Washington Redskins change their name

[ChicosBailBonds]

You can be offended all you want, I just find it fascinating that the reason for offense is not shared by most of the supposed offendees.  That leads me to believe that those that are offended either think the true offendees are too stupid to know they should be offended, or in fact they aren't offended and it is just another white guilt trip to get offended and faux raged over.

I suspect the latter in today's world.

I also find the hypocrisy insanely delicious on all levels.  I have a few buds over at Turner (CNN) and they have indicated they did go down the path of another poll about Redskins.  Guess why it hasn't been published?  I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count.  You can bet if the poll went the way they wanted, it would be out.

In the meantime, it is a private business.  I suggest people that are outraged should boycott the NFL and be principled, otherwise it is merely hollow.

[ChicosBailBonds]

So I'm just curious, when UPS does their "what can Brown do for you", does that make you uncomfortable? 

When New Zealand's national rugby team plays, the ALL Blacks, does that bother you when ESPN or other news outlet mentions their name?

[WellsstreetWanderer]

You guys are going way off the reservation on this racism stuff. Teams don't pick knicknames  to demean anybody, they are a source of pride and identification. Going after the Blackhawks as an example of it is loony. Chief Blackhawk is a figure writ large in Illinois history.
Anybody here accusing someone of racism is either psychic or throwing the term around like buffalo chips. Impossible to know what is in a person's heart from these discussions plus the term is so overused as to have little impact anymore.

[ChicosBailBonds]

You guys are going way off the reservation on this racism stuff. Teams don't pick knicknames  to demean anybody, they are a source of pride and identification. Going after the Blackhawks as an example of it is loony. Chief Blackhawk is a figure writ large in Illinois history.
Anybody here accusing someone of racism is either psychic or throwing the term around like buffalo chips. Impossible to know what is in a person's heart from these discussions plus the term is so overused as to have little impact anymore.

100% agree.  Why would any team pick a nickname that was racist or demeaning to their team?  Of course they wouldn't.  You pick a team name to honor your team, represent strength or other virtues.

Elephant, I know you are from L.A.  Do you remember a few years ago when there were a few clowns that were trying to force the Angels to change their name with the argument that Angels is a name implying a being in heaven and associated with God, and because Angels stadium was partially built with taxpayer money they should be forced to change the name to something secular.  There is always someone that is outraged over something.  It's part of America the last 30 years, and a sad thing to see.  But hey, I'm just a middle aged white guy so my opinion doesn't mean squat.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

You can be offended all you want, I just find it fascinating that the reason for offense is not shared by most of the supposed offendees.  That leads me to believe that those that are offended either think the true offendees are too stupid to know they should be offended, or in fact they aren't offended and it is just another white guilt trip to get offended and faux raged over.

I suspect the latter in today's world.

I also find the hypocrisy insanely delicious on all levels.  I have a few buds over at Turner (CNN) and they have indicated they did go down the path of another poll about Redskins.  Guess why it hasn't been published?  I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count.  You can bet if the poll went the way they wanted, it would be out.

In the meantime, it is a private business.  I suggest people that are outraged should boycott the NFL and be principled, otherwise it is merely hollow.

Chicos, I have explained my views on that "credible" survey repeatedly. I have also offered you another study that talks about the risks of predominately white institutions utilizing native american imagery for mascots.

I have also told you my thoughts on white guilt. I hate it and I think it is improper motivator. The truth is, all of us have a helluva lot to feel guilty over, but that doesn't do anyone any good. One of my favorite speakers that I have ever seen told us "don't feel guilty, get mad! Get mad that this is the status quo and fight to change it." Every white American has benefited from a system that gives unfair advantages to some races and disadvantages to others. The only way to positive change in race relations is to first accept that we are privileged and then fight until we are equal. I am curious, what are your thoughts on white privilege? Do you think it exists?

It is a private business. I absolutely agree with that. I choose to vocalize my distaste. That is how I protest. I hope if enough likeminded individuals join in, then that private business will decide it is in their best interest to change the name. Capitalism at its finest.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

So I'm just curious, when UPS does their "what can Brown do for you", does that make you uncomfortable? 

When New Zealand's national rugby team plays, the ALL Blacks, does that bother you when ESPN or other news outlet mentions their name?

Chicos, I feel like I have been very respectful in this debate. I have acknowledged when I was wrong. I have acknowledged points where you were right. I openly disagreed with someone on this side of the debate when I didn't agree with their point. I ask that you please don't resort to reducto ad absurdium.

Besides, I already acknowledged my point about the Browns was wrong.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

You guys are going way off the reservation on this racism stuff. Teams don't pick knicknames  to demean anybody, they are a source of pride and identification. Going after the Blackhawks as an example of it is loony. Chief Blackhawk is a figure writ large in Illinois history.
Anybody here accusing someone of racism is either psychic or throwing the term around like buffalo chips. Impossible to know what is in a person's heart from these discussions plus the term is so overused as to have little impact anymore.

