Washington Redskins change their name

[Coleman]

If the VERY SAME organizations are asking to do away with Redskins and Blackhawks, and in some cases the EXACT same organizations and same people are quoted, how can justice not be done and honor their request?


For what it's worth, the Redskins have some support as well, yet I was told here that doesn't count.   The UND Fighting Sioux had support 3 to 1 vote by the Sioux Tribal Councils in North Dakota, I was told that didn't count either.  But the Blackhawks reaching out to Native American groups does?  Again...sure seems like we have all kinds of double standards going on here.  Tsk tsk.

Walk the walk, demand the change.   Don't wear any Blackhawks stuff anymore, someone is offended.  Demand the Chicago papers and tv stations not use their names on air like the meatheads in the media that won't publish the Redskins name in the paper...damn, that will show 'em.

I've given you a bunch of names and stories just in the last year on the Blackhawks name....someone is outraged, more than just someone.  Here's your chance to do what is right.  Sign that petition, burn that hat, drop those season tickets, refuse to go to any games or watch them on tv.  Get those letter writing campaigns going.  

I just told you that if that is the case, then I support changing it. Did you not read what I wrote?

What else do you want?

I consider myself a Blackhawks fan but I'm just an average Joe with no leverage. I don't have season tickets to drop. I have attended two games in my lifetime and they were in literally the last row and I bought them on Stubhub. I can't withhold a sponsorship. I guess I could burn the 2 items of Blackhawks clothing I own but what change is that really going to affect? I don't understand what you are asking of me...

[brandx]

Never would have won WWII if people knew some of the true attrocities that we had to do to win.  Back then, we fought to win wars, and sometimes that got ugly and nasty.  Squirmy.  You try to be ethical, moral, fight within the "rules", but it doesn't always work that way.  Makes me wonder if we ever would have won, quite frankly. 

As for Vietnam, this from 1995 hits home.  Congratulations.  You guys got an assist.

http://www.grunt.com/corps/scuttlebutt/marine-corps-stories/gen-bui-tin-describes-north-vietnams-victory/

Thank you - but I already stated that as anti-war protesters, we helped shorten the war and saved the lives of American kids. And I refer to mainly poor and middle class kids since the Cheneys and Bushes of the world weren't going to let their kids get shot in some messy war.

Apparently some of you weren't satisfied with the sacrifice and would have been fine with thousands more.

And to compare Vietnam with WWII is beyond ridiculous.

[brandx]

Anyone here wonder why there are no derogatory white names for any of these teams?

[ChicosBailBonds]

I just told you that if that is the case, then I support changing it. Did you not read what I wrote?

What else do you want?

I consider myself a Blackhawks fan but I'm just an average Joe with no leverage. I don't have season tickets to drop. I have attended two games in my lifetime and they were in literally the last row and I bought them on Stubhub. I can't withhold a sponsorship. I guess I could burn the 2 items of Blackhawks clothing I own but what change is that really going to affect? I don't understand what you are asking of me...

What is the "if" part of the case.  Done deal, some Native Americans are outraged.  Honestly, it's not you that I'm worried about, it's the other morally superior souls here that need saving apparently.  The ones that won't do a damn thing, but can't wait to tell others how to act.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Anyone here wonder why there are no derogatory white names for any of these teams?

I suggest you do your homework a bit more.  I can think of one immediately.  Try again.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Thank you - but I already stated that as anti-war protesters, we helped shorten the war and saved the lives of American kids. And I refer to mainly poor and middle class kids since the Cheneys and Bushes of the world weren't going to let their kids get shot in some messy war.

Apparently some of you weren't satisfied with the sacrifice and would have been fine with thousands more.

And to compare Vietnam with WWII is beyond ridiculous.

Weird, here I thought President Bush was a WWII pilot that actually got shot down while protecting his country.  

You continue to miss the point....I'm not comparing the wars, I'm saying if people knew some of the things that were done during WWII there are those like you that would get awfully queasy.  But, you've proven to have a lot of double standards already so why should this be any different. So, how about those racist Blackhawks?

This is always a fun interview from the Wall Street Journal about that war.  Gets at the heart of the matter by question #2.

http://www.grunt.com/corps/scuttlebutt/marine-corps-stories/gen-bui-tin-describes-north-vietnams-victory/

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

So what I'm hearing is Dan Snyder shouldn't change the Redskins because of World War II? Or was it because of Hanoi Jane?

