Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Stereotypes and Other Offensive Depictions in Sports Mascots and Team Names

HeartlashHeartlash Registered User regular
edited May 2009 in Debate and/or Discourse
I am an unapologetic Washington Redskins fan. I love watching the team play, win or lose, and am happy to give 3-4 hours of my Sunday to the couch. However, I cannot formulate any defense regarding the team's name. I haven't ever been able to, really. In fact, I usually ironically bring up just how racist it is when I tell people I'm a fan (e.g. "I love our nation's capital's team, in spite of its horribly racist name").

So naturally, I was not excited in a manner expected of a fan when I heard that the team had won a recent lawsuit regarding use of the trademark. I would've sided with the plaintiff on the issue. The name clearly treads on their cultural heritage.

But this issue brings up a series of intriguing moral questions for debate. Does the name still evoke anything hateful or degrading, or has it detached itself completely from the cultural issue? Likewise, is it worth forcing the organization to shovel out tons of cash to "re-brand" itself? What about other teams in similar positions? If the Redskins need to change their name, what about the Chiefs, Indians, Blackhawks, or the Braves?

Heartlash on
TiSBcast.com - Home of This is Serious Business, a weekly roundtable podcast involving media, beer, and general merriment.
Twitters
«1345

Posts

  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    The Cleveland Indians logo makes the Redskins look like a fucking center for Native American Cultural History by comparison.

    I am appalled that the Indians haven't been forced to, or haven't out of a sense of basic fucking decency, gotten another logo.

    Holy shit.

    HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    The Redskins will be the last major offending franchise to change their name considering how they are constantly in the top three revenue generating teams in any sport.

    Even when they suck.

    Probably the most offensive name too. Damn shame that.

    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • HonkHonk Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2009
    MikeMan wrote: »
    The Cleveland Indians logo makes the Redskins look like a fucking center for Native American Cultural History by comparison.

    I am appalled that the Indians haven't been forced to, or haven't out of a sense of basic fucking decency, gotten another logo.

    Holy shit.

    I GIS'ed that and wow you are so right!

  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Honk wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    The Cleveland Indians logo makes the Redskins look like a fucking center for Native American Cultural History by comparison.

    I am appalled that the Indians haven't been forced to, or haven't out of a sense of basic fucking decency, gotten another logo.

    Holy shit.

    I GIS'ed that and wow you are so right!
    tradition hurf durf de durf

    fuck baseball sometimes

    HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited May 2009
    Regardless of how offensive the name is, I'm really glad they won the lawsuit. "You can't use that trademark because it offends my culture" is just about the most retarded legal argument ever. I don't care if your team is the Slant-Eyes and your mascot is Chinky McWonton, there shouldn't be such a thing as "too offensive to be a trademark." Racism should not be illegal, it should just be taboo.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    True, that's not the way to get a team to change their name without looking like a douche yourself.

    It would take a hideous amount of protesting to get any of these teams to reconsider, or years and years of economic hardship, a new owner, and maybe even a new city.

    Clearly never going to happen to the Redskins. Could happen to the Chiefs, Braves (Which I don't really find offensive) or the Indians (insert logo here) by the above method.

    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    The Cleveland Indians logo makes the Redskins look like a fucking center for Native American Cultural History by comparison.

    I am appalled that the Indians haven't been forced to, or haven't out of a sense of basic fucking decency, gotten another logo.

    Holy shit.

    I GIS'ed that and wow you are so right!
    tradition hurf durf de durf

    fuck baseball sometimes

    The Cleveland Indians franchise claims the following (cite):

    "For more than 30 years, the club has said the nickname "Indians" was chosen in a newspaper contest to honor Louis Sockalexis, a Penobscot Indian who played for the Cleveland Spiders from 1897-99...Cleveland fans sometimes argue the nickname was meant as a tribute to Sockalexis and not an insult."

    From the same article, a counterargument:

    "But Ellen Staurowsky, an associate professor at Ithaca College who wrote a paper on the subject in the Sociology of Sports Journal last December, said the idea that there was a contest is a mistake. "That's completely fake," she told the Plain Dealer. "It's a misrepresentation of what actually happened. There is no evidence the team was named after Sockalexis."

