crazietalk.net

OY won't allow a PPB discussion, but I know we can discuss this in a friendly way. What do you guys think?

Please choose one option about whether the name will change and one about whether it should and one about the affect of the patent offices actions, and discuss...

And let's keep it friendly and civil, eh?

I think the name is offensive. If I refered to a native american as a 'redskin' I am pretty sure they would not be amused. I think the Cleveland Indians goofy grinning Chief Yahoo or Wahoo or what ever the f. his name is is offensive.

The waters get murkier when you addressing FSU who are the Seminoles with the blessing of the Seminole nation (AND there name is the proper name of the tribe).

windsor wrote:I think the name is offensive. If I refered to a native american as a 'redskin' I am pretty sure they would not be amused. I think the Cleveland Indians goofy grinning Chief Yahoo or Wahoo or what ever the f. his name is is offensive.

The waters get murkier when you addressing FSU who are the Seminoles with the blessing of the Seminole nation (AND there name is the proper name of the tribe).

You have a better perspective than most of us since you live down there, but from where I sit, those waters are pretty clear. FSU isn't "The Damn Seminoles" (until they score an easy TD on us), and as you said they have the backing of the tribe. The tribe even has input on the logo, right? Their name is legit, representative, and culturally appropiate. I think the trademark revocation is pretty odd. The point is that now that anyone can use and market the logo...but if it is an offensive logo then nobody will do that, right? Wrong as hell. Offensive or not, it will make someone money.
Hopefully the team from D.C. finally changes their name at some point, but that seems like a stupid tactic to do it with. The one benefit it has, though, will be that it keeps the issue in the public eye and continues the pressure, even though it is a dumb way of doing it.

There are a million articles on this. Here are some of the better ones I've found.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/ ... is-a-slur/

http://mmqb.si.com/2014/04/03/washingto ... me-debate/

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... me-change/

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter. ... -24_pr.pdf

http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2014/01 ... s-matters/

http://wtvr.com/2013/10/14/virginia-tri ... ntroversy/

There was an article in the Richmond paper late last year where a reporter, who admitted he wanted the name changed, traveled around the state interviewing over a dozen tribes' elders. He found a few who wouldn't comment, one who wanted the name changed, and several who were fans of the team, saw it as a source of pride, and did NOT want the name changed. I can't find that article now. He said he still wanted the name changed personally, but that the experience very much opened his eyes on the complications of the matter.

There was a poll ten years ago stating that 90% of Native Americans DON'T want the name changed. It's linked above. It was a telephone poll asking thousands of Americans a variety of questions. Around 800 people identifying themselves as Native American answered the poll. Problem is it didn't verify their claim in any way.

Many Native Americans say that the term is offensive, and as bad the notorious N word. To them, I'm sure it is, and that needs to be heard and addressed. However, 99% of African Americans find the N word offensive, and if an inner city, 100% black high school used something related to that word as its mascot, there would be rioting in the streets. However, there are still a dozen or more Native American schools that use Redskins or Redman as their mascots. And for every Native American that finds the name horribly offensive, you will find one who loves the team and doesn't want it changed, and two who don't really care. Can you imagine a single African American saying they didn't care or had no comment on a team name that was the N word? Like I said, while I'm sure to some it is as offensive, clearly it is not as universally offensive, even to those who are referred to by the term. It should also be noted, as one Redskins fan Native American stated, that there is a HUGE difference between calling a team by a name and walking up to a person and calling them that. I'm a big, fat guy. Would I be insulted if someone walked up to me and called me a giant? Absolutely. Am I offended by the NY or SF Giants? No. I realize it's not quite the same, but that's the gist of what the man was saying.

As for the team name, I'm very torn. Personally, I'm a lifelong fan and would hate to see it changed. However,
I recognize that if so many are offended, it needs to be addressed. But, again, I am torn, because the actual number of Native Americans who actively want the name changed seems to be a relatively small percentage of the Native population. They still have schools that use it. How many lifelong Native American Redskins fans will be offended IF the name is changed? It seems no matter how this ends, at least some Native Americans will be offended.

Many Native Americans seem to feel that the best part of this whole thing is that they benefit from the attention. More people are taking note of their problems and causes. They are raising money at no cost to them, as the law firm representing the offended party stated on the radio yesterday that they had been working this case for two decades completely pro bono. Many Native Americans feel like the population in general just sees them as some mythological people away on their reservations, but that this gets them back in the public consciousness.