[keefe]

Never would have won WWII if people knew some of the true attrocities that we had to do to win.  Back then, we fought to win wars, and http://www.grunt.com/corps/scuttlebutt/marine-corps-stories/gen-bui-tin-describes-north-vietnams-victory/

This is an excellent interview. It mirrors the comments of Gen Giap in a case study on Asymetric Warfare and targeting the enemies critical nodes we did at the Air War College. Giap noted that the NVA could not defeat the US militarily so they worked aggressively to undermine popular support for the war at home. Giap said that Jane Fonda, Ramsey Clark, the Weathermen, and did more damage than any campaign the NVA could have mounted against the American colossus.

And before x and others jump me I do not fault the anti-war protesters. What they were angry about was the senselessness of the war by body count as dictated by the political leadership. By 1968 more than 60% of all Americans knew a Joe who had been killed or wounded in Vietnam. The question that was left open was to what end?

I wish the military had clear, unambiguous ROE and the freedom to prosecute the war properly. If you ask our sons to go into harm's way you must not ask them to risk everything for nothing. The moral failure was with the political leadership who lacked the courage to make the correct decision. I leave it to the reader to determine what that decision might have been but it was not the neither in nor out policy adopted by the White House.   

[4everwarriors]

Anyone here wonder why there are no derogatory white names for any of these teams?

Like the Houston Honkies?

[Spotcheck Billy]

Anyone here wonder why there are no derogatory white names for any of these teams?

Nimrods anyone?

....waiting for keefe to weigh in on our military changing the name of the Apache and Blackhawk helicopters

[GGGG]

I suggest you do your homework a bit more.  I can think of one immediately.  Try again.

Really???  Who?

[Lennys Tap]

So what I'm hearing is Dan Snyder shouldn't change the Redskins because of World War II? Or was it because of Hanoi Jane?

This is what happens when Chico stops taking his meds.

[ChicosBailBonds]

So what I'm hearing is Dan Snyder shouldn't change the Redskins because of World War II? Or was it because of Hanoi Jane?

No, what you're hearing is that most Native Americans don't find it offensive and his customers, Redskins fans, certainly don't.

What you aren't hearing is from hypocrite Blackhawks fans like Lenny that disparage these Native Americans daily and don't take their wishes of removing the Blackhawks name entirely.  Tsk tsk.

[GGGG]

I guess what it comes down to, is that I don't understand why a high school, college or professional sports franchise would willingly keep a nickname that apparently offends at least 30% of the people in a given ethnic group.

It's really just a nickname.  It just isn't all that important.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

No, what you're hearing is that most Native Americans don't find it offensive care either way

FIFY.

and his customers, Redskins fans, certainly don't.

Yeah, and Brewers fans didn't think Braun juiced. And Marquette fans didn't think Willie Wampum was racist (some still cling to that)

But, you are correct. Snyder's customers are definitely pro-mascot (I assume). And because we live in a Capitalist society, he is making an economically sound decision to keep the nickname as is. However, if us like minded individuals keep protesting, it may put enough pressure on Roger Goddell to force a change. Because right now, more than half of Goddell's customer's (football fans) are against the mascot.

What you aren't hearing is from hypocrite Blackhawks fans like Lenny that disparage these Native Americans daily and don't take their wishes of removing the Blackhawks name entirely.  Tsk tsk.

You can sit and call them hypocrites if you want, and you are in a sense correct. But not all activism has to be all or nothing. You keep looking at this issue as black and white. If you are against the Redskins, than you are against all native american themed mascots. That's true for some of us but not all.

This issue is a spectrum. One the extreme side there are the Redskins, Cheif Wahoo, Willie Wampum, etc. Towards the middle you have the Atlanta Braves, the Chicago Blackhawks, etc. Towards the moderate side there's the Utah Utes and the Central Michigan Chippewas. It is possible for a supporter of this issue to "draw their line in the sand" somewhere between Chief Wahoo and the Atlanta Braves. Or between the Redskins and the Blackhawks. You can call that hypocritical if you want, I certainly don't agree with them, but it is a valid opinion.

You can even throw some of the examples you've listed onto this spectrum. If Mario/Luigi, Fighting Irish, and the Kings offend someone, they have a place on this spectrum. However, I think most scholars and academics would rank them far below the Utah Utes/CMU Chips level.

If you're curious, my "line in the sand" is somewhere between the Blackhawks and the Utes. I draw it there because I think teams named after specific tribes, with permission/financial compensation to said tribe, with strict guidelines about how fans are permitted to show their support, in an environment that fosters respect, can be legitimate ways to preserve and honor Native American tradition.

[brandx]

Actually, shouldn't us privileged whites be offended by the name Blackhawks?

I mean, after all, Chief Blackhawk was a Native American who killed our ancestors (admittedly, as we were trying to kill him), and aligned with the British in the war of 1812.

I hope teal isn't really necessary here!!