    I agree the Chief Wahoo logo is offensive but the name itself may or may not be.

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Regardless of how offensive the name is, I'm really glad they won the lawsuit. "You can't use that trademark because it offends my culture" is just about the most retarded legal argument ever. I don't care if your team is the Slant-Eyes and your mascot is Chinky McWonton, there shouldn't be such a thing as "too offensive to be a trademark." Racism should not be illegal, it should just be taboo.

    I would root for that team. I would root HARD for that team.

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • HeartlashHeartlash Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Regardless of how offensive the name is, I'm really glad they won the lawsuit. "You can't use that trademark because it offends my culture" is just about the most retarded legal argument ever. I don't care if your team is the Slant-Eyes and your mascot is Chinky McWonton, there shouldn't be such a thing as "too offensive to be a trademark." Racism should not be illegal, it should just be taboo.

    True in the legal sense. A better systemic question would be, should these sports organizations (NFL, NHL, MLB, etc) have an institutionalized policy that doesn't permit such names?

    TiSBcast.com - Home of This is Serious Business, a weekly roundtable podcast involving media, beer, and general merriment.
    Twitters
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited May 2009
    Heartlash wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Regardless of how offensive the name is, I'm really glad they won the lawsuit. "You can't use that trademark because it offends my culture" is just about the most retarded legal argument ever. I don't care if your team is the Slant-Eyes and your mascot is Chinky McWonton, there shouldn't be such a thing as "too offensive to be a trademark." Racism should not be illegal, it should just be taboo.

    True in the legal sense. A better systemic question would be, should these sports organizations (NFL, NHL, MLB, etc) have an institutionalized policy that doesn't permit such names?

    That, I could get behind.

    Though I think name-wise, "redskins" are the only real offenders. The Chiefs, Indians, Braves, and so on aren't inherently offensive, unless you also rail against the Vikings, 49ers, Raiders, and every other team named after a group of people. Saying, "You guys are so awesome we should name a team after you" isn't inherently offensive.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Heartlash wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Regardless of how offensive the name is, I'm really glad they won the lawsuit. "You can't use that trademark because it offends my culture" is just about the most retarded legal argument ever. I don't care if your team is the Slant-Eyes and your mascot is Chinky McWonton, there shouldn't be such a thing as "too offensive to be a trademark." Racism should not be illegal, it should just be taboo.

    True in the legal sense. A better systemic question would be, should these sports organizations (NFL, NHL, MLB, etc) have an institutionalized policy that doesn't permit such names?

    That, I could get behind.

    Though I think name-wise, "redskins" are the only real offenders. The Chiefs, Indians, Braves, and so on aren't inherently offensive, unless you also rail against the Vikings, 49ers, Raiders, and every other team named after a group of people. Saying, "You guys are so awesome we should name a team after you" isn't inherently offensive.

    Even then, part of that (at least with American Indians) is that the name is used to imply a kind of mindless savagery. Which, obviously, can still be bad.

    I think the only solution for the Washington team is to change their nickname to Cardinal. Maybe have a tree logo.

  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Heartlash wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Regardless of how offensive the name is, I'm really glad they won the lawsuit. "You can't use that trademark because it offends my culture" is just about the most retarded legal argument ever. I don't care if your team is the Slant-Eyes and your mascot is Chinky McWonton, there shouldn't be such a thing as "too offensive to be a trademark." Racism should not be illegal, it should just be taboo.

    True in the legal sense. A better systemic question would be, should these sports organizations (NFL, NHL, MLB, etc) have an institutionalized policy that doesn't permit such names?

    That, I could get behind.

    Though I think name-wise, "redskins" are the only real offenders. The Chiefs, Indians, Braves, and so on aren't inherently offensive, unless you also rail against the Vikings, 49ers, Raiders, and every other team named after a group of people. Saying, "You guys are so awesome we should name a team after you" isn't inherently offensive.

    Even then, part of that (at least with American Indians) is that the name is used to imply a kind of mindless savagery. Which, obviously, can still be bad.

    I think the only solution for the Washington team is to change their nickname to Cardinal. Maybe have a tree logo.

    Or it could be argued it's a tribute to a group of historical warriors.

