minnesota Vikings game and someone mentioned the Vikings' nickname. One response was,"Viking is an occupation, Redskin is a slur."
That story also noted that someone from Kentucky went to Minneapolis to protest. My question is, "Why?"
Quote from: hbelkins on November 06, 2014, 03:29:27 PM
That story also noted that someone from Kentucky went to Minneapolis to protest. My question is, "Why?"
In the Ferguson riots days after the original shooting, many of those arrested were from far away areas. They simply wanted to go down to Ferguson and riot.
What I want to know is where they got the money and time (well, I probably know the answer to both) to do that.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 06, 2014, 03:29:27 PM
What bugs me is the use of the term "African Americans" for people with dark skin. What's wrong with using a term equivalent to caucasian for them?
I don't get this, not even in the deluded wingnut sense of a few other recent posts in this thread. What would be more equivalent? Nubian?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 06, 2014, 02:06:02 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 06, 2014, 01:55:01 PM
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 desecrate the Aztecs by naming a car after them.
FIFY. It usually is rated as one of the worst cars ever due to design. The similar Buick Rondevous sold much better due to a much better wrapper.
Quote from: bugo on November 06, 2014, 02:47:20 PMI 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.
Unlike the Indians, the Vikings and the Irish don't exist in a broken social state created very specifically for the enrichment of white America, from which this country benefits tremendously while they continue to pay the price.
So, using those groups' identity to sell a product worth billions of dollars while they trudge through poverty and ignominy is, shall we say, less of an issue.
But, of course, you knew that already.
Quote from: Grzrd on November 06, 2014, 03:15:39 PM
Another interesting story revolves around the Fightin' Whities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_Whites):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Ft2X3Ebz.png&hash=4479fe01fca7e321d38d741cf0bed0198969decf)
Nice. Now, we need teams called the "Blondes" or the "Red(head)s". :bigass:
/Skin color - blah. Hair color is far more important.
Quote from: NE2 on November 06, 2014, 04:36:01 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 06, 2014, 03:29:27 PM
What bugs me is the use of the term "African Americans" for people with dark skin. What's wrong with using a term equivalent to caucasian for them?
I don't get this, not even in the deluded wingnut sense of a few other recent posts in this thread. What would be more equivalent? Nubian?
"Caucasian" is the ridiculous one. It is the equivalent of referring to East Asians as Mongoloids. Not that "white" is accurate, but it's less rooted in nutty Classicist theories of human "races."
Some High Schools have an Apache as a Football Team Mascot I'm not sure How Many in the USA. but the City of Vallejo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vallejo_High_School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vallejo_High_School)
Vallejo High School in Solano County Changed their Mascot the Redhawks Recently.
I'm not sure How Many School Districts are still in a lawsuit over the Apache name.
Quote from: bing101 on November 06, 2014, 05:01:57 PM
Some High Schools have an Apache as a Football Team Mascot I'm not sure How Many in the USA. but the City of Vallejo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vallejo_High_School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vallejo_High_School)
Vallejo High School in Solano County Changed their Mascot the Redhawks Recently.
To really be scary, they should've called themselves the Germans and used a panzer for a mascot. :spin:
there was a minor-league baseball team called the Crackers:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.ebbets.com%2Fimages%2Flarge%2Fatl40t.jpg&hash=bb1b91d920cf4f1cb17320935d5e54d21618c521)
Quote from: NE2 on November 06, 2014, 04:36:01 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 06, 2014, 03:29:27 PM
What bugs me is the use of the term "African Americans" for people with dark skin. What's wrong with using a term equivalent to caucasian for them?
I don't get this, not even in the deluded wingnut sense of a few other recent posts in this thread. What would be more equivalent? Nubian?
a) I don't even get why we bother trying to categorize people in races anymore. Hopefully that ceases soon.
b) Until it does, the correct answer is "what does this group want to be called?" That's how we evolved from Negro (and worse) to African American. One day they may decide they want to be called "American."
Quote from: Alps on November 06, 2014, 06:13:40 PMOne day they may decide they want to be called "American."
They already are, if they're citizens. If Stevie Wonder or Michael Jordan or Barack Obama move to France, they're not African-Americans anymore.
https://www.facebook.com/10405440140/photos/a.218812655140.170784.10405440140/10152716964845141/?type=1&theater
Seen this the Chicago Blackhawks have a Native Chief as its logo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos_and_uniforms_of_the_Kansas_City_Chiefs
Or this the Chiefs have an Arrowhead Logo. Some cultures may dispute its purpose here,
Quote from: bing101 on November 06, 2014, 11:16:28 PM
https://www.facebook.com/10405440140/photos/a.218812655140.170784.10405440140/10152716964845141/?type=1&theater
Seen this the Chicago Blackhawks have a Native Chief as its logo.