It's not just about intent, its also about result. Marquette didn't intend to be racist but this was the result:



The Cleveland Indians didn't intend to be racist but this was the result:



The Washington Redskins don't intend to be racist but this is the result:



Racism is rarely born of intention. It's born of ignorance.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

100% agree.  Why would any team pick a nickname that was racist or demeaning to their team?

Ignorance. That's why. They think they are doing a good thing but they do harm instead of good. Do you think Willie Wampum was racist? Marquette would certainly never intend to be racist. But I think it is now widely acknowledged (or more accurately shoved into a closet and never talked about) that he was an extremely racist mascot. What do you think?

[keefe]

So I'm just curious, when UPS does their "what can Brown do for you", does that make you uncomfortable? 

When New Zealand's national rugby team plays, the ALL Blacks, does that bother you when ESPN or other news outlet mentions their name?

Would you stop it! I haven't had a work day lunch since Seattle passed an ordinance banning "Brown Bag" lunches.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos, I feel like I have been very respectful in this debate. I have acknowledged when I was wrong. I have acknowledged points where you were right. I openly disagreed with someone on this side of the debate when I didn't agree with their point. I ask that you please don't resort to reducto ad absurdium.

Besides, I already acknowledged my point about the Browns was wrong.

TAMU, I was on my phone, and only ready one of your responses so my apologies.  I'll read them today.  It was hard for me to understand how someone can have a reflexive response to the Browns, so that is why I asked the question.

But now that I've read your most recent post about intent, say a bunch of fans of the Browns decided they were going to make their own mascot of or symbol of a player that was not Caucasian that you didn't agree with.  It sounds like you are saying that means the name would have to be changed.  I'm just curious how many does it take?  5% of people acting goofy, 10%, 30%?

I'm not trying to be cute, it's a legit question.  You posted photos of guys in head dress.  Sorry, I don't find that offensive.  I'm sure some Native Americans do, I'm sure some Native Americans do not.  You've been on record here suggesting that it doesn't matter if the majority of Native Americans are ok with it, but you will defend the smallest of numbers that are not.  Well, that's noble and I tip my hat to you.  I just wonder if that applies to everything in this situation, because the smallest number is 1.  All is takes, is one person to be upset and outraged, and the power of 1 trumps all in that case.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Ignorance. That's why. They think they are doing a good thing but they do harm instead of good. Do you think Willie Wampum was racist? Marquette would certainly never intend to be racist. But I think it is now widely acknowledged (or more accurately shoved into a closet and never talked about) that he was an extremely racist mascot. What do you think?

I was talking about when the name was chosen.  Do you think they chose a name to be racist or ignorant?  Sorry, I don't.  Sure, the manifestation of the mascot took some turns that people could find offensive.  That's often what mascots do.   I can find people that think the Leprechaun at ND is a stereotype, the Boston Celtic mascot, how African Americans are portrayed in tv series, how middle age white guys are portrayed, how women are, etc.

I'm watching the Angels Braves game last night and they are doing the CHOP.  I realize this is controversial to some Native Americans.  At the same time, they are named the Braves after the warrior Native American fighters, who in fact were highly skilled with their weapons and tools in defending their people and\or attacking their enemies.  This is also part of history.  Why should they not be allowed to do the CHOP because some people don't like it?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Would you stop it! I haven't had a work day lunch since Seattle passed an ordinance banning "Brown Bag" lunches.

You are not allowed to respond because of your pork eating patch!!   

[ChicosBailBonds]

Before someone loses their marbles here, there is an entire cottage industry that claims these caricatures are racist, anti-Italian, put Italian's in a bad light, demeaning, etc.  It's all in the eye of the beholder. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Speaking of the All Blacks...this happened yesterday in their match. 

http://deadspin.com/streaker-absolutely-destroyed-by-security-at-all-blacks-1590945207

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Before someone loses their marbles here, there is an entire cottage industry that claims these caricatures are racist, anti-Italian, put Italian's in a bad light, demeaning, etc.  It's all in the eye of the beholder. 

Again, doesn't really matter. Italians are a privileged ethnicity in American culture.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I was talking about when the name was chosen.  Do you think they chose a name to be racist or ignorant?  Sorry, I don't.  Sure, the manifestation of the mascot took some turns that people could find offensive.  That's often what mascots do.   I can find people that think the Leprechaun at ND is a stereotype, the Boston Celtic mascot, how African Americans are portrayed in tv series, how middle age white guys are portrayed, how women are, etc.