    The UND Fighting Sioux are pretty big around this area for their hockey team and I remember there being a controversy over having the word "fighting" in thier name. I always took it as a tribute to the great Sioux warriors in history (especially given that UND is in Grand Forks North Dakota). I guess some take it as an impication that all Sioux were mindless savages though.

    I think a big part of it is whether you're looking to be offended or not.

    sigtk.jpg
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Heartlash wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Regardless of how offensive the name is, I'm really glad they won the lawsuit. "You can't use that trademark because it offends my culture" is just about the most retarded legal argument ever. I don't care if your team is the Slant-Eyes and your mascot is Chinky McWonton, there shouldn't be such a thing as "too offensive to be a trademark." Racism should not be illegal, it should just be taboo.

    True in the legal sense. A better systemic question would be, should these sports organizations (NFL, NHL, MLB, etc) have an institutionalized policy that doesn't permit such names?

    That, I could get behind.

    Though I think name-wise, "redskins" are the only real offenders. The Chiefs, Indians, Braves, and so on aren't inherently offensive, unless you also rail against the Vikings, 49ers, Raiders, and every other team named after a group of people. Saying, "You guys are so awesome we should name a team after you" isn't inherently offensive.

    Even then, part of that (at least with American Indians) is that the name is used to imply a kind of mindless savagery. Which, obviously, can still be bad.

    I think the only solution for the Washington team is to change their nickname to Cardinal. Maybe have a tree logo.

    Or it could be argued it's a tribute to a group of historical warriors.

    The UND Fighting Sioux are pretty big around this area for their hockey team and I remember there being a controversy over having the word "fighting" in thier name. I always took it as a tribute to the great Sioux warriors in history (especially given that UND is in Grand Forks North Dakota). I guess some take it as an impication that all Sioux were mindless savages though.

    I think a big part of it is whether you're looking to be offended or not.

    The Fighting Sioux name is toast.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • MatrijsMatrijs Registered User
    edited May 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Heartlash wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Regardless of how offensive the name is, I'm really glad they won the lawsuit. "You can't use that trademark because it offends my culture" is just about the most retarded legal argument ever. I don't care if your team is the Slant-Eyes and your mascot is Chinky McWonton, there shouldn't be such a thing as "too offensive to be a trademark." Racism should not be illegal, it should just be taboo.

    True in the legal sense. A better systemic question would be, should these sports organizations (NFL, NHL, MLB, etc) have an institutionalized policy that doesn't permit such names?

    That, I could get behind.

    Though I think name-wise, "redskins" are the only real offenders. The Chiefs, Indians, Braves, and so on aren't inherently offensive, unless you also rail against the Vikings, 49ers, Raiders, and every other team named after a group of people. Saying, "You guys are so awesome we should name a team after you" isn't inherently offensive.

    Even then, part of that (at least with American Indians) is that the name is used to imply a kind of mindless savagery. Which, obviously, can still be bad.

    I think the only solution for the Washington team is to change their nickname to Cardinal. Maybe have a tree logo.

    stanford_tree.jpg
    ?

  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I have absolutely no idea what you're referring to. I thank you not to mock me.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited May 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Heartlash wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Regardless of how offensive the name is, I'm really glad they won the lawsuit. "You can't use that trademark because it offends my culture" is just about the most retarded legal argument ever. I don't care if your team is the Slant-Eyes and your mascot is Chinky McWonton, there shouldn't be such a thing as "too offensive to be a trademark." Racism should not be illegal, it should just be taboo.

    True in the legal sense. A better systemic question would be, should these sports organizations (NFL, NHL, MLB, etc) have an institutionalized policy that doesn't permit such names?

    That, I could get behind.

    Though I think name-wise, "redskins" are the only real offenders. The Chiefs, Indians, Braves, and so on aren't inherently offensive, unless you also rail against the Vikings, 49ers, Raiders, and every other team named after a group of people. Saying, "You guys are so awesome we should name a team after you" isn't inherently offensive.

    Even then, part of that (at least with American Indians) is that the name is used to imply a kind of mindless savagery. Which, obviously, can still be bad.

    I think the only solution for the Washington team is to change their nickname to Cardinal. Maybe have a tree logo.

