Conquer Club

muy_thaiguy wrote:And I would like to see proof of Native American schools calling themselves "Redskins".

Did you read the story I posted? Go read it, and then go fact check it. There's your proof. Along with the opinions of "actual Native Americans".

Bollocks.

Living in a city with a high population of Native Canadians (around 15%-20%), friends who are Native Canadian, and my own children being half Native Canadian, the term 'redskins' is in fact derogatory. There is no chance in hell any professional sports teams would ever be called "Blackskins" and have a logo of a person of African decent in tribal headgear. That wouldn't fly. Or a team named "Yellowskins" and a person of Eastern Asian decent as a logo with a fu manchu mustache.

I know there are many stories of Native Americans who say they have no issue with the name or logo. That is fine. You can't dictate to someone what they should or shouldn't find offensive with their culture. But there are many that do find it offensive and that should be enough. Up here in my area of Canada there have been many historical name changes due to the offensive nature of the names, mostly involving the term 'squaw'. A 'squaw' was a term used to describe female Native Canadians. So Squaw Bay changed to Old Woman Bay, Squaw Bay Road, Old Woman Road, Squaw River to Old Woman River, etc. These landmarks had been named these for well over 100 years if not more (the new names are admittedly horrible), but things change. Now a name of a lake where you fish may not have the emotional attachment that a pro sports team may have, so the affect of the change doesn't quite have the same impact.

Some argue that there are other sports teams with offensive "native themed" nick names. But other than the Cleveland Indians, none of them, in my opinion, use a derogatory term for their nick name (I know Indian is a word used to describe Native Americans, but it has fallen out of favour up here in Canada. It is considered offensive.)

Native Canadians and Native Americans have been marginalized in both countries for generations. They are the forgotten minority. And I will be honest in saying I shared the same point of view many of the other posters that are saying that the name shouldn't be changed. Growing up I wouldn't think twice about how the name of a sports team could possibly offend anyone. But things change. I'm not offended by the name, mostly because I am not Native Canadian and cannot relate. But my children can relate and they do find the term 'redskin' offensive. I'm not going to tell them to suck it up and get over it. They shouldn't have to.

I know this is an emotional topic for many, and it isn't going disappear anytime soon. Both sides have passionate arguments. Sometimes it is best to leave passion off to the side when discussing this issues.

Everything is considered offensive in Canada.

What I was saying is the name Washington Redskins was chosen
by the team owners as a symbol of strength and was intended
as a label people could be proud of and not as a culture slam
with a derogatory intent.

If the NFL owners choose to rename the team it will be interesting
to see what it becomes and if Indians, Braves, Chiefs, Seminoles and
a host of other sports teams will eventually do the same. leaving no
Native American associations connected to athletics.

All Native Americans have tribal names and were never indians.
It was Christopher Columbus who labelled the inhabitants of
North America as Indians, as he originally thought he had arrived
in India. The indigenous people who lived on this continent did not
refer to themselves as indians. It was not a term of endearment
when the label was coined by Columbus for a people he figured
would require little force to subjugate into servants.

This is not a moral issue as the subject line implies.

is that s'posed to be blank verse or, like. woah, man.

oVo wrote:What I was saying is the name Washington Redskins was chosen
by the team owners as a symbol of strength and was intended
as a label people could be proud of and not as a culture slam
with a derogatory intent.

So what if a basketball team called itself the Washington Blackskins? Black people can be proud of their ability to jump higher, it's not a culture slam.

mrswdk wrote:So what if a basketball team called itself the Washington Blackskins? Black people can be proud of their ability to jump higher, it's not a culture slam.

As an aside, that's not far from the truth - Abe Saperstein founded the Harlem Globetrotters out of the Savoy Ballroom on the South Side of Chicago in the 1920s but named them "Harlem Globetrotters" instead of "Chicago Globetrotters" to advertise the fact they were an all-black team.

That said, I agree the name Redskins should be dropped. No big deal. Chief Illiniwek was entertaining but the University of Illinois still sucks just as much since they banned him.

