And I don’t think there are many (if any) people in the world who claim “Viking” as their ethnic identity.
On the other hand, Miami University (Oxford, Ohio) got rid of the Redskins nickname on the specific request of the Miami tribe.
Or stockings, be they white or red?
Ameican Indians have been used as punching bags since the Spanish started killing them off wholesale, either on purpose (target practice) or by accident (germs). If someone, on a personal level, told me that what I was saying or doing offended him or her I would stop, because it’s the right thing to do. I don’t know why it should be so different on a macro level, yet non-AIs continue to defend a practice that offends thousands of people.
Let me get this straight. You’ll change years of enjoyed behavior because a complete stranger, out of a minority of strangers, happens to take unreasonable offense at your actions. Not me. I tell the guy to mind his own business and not to take offense where none is intended.
But those few of us who do DEMAND that, if the Minnesota Vikings wish to continue using that name, a licensing fee of $100,000 per annum be sent to me for distribution to all Vikings who meet my–I mean, OUR–standards of Viking heritage and that the Minnesota Vikings change their team colors to something more butch.
Nor “Brave” nor “Warrior” nor “Chief”.
I’m no longer sure what position is being argued. I personally have no problem with generic words like that. There’s absolutely no reason why a brave a warrior or a chief has to be an American Indian.
Surely this is purely a situational guideline that cannot cover all situations of offense.
If someone told you that they were offended that you had your paychecks deposited into your bank account instead of being donated to their favorite charity, I don’t think you’d take their offense seriously.
Why, exactly, does offense – mere hurt feelings – have power? And how can we be sure that someone or some group isn’t feigning offense to gain political capital or attention to a cause?
Cliffy invokes the phrase above “we know who it hurts”. But do we? Is money being taken out of someone’s pocket? Are jobs being denied someone? Is someone being barred from college? Just what is the nature of this “hurt” and how is it actually manifest?
As a Cherokee Indian, I honestly do not understand this at all. It seems to me that it is an honor to be memorialized in the manner of the Washington Redskins and so forth. (Though I’m not of fan of theirs.) These no doubt well meaning political hacks from the reservations are failing, in my view, to consider the consequences of this campaign. We, as a people of 500 nations, are already practically forgotten. Our political clout is almost nil. Once this ill-conceived campaign has concluded, all our political capital will be spent. This was a waste. What will remain is a world in which we are barely remembered, except as historical relics. I just honestly believe that this movement is harebrained in its conception.
Even sillier is when a college team bows to PC pressure & changes its name from the The Redmen to The Red Storm - even though the origins of the pre-1994 team name referred to the uniform color & had absolutely nothing to do Native American Indians
While that is true, St. Johns did have a cartoon Indian mascot* for a number of years. So, even though that was not the origin of the name, they did kinda pick up the torch and run with it.
*Scroll down to or search for “St. John’s” to find it
How’s this for crazy. Scroll down on that same page to the Syracuse logos. They had a cartoon Indian mascot as well in the '50s.
Yes, “viking” was a person who specialized in warfare, living his life as a soldier, guard, etc, and was born and raised in Scandinavia around 800–1000. The word itself and its original meaning is not fully understood, however, but reading the sagas, that’s the conclusion one have to make. In any case, it’s really hard to see how anybody in the world today could get offended by a team calling itself the Minnesota Vikings. – It’s a totally different thing than that “Redskin” thing; was about to say “It aint the same ballgame”, but that would’ve met some hijacking arguments.
I was certainly being overly flip earlier in the thread, as Pash and zamboniracer have illustrated. But if you have to ask this:
you and I can never come to understanding. I don’t like hurting people. If something I’m doing is hurting people, reagardless of how legitimate their pain is, I’m going to stop, all else being equal. The debate must therefore be, is all else equal? That is, does this really hurt people, how many, how severely, what are the consequences of a change, who would that hurt, how many, how severely, etc. It’s not “OK” to hurt someone – it’s only ever acceptable (though very often that) as the lesser of two evils.
–Cliffy
Well…yes. Although I suppose it depends on one’s definition of “unreasonable”. African-Americans didn’t like negro or colored so the nomenclature changed; ditto Asians from Orientals. When given the option between two names - one which causes offense and one which doesn’t - I’ll pick the latter every time.
I really don’t know why this is such a controversy. “Hey, Redskins is a slur! A mean one, even! Change your name!” The rational, reasonable response should be, “Oops, sorry, man - didn’t mean to insult you. We’ll hold a poll and get a new name” Instead we have a bunch of white guys defending a practice that devalues a group of living, breathing, existing people to the level of animals like bears, eagles, or terrapins.
Now. If a bunch of activists were protesting the nickname of, e.g., Braves at a school on an Indian reservation I’d raise an eyebrow, but this obviously isn’t the case.
No, as set forth above, you proceed from a false assumption. The point is that the sports nicknames Braves, Indians, Redskins, etc, actually devalue nothing.
He was pretty good. Probably could have made the bigs but he quit and joined the Army Air Corps. Completed 26 missions as a waist gunner in a B-24 over North Africa and was an old man when he returned. He was a great guy though and managed several high school and little league teams until he retired in the '70s. I miss him every day.
I also know that he got a kick out of playing for a team named the crackers. If he could do it, I don’t see why the activist have such an issue with it.
Says who? You? People take offense to these sports names, whether or not you like it. It does offend some people. How many people must it offend before it offends you as well? Is there a magical cutoff number? For decades people thought stereotypical cartoon images of African Americans were cute and inoffensive but they’ve still faded into history; why can’t the same be done for stereotypical cartoon images of Native Americans? Don’t they deserve the same respect?
Look chique, did you read my previous post that referred to the Sports Illustrated article from 2002 which said the vast majority of Indians themselves aren’t too worked up about this supposed insult? If and when the majority of the people who are supposed to be insulted are actually insulted, then we can discuss it. Until that unlikely possibility occurs though, I’ll risk incurring your meager wrath and keep wearing my Washington Redskins t-shirt, my Atlanta Braves tomahawk cap and my Chief Wahoo Cleveland Indians jacket, thank you very much.
Not only that, but that very same SI article specifically mentioned Native American schools that still use Redskins as their team’s name.
So, explain to me again who the practice is offending? Cause it sure as shit isn’t Native Americans. It’s offending the overly-PC offenderatti, and this is one of the reasons so many people consider “PC” to be a perjorative.
The vast majority of Native Americans take no offense to the team names. If you do, then it’s your problem.