    Or it could be argued it's a tribute to a group of historical warriors.

    The UND Fighting Sioux are pretty big around this area for their hockey team and I remember there being a controversy over having the word "fighting" in thier name. I always took it as a tribute to the great Sioux warriors in history (especially given that UND is in Grand Forks North Dakota). I guess some take it as an impication that all Sioux were mindless savages though.

    I think a big part of it is whether you're looking to be offended or not.

    Wouldn't "Fighting Sioux" imply that they were referring to a specific subset of Sioux, and that there existed other, more gentle Sioux?

    No?

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    This often irritates me, words are words, when the team starts behaving in a racist way you can complain.

    I mean, the Viking is a stereotype too. As are the 49ers. Hell, even the Patriots are a stereotype.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Heartlash wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Regardless of how offensive the name is, I'm really glad they won the lawsuit. "You can't use that trademark because it offends my culture" is just about the most retarded legal argument ever. I don't care if your team is the Slant-Eyes and your mascot is Chinky McWonton, there shouldn't be such a thing as "too offensive to be a trademark." Racism should not be illegal, it should just be taboo.

    True in the legal sense. A better systemic question would be, should these sports organizations (NFL, NHL, MLB, etc) have an institutionalized policy that doesn't permit such names?

    That, I could get behind.

    Though I think name-wise, "redskins" are the only real offenders. The Chiefs, Indians, Braves, and so on aren't inherently offensive, unless you also rail against the Vikings, 49ers, Raiders, and every other team named after a group of people. Saying, "You guys are so awesome we should name a team after you" isn't inherently offensive.

    Even then, part of that (at least with American Indians) is that the name is used to imply a kind of mindless savagery. Which, obviously, can still be bad.

    I think the only solution for the Washington team is to change their nickname to Cardinal. Maybe have a tree logo.

    Or it could be argued it's a tribute to a group of historical warriors.

    The UND Fighting Sioux are pretty big around this area for their hockey team and I remember there being a controversy over having the word "fighting" in thier name. I always took it as a tribute to the great Sioux warriors in history (especially given that UND is in Grand Forks North Dakota). I guess some take it as an impication that all Sioux were mindless savages though.

    I think a big part of it is whether you're looking to be offended or not.

    The Fighting Sioux name is toast.

    Yeah I remember there being a lawsuit or something but I don't follow the team at all so I wasn't sure. The first result I got in google was a UND athletics webiste that has "The Fighting Sioux" across the top in banner form. *shrug*

    sigtk.jpg
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    It actually just came down today, as best I can tell.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Yeah I just checked the date now that you mentioned it.

    That seems like a weird coincidence.

    sigtk.jpg
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Heartlash wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Regardless of how offensive the name is, I'm really glad they won the lawsuit. "You can't use that trademark because it offends my culture" is just about the most retarded legal argument ever. I don't care if your team is the Slant-Eyes and your mascot is Chinky McWonton, there shouldn't be such a thing as "too offensive to be a trademark." Racism should not be illegal, it should just be taboo.

    True in the legal sense. A better systemic question would be, should these sports organizations (NFL, NHL, MLB, etc) have an institutionalized policy that doesn't permit such names?

    That, I could get behind.

    Though I think name-wise, "redskins" are the only real offenders. The Chiefs, Indians, Braves, and so on aren't inherently offensive, unless you also rail against the Vikings, 49ers, Raiders, and every other team named after a group of people. Saying, "You guys are so awesome we should name a team after you" isn't inherently offensive.

    Even then, part of that (at least with American Indians) is that the name is used to imply a kind of mindless savagery. Which, obviously, can still be bad.

    I think the only solution for the Washington team is to change their nickname to Cardinal. Maybe have a tree logo.

    Or it could be argued it's a tribute to a group of historical warriors.

    The UND Fighting Sioux are pretty big around this area for their hockey team and I remember there being a controversy over having the word "fighting" in thier name. I always took it as a tribute to the great Sioux warriors in history (especially given that UND is in Grand Forks North Dakota). I guess some take it as an impication that all Sioux were mindless savages though.

    I think a big part of it is whether you're looking to be offended or not.