The Blackhawks (aka Black Hawks) are named after a very specific person, important in Illinois history - Chief Black Hawk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hawk_(Sauk_leader)). It is not, and never has been just a generic native chief logo.
I would be proud for a team to name themselves after my ethnicit(ies). "Dallas Mongrels", "New York Mutts", or "1/16th Jews".
Quote from: bugo on November 08, 2014, 12:39:58 PM
I would be proud for a team to name themselves after my ethnicit(ies). "Dallas Mongrels", "New York Mutts", or "1/16th Jews".
I get the feeling that "Redskins" is viewed more like "New York Hymies" than it is like "New York Jews."
It's not like the Redskins are moving to L.A.! So why penalize a TV station located 3,000 miles from their main fan base for mentioning a team name that won't be going away anytime soon? There are the Atlanta Braves, Kansas City Chiefs and Golden State Warriors to name a few, and you don't see those names singled out in nearly the same way that the Redskins are...at least not yet anyway.
So what's the argument for not changing this racist team name again? What changes if Washington becomes, I dunno, the Sentinels (the team name in the movie "The Replacements")? Is anyone going to stop watching football? Stop going to games?
I'll tell you what will happen when they eventually change that name. It'll be a big hubbub for a few days, then everyone will buy new shirts and move on.
This slippery slope fallacy about other team names is a distraction. Washington's name is in extremely poor taste especially since the team is located in the market with the seat of government; the same government that spent over a century committing genocide against this continent's indigenous peoples.
Eat your damn vegetables and change the stupid name, Dan Snyder.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdemotivators.despair.com%2Fdemotivational%2Ftraditiondemotivator.jpg&hash=6bdce530d4248e2858c2e6d0749418b6ff51d874)
Until then:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftheblot.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F04%2FWashington-Redskins-racist.jpg&hash=0417d4eb090f98dd4c739548bf2e3bb0e56f7096)
Part of it might be that last time they renamed a Washington team to be politically correct, they picked the Wizards, which is just about the lamest, most minor-league sounding possible name. I'm more pro-Bullet than pro-Redskin as a team name though.
My thought is that the name-change is inevitable. Snyder will continue taking as much press out of it as possible (bad press is good press) and eventually will change the name, prompting the sale of merchandise. He's just milking the cow dry first.
Quote from: corco on November 09, 2014, 03:42:53 PM
Part of it might be that last time they renamed a Washington team to be politically correct, they picked the Wizards, which is just about the lamest, most minor-league sounding possible name. I'm more pro-Bullet than pro-Redskin as a team name though.
The Washington area seems to have a thing for lame team names: Nationals (major-league baseball), Potomacs (minor-league baseball), Capitals (hockey).
That said, I don't favor keeping the Redskins name just to avoid lameness. Heck, Virginia wisely retired "Carry Me Back to Old Virginny" as state song, before settling on a replacement (there still isn't one, and with the long and futile search so far, there may never be one).
Given the city is in the District of Colombia, how about "Colombians" for a lame name.
with a hispanic person snorting some drugs as the logo. Or not.
Quote from: english si on November 09, 2014, 04:16:06 PM
Given the city is in the District of Colombia, how about "Colombians" for a lame name.
with a hispanic person snorting some drugs as the logo. Or not.
Sorry, District of Col
umbia.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 09, 2014, 02:24:43 PM
So what's the argument for not changing this racist team name again? What changes if Washington becomes, I dunno, the Sentinels (the team name in the movie "The Replacements")? Is anyone going to stop watching football? Stop going to games?
I'll tell you what will happen when they eventually change that name. It'll be a big hubbub for a few days, then everyone will buy new shirts and move on.
The same reason Apple doesn't just rename itself to Orange: it's become their brand.
To be honest, I had never even heard of the term "redskin" until this debate flared up. Am I just sheltered?
Quote from: english si on November 09, 2014, 04:16:06 PM
Given the city is in the District of Colombia, how about "Colombians" for a lame name.
with a hispanic person snorting some drugs as the logo. Or not.
I can just imagine the controversy from going from a derogatory name for Native Americans (depending on which natives you ask) to a guy who slaughtered millions and essentially started slavery as it's known to our textbooks.
QuoteTo be honest, I had never even heard of the term "redskin" until this debate flared up. Am I just sheltered?