A friend of mine at a PR firm pointed out to me that they may NOT really care if they win this, or at least don't want to win fast. The longer it drags on, the more free positive attention they get. If they win this fight too fast, they fade back into obscurity and legend, and all people know about them is things like Johnny Depp in Lone Ranger or LDP in Longmire, who many think barely qualifies (from what I've read, my wife is more Native American than he is). She says the way they really win is if this drags on, remaining a big topic for as long as possible. This is just her theory, of course, but I certainly see some validity to it, and she is definitely an expert in public perception, if not Native Americans.

Anyway, like I said, I'm very torn here, and it appears that the people most affected by this are too. It's not a simple issue at all, no matter which side you're on. I can't remember ever seeing a term that a significant number of people are offended by that is also a source of pride to so many people of the same ethnic background. To me, it's all rather strange.

windsor wrote:I think the name is offensive. If I refered to a native american as a 'redskin' I am pretty sure they would not be amused. I think the Cleveland Indians goofy grinning Chief Yahoo or Wahoo or what ever the f. his name is is offensive.

The waters get murkier when you addressing FSU who are the Seminoles with the blessing of the Seminole nation (AND there name is the proper name of the tribe).

Most Native Americans I have seen interviewed who are NOT offended by the football team's name find Cleveland's "chief wahoo" highly offensive, as well as just the use of Indians as the team name.

As to your point, as the man in the article I linked said, there's a difference between calling a team something and calling a person something to their face, because it's labeling. I have no problem with being a part of the group "white". My friends are "black" or "asian" or "hispanic". Would I ever walk up to any of them and say "hey white/black/hispanic/asian, what's up"? Of course not. It's different.

Also, it should be pointed out that as one IP attorney just said on the radio, "Nearly any noun in the English language can be used to offend someone. Context is everything."

By the way, D.C. is just cursed in picking names. The Wizards are the Wizards because they changed the name from "The Bullets" back in the early 90's when I was in school up there. Having earned the other name "murder capitol of the world", someone decided that a name seemingly promoting gun violence was not a smart idea.

That was a total debacle. The way they picked the new name was awful. The way they play, they should have picked the Washington Generals. One guy on the radio the other day said the Redskins should switch to the Bullets. I got a chuckle out of that one.

windsor wrote:I think the name is offensive. If I refered to a native american as a 'redskin' I am pretty sure they would not be amused. I think the Cleveland Indians goofy grinning Chief Yahoo or Wahoo or what ever the f. his name is is offensive.

The waters get murkier when you addressing FSU who are the Seminoles with the blessing of the Seminole nation (AND there name is the proper name of the tribe).

Curiosity question: If the team changed the name to the Washington Native Americans, or just Natives for brevity's sake, would you have a problem with it? What if they got the Iroquois or Shawnee or Potowamec (local tribe that I believe they named the river after) tribe involved and named it for them?

I think what we really need is a new, updated, official, objective poll. Track down every Native American they can find and officially ask them. One man or woman, one vote. We have a bunch of Native Americans stumping for it, but we really have no real clue what percentage of Native Americans want it changed. Where's the tipping point? 20 change/60 don't care/20 like it? 40/10/50? 60/20/20? 75/5/20? What if 1% is offended and 75% want to keep it? What if 45% hate it but 50% love it and would hate for it to change? It just seems arrogant for me to be offended for them. We need to ask them. Not just the vocal minority that clearly hates it, but as many as possible on every side from every tribe.

bjornolf wrote:

windsor wrote:I think the name is offensive. If I refered to a native american as a 'redskin' I am pretty sure they would not be amused. I think the Cleveland Indians goofy grinning Chief Yahoo or Wahoo or what ever the f. his name is is offensive.

The waters get murkier when you addressing FSU who are the Seminoles with the blessing of the Seminole nation (AND there name is the proper name of the tribe).

Curiosity question: If the team changed the name to the Washington Native Americans, or just Natives for brevity's sake, would you have a problem with it? What if they got the Iroquois or Shawnee or Potowamec (local tribe that I believe they named the river after) tribe involved and named it for them?

I think what we really need is a new, updated, official, objective poll. Track down every Native American they can find and officially ask them. One man or woman, one vote. We have a bunch of Native Americans stumping for it, but we really have no real clue what percentage of Native Americans want it changed. Where's the tipping point? 20 change/60 don't care/20 like it? 40/10/50? 60/20/20? 75/5/20? What if 1% is offended and 75% want to keep it? What if 45% hate it but 50% love it and would hate for it to change? It just seems arrogant for me to be offended for them. We need to ask them. Not just the vocal minority that clearly hates it, but as many as possible on every side from every tribe.

I consider 'redskins' on a par with the N-word and chief Wahoo the equivalent of little black Sambo from the defunct Sambo's restaurants. As I said, it is murkier when a particular tribe is involved and gives their blessing. Referring again to FSU, the attire worn by Osceola (and Renegade the horse) is designed and provided by the Seminole Nation. They picked the name Osceola.