    Wouldn't "Fighting Sioux" imply that they were referring to a specific subset of Sioux, and that there existed other, more gentle Sioux?

    No?

    Part of the problem is that Sioux is the name of an actual tribe, which means the tribe retains control of the name, which is also why the Redskins have had more trouble than the much more offensive Indians (on that subject, if the Indians claim to be named after a specific person, why not use a simplified painting of said person as the logo and make the mascot an impersonator?). It's kind of like how a team can't just name themselves The Fighting Obamas without permission.

    On the Indians:
    cleveland_indians.gif

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • MorgensternMorgenstern Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I have absolutely no idea what you're referring to. I thank you not to mock me.

    Holy shit, that had better be sarcasm.

    “Every time we walk along a beach some ancient urge disturbs us so that we find ourselves shedding shoes and garments or scavenging among seaweed and whitened timbers like the homesick refugees of a long war.” - Loren Eiseley
  • HeartlashHeartlash Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    tbloxham wrote: »
    This often irritates me, words are words, when the team starts behaving in a racist way you can complain.

    I mean, the Viking is a stereotype too. As are the 49ers. Hell, even the Patriots are a stereotype.

    I think the situation changes given specific historical context. Tribes native to North America were effectively desimated by the culture that now uses their stereotypes in some sports teams. It's significantly more offensive than invoking ancient warrior stereotypes like Vikings, etc.

    It'd be like a neonazi soccer team with the name "The Fightin' Hebrews". Well, maybe not THAT absurd, but sort of...

    TiSBcast.com - Home of This is Serious Business, a weekly roundtable podcast involving media, beer, and general merriment.
    Twitters
  • RussellRussell Registered User
    edited May 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    On the Indians:
    cleveland_indians.gif

    See this is the point right here.
    Using other ethnicities would be clearly seen as racist in this instance. Why is the old fashioned native american stereotype acceptable? It doesn't matter at all if it's a "positive" warrior stereotype. People have a right to say, "I do not want my people and my people's history represented this way". :x

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I've always liked the team name "Fightin' Whites" and wish someone would adopt it.

    The libertarian response to anything is, "Sure, that works fine in practice, but it doesn't fly in theory."
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Heartlash wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Regardless of how offensive the name is, I'm really glad they won the lawsuit. "You can't use that trademark because it offends my culture" is just about the most retarded legal argument ever. I don't care if your team is the Slant-Eyes and your mascot is Chinky McWonton, there shouldn't be such a thing as "too offensive to be a trademark." Racism should not be illegal, it should just be taboo.

    True in the legal sense. A better systemic question would be, should these sports organizations (NFL, NHL, MLB, etc) have an institutionalized policy that doesn't permit such names?

    That, I could get behind.

    Though I think name-wise, "redskins" are the only real offenders. The Chiefs, Indians, Braves, and so on aren't inherently offensive, unless you also rail against the Vikings, 49ers, Raiders, and every other team named after a group of people. Saying, "You guys are so awesome we should name a team after you" isn't inherently offensive.
    As a lifelong Chief's fan, I've always wondered what the hell they were thinking naming the team after the plural of something there's generally, by definition, one of. Maybe they're supposed to be a multi-tribe tribunal or conference or something. If that's the case, maybe they should be picking each other's brains about how to win a goddamn playoff game.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Heartlash wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Regardless of how offensive the name is, I'm really glad they won the lawsuit. "You can't use that trademark because it offends my culture" is just about the most retarded legal argument ever. I don't care if your team is the Slant-Eyes and your mascot is Chinky McWonton, there shouldn't be such a thing as "too offensive to be a trademark." Racism should not be illegal, it should just be taboo.

    True in the legal sense. A better systemic question would be, should these sports organizations (NFL, NHL, MLB, etc) have an institutionalized policy that doesn't permit such names?

    That, I could get behind.

    Though I think name-wise, "redskins" are the only real offenders. The Chiefs, Indians, Braves, and so on aren't inherently offensive, unless you also rail against the Vikings, 49ers, Raiders, and every other team named after a group of people. Saying, "You guys are so awesome we should name a team after you" isn't inherently offensive.
    As a lifelong Chief's fan, I've always wondered what the hell they were thinking naming the team after the plural of something there's generally, by definition, one of. Maybe they're supposed to be a multi-tribe tribunal or conference or something. If that's the case, maybe they should be picking each other's brains about how to win a goddamn playoff game.
    On our team, every single player is a quarterback.

