2013/2014 NFL Thread: Where Hawks Fly - Part 8

[The Incredible Hulk]

Since when has that stopped an overreach of political correctness? The Seminoles, Indians, Chiefs and Braves have all been targeted for being racist in the past.

"Seminoles" is used with the permission (donation) to the tribe. Indians is an issue with a logo not a name. Chiefs and Braves were under fire more for their gestures of fans running around in headdresses and doing tomahawk chops. None of those other names have histories as being used as slurs.

Don't forget the Blackhawks too.

Blackhawks are named after A World War I battalion that was itself named after an individual, the leader of the Sauk tribe. There's no issue there. Outside of using a native american's head on their logo, they have nothing in common with the Skins.

But of course, not the Celtics or the Fighting Irish.

I hate this analogy. It's not even remotely close. "Irish" is a nationality, it's not a racial designation, nor is it a slur. Their leprechaun is a mythical creature, not a cartoonish depiction of real people. Perhaps if Notre Dame was called the "Fighting Micks" and had a picture of my uncle passed out on the ground, you'd almost have something in the same ballpark.

"Indians" is considered by some to be a racial slur because of the geographical confusion in its etymology. Since its become associated with the likes of Chief Wahoo, it's even more questionable.

Native Americans refer to themselves as "Indians." Despite the fact that it's a misnomer because Columbus believed he was in the West Indies when he met them, they've taken to calling themselves that over the last 500 some odd years, much in the same way the Pennsylvania Dutch (Amish) accept being called that even though their roots are in Germany, and the English got confused when they referred to themselves as "Deutsch."

The National Congress of American Indians is the organization that put out the anti-Redskins ad in the first place

 

[Immortalfire]

"Seminoles" is used with the permission (donation) to the tribe. Indians is an issue with a logo not a name. Chiefs and Braves were under fire more for their gestures of fans running around in headdresses and doing tomahawk chops. None of those other names have histories as being used as slurs.

I offend myself whenever I do the CHOP at Braves games.

Blackhawks are named after A World War I battalion that was itself named after an individual, the leader of the Sauk tribe. There's no issue there. Outside of using a native american's head on their logo, they have nothing in common with the Skins.

They're offensive.

I hate this analogy. It's not even remotely close. "Irish" is a nationality, it's not a racial designation, nor is it a slur. Their leprechaun is a mythical creature, not a cartoonish depiction of real people. Perhaps if Notre Dame was called the "Fighting Micks" and had a picture of my uncle passed out on the ground, you'd almost have something in the same ballpark.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I hate this analogy. It's not even remotely close. "Irish" is a nationality, it's not a racial designation, nor is it a slur. Their leprechaun is a mythical creature, not a cartoonish depiction of real people. Perhaps if Notre Dame was called the "Fighting Micks" and had a picture of my uncle passed out on the ground, you'd almost have something in the same ballpark.

"Irish" or "Celtics" are no different than "Indians", "Chiefs", "Braves", or "Seminoles".

The leprechaun is a stereotype of Irish Celtics mythology and culture (and not even accurate at that, as there is nothing about leprechauns in Celtic mythology), and just as much of a stereotype as "Chiefs" or "Braves".

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

"Irish" or "Celtics" are no different than "Indians", "Chiefs", "Braves", or "Seminoles".

The only way they are similar is that none of them are racial slurs like the word "Redskin."

"Indians" when it is used for Native Americans does denote a RACE of people. The Irish are not a race they're a NATIONALITY. Big difference.

The leprechaun is a stereotype of Irish Celtics mythology and culture (and not even accurate at that, as there is nothing about leprechauns in Celtic mythology), and just as much of a stereotype as "Chiefs" or "Braves".

Leprechaun is a piece of Irish/Celtic mythology, not a fabricated caricature of an entire race of people like Chief Wahoo is. The Notre Dame leprechaun isnt meant to represent an actual race of people, it's about as real as a "Seahawk" or "Titan."

And if that's what your trying to pick out of my post, you're sort of missing the point.

 

[Emperor_Zerg]

I've been checking Twitter all day since the release of Brandon Taylor from the Chargers hoping that we sign Flowers today. Please let it happen! We'll have a midget sized secondary, but that doesn't matter if they all have coverage skills.

If this happens, you can name our secondary, "The Gnome Zone" defense. After we win the Superbowl, teams will flock to our blueprints and the fad of tall press-corners will fade into obscurity.

 

[Warhammer]

@ some of these people in here trying to justify why names are actually racist

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

@ some of these people in here trying to justify why names are actually racist

If you're referring to me, I don't actually think that "Celtics" or "Fighting Irish" are racist.

I also don't think they are any less racist than "Indians", "Braves", "Chiefs", "Seminoles", "Blackhawks", etc., which I don't find to be in the least bit racist either.

"Redskins" I can at least understand, but I'm afraid of the uber PC crusade coming out and making their assault on pretty much every team name in the book.

