Tweet
Am curious to see what people think. Offensive, not offensive? To change, not to change?
I'm indifferent to the issue.
I'm indifferent to the issue.
-
The mountains are calling, and I must go. -
I saw a meme yesterday that said they are dropping Washington from their name because it was becoming offensive. -
So much of this debate is perception or misperception. Teams, players, fans, cities, schools should be able to be proud of a "name". I'm guessing most fan bases do not want to be associated with anything they are not proud of. Braves, Warriors, Chiefs.....nothing not to be proud of there, and in my mind, including the peoples they represent. Even though I am somewhat put off by the name Redskins, I find nothing that should be considered offensive regarding their "branding" or logos. Best solution to me would be to change the name to Warriors and keep the logos.Originally posted by wsushox1 View Post
On the reverse, there is the Cleveland Indians. Well, nothing offensive about the name except the logo it's associated with is way out of line to me.
Then you have the University of North Dakota. I think getting rid of the name "The Fighting Sioux" and the branding is just plain wrong. There is nothing about the name or logos offensive IMHO, whether it be to the people they represent or those who wear it proudly. What "white man" in 1850 would have worn anything calling themselves a Sioux? However, at UND, that had all changed. The students and athletes wore the name proudly with branding that was very dignified. If it was a majority of the Sioux Nation themselves that wanted the change, so be it. If it was only a few, along with PC "white men", all they managed to do was strike the Sioux name and bury a proud heritage. Feel free to correct me, as I do not know the facts, it is simply me reaction to what happened.....from my perspective.
Side note: I believe that when this issue came up several years ago at North High, it was a minority of Native Americans pushing the change and that students at North High of that heritage actually opposed a change. That said, a name change to something else, but still in keeping with Native American heritage, would be what I'd prefer.Comment
-
Heard this on the radio the other day about changing the names of several other pro teams....Kansas City Leaders of Native Americans, The Green Bay people of alternative lifestyles, The Minnesota Angry Sailors. I think there were several others but I was laughing too hard. At the end they said the message was from the NFL and they didn't care what the teams were called as long as people still bought tickets and drank the $8.00 beer.Comment
-
-
Not trying to nit-pick, but there was a reason they called Bartle "The Chief" and not "The General".Originally posted by RoyalShock View PostComment
-
My thought is that if you own the team you can name it the Washington Butt Kissers for all I care. Their fans don't seem to mind the name because they have some of the best fans in the country.Comment
-
As a Cowboy's fan I have always called them the Deadskins. And I shall continue to call them that!
The Cowboys even handicapped themselves with an Al Davis type owner and still managed to beat the Deadskins...Marge: The plant called and said that if you don't come in tomorrow, don't bother coming in Monday.
Homer: WOOHOO! Four day weekend.Comment
-
If you talk to the average person of native-American descent on the street and ask about how native-americans were treated from the 1840's to the late 19th century (Trail of Tears, tribes placed on reservations, etc.), I am confident they would (close to 100percent) be offended by the U.S. government policies that marginalized them. I and most of you would agree.
Now if you pose the question of whether they are offended about the name of Redskins, studies show that these same people overwhelmingly (not 100percent but close) don't take offense. They live with us, have jobs just like us. Now if you ask present day tribal leaders who mostly still live on the reservations and still conduct tribal business,they do take offense.Comment
-
Not offensiveI have come here to chew bubblegum and kickass ... and I'm all out of bubblegum.Comment
-
Now I'm not a huge Bob Lutz fan, but there was one thing that stood out to me as very insightful in his article about North High. When so many people defend keeping the name because of tradition, historical reasons, pride, etc., they always talk about how "native Americans" are not offended, how "native Americans" are proud to be represented as an official mascot. But what absolutely no one does is actually call them "Redskins."
That's where the logic leaves the train tracks for me. Call them "warriors", "braves", "Indians", or whatever, but it should be something you are comfortable calling one of them to their face.
The comments section below Bob's article even proved his own point (which is hilarious). Every person that claims he is being a PC pansie calls them "native Americans", not "Redskins."You miss 100% of the shots you don't take....
.....but, statistically speaking, you miss 99% of the shots you do take.Comment
-
I am surprised that the mascot/caricature of the Cleveland Indians hasn't drawn more attention in this.Comment
-
Maybe so. My wife is from native-American descent. She's not offended by a sports team having that historical name. I don't see that argument valid.Originally posted by Steeleshocker View PostComment
-
If 10 million people are offended, do you change the name? What about if is 800,000 folks that are offended? What if it is only several thousand, and those offended are not even Indians?Comment
-
Next, Bob will be branching out to change the name of the 'Dodge City Red Demons' where I grew up.Comment
Comment