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Heartlash wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Regardless of how offensive the name is, I'm really glad they won the lawsuit. "You can't use that trademark because it offends my culture" is just about the most retarded legal argument ever. I don't care if your team is the Slant-Eyes and your mascot is Chinky McWonton, there shouldn't be such a thing as "too offensive to be a trademark." Racism should not be illegal, it should just be taboo.

    True in the legal sense. A better systemic question would be, should these sports organizations (NFL, NHL, MLB, etc) have an institutionalized policy that doesn't permit such names?

    That, I could get behind.

    Though I think name-wise, "redskins" are the only real offenders. The Chiefs, Indians, Braves, and so on aren't inherently offensive, unless you also rail against the Vikings, 49ers, Raiders, and every other team named after a group of people. Saying, "You guys are so awesome we should name a team after you" isn't inherently offensive.
    As a lifelong Chief's fan, I've always wondered what the hell they were thinking naming the team after the plural of something there's generally, by definition, one of. Maybe they're supposed to be a multi-tribe tribunal or conference or something. If that's the case, maybe they should be picking each other's brains about how to win a goddamn playoff game.
    On our team, every single player is a quarterback.
    This would really explain a lot.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Heartlash wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    This often irritates me, words are words, when the team starts behaving in a racist way you can complain.

    I mean, the Viking is a stereotype too. As are the 49ers. Hell, even the Patriots are a stereotype.

    I think the situation changes given specific historical context. Tribes native to North America were effectively desimated by the culture that now uses their stereotypes in some sports teams. It's significantly more offensive than invoking ancient warrior stereotypes like Vikings, etc.

    It'd be like a neonazi soccer team with the name "The Fightin' Hebrews". Well, maybe not THAT absurd, but sort of...

    I don't think that analogy really works; the "culture" in this country hasn't been killing off Native Americans for at least a hundred years.

    It'd be sort of like a modern German soccer team calling itself "The Fightin' Hebrews".

    So, still really retarded, but not nearly as bad.

    sidenote: am I the only one who thinks it would be hilarious to have a team called "The Indians" who used, say, Gandhi as a mascot?

    vvvvvv-dithw.png
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I'm an unapologetic Redskins fan as well.

    I would not protest, though, if they were to decide to change their name to, say, the Washington Pigskins.



    What is absurd is that the name of our Basketball team, the Bullets, was deemed offensive enough to change, but Redskins is not.

    georgersig.jpg
  • RonaldoTheGypsyRonaldoTheGypsy Do you like dags? Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Man, Cleveland gets a lot of shit.

    And always has.

    I guess I am desensitized to it growing up near Cleveland.

    RonaldoTheGypsy.png
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    What is absurd is that the name of our Basketball team, the Bullets, was deemed offensive enough to change, but Redskins is not.

    Indians don't kill people, bullets kill people.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • CoinageCoinage The man from the other side Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    My alma mater was forced by the NCAA to remove the feathers from this logo
    william_and_mary_logo.gif
    And now we have this ugly thing
    WM-logo-ZZZZZZZZ.serendipityThumb.jpg

    So I think it can really go too far sometimes. Although the ugly second logo isn't their fault, it's Gene Nichol's.

    coinage.gif
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2009
    Cervetus wrote: »
    I've always liked the team name "Fightin' Whites" and wish someone would adopt it.
    ... because they'd instantly attract a following of skinheads, perhaps?

    Anyway, the 'hurf durf its just another stereotype like the Raiders' thing might actually work if, you know, American Indians weren't in roughly the same boat as Australian Aborigines (stuck on reservations, shitty life prospects, dreadful health stats, underesourced compared to the general population on every front except for some dang poker machines). 'Raiders' don't really exist. 'Vikings' don't either, since they're all now suicidal accountants and novelists. Indians do exist, and they're having a pretty rough time of it. The icons rightfully feel like putting the boot in.