Which is why I find those "20 other team names that are offensive" articles to be funny, because it highlights an underlying problem in our culture that if someone can find a way to spin something to offend them, they absolutely will, and someone, somewhere, is going to be offended and make a stink about something and ruin it for everyone else.

 

[Rowsdower!]

The more this goes on, the more the Washington Redskins organization just proves itself to be a collective of asshats. Not that they were ever lacking in that department before, mind you, but as more people call for the name change, their "IT'S NOT OFFENSIVE BECAUSE TRADITION AND WE'LL NEVER CHANGE IT, ALL CAPS" position just shows how clueless they are about this issue. Add to that the way they doubled down with the Harry Reid Twitter debacle and now their arrogant response to the trademark thing and you realize that Snyder, Bruce Allen and the rest of them are apparently content to just live in a bubble.

You'd have to assume that no matter how much they believe the name is not offensive (because after all, it doesn't offend them!) an intelligent front office would take a step back and realize that this crap HAS to be a distraction to a team that desperately needs to turn itself around after a horrible season. But for as long as it goes on, players and coaches will have to field questions about it and hear about it constantly, when all they probably want to do is figure out how to win a few games (and if you're a member of the Washington Redskins, you'll know that doesn't come easily or often).

But ya know, **** that, right? You know what you're doing, right Snyder? Of course you do. Because you only surround yourself with yes men who will never tell you otherwise, and since you're the type of guy who will file a lawsuit over an article he hasn't even read, it doesn't matter how much the media might be skewering you over this... it will never penetrate your bubble.

 

[Lantern Venom]

The term "Indians" has a double meaning. On one hand, yes, the term has racial overtones. On the other hand though that term is also used to describe a whole nationality of people, which in that case is not offensive at all.

When most people use the term Indians these days, they are referring to people from the country of India or those who's ancestry is from India.

That's true, but we were speaking in terms of Native American symbolism in sports. In the context of indigenous people from America, it's offensive because it's a misnomer that began with Columbus.

Idk how people in DC feel about losing the Redskin name/logo but I know I'd be pretty upset if we had to change from being the Indians or lose Chief Wahoo altogether. They've certainly scaled back on using him as a logo, its on one sleeve of the jerseys and an occasional hat, but i don't believe they use it in promotional stuff anymore. But I can of course see where people get upset.

While I can sympathize with you on one level, as a Hornets fan who went through the pain and humiliating rebrand to the Pelicans, it's obvious that Chief Wahoo is a derogatory caricature. He's the "good savage" all the way: his skin is the color of a crayon and his massive jaw/teeth are proudly displayed. He's far worse than the word "Redskins". The only reason he's escaped the vitriol surrounding the Redskins right now is the intentional de-emphasis that the Cleveland Indians have employed over the last couple of decades.

I like the Washington Red Hawks!

I like Code Talkers, but if there is a rebrand, it will be something completely different.

"Seminoles" is used with the permission (donation) to the tribe. Indians is an issue with a logo not a name. Chiefs and Braves were under fire more for their gestures of fans running around in headdresses and doing tomahawk chops. None of those other names have histories as being used as slurs.


The National Congress of American Indians is the organization that put out the anti-Redskins ad in the first place

I still think this is the start of all ethnic-related mascots being scrapped. Seminoles, Braves, Utes, Chiefs, etc...will all be gone over the next couple of generations. The MLB, NCAA, NHL will all want to avoid any similar furor as the NFL is experiencing now.

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

Cue the "THIS IS THE END OF AMERICA, THANKS PC NAZIS" crowd.

It's pointless, but here we go: You are foaming at the mouth to defend a sports team name, a brand, a marketing money-making tool. One invented by George Preston Marshall, an open Racist with a capital R which is currently profiting Daniel Snyder, a *****ebag with a capital D.

Yes, I believe you that your defense of your childhood memories and attachment to the name comes from a pure place and I know you believe it's not racist. No, I am personally not offended by the name. Yes, some natives are also not bothered. But many are, and I don't think my or your "not bothered" makes that irrelevant, and neither does the patent office. Historically, we nearly wiped natives off the map. This is a small concession. Find something else to ***** about. Your right to have a football team named something mildly offensive is not important.

And there's this: Your 'Skins gear will be cool and nostalgic and retro in about 15 years. So you've got that going for you.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Cue the "THIS IS THE END OF AMERICA, THANKS PC NAZIS" crowd.

It's pointless, but here we go: You are foaming at the mouth to defend a sports team name, a brand, a marketing money-making tool. One invented by George Preston Marshall, an open Racist with a capital R which is currently profiting Daniel Snyder, a *****ebag with a capital D.

Yes, I believe you that your defense of your childhood memories and attachment to the name comes from a pure place and I know you believe it's not racist. No, I am personally not offended by the name. Yes, some natives are also not bothered. But many are, and I don't think my or your "not bothered" makes that irrelevant, and neither does the patent office. Historically, we nearly wiped natives off the map. This is a small concession. Find something else to ***** about. Your right to have a football team named something mildly offensive is not important.

