I vote for derogatory. if I were Native American, I’d be offended.
Exactly.
…are both offensive, yes.
The Fighting Irish mascot, especially. Seriously - a belligerent leprechaun? I’m only 1/64 Irish and* I’m* personally offended by such shitty representation.
Entire groups of people are tantamount to violent animals. Gotchya…:smack:
…savagery, bloodthirstiness, barbarism, violence, uncivilized-ness, scalp-taking, white-woman-raping, wagon-burning, monosyllabic-bad-English-speaking (“How”) …
For all the (supposedly) positive traits you think the imagery conjures up, it’s also tied to a whole slew of negative ones, by cultural history. All those 50s Westerns and cigar-store Indians add up to *a lot *of cultural baggage you can’t just overcome with “But we only mean the positive traits! Just the Noble Savage ones. Honest Injun!” As if even supposedly positive stereotyping wasn’t harmful in-and-of itself.
And even supposedly positive stereotypes can have effects on how readily we stereotype others…pdf link to a paper discussing that very effect.
Viz., changing the name of the San Francisco 49ers to the San Francisco Math Wizards in celebration of San Fran’s sizeable Asian community.
The team was originally located in Boston and was called the Boston Braves after the baseball team of the same name. Baseball was already well established in Boston at that time and the football team played in the same stadium as the baseball team. They then moved to stadium of the Boston Red Sox and wanted a name that was similar to Red Sox. Redskins was similar to Red Sox and kept the Indian association.
This is especialy true since Oklahoma means “Red People” in Choctaw.
I know you think you’re being clever, but
-
DO you think ANYONE is going to hear that challenge and think “Ooooohhhhhh… NOW I get it”?
-
Just for grins, ask yourself a hypothetical:
Has ANY major sports franchise (outside the old Negro Leagues) adopted a name like that? Even in the days when open racism wasn’t such a big deal?
If not, why not?
Because even in the 1920s, even a racist NFL owner would have thought that a name like" The New York Niggers" or “Detroit Darkies” or “Pittsburgh Pickaninnies” sounded stupid at best and extremely offensive at worst.
Top white athletes were happy to play for teams with Indian names because Indian names sounded cool. Indian warriors were admired for their toughness and fierceness. I understand perfectly why modern Cherokee or Iroquois might find the name offensive, but you CAN’T reasonably argue that teams adopted Indian names AS a deliberate insult. Those names were adopted because Indians were perceived as having qualities teams wanted in their players.
Nobody would EVER have considered those other racial slurs anything but an insult, because no one ever used those names as anything BUT an insult. And no white player would have signed with a team with such a name.
I think a few Indian -themed names and mascots are offensive. Many others and mascots are merely corny. Some should probably be put to rest- especially “Redskins.” But even people who want these names gone have to understand that these names really WERE meant to be tributes, not insults.
Who cares why they adopted them originally? Why is it relevant?
Well, the NAACP has not changed its name even though the term “colored people” seems antiquated and a bit of a put-down in today’s vernacular.
I think what it conveys is that the* intent *wasn’t one of derogation. Nobody’s naming their team the Horse’s Asses or the Niggers or the Dagos; they name teams after things that they think of as strong and powerful and cool.
That doesn’t mean that the name is not derogatory anyway. But you hear this argument: suppose someone named a team with a derogatory term for some other group, but one that everyone agreed was derogatory? And it’s a stupid argument, because nobody’s ever gonna do that. But if it keeps popping up, it’s gotta get knocked down.
‘Redskins’ is a derogatory term, but a dated one. Other than its use for the DC football team, it’s a term that’s got a lot of dust on it.
My sentiment is that the Redskins should get ahead of the curve, and rebrand themselves as the D.C. CTE’s.
So does “United Negro College Fund.”
It’s DEFINITELY relevant that Indian names were not chosen out of malicious racism. To use another analogy, is Michigan State insulting King Leonidas by calling its athletes the Spartans? Is USC insulting Hector and Aeneas by calling its athletes the Trojans?
Of COURSE not! The whole idea is that the Spartans and the Trojans were valiant and mighty warriors. That’s a GOOD thing, isn’t it? A football team thta identifies with Crazy Horse and Tecumseh is paying them homage. That OUGHT to be obvious.
But that’s not necessarily a valid reason to hold on to the name. I’m already on record as saying “Redskins” is, at best, an outdated name that ought to be put to rest.
Bold and color added.
I do not find the bolded citation offensive in the least, at least not in the present context.
If you cannot understand a “why is this case different than the others” you probably are not going to have many sympathetic hearers.
In the Wikipedia article on Redskin (slang) I find:
The point I would like to make here is that George Allen’s intentions in the naming and marketing of his NFL team to evoke American Indians’ bravery, fierceness, etc. constitutes a complete disregard of the history and manner in which American Indians were regarded, referred to and treated during practically the entirety of white people’s dealings with them. I promise you that by and large American Indians were not referred to as noble, brave, fierce warriors or any of that other revisionist crap. They were excoriated. The above quote is tame. Do me a favor and look up “Mark Twain” and Indian together in a Google search and see what you find.
astorian, I hear loud and clear the last 2 sentences in your preceding post. But when you say
here is my reply. How do we know that it is a GOOD thing, that they would regard it as such too? I know, let’s ask them! What’s that? They’re long since dead, buried and beyond caring about the matter one way or the other? Can we please keep it that way?
I’ll take my chances. If you cannot see how Americans of Japanese decent might find those images offensive, I’m unlikely to change your mind.
I believe an American of Japanese descent, when seeing propaganda directed at the symbol of a regime and nation of a race and leader of that nation of that race of that nation (yes, the race of that nation, unlike the “white” race of America which by no means was similar as a the definition of our warring state), bent on a bitter war of vast proportions against his nation, and took offense above and beyond the caricature in propaganda in the cause of his nation, is – misguided. [Sorry for the run-on sentence.]
Compare, and decode, a propaganda photo of the Germans such as this–fair game.
Now another comparison: these German ones this to to the America discrete one of Tojo.
Absolutely, they’re offensive, and were designed to be so.
But this thread is about the Redskins, so it might be instructive to hear what’s offensive about their logo.
My white, male privilege does not entitle me to determine what, when or where others are offended.
Ah. Very sincere post, that.
Sorry, I wasn’t responding to you, we cross posted.
That said, are you seriously confused as to why someone might object tothis particular characterization, especially in bobblehead form?