I'm watching the Angels Braves game last night and they are doing the CHOP.  I realize this is controversial to some Native Americans.  At the same time, they are named the Braves after the warrior Native American fighters, who in fact were highly skilled with their weapons and tools in defending their people and\or attacking their enemies.  This is also part of history.  Why should they not be allowed to do the CHOP because some people don't like it?

To me it doesn't matter why the name was chosen, the results of the name being chosen do. And I really have no idea what was going through George Mashall's head when he decided changing from the Braves (a name which is much closer to honoring native americans) to a slur for native americans.

In the examples you gave, I have no issue with the Leprechaun, the Celtics, or middle aged white men being displayed in a stereotypical fashion. These are privileged groups and have a much easier time shrugging off the effects of these stereotypes. I do take issue with the way that African Americans and Women are often displayed on TV. Though I will add something here. The following is purely my opinion is not backed by any research or study. I hold comedy sacred. Comedians and comedic tv shows provide a valuable service by providing satire and social commentary. I am fine with comedians utilizing sterotypes. That is just me.

The chop is not a part of native american culture. It is a construction created by white Americans that celebrates an untrue stereotype that all native Americans carried tomahawks and scalped their enemies.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

But now that I've read your most recent post about intent, say a bunch of fans of the Browns decided they were going to make their own mascot of or symbol of a player that was not Caucasian that you didn't agree with.  It sounds like you are saying that means the name would have to be changed.  I'm just curious how many does it take?  5% of people acting goofy, 10%, 30%?

I'm not trying to be cute, it's a legit question.  You posted photos of guys in head dress.  Sorry, I don't find that offensive.  I'm sure some Native Americans do, I'm sure some Native Americans do not.  You've been on record here suggesting that it doesn't matter if the majority of Native Americans are ok with it, but you will defend the smallest of numbers that are not.  Well, that's noble and I tip my hat to you.  I just wonder if that applies to everything in this situation, because the smallest number is 1.  All is takes, is one person to be upset and outraged, and the power of 1 trumps all in that case.

I did post pictures of fans but they are not the central problem. You can't control fans. I could show up in a headdress and war paint at a Milwaukee Brewers game. That wouldn't be the Brewers fault, it would be my fault. The fault comes in when an organization creates a culture that promotes and encourages such behavior. Marquette sponsored one of the most racist mascots of all time. That is Marquette endorsing racism. The Indians created Chief Wahoo. That was them endorsing racism. The Redskins named themselves the Redskins. That is them endorsing racism. Once those organizations make these endorsements it encourages their fans to do the same. So your example about the Browns, no, I don't think they should shut it down. Those would be crazy fans not a racist organization.

There are several reasons why the headdresses and war paint are offensive. Chief among them is the fact that headdresses and war paint were often either symbols of authority for important members of a tribe or used in religious ceremonies. A fair comparison would be a team naming themselves the Muslims and their fans supporting them by painting their faces brown and wearing turbins and hijabs.

Let's change the conversation a bit. What is your hope? What is your end goal? Why is it so important to you that Snyder stands his ground and doesn't change? I know you have mentioned preserving native american tradition which is a noble goal. It also sounds like you are concerned that native american schools will be forced to change their mascots if the Washington mascot is changed, also a noble goal. Is there anything else?

[Lennys Tap]

Again, doesn't really matter. Italians are a privileged ethnicity in American culture.

This whole "privileged ethnicity" stuff is really beside the point. Anybody that defends the use of a racial slur for a team's nickname by comparing it to the "offense" of naming a team for an owner/coach (Browns) is not to be taken seriously. And the Mario Brothers, New Zealand All Blacks, Cincinnati Reds (guess Chico forgot about all the Communists offended by that nickname), etc, are equally inoffensive. Citing polls on the subject is absurd. There was a time that the pro slavery crowd won the polls. And the anti integration and anti interracial marriage crowd, too. Hard to believe, but when Chico was a little boy the polls would have agreed that homosexuality was a mental disease that could be cured. People on the side of basic human rights and dignity (liberals and conservatives alike) are, not coincidently, always ahead of the polls on this stuff and eventually prevail. This will be no different.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Again, doesn't really matter. Italians are a privileged ethnicity in American culture.

Doesn't matter, if someone is offended you said you would defend them.  Who are you to say who is privileged and who isn't? 

Now it sounds like what you are really saying is you will defend those who YOU feel are offended but only if YOU decide it is legitimate.

What if women decide they are fed up with the Vikings name, the Kings name, etc.  What if they are Native American women, not just WASP women.  Does that change your tune?

By the way, many Italians are going to disagree with your conjecture about who is privileged and who isn't.  Are whites from Appalachia privileged?  More whites in poverty (by double) than African Americans and significantly higher than Hispanics.  Yes, because there are more whites, doesn't change the numbers.  You're painting with too broad a brush again.