I am insulted that the Nebraska athletic teams are called Cornhuskers. They should be called The Stock Wizards after Warren Buffet.
I am bothered by Iowa State athletic teams being called the Cyclones. For many people have been killed by Cyclones.
I am concerned about the Golden State Warriors team. For most who live in Northern California are pacifist and don't want to war.
It is sexiest that the University of Southern California are called Trojans. Every team name should be changed to letters in the alphabet and or numbers...
Such as playing today is the "L" team playing against the "T" team... Then everyone will be happy. Whatever.

As usual you obviously quite clearly fully and intelligently understand the situation UC.

I'm surprised I haven't seen this thread before. Here's my take:

To be completely honest, I'm not sure whether or not the name is truly a bad thing. First you have articles like the one Serbs posted (that I read well before I saw this thread, though it was from one of Serbs' Facetbook posts) and two you have the "not many Native Americans think it's really offensive" thing. Which brings up the obvious question, at what point is a nickname offensive?

Is "Indians" offensive? Is "Braves" offensive? Is "Fighting Irish" offensive? (PROTIP: I'm Irish and have no problem, and apparently your opinion is only important regarding if something is offensive if you're part of the supposed ethnicity that's offended) I understand how the Indians' mascot, Chief Wahoo, is offensive, but I was surprised to hear that people thought the Braves warchant is offensive. Then again, I'm not Native American, so I "wouldn't know".

oVo wrote:If the NFL owners choose to rename the team it will be interesting
to see what it becomes and if Indians, Braves, Chiefs, Seminoles and
a host of other sports teams will eventually do the same. leaving no
Native American associations connected to athletics.

Regarding the Seminoles at least, I remember reading that FSU got the okey-doke from the actual Seminole tribe, so I don't think that's going to change.

I guess it's all just disappointing because, and as Dan Snyder, the owner of the 'Skins put it, I see all the names as kickass and as remembrance towards Native Americans and how awesome they were. I heard people complain that using these names "reduces" Native American culture to just mascots but I don't see this at all. I think it's a fucking honor to be used in this sense...a bunch of badass athletes who are literally among the toughest people in the country?






But, even so, I don't think the Redskins are going to keep their name for long. If it were up to me, I'd get in talks with the Conoy tribe and try to get the okay to use their name...the "Washington Conoy"...and keep the logo, if it's acceptable.




Anywho, I'm drunk and depressed because of the Red Sox game =(

universalchiro wrote:It is sexiest that the University of Southern California are called Trojans.

There's nothing sexy about a condom. Expand your horizons, Flanders.

What about the Arabs?

The Cleveland Browns NFL franchise was originally
the Brownies. Not sure where that name comes
from, but I doubt is a chocolatey dessert.

What exactly is the Buffalo Bills a reference to,
Wild Bill Hickok?

Maybe all Pro Sport Franchises should be named
after birds or other animals.

oVo wrote:What exactly is the Buffalo Bills a reference to

IIRC, they were named after Bill Hopper, the founder of the Institute of Fiscal Studies and former member of the European Parliament for Greater Manchester West. I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that's correct.

Why did the oilers change their name?

Lootifer wrote:Why did the oilers change their name?

Moved to Tennessee.

Night Strike wrote:

Lootifer wrote:Why did the oilers change their name?

Moved to Tennessee.

And unlike Houston, Tennessee didn't have as much background in the oil industry as Houston did.

thegreekdog wrote:This topic is from another thread (as to whether morality is inherent or changing... I'm sure someone will come up with better words).

Over the past few months, media, entertainment, and political folks have been increasingly up in arms over the football team name "Redskins" (Washington's NFL team). The issue is the bigotry associated with the name (not just the skin color reference, but the history behind the term itself and the people associated with the term). While I'm not offended by the name, I see no compelling reason to keep the name if other folks are offended.

What is annoying me is that these media, entertainment, and political folks are coming out of the proverbial woodwork to be the most vehement that the name needs to change. Now, the Washington team has had this name since 1933 (they were the Boston Braves in 1932). Many of these media, entertainment, and political figures have had active and public voices in the United States long before 2013. So, why the vehemence and outrage now? Why not in 1947 or 1972 or 1986 or 1999 or 2008 or 2012?

The basic questions are these:
- Is this name more offensive in 2013 than it was in any other period since 1933?
- Why do people feel the need to be outraged now and not in any other period since 1933?

A few "little" events, like the whole civil rights movement.. happened in the meantime.

On a serious note, while the civil rights movement brought the cause of black rights very much to the fore in the 60's to the point that now many would say its essentially a "fate ecompli", rights for other groups, particularly Native Americans, has been far more sporadic and iffy. Native Americans are STILL fighting in court to not have their kids adopted out of the tribe. The Native corporations (in Alaska) and Casinos have, for good or ill, brought prosperity to some tribes, but others are left as wastelands of poverty.

For some, names like "Redskins" represent a piece of the problem, much like the word "nigger" and then "negro" were hotpoints for blacks.

thegreekdog wrote:- How much weight do we place on the opinions of people who used the term "Redskins" profusely for years before suddenly changing their values and/or moral compass in 2013?

Mayo D'Angelo said it best -- "we did what we knew. When we knew better, we did better".

thegreekdog wrote:*Fun note - The Tampa Bay Rays were formerly called the Tampa Bay Devil Rays. A group of Christians got the name changed a few years ago, even though a devil ray is an actual, you know, animal.

Yeah, I rolled my eyes at the time.. and more than just groaned.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:*Fun note - The Tampa Bay Rays were formerly called the Tampa Bay Devil Rays. A group of Christians got the name changed a few years ago, even though a devil ray is an actual, you know, animal.

Yeah, I rolled my eyes at the time.. and more than just groaned.

Source for that? Find that hard to believe honestly, as there is a team called the New Jersey Devils that actually has a logo that has characteristics of a devil.

keiths31 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:*Fun note - The Tampa Bay Rays were formerly called the Tampa Bay Devil Rays. A group of Christians got the name changed a few years ago, even though a devil ray is an actual, you know, animal.

Yeah, I rolled my eyes at the time.. and more than just groaned.

Source for that? Find that hard to believe honestly, as there is a team called the New Jersey Devils that actually has a logo that has characteristics of a devil.

I am not sure if there is a specific group, but the Tampa Bay Times mentioned the sentiment in an old article about the name change: http://www.sptimes.com/2006/04/06/Rays/ ... ay_n.shtml


--Andy

PLAYER57832 wrote:On a serious note, while the civil rights movement brought the cause of black rights very much to the fore in the 60's to the point that now many would say its essentially a "fate ecompli", rights for other groups, particularly Native Americans, has been far more sporadic and iffy. Native Americans are STILL fighting in court to not have their kids adopted out of the tribe. The Native corporations (in Alaska) and Casinos have, for good or ill, brought prosperity to some tribes, but others are left as wastelands of poverty.

I put 1933, but could have easily put 2003 and the statements would still be true. The civil rights movement or any other movement are ineffective as counterarguments. Simply put, this is a hot button issue because media members decided it should be one (to sell newspapers).

PLAYER57832 wrote:Native Americans are STILL fighting in court to not have their kids adopted out of the tribe.

Only 6% of ConquerClub users are opposed to the out-of-tribe adoption of Baby Veronica:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=192434

PLAYER57832 wrote:Casinos have, for good or ill, brought prosperity to some tribes

If by "tribes" you mean the 6-7 members of each tribe's council who get kickbacks, and the non-Indian casino operators they sell the operating licenses to (e.g. the shadowy 100 year-old gajillionaire Kirk Kerkorian, plus an assortment of Saudi princes, and a few plumbers from New Jersey with Italian surnames).

Not that I have any sources to back me up, but I thought the Rays changed their name because they sucked so much dick for so many years and wanted to sort of "change their image" from a shitty team to a ok team that still loses to the Red Sox.

Army of GOD wrote:Not that I have any sources to back me up, but I thought the Rays changed their name because they sucked so much dick for so many years and wanted to sort of "change their image" from a shitty team to a ok team that still loses to the Red Sox.

That was what I read. So the religious angle was new to me.

When I was a child there was a black licorice candy shaped like a person. They were commonly called "nigger babies". They are still sold but now called "black babies". Is the original term acceptable?