And there's this: Your 'Skins gear will be cool and nostalgic and retro in about 15 years. So you've got that going for you.

Brilliant post, especially the part in bold.

 

[Teelie]

I know very few people who even call the "Redskins" the "Redskins" anyways. Most people I've heard simply call them the "Skins" instead. That they are fighting tooth and nail for a name with more racist connotation than any other in any sports (to my knowledge) and that very few people even use the entire name in the first place should be taken into account but alas, any attempt to rename them is met with instant defense.

 

[Lantern Venom]

I know very few people who even call the "Redskins" the "Redskins" anyways. Most people I've heard simply call them the "Skins" instead. That they are fighting tooth and nail for a name with more racist connotation than any other in any sports (to my knowledge) and that very few people even use the entire name in the first place should be taken into account but alas, any attempt to rename them is met with instant defense.

Some of their fans actually want to change the mascot to a potato so they can keep the name. While that would be beyond ridiculous, at least the New Orleans Pelicans would no longer have the worst mascot in pro sports. However, I've met an increasing number of Skins fans who are resigned to the change at this point.

 

[Tanin]

The real problem with Redskins is that it doesn't offend nearly every Native American In the local tribe I'm from, several when I asked were simply meh, quite a few were proud of it (local high school used it as it's mascot) a few older ones were offended but didn't really care as there are more important things in life to worry about.

Of course not everyone feels this way as every tribe is different.

 

[Lantern Venom]

The real problem with Redskins is that it doesn't offend nearly every Native American In the local tribe I'm from, several when I asked were simply meh, quite a few were proud of it (local high school used it as it's mascot) a few older ones were offended but didn't really care as there are more important things in life to worry about.

Of course not everyone feels this way as every tribe is different.

It's taken on new dimensions, and it seems like it's now symbolic of the entire ethnic naming controversy. I'm part Cree, and I only thought it was an antiquated word like "colored", but not patently offensive. But the evolution of words can bring amplified or new associations. Society is now coming to see that using indigenous people as cartoon representations was a bad idea.

 

[Themanofbat]

Some of their fans actually want to change the mascot to a potato so they can keep the name. While that would be beyond ridiculous, at least the New Orleans Pelicans would no longer have the worst mascot in pro sports. However, I've met an increasing number of Skins fans who are resigned to the change at this point.

The Washington Tater Tots!!!!

I love it...

 

[Lantern Venom]

Wahoo should have been first, but I'll be happy if he's next:

http://http://www.wfmj.com/story/25824911/redskins-ruling-chief-wahoo-next

 

[mkilban2]

#KeepTheChief

 

[Lantern Venom]

#KeepTheChief

https://***********/DeChiefWahoo

 

[mkilban2]

https://***********/DeChiefWahoo

I know it won't be long until they most likely do drop Chief Wahoo from the team completely, they've already pretty much gotten rid of it in anything promotional + the website as far as I'm aware. He's still used occasionally on the jersey sleeve and a hat or helmet once and awhile.

I guess I've just never seen the logo as a racist symbol, I've always thought its been one of the better logos in all of sports to be honest. It's always just been a cartoon Indian guy to me just like the Browns have a cartoon elf guy. It's not like the logo is making fun of people. thw teams name is the Indians, I think its perfectly fine for a cartoon Indian to be a logo.

 

[MrMaooz]

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

I know it won't be long until they most likely do drop Chief Wahoo from the team completely, they've already pretty much gotten rid of it in anything promotional + the website as far as I'm aware. He's still used occasionally on the jersey sleeve and a hat or helmet once and awhile.

I guess I've just never seen the logo as a racist symbol, I've always thought its been one of the better logos in all of sports to be honest. It's always just been a cartoon Indian guy to me just like the Browns have a cartoon elf guy. It's not like the logo is making fun of people. thw teams name is the Indians, I think its perfectly fine for a cartoon Indian to be a logo.

It's a caricature of a Native American which takes their stereotypical physical facial attributes and blows them out of proportion (skin, nose, teeth, etc.) It doesn't really get any more racist than that. Imagine a team with a logo of a cartoon African American with giant lips and really wide nostrils, this is bacially that.
Or any one of these:

 

[runawayboulder]

The San Francisco logo reminds me of Jerry Lewis.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Yeah, the Cleveland Indians logo is so blatantly offensive I can't believe it still hasn't been changed. If you honestly can't see that... I don't know what to tell you.

The amazing thing about that too is that no one is asking them to change the name (that I know of). Just change that logo. Teams change logos all the time. It's stupid that they won't let that go.

 

[Emperor_Zerg]

Chargers sign Brandon Flowers!! I'm so excited for this. It'll give our young corners more time to develop while giving them a strong mentor who they have both compared themselves to (Talking about Steve Williams and Verrett).

Plus, we now have the correct piece's to run John Pag's system correctly. I can picture us being a top 10 defense next year even with the tough schedule.