Race based names and mascots...

...I guess really Native American based mascots and team names.

The Redskins, the Chiefs, the Seminoles etc. etc.

Objectionable? World gone PC mad? A number of Colleges refuse to schedule non conference games against teams with Native American mascots, some Colleges have changed their names, I have heard Newstalk radio discuss the "Redskins" controversy.

matthew8

So what? It would be an absolute shame if the Redskins weren't called that, because it would make the Redskins-Cowboys rivalry stop sounding cool. As for the Chiefs, it's race based but chief is not a term specific to race.

ABajaninCork

This has been going on for years...Haven't they solved the problem yet??

matthew8

matthew8 wrote: »

So what?

It has led to protests, Court cases, media analysis and debate, and teams deciding not to play other teams.

Some claim they are offensive and point to the fact that there are no African American or Asian American team names or mascots. The Redskins name was the subject of a Court case, which held it did insult American Natives, but an appeal was successful on the technical grounds that the proceedings were delayed, rather than the merits.

Rented Mule

The Fighting Irish of Notre Dame (founded by French Jesuits)
Boston Celtics

Why aren't these objectionable ?

Rented Mule

Rented Mule wrote: »

The Fighting Irish of Notre Dame (founded by French Jesuits)
Boston Celtics

Why aren't these objectionable ?

Notre Dame's position discussed here...

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/10/05/notre-dames-fighting-irish-mascot/

Have to say I'd rather they dropped it, but it wasn't meant to perpetuate an image of the Irish as a nation of drunk brawlers, but from a group of Civil War soldiers.

mikemac1

We better change the Cleveland Indians and the Atlanta Braves so while we are at it....

Son Of A Vidic

Rented Mule wrote: »

The Fighting Irish of Notre Dame (founded by French Jesuits)
Boston Celtics

Why aren't these objectionable ?

Probably because many see it as being a compliment. The term originated from the the American Civil War with the "Fighting 69th" or the fighting Irish regiment. Renown for their bravery, it was a fierce fighting a unit which never retreated in battle.

Now 'Redskins' on the other hand is like calling a team '****'. It's a racial slur with no positive connotations whatsoever.

mikemac1

mikemac1 wrote: »

We better change the Cleveland Indians and the Atlanta Braves so while we are at it....

They have come in for criticism alright. Though I should say that for someone like me, I can't say I understand all the controversy about names that seem innocuous enough to me. On the other hand, "Redskins" seems offensive by any stretch...though whether one has the "right" to be offended is another debate.

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Now 'Redskins' on the other hand is like calling a team '****'. It's a racial slur with no positive connotations whatsoever.

I agree.

I think the argument can get a bit too precious, like any such issue, there will be very marginal calls where the name doesn't seem offensive. But no matter what way you stack it up, I can't see a good reason beyond tradition for maintaining what is on the face of it a derogatory term like "Redskin". I appreciate the Courts did not compel them to change the name, but that is no reason for the franchise to insist on retaining it, though on the other hand it is one of the most readily identifiable brands in football.

poldebruin

It's only recently that it has bothered me, possibly from reading about the court cases. I found myself cringing a bit when I typed "Redskins" into a post - it's only a matter of time before they will have to change it. Future generations will look back aghast I'm sure.

Redskins I can see the issue with the others I don't

With regards the fighting Irish and celtics I find they help Irish people identify with a team and they reflect the large percentage of the Boston community that have Irish backgrounds

If on the other hand they made the Boston paddies I would have an issue

Syferus

They've been grandfathered in a long time by this point. The Irish's mascot is a fighting, likely drunken, bearded leprechaun for heaven's sake and that's ten times more objectionable than a team called the Redskins or some lad in headdress and I live with it.

A non-issue that only serves to highlight how lowly our concerns as a civilization have become that this is even worth typing about, let alone grown men filing court cases about.

poldebruin

Syferus wrote: »

They've been grandfathered in a long time by this point. The Irish's mascot is a fighting, likely drunken, bearded leprechaun for heaven's sake and that's ten times more objectionable than a team called the Redskins or some lad in headdress and I live with it.

...likely drunken? - Aren't you projecting your own stereotype there?

Syferus wrote: »

A non-issue that only serves to highlight how lowly our concerns as a civilization have become that this is even worth typing about, let alone grown men filing court cases about.

Redskins will definitely go at some point in the future. The only reason it hasn't gone by now is that Native Americans are such a small minority. There's no other team name more objectionable in sports that i can think of.
Court cases are necessary because the teams (businesses) in question will not voluntarily change the name. It's a sign of how far society has come that these are now being recognised as unflattering and offensive in some instances.

That said, I can't see the issue with names like Braves, Indians (although the mascot might need some work) or Seminoles.

Syferus

poldebruin wrote: »

...likely drunken? - Aren't you projecting your own stereotype there?

Totally. Sober.

The names have been grandfathered in at this point and most have lost so much of their real-life semblance that they mostly exist in their own cartoon-ish over-the-top world. It really would be utterly ridiculous to change them now given how much cache they have. You're talking about entirely changing a team's identity, something that rarely ever happens with long-established teams that aren't moving towns.

It has absolutely nothing to do with 'how far we've come as a society' unless we're judging ourselves on how inanely PC we're becoming. There will always be someone with an axe to grind with everything and this is a topic that doesn't deserve the attention it's got, nevermind the money spent on it.

davyjose

Syferus wrote: »

Totally. Sober.

The names have been grandfathered in at this point and most have lost so much of their real-life semblance that they mostly exist in their own cartoon-ish over-the-top world. It really would be utterly ridiculous to change them now given how much cache they have. You're talking about entirely changing a team's identity, something that rarely ever happens with long-established teams that aren't moving towns.

It has absolutely nothing to do with 'how far we've come as a society' unless we're judging ourselves on how inanely PC we're becoming. There will always be someone with an axe to grind with everything and this is a topic that doesn't deserve the attention it's got, nevermind the money spent on it.

Do you think if there were a team named the "****" that name should be kept? Simply because we don't want to mess with a team's identity? You do know that the word redskin is equally derogatory a description. If offending a whole race of people is a non-issue in your opinion, then that's pretty shameful dude.

At the end of the day, human rights have come a long way since the 30s. Let's try to be a bit better than that.

jill_valentine

The Notre Dame mascot is kind of adopted by the Irish and Irish Americans themselves, because it's seen as representing traits they're happy to claim as their own, like tenacity and fortitude. It's basically a leprechaun, but I think it would be a different story if it was an overweight ginger chap in an Aran jumper, beating his wife.

That's different to the Indians logo -



- which is comparable to a minstrel or golliwog in that it's an exaggerated caricature of the features associated with the race as a whole, rather than of an individual, or a cultural trope of their own making. I think Native Americans are pretty justified in taking exception to it, tbh.