I wouldn't favor "native american's" as a team name any more than I would favor "Africans" or "Asians" or "Arabs". Who would call a team the Japs, Spics, Krauts...it is absurd to even consider. I have no idea what percentage of German's might find "Kraut" offensive, and certainly a poll wouldn't' be needed to know it was a bad idea to name your football team that.
Why is the bar so much lower for Native Americans?

Okay, but we have clear evidence from their own mouths that a decent percentage of Native Americans take pride in the team name and we see them wear the team gear. I doubt you could say the same for those other words.

So, what we're telling those men and women is that they are wrong for liking it?

windsor wrote:I consider 'redskins' on a par with the N-word and chief Wahoo the equivalent of little black Sambo from the defunct Sambo's restaurants. As I said, it is murkier when a particular tribe is involved and gives their blessing. Referring again to FSU, the attire worn by Osceola (and Renegade the horse) is designed and provided by the Seminole Nation. They picked the name Osceola.

I wouldn't favor "native american's" as a team name any more than I would favor "Africans" or "Asians" or "Arabs". Who would call a team the Japs, Spics, Krauts...it is absurd to even consider. I have no idea what percentage of German's might find "Kraut" offensive, and certainly a poll wouldn't' be needed to know it was a bad idea to name your football team that.
Why is the bar so much lower for Native Americans?

But we have the Celtics and Fighting Irish. Should we ban those as well?

TillyGalore wrote:

windsor wrote:I consider 'redskins' on a par with the N-word and chief Wahoo the equivalent of little black Sambo from the defunct Sambo's restaurants. As I said, it is murkier when a particular tribe is involved and gives their blessing. Referring again to FSU, the attire worn by Osceola (and Renegade the horse) is designed and provided by the Seminole Nation. They picked the name Osceola.

I wouldn't favor "native american's" as a team name any more than I would favor "Africans" or "Asians" or "Arabs". Who would call a team the Japs, Spics, Krauts...it is absurd to even consider. I have no idea what percentage of German's might find "Kraut" offensive, and certainly a poll wouldn't' be needed to know it was a bad idea to name your football team that.
Why is the bar so much lower for Native Americans?

But we have the Celtics and Fighting Irish. Should we ban those as well?

Celtic is not generally considered to be derogatory but descriptive, and that makes a difference. Fight Irish is similar, and their mascot is a fictional leprechaun. Both are throwbacks to a different age and I don't think either would adopted today. But yes they should probably both go.

windsor wrote:

TillyGalore wrote:

windsor wrote:I consider 'redskins' on a par with the N-word and chief Wahoo the equivalent of little black Sambo from the defunct Sambo's restaurants. As I said, it is murkier when a particular tribe is involved and gives their blessing. Referring again to FSU, the attire worn by Osceola (and Renegade the horse) is designed and provided by the Seminole Nation. They picked the name Osceola.

I wouldn't favor "native american's" as a team name any more than I would favor "Africans" or "Asians" or "Arabs". Who would call a team the Japs, Spics, Krauts...it is absurd to even consider. I have no idea what percentage of German's might find "Kraut" offensive, and certainly a poll wouldn't' be needed to know it was a bad idea to name your football team that.
Why is the bar so much lower for Native Americans?

But we have the Celtics and Fighting Irish. Should we ban those as well?

Celtic is not generally considered to be derogatory but descriptive, and that makes a difference. Fight Irish is similar, and their mascot is a fictional leprechaun. Both are throwbacks to a different age and I don't think either would adopted today. But yes they should probably both go.

I don't consider "Africans," "Asians," or "Arabs" to be offensive terms, they are factual descriptors of where a person comes from. If we are going to go down the road of taking any type of potentially offensive term, like Celtic or Fighting Irish, out of mascot names, where do we draw the line? Are animal rights groups going to start stirring the pot because some animals are mascots, particularly animals that are considered endangered species?

I am not trying to escalate things, just adding to the conversation.

TillyGalore wrote:

windsor wrote:
Celtic is not generally considered to be derogatory but descriptive, and that makes a difference. Fight Irish is similar, and their mascot is a fictional leprechaun. Both are throwbacks to a different age and I don't think either would adopted today. But yes they should probably both go.

I don't consider "Africans," "Asians," or "Arabs" to be offensive terms, they are factual descriptors of where a person comes from. If we are going to go down the road of taking any type of potentially offensive term, like Celtic or Fighting Irish, out of mascot names, where do we draw the line? Are animal rights groups going to start stirring the pot because some animals are mascots, particularly animals that are considered endangered species?

I am not trying to escalate things, just adding to the conversation.

I agree. At some point it just gets flat out stupid; the fact is that SOMEONE will always be offended by something. "Blue Devils" probably pisses off some guy in France. In the term of "Celtics", that is not only not offensive, it is embraced by the culture that spawned it. Boston's Irish roots obviously lead credence to its use. I looked up "Fighting Irish", that one is a bit weird. Obviously the Irish didn't found ND, so where did it come from? (If they did, they obviously pissed off a lot of Protestants...those folks might be offended. ND was founded by a French guy.) Even they don't have an answer. I don't think any Irish are actually offended by a bunch of people in Indiana claiming their heritage.
http://www.und.com/trads/nd-m-fb-name.html

It is when people DO find the name offensive that the problem arises, and therefore the Washington Redskins have an issue.

CameronBornAndBred wrote:

TillyGalore wrote:

windsor wrote:
Celtic is not generally considered to be derogatory but descriptive, and that makes a difference. Fight Irish is similar, and their mascot is a fictional leprechaun. Both are throwbacks to a different age and I don't think either would adopted today. But yes they should probably both go.

I don't consider "Africans," "Asians," or "Arabs" to be offensive terms, they are factual descriptors of where a person comes from. If we are going to go down the road of taking any type of potentially offensive term, like Celtic or Fighting Irish, out of mascot names, where do we draw the line? Are animal rights groups going to start stirring the pot because some animals are mascots, particularly animals that are considered endangered species?

I am not trying to escalate things, just adding to the conversation.

I agree. At some point it just gets flat out stupid; the fact is that SOMEONE will always be offended by something. "Blue Devils" probably pisses off some guy in France. In the term of "Celtics", that is not only not offensive, it is embraced by the culture that spawned it. Boston's Irish roots obviously lead credence to its use. I looked up "Fighting Irish", that one is a bit weird. Obviously the Irish didn't found ND, so where did it come from? (If they did, they obviously pissed off a lot of Protestants...those folks might be offended. ND was founded by a French guy.) Even they don't have an answer. I don't think any Irish are actually offended by a bunch of people in Indiana claiming their heritage.
http://www.und.com/trads/nd-m-fb-name.html

It is when people DO find the name offensive that the problem arises, and therefore the Washington Redskins have an issue.

The point I was trying to make was that Windsor said she does not favor a team name such as "Native Americans," nor would she support team names "Africans," "Asians," or "Arabs." Which I don't find offensive, and we do accept Celtic and Fighting Irish as team names because they are not derogatory they are descriptors. Native American, African, Asian, and Arab are all descriptors as well. If "we" as a society are going to allow Celtic and Irish to be used as team names, then I see nothing wrong with using other ethnic/race descriptors.

I do not find Celtic or Fighting Irish offensive. However, Mike Golic, of Mike and Mike in the Morning who played for ND, shared with me (in that I was listening to the show that people have told him they find the "Fighting" in "Fighting Irish" offensive.

I think Cowboys should be abolished. Not the name, just the whole team.

TillyGalore wrote: I think Cowboys should be abolished. Not the name, just the whole team.

Tilly, that may be the smartest thing you've ever posted here, and that's saying something.

I think Tony Romo should be abolished. I still don't know why he hasn't been.

Here is my sister's perspective on the matter. (For the record, we have Cherokee ancestors and she is very active in the Native American community.)

Dana Shelton Gates- I SO don't get peoples' thinking when they think/claim that it is ok to have a mascot such as Cincinnati Reds, Atlanta Braves, Florida Seminoles and of course, Washington Redskins. Is it an inability to open one's mind and ask "If so many are so upset at the continued exploitation maybe there's a reason." As far as the claims that it is a respectful reverence for Native people, how is it respectful to have a mascot with buck teeth and a stupid smile respectful? If it's ok, then it must be Ok to have mascots that are African American and Asian American. Everybody knows how wrong it to dress in blackface, why can't they see that Native Mascots are the same kind of racism?

Tell me how it was OK one of my friends little brother who had always been told he was Cherokee to be referred to as Indian in the first grade and burst into tears respond "I'm not Indian". As I said, he knew he was Cherokee. All he knew about Indian was the often depicted cartoon character of a stupid indian. And thats just one of the damaging things that happens with continued Native Mascots.

While we're at it, what about Halloween? I have been sick of seeing kids and people dressed up as Natives for years. I mean come on! RACE IS NOT A COSTUME! Then there's Thanksgiving. A holiday beloved by many of all races including many Natives. I simply say let's teach the real truth in our schools. Pilgrims were the first welfare recipients. Many Natives view this holiday as a day of mourning. It is a sad reflection on the American education system when so much Native history is swept under the rug. After all.......if you are in the United States, guess what?
YOU'RE IN INDIAN COUNTRY BRO!!!!!!