Is Washington "Redskins" acceptable

So by that logic it would then be ok if next season if New Orleans changed the franchise name to the New Orleans *??

 

How native are Native Americans nowadays anyway?

 

You dont become less native over time.

 

Not really, its getting attention because the media have decided to make it a big issue. They won the same ruling in the 90's I believe and that got far less attention.

Even if you believe the word was once derogatory the media campaign to change the name has been idiotic. They pretty much are trying to take a word that has no racial connotation in present day America and turn it into a racial slur which it may or may not have been in the past.

 

I remember George Galloway saying the Celtic Crusaders should take the Crusaders part out of the name because it was supposedly an obvious reference to the Crusades and it could offend Muslims. Now I'm remembering this entirely from memory and cant remember the full story or what came of it, but just in reference to this does anyone think that could be seen offensive to Muslims?

I see that they are now known as the North Wales Crusaders but just curious if they were still called the Celtic Crusaders then would yous see that as offensive?

 

Depends how Native Americans feel about the name

 

How is anyone supposed to know that though, unless they run a poll of every Native American? It's ridiculous, as the only people who'll be vocal about it are those who are against it.

 

Then you must decide what percentage of Native Americans would it be acceptable to offend. Would a simple majority deeming it acceptable be enough? Is it okay if 20% find it offensive?

 

What if the majority don't really give a * though? What if it's a vocal minority?

 

How do you know this?

If you met a Native American, would you call them a 'Redskin'?

 

If this vocal minority made up 20% of the NA population would you deem the use of the word acceptable? Does it become acceptable as soon as 51% deem it so?

 

I'm not arsed either way to be honest, but I do think it's a mountain out of a molehill.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR-tbOxlhvE

 

http://mic.com/articles/91503/this-...-illustrates-america-s-racism-double-standard




What's in a T-shirt? Turns out, quite a lot. Using little more than the shirts on their backs, award-winning Canadian band A Tribe Called Red just sent a bold message: Native Americans aren't here for your entertainment.
The shirt is part of the continuing controversy over the use of Native American imagery for the logos of professional sports teams like the Washington Redskins. Simultaneously sarcastic and witty, the shirt — a play on Chief Wahoo and the Cleveland Indians logo — draws attention to franchise names and mascots that demean Native Americans while lampooning the creators and perhaps the most vocal supporters of such team mascots: Caucasians.

Image Credit: A Tribe Called Red
Sadly, the backlash to the band's creative statement has already begun, as music festivals across Canada have reportedly been flooded by emails calling for A Tribe Called Red's removal from the lineup. In an ironic twist, many of these critics claim that the t-shirt is "racist" against white people.
Let's be very clear. Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as "reverse" racism.
A Tribe Called Red, a band that has made headlines recently for its energetic anthems, is also made up completely of Aboriginal Canadians known as the First Nations people. The innovative group's shirt makes a satirical yet incisive statement about the ridiculous idea that it's OK for non-white cultures to be mocked via mascots and team names that culturally appropriate customs and images held dear — and even sacred — to the originators. Although Dan Snyder and his supporters have attempted to argue to the contrary, even the Oxford English Dictionary entry for "redskin" notes that it's a dated, derogatory term.
Of course, Native Americans and their First Nations peers aren't the first to have their cultural artifacts and representations casually disrespected in the mainstream.
The Redskins controversy recalls other racist mascots and tropes such as the "Mammy," a denigrating portrayal of female African-American domestic workers who cared for white families and nursed white children. It's often seen in movies and cartoons such as Tom and Jerry.

Image Credit: MizsimsAdventures.com
Then there's Frito Bandito, the original advertising character for the Frito-Lay snack, whose now retired image and mannerisms included a wearing sombrero and a gold tooth, wielding two handguns and speaking broken English. And that's two of many examples from the extensive history of racist mascots.

Image Credit:YouTube
In recent years, though, it's "ironic" hipster racism that's even more insidious than the overtly racist media images commonly presented in the 19th and 20th century. Over at Racialicious, various writers, including Carmen van Kerckhove, highlight why gestures and humor explained away with post-racial ideology actually does more harm than good.
And a recent study commissioned by MTV shows that nearly half of 20-somethings believe that "racism against whites is as big a problem as discrimination against racial minorities."
Perhaps that's part of a larger problem — a culture that feels uncomfortable talking openly and honestly about issues of race, and that refuses to acknowledge even the most subtle forms of racism when consistently presented with them.
But that's not stopping advocacy groups and supporters from forcing the issue.