I think part of the problem is that it's only a limited amount of the country where blatant racism against American Indians is still happening on a large scale, and it's nowhere near Washington DC. The states where you are likely to hear redskin or prairie n***** or other epithets are: South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, North Dakota, maybe Colorado and Utah, and not in the populated areas of those states (Gallup, Rapid City, Casper, and to a lesser extent Billings and Bismarck would be the exceptions).
Where I've personally heard people call American Indians derogatory names the most is on the edge of reservations where ranchers and natives are fighting over water rights, and the perception of white people is that American Indians are drunk, government subsidized nogoodniks using outdated treaties and land claims to make it harder for them to get their fields irrigated. When I was going to school in Wyoming I had a classmate that grew up on a ranch outside Riverton WY, and whenever you brought up Indians you could watch his blood boil and the profanity would start coming out.
And that's really something that only a very small part of the white population of this country will ever see or need to worry about, but it's a pretty good percentage of the American Indian population. That also makes it harder to sell "Redskin" as a name that urgently needs to be changed, since the vast majority of the country and certainly the vast majority of Redskins fans aren't really interacting with non-assimilated native populations for anything other than the occasional trip to the casino. They say "it's not offensive" because they've never used it in an offensive way and they've never heard anybody use it in an offensive way, but they're also not traveling to and spending time in northwestern New Mexico very often.
I truly don't believe most Redskins fans intend to be racist, and I get why a lot of them have no clue as to why it's a racist name, and I get why they don't want to change. They just, and justifiably so, aren't paying enough attention to what's going on in the middle of nowhere to realize why that's probably not a good thing to name a team after. I can't blame people for not paying attention to the interaction between ranchers and natives on the edges of reservations in low populated areas most of the way across the country- there's just no reason for people to, but that doesn't change that it's happening. There's hardly any black people up here in Helena, and there isn't much racism against blacks, but that doesn't mean I'd be able to get away with having a team named the Helena Negroes.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 09, 2014, 02:24:43 PM
So what's the argument for not changing this racist team name again? What changes if Washington becomes, I dunno, the Sentinels (the team name in the movie "The Replacements")? Is anyone going to stop watching football? Stop going to games?
What's particularly offensive is that a lot of the folks who keep defending the team name because of "tradition" don't seem to mind one bit whenever a corporation buys naming "rights" to a stadium.
The FCC and all the major sports leagues actually need to crack down on corporate naming "rights".
Quote from: english si on November 09, 2014, 04:16:06 PM
Given the city is in the District of Colombia, how about "Colombians" for a lame name.
with a hispanic person snorting some drugs as the logo. Or not.
Actually, that'd just be former Mayor Marion Barry snorting them.
Why not pay homage to the baseball team and call them the "Washington Senators?"
Quote from: The Nature Boy on November 09, 2014, 11:22:38 PM
Why not pay homage to the baseball team and call them the "Washington Senators?"
'Cause thre they'd leave for Minnesota or Texas. :spin:
Quote from: bandit957 on November 09, 2014, 11:14:15 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 09, 2014, 02:24:43 PM
So what's the argument for not changing this racist team name again? What changes if Washington becomes, I dunno, the Sentinels (the team name in the movie "The Replacements")? Is anyone going to stop watching football? Stop going to games?
What's particularly offensive is that a lot of the folks who keep defending the team name because of "tradition" don't seem to mind one bit whenever a corporation buys naming "rights" to a stadium.
The FCC and all the major sports leagues actually need to crack down on corporate naming "rights".
Why would the sports leagues crack down on something that makes them money. And the FCC wouldn't do it because if it doesn't involve communications it's not their business.
Quote from: vdeane on November 09, 2014, 05:45:33 PM
To be honest, I had never even heard of the term "redskin" until this debate flared up. Am I just sheltered?
No. I live in Oklahoma and I've never heard the term to refer to anything except for the football team.
Quote from: corco on November 09, 2014, 03:42:53 PM
My thought is that the name-change is inevitable. Snyder will continue taking as much press out of it as possible (bad press is good press) and eventually will change the name, prompting the sale of merchandise. He's just milking the cow dry first.
Or better still (for him, it'd suck for the rest of us), give up the team name in return for a new publicly-subsidized stadium. That scenario has gotten some press around here.
Quote from: oscar on November 13, 2014, 09:29:59 PM
Quote from: corco on November 09, 2014, 03:42:53 PM
My thought is that the name-change is inevitable. Snyder will continue taking as much press out of it as possible (bad press is good press) and eventually will change the name, prompting the sale of merchandise. He's just milking the cow dry first.
Or better still (for him, it'd suck for the rest of us), give up the team name in return for a new publicly-subsidized stadium. That scenario has gotten some press around here.