[Lennys Tap]

You can sit and call them hypocrites if you want, and you are in a sense correct. But not all activism has to be all or nothing. You keep looking at this issue as black and white. If you are against the Redskins, than you are against all native american themed mascots. That's true for some of us but not all.

This issue is a spectrum. One the extreme side there are the Redskins, Cheif Wahoo, Willie Wampum, etc. Towards the middle you have the Atlanta Braves, the Chicago Blackhawks, etc. Towards the moderate side there's the Utah Utes and the Central Michigan Chippewas. It is possible for a supporter of this issue to "draw their line in the sand" somewhere between Chief Wahoo and the Atlanta Braves. Or between the Redskins and the Blackhawks. You can call that hypocritical if you want, I certainly don't agree with them, but it is a valid opinion.

You can even throw some of the examples you've listed onto this spectrum. If Mario/Luigi, Fighting Irish, and the Kings offend someone, they have a place on this spectrum. However, I think most scholars and academics would rank them far below the Utah Utes/CMU Chips level.

If you're curious, my "line in the sand" is somewhere between the Blackhawks and the Utes. I draw it there because I think teams named after specific tribes, with permission/financial compensation to said tribe, with strict guidelines about how fans are permitted to show their support, in an environment that fosters respect, can be legitimate ways to preserve and honor Native American tradition.

In no sense is Chico right to use the "H" word here. The idea that everything anybody ever has taken offense to is therefore offensive is absurd. So is the idea that nothing is offensive. Thoughtful and good people can differ over where to draw the line. That's not being hypocritical. That's using one's brain instead of reciting hackneyed old talking points.

As you say, we draw our lines differently. For me, slurs and goofy caricatures are out. Patently offensive. Other than that, I'm laissez-faire. I'll listen to arguments like yours against the Braves and Blackhawks, for example, but for now anyway I remain unconvinced.

[brandx]

In no sense is Chico right to use the "H" word here. The idea that everything anybody ever has taken offense to is therefore offensive is absurd. So is the idea that nothing is offensive. Thoughtful and good people can differ over where to draw the line. That's not being hypocritical. That's using one's brain instead of reciting hackneyed old talking points.

As you say, we draw our lines differently. For me, slurs and goofy caricatures are out. Patently offensive. Other than that, I'm laissez-faire. I'll listen to arguments like yours against the Braves and Blackhawks, for example, but for now anyway I remain unconvinced.

+1000

Common sense goes a long way.

[brandx]

This is an excellent interview. It mirrors the comments of Gen Giap in a case study on Asymetric Warfare and targeting the enemies critical nodes we did at the Air War College. Giap noted that the NVA could not defeat the US militarily so they worked aggressively to undermine popular support for the war at home. Giap said that Jane Fonda, Ramsey Clark, the Weathermen, and did more damage than any campaign the NVA could have mounted against the American colossus.

And before x and others jump me I do not fault the anti-war protesters. What they were angry about was the senselessness of the war by body count as dictated by the political leadership. By 1968 more than 60% of all Americans knew a Joe who had been killed or wounded in Vietnam. The question that was left open was to what end?

I wish the military had clear, unambiguous ROE and the freedom to prosecute the war properly. If you ask our sons to go into harm's way you must not ask them to risk everything for nothing. The moral failure was with the political leadership who lacked the courage to make the correct decision. I leave it to the reader to determine what that decision might have been but it was not the neither in nor out policy adopted by the White House.   

I find no fault with what you wrote here. I think Gen. Giap's comments may have been a little self serving since it is always the end game in a long, drawn-out war to outlast the other side. Afghanistan used the same tactic against Russia.

I also don't question your opinions about Ms. Fonda. I also am not a big fan, but defended her just because there are so many untruths out there about her actions. There are hundreds of millions of people in this country who have not spent the time working with troops that she has. Does that justify the mistakes she made? That is for each to decide, but she is also not the monster the right has portrayed her as.

[Coleman]

In no sense is Chico right to use the "H" word here. The idea that everything anybody ever has taken offense to is therefore offensive is absurd. So is the idea that nothing is offensive. Thoughtful and good people can differ over where to draw the line. That's not being hypocritical. That's using one's brain instead of reciting hackneyed old talking points.

As you say, we draw our lines differently. For me, slurs and goofy caricatures are out. Patently offensive. Other than that, I'm laissez-faire. I'll listen to arguments like yours against the Braves and Blackhawks, for example, but for now anyway I remain unconvinced.

Quite well said.

[keefe]

Common sense goes a long way.

How dare you suggest such a thing! For the love of God this is Scoop! You forget yourself

[ChicosBailBonds]

Native Americans (some) want Redskins changed.  Native Americans (some) want