Image Credit: YouTube
Although the Washington Redskins have been the main focus of national outcry, they're not the only organization stirring controversy over racist team names and imagery. Other professional sports teams, including the Cleveland Indians, the Chicago Blackhawks and teams at various colleges across the country have been challenged as part of the larger movement. Earlier this week, the United Church of Christ's Central Atlantic Conference released a statement that positions them with an increasing list of groups calling for team name changes and even boycotts.
In a landmark move, the U.S. Patent Office has signaled that it, too, disagrees with the use of the Redskins logo in particular, by canceling its patent. Ruling in favor of five Native Americans who petitioned the office, government officials noted in their decision that it was clear the term 'Redskins' was "disparaging of Native Americans, when used in relation to professional football services, at the times the various registrations involved in the cancellation proceeding were issued."
As for A Tribe Called Red's t-shirt, its popularity has skyrocketed so much in recent weeks that the makers, Shelf Life Clothing, say they're currently backlogged 2 to 3 weeks to complete orders. Clearly, these clothes have struck a nerve.
So before calling the t-shirts "racist," maybe it'd be a better idea to reflect and learn more about why organizations and bands such as A Tribe Called Red have to be so vocal about culturally appropriating memes like these in the first place.

 

I know what you mean, in that there are issues which affect the Native American peoples which are more structural and economic than symbolic, but this can't be described as a mountain out of a molehill. What stands behind this is genocide, or more accurately, the proper attitude to take towards the descendants of cultural and ethnic groups that were systematically slaughtered. I don't think there's anything trivial about that.

 

I would say I believe that because I've lived in America all my life and have never heard the word used to describe anything other than the football team. People are comparing it to words like * and * but I've heard those words used plenty of times as insults and in a demeaning way.

No, I wouldn't call a Native American guy I met a Redskin but I don't really think that makes the name racist. It would just feel weird calling someone a Redskin who isn't a member of the football team as thats the only way I've ever heard it used.

As I said in my earlier post I don't think things like Red men or Red people are offensive, especially since they were originally used by Native Americans to differentiate themselves from the white men. Sure terms like that are old fashioned and no one uses them to refer to people anymore but thats kind of the point. The term wasn't offensive when it was coined and isn't used anymore in its original sense anyway so why is it offensive?

 

Do you honestly believe that changing the name of an NFL football team is going to raise awareness or change anything though?

If anything, it'll just provide the owners of the franchise with an opportunity to make even more money when they eventually wheel out the rebranded merchandise.

Within a year or so the whole thing will be forgotten, including any valid or pertinent points raised by ethnic groups.

In short, no one cares. I know that I've never actually thought of Indians any time I've read the name or said it to a friend. It's just a name that didn't even raise any connotations for me, and I'm sure it'll be the same for many others.

It's unfortunate, but the issues of genocide won't even be considered. All the majority will think is "yeah, a few ethnic minorities got offended by the name of a football team."

As soon as any ban on the name comes into effect the focus will immediately switch to what the new name will be, and there'll no doubt be fan interaction, polls, app voting and suchlike which will mean the Indian thing will quickly be forgotten about.

 

Should the name only be changed if it "raise awareness" to the issue. Perhaps a more pertinent reason for the change would be that it is wrong or that it is racist.

If only one tribe of NAs find it offensive are their feelings to be ignored? Perhaps it is those NA who are most proud of their heritage that find it offensive. I wonder if a term used to describe the Irish as a race was deemed offensive by native Irish speakers but not by the general population would it be okay. Native Irish speakers form a minority of the population so why should we pander to them.

http://mmqb.si.com/2014/04/03/washington-nfl-team-name-debate/

At least a dozen members of Congress want the name changed, as do some civil rights groups and vocal members of the national media. The people at the heart of the debate, though, are those at the grass-roots level among the more than 500 recognized tribes in the U.S. The MMQB took the temperature of Native Americans from coast to coast—representing 18 tribes in 10 states—and found a complicated and nuanced issue. What we did not find: the “overwhelming majority” that Snyder and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell have claimed support the name “Redskins.”
We found opponents of the name in 18 tribes: veterans of the U.S. military, lawyers, college students, cultural center employees, school volunteers and restaurant servers. Their viewpoints align with official statements from dozens of tribes or inter-tribal councils and from the NCAI, which represents more than 250 tribal governments at the Embassy of Tribal Nations. Many of these people wondered how, or if, their voices are being counted.


The NCAI do not condone the name.

"We are so many things but we are not your mascot."

http://www.ncai.org/

 

As I said earlier, I'm not fussed either way about the name. I'm a Bills fan :icon_mrgreen:

What I am saying is that if the aim of getting the name changed is to remove some kind of offence that a group of people feel every time they turn on FOX Sports or read a Washington newspaper or a copy of Sports Illustrated, then fair enough, it's job done.

If, however, the reason for the campaign and subsequent name removal is to raise any kind of awareness then I doubt that'll happen, as I detailed above.

What about the Notre Dame Fighting Irish? Is that offensive? That plays somewhat on the stereotype of the Irish being drunks who fight all the time.

Anyone fancy kickstarting a campaign on that one? :icon_mrgreen: