The recent Washington Redskins renaming controversy had me thinking about something:
I don’t know what the Native American community at large thinks of the Redskins moniker, but clearly many non-Native people were offended by it.
Suppose, hypothetically, that a sports team had an offensive-sounding name, but the minority in question (not necessarily Native Americans - could be any other ethnic/racial group, or category of people) - actually did not mind the name, and in fact liked it - but most white people thought the name was awful. In such a situation, whose opinion should hold greater sway?
What if a sports team had a name that wasn’t offensive, but mispronouncing it a certain way would summon eldritch abominations into the world, and a minority of people would tend to make that mistake? Should the team name be changed to avoid disaster even if the majority loves the name?
In other words – your scenario doesn’t sound like something that would ever happen in the real world. We can cross that bridge when we come to it.
Eta: sorry, I said “when”, but meant “if we ever come to it”.
Just popping in to say that I totally love that comic. It’s the second time I’ve seen it posted here, and I neglected to comment the first time.
It really nails it, in a way that I hope even the densest can understand.
To the OP, do you have any examples at all from the real world? If not, then it seems like this doesn’t seem like a debate. Maybe ask a mod to move it to IMHO?
It’s an interesting question. My take is that the group the mascot is named after should have the primary role in making that determination. With the Redskins, the name is clearly offensive. On the other hand, what about the Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians, and Chicago Blackhawks? How are those names different than the Minnesota Vikings or the Norte Dame Fighting Irish?
I’m a huge Cleveland Indians fan and have been a fan all my life, as are my dad and his dad before him.
That being said, I’m all for a name change. I was VERY much for getting rid of Wahoo, and had been ditching my Wahoo gear for years anyway.
Now, I could just be a white person who is over sensitive. I recognize that. What I want - and what I THINK the Indians people are doing - is for them to speak to leaders of the groups that the name might offend, and have those groups let us know what they want. Not just one representative but several different representatives making the decision.
If they say “no, we like it” then fine they should keep it. And they should make a group statement letting us know. If they don’t like it, then we should change it and we should also have a statement as to why.
I would hope that whoever is doing the Redskins name change is doing this work, same with the Indians. Otherwise it is just white people telling minorities what they should think and feel.
With names that are actual individuals (in this case tribes) they should do like Florida State Seminoles, and get the Seminole tribe on board, with recompense.
There are still a couple interesting questions in there.
Given that the meaning of ‘Native American’ is relatively non-straightforward, with all the intermarriage and who gets recognized, etc, there may be no consensus way to poll to the Native American community. So is the poll result even valid?
Even if it is valid, what percentage of the group should find the name offensive before changing it becomes ‘correct’? I personally reject both that 50%+1 should be needed (really - you’re okay with a name that offends 49% of the population it refers to) as well as the other extreme: if anyone is offended… Personally, I’d change the name even if you accept the poll results at face value.
Well, I looked through a list of NCAA college nicknames. Skipping the many references to Indians, Braves, etc., I came up with the following nicknames that SOMEONE might be offended by:
I wouldn’t say I’m offended but I’ve always found the name Crusaders to be pretty eye roll worthy, especially in the context of something like “Campus Crusade”. The Crusades are one of the low points of Christian history, considering how mostly they involved slaughtering fellow Christians, pillaging Jewish towns in Eastern Europe, and bringing down the greatest Christian empire of its day to the point where they fell to the Turks. It’s pretty silly - and of course, those who think “Crusade” is a fine name for a proselytizing group on campus wouldn’t be nearly as happy with"Campus Jihad" now, would they?
Actually, maybe that’s a good analogy for the OP. What if a group of proselytizing Muslim students wanted to create Campus Jihad (assuming other Muslims didn’t mind, which isn’t necessarily a fair assumption)? Should that be allowed, OP?
There was this joke from the first episode of The office:
Michael Scott: Um, let me ask you, is there a term besides Mexican that you prefer? Something less offensive?
Oscar Martinez: Mexican isn’t offensive.
Michael Scott: Well, it has certain connotations.
Oscar Martinez: Like what?
Michael Scott: Like… I don’t… I don’t know…
Fans of what? That specific team? That’s some circular logic. I wouldn’t be fan of a team with an offensive name, therefore my opinion wouldn’t matter.