    I can't imagine anyone here naming an AFL team 'the fighting Boongs', even with a substantial number of A-grade players being Aboriginal. Which actually brings me to another point; how many native americans are playing A-grade baseball? Far as I'm aware, its still very much a honky game. And when you get a bunch of clueless members of Dude Nation together to come up with marketing imagery, well, this is what happens.

    tmsig.jpg
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Chief Knockahoma was pretty rad. They don't use him anymore.

    Personally, I take all kinds of offense at the Fighting Irish. I want money or something. Dude is a midget, has a damn green tailcoat and a shamrock on his hat. That's not an Irishman, it's a leprechaun. THANKS. They should draw him all drunk like Andy Capp.

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    "If You Own The Washington Redskins You're A Cock"



    I like sports
    There are some things I force myself to miss
    like I never met an athlete I like in hockey
    in Texas when it comes to native American nickname teams
    Even within the contents of sports it's awful and mean

    and you'll go wah wah wah you're so PC
    and i will say hey wait my my my how have the table turns to
    be a fucking prick is a desirable trait
    while we're on the subject of changing team names there's no jazz in Utah
    and few lakes in LA just this once give me the
    benefit of the doubt the Bullets became the Wizards to pilots get out
    and you'll go wa wa wa you're so PC
    [ Find more Lyrics on www.mp3lyrics.org/qz7 ]
    and i will say hey wait remind me again how it came to be
    that being a stupid american is a desirable trait
    wouldn't that be offensive if we cheered
    "rah rah rah for the Carolina negroes with a beat
    box cheer and a big foam afro"
    the Minnesota Vikings became the New York kikes
    with dollar bills on their helmets
    cause thats what they're like ya know

    Atom: What about the Saints, Angels, Padres, you ain't got the
    same thing for Christians that's offending you
    When there's a Jesus Christ mascot dog shooting crucifixes
    they nail to a cross dying to save the team
    you'll be right, you'll be right but until then you're not right
    so what's your take on Washington redskins
    what's your take on the Cleveland Indians
    what's your take on Washington Redskins
    what's your take on the Cleveland Indians

    georgersig.jpg
  • kdrudykdrudy Registered User
    edited May 2009
    Marquette changed their name from the Warriors to the Golden Eagles for this very reason. The Warrior was reference the native americans that helped guide Father Jacques Marquette through the midwest when he came to the US. Every few years there is a big deal about alumni who want to change the name back even to the point of multi-million dollar donations being offered if we changed it back.

    The original changing was completely voluntary but there is a strong belief that the university was given a large sports fields area, that sits right next to a casino in Milwaukee, from the local tribe because they changed the name.

    tvsfrank.jpg
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Regardless of how offensive the name is, I'm really glad they won the lawsuit. "You can't use that trademark because it offends my culture" is just about the most retarded legal argument ever. I don't care if your team is the Slant-Eyes and your mascot is Chinky McWonton, there shouldn't be such a thing as "too offensive to be a trademark." Racism should not be illegal, it should just be taboo.
    Sure, but civil suits don't make things illegal, they just potentially set a precedent for people being dicks to face actual consequences from the people they piss off (ohnoes, consequences!). Actual laws make things illegal, and I don't see HR9870 'the no being mean to anyone ever' bill being submitted anywhere here.

    tmsig.jpg
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2009
    Yar wrote: »
    Chief Knockahoma was pretty rad. They don't use him anymore.

    Personally, I take all kinds of offense at the Fighting Irish. I want money or something. Dude is a midget, has a damn green tailcoat and a shamrock on his hat. That's not an Irishman, it's a leprechaun. THANKS. They should draw him all drunk like Andy Capp.

    Apperantly, it's more accepted because Notre Dame has a history as an Irish school, so it's seen as a group owning its own name rather than using a groups likeness without permission.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    The Cat wrote: »
    Cervetus wrote: »
    I've always liked the team name "Fightin' Whites" and wish someone would adopt it.
    ... because they'd instantly attract a following of skinheads, perhaps?

    I wasn't actually advocating it.

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=127330&title=Trail-of-Cheers

    Although I would totally buy a T Shirt of that if I didn't think I'd get my ass beat.

    The libertarian response to anything is, "Sure, that works fine in practice, but it doesn't fly in theory."
«1345
Sign In or Register to comment.