[ChicosBailBonds]

This whole "privileged ethnicity" stuff is really beside the point. Anybody that defends the use of a racial slur for a team's nickname by comparing it to the "offense" of naming a team for an owner/coach (Browns) is not to be taken seriously. And the Mario Brothers, New Zealand All Blacks, Cincinnati Reds (guess Chico forgot about all the Communists offended by that nickname), etc, are equally inoffensive. Citing polls on the subject is absurd. There was a time that the pro slavery crowd won the polls. And the anti integration and anti interracial marriage crowd, too. Hard to believe, but when Chico was a little boy the polls would have agreed that homosexuality was a mental disease that could be cured. People on the side of basic human rights and dignity (liberals and conservatives alike) are, not coincidently, always ahead of the polls on this stuff and eventually prevail. This will be no different.

LOL....choo chooo chooo....logic train missed a stop again.

You would be right about the polls as you stated in the past, IF the polls that I cited were of the general population.  Of course, they weren't. The polls were of and for Native Americans, not anyone else.  Just as if you did a poll a two hundred years ago with actual slaves and not everyone else, you would get a different response.

Good try.  Choo choo....chugga chugga chugga...choo choo.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The chop is not a part of native american culture. It is a construction created by white Americans that celebrates an untrue stereotype that all native Americans carried tomahawks and scalped their enemies.

You haven't gotten the memo then, you're supposed to be outraged by this clear racist chant.

http://lastrealindians.com/chick-fil-a-uses-the-tomahawk-chop-to-profit-off-racism-perpetuated-by-native-mascots-by-danielle-miller/

[MU82]

Several years ago, I had the opportunity to serve on a panel discussion of Indian sports mascots.

I was the moderator. Leaders of two different Native American tribes were on the panel, as was the president of a professional sports franchise with an Indian mascot and a wealthy alumnus from a major university with an Indian mascot.

Both Native Americans talked about how hurt they were by much of the imagery - the tomahawk chants, the war dances, the Indian music at the stadiums, the references to "scalping," the drunk-looking Indian on the Indians' cap, "Redskins," etc.

The franchise president was generally sympathetic and said the organization would do everything it could to show respect for Native Americans, but there was no chance the nickname would be changed.

All the alumnus talked about was not messing with "tradition." Meaning, of course, the tradition enjoyed by white fans. He kept telling the Indians that they really had no right to feel insulted because no insult was intended.

Now, I am not trying to claim that my experience in this instance represents the majority of any group's feelings, because I don't know. Maybe the studies Chicos refers to are right and most Native Americans really enjoy being associated with "Redskins," Chief Wahoo and the tomahawk chop.

All I'll say is that after listening to what two actual, full-blooded Native Americans were really feeling - and also listening to the alumnus' justification for Indian imagery - I couldn't help but come away believing the imagery was utterly unnecessary and possibly hurtful.

[keefe]

You haven't gotten the memo then, you're supposed to be outraged by this clear racist chant.

http://lastrealindians.com/chick-fil-a-uses-the-tomahawk-chop-to-profit-off-racism-perpetuated-by-native-mascots-by-danielle-miller/

I think it's ok to do the Tomahawk Chop if you are a traitor.




Or to refer to oneself as a half breed and dress up in outrageous Hollywood style native costume if you are Armenian. (Note the platform moccasins)

[Lennys Tap]

LOL....choo chooo chooo....logic train missed a stop again.

You would be right about the polls as you stated in the past, IF the polls that I cited were of the general population.  Of course, they weren't. The polls were of and for Native Americans, not anyone else.  Just as if you did a poll a two hundred years ago with actual slaves and not everyone else, you would get a different response.

Good try.  Choo choo....chugga chugga chugga...choo choo.

Well, back in the "good old days" of slavery, men only with the vote, laws against interracial marriage and homosexuality as a disease (and a disease of choice, LOL) there were plenty of slaves who spoke kindly of their masters, women who thought suffrage should be for men only, blacks and browns who thought mixin' the races was evil and homosexuals in treatment for their "disease". Still some of those mixed up people out there, but they're way out of the mainstream, on the wacky fringes where they belong. I don't need a poll to tell me if its a good or a bad idea for our nations capital's football team to use a racial slur for their nickname. Or for Cleveland's baseball club to use a goofy caricature for their mascot. Just a brain and a conscience.

In addition, anyone who compares Chief Blackhawk to Chief Wahoo or a football team named after a man (Browns) to one with a by definition racial slur for a nickname never bought a ticket on the logic train. But I did love the detour sign from your "feminazi" handbook. Very cute.

[ChicosBailBonds]

MU82, appreciate your input on this.  Always good to hear.

I would only counter, it depends who was on your panel.  As this CBS article explains, you could have had some of these Native Americans on the panel and come away with an entirely different point of view.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/