Or give 25% of the net to Indians. Hell, make it 50%.
Quote from: oscar on November 13, 2014, 09:29:59 PM
Or better still (for him, it'd suck for the rest of us), give up the team name in return for a new publicly-subsidized stadium. That scenario has gotten some press around here.
Isn't the current stadium fairly new?
Gotta love it when a perfectly good arena (Freedom Hall in Louisville) is replaced by an overpriced monstrosity (the KFC Yum Center).
Or when a perfectly good stadium (Riverfront in Cincinnati) is replaced by TWO stadiums. What a waste of money.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 14, 2014, 12:26:31 PMIsn't the current stadium fairly new?
17 years old, the same as the antiquated facility the Atlanta Braves are leaving, and two years newer than the stadium the Rams will probably leave St. Louis to get a replacement for.
You didn't know you owe your local sports team a new facility every twenty years? Because you do.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 14, 2014, 12:26:31 PM
Or when a perfectly good stadium (Riverfront in Cincinnati) is replaced by TWO stadiums. What a waste of money.
Riverfront was a compromise stadium, neither good for baseball nor football.
Quote from: bugo on November 15, 2014, 10:58:42 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 14, 2014, 12:26:31 PM
Or when a perfectly good stadium (Riverfront in Cincinnati) is replaced by TWO stadiums. What a waste of money.
Riverfront was a compromise stadium, neither good for baseball nor football.
Actually, it would have been fine as a baseball-only stadium. In fact, when the Bengals moved out in 1999, I think the Reds could've been fine there. But Great American Ball Park turned out pretty nice! I see at least one, and usually a couple, games a year there.
I think it's important to remember that "Indians" is not a homogenous group. It's like categorizing people as "Asians". There are a lot of subgroups of that overly broad label, they do not all feel the same way about every issue, and a lot of them don't like the other groups.
I know the Chickasaws pretty well–I live with one!–but their point of view on things is pretty different from the Sioux and the Navajo and other tribes. The Oklahoma tribes' circumstances are worlds apart from the other tribes. And it's even different from tribe to tribe–Jeremy alludes to the Indian hospital in Claremore upthread, but the Chickasaws have used casino income to build a state-of-the-art medical facility in Ada that blows the regional hospital in Norman out of the water at least in terms of how nice the facilities are (it seems like the quality of care in Norman is probably better but I am not well-versed enough in medicine nor have I used the hospital in Norman enough to be able to comprehend if that surface observation is correct). The Chickasaws, therefore, are probably going to view healthcare differently from the Cherokees, and those are two tribes in the same state.
Washington Humans.
-- there. Settled. :spin:
Quote from: GaryV on November 17, 2014, 08:26:30 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on November 16, 2014, 09:41:28 PM
Washington Humans.
Football players are human? :hmmm:
There are humans in Washington, DC?
I thought they were all our robot overlords.
Riverfront was a compromise stadium, neither good for baseball nor football.
[/quote]
Actually, it would have been fine as a baseball-only stadium. In fact, when the Bengals moved out in 1999, I think the Reds could've been fine there. But Great American Ball Park turned out pretty nice! I see at least one, and usually a couple, games a year there.
[/quote]
I never saw a FB game at River Front but I was there with some high dollar season tickets the first game the Reds played there. The view sucked. So I would strongly disagree that the stadium would have made a good baseball park.
By the way doesn't the name Reds offend our Marxist leaders or are they proud to be associated with a capitalistic operation?
Quote from: leroys73 on November 19, 2014, 03:44:52 PM
By the way doesn't the name Reds offend our Marxist leaders or are they proud to be associated with a capitalistic operation?
They changed their name to the Redlegs during the red scare of the 1950s, then restored the Reds name in the 60s.
Most multi-purpose stadiums aren't good for either, but they're good enough. Philly had Veterans Stadium. It was a dump, but we were proud of the dump. Especially the 700 level. Might've been one of the best implosions also of a stadium: Instead of a 5 second "bring it down at once", it took about a minute to slowly go all around the stadium. Very cool to watch.
Quote from: Big John on November 19, 2014, 03:49:11 PM
Quote from: leroys73 on November 19, 2014, 03:44:52 PM
By the way doesn't the name Reds offend our Marxist leaders or are they proud to be associated with a capitalistic operation?
They changed their name to the Redlegs during the red scare of the 1950s, then restored the Reds name in the 60s.
I am well aware of the name change in the 50s, I was there at Crosley Field. Saw many games there, season tickets. Yes, it is Reds now, so that is my point, offending OUR Marxist leaders.
Locking thread since the thread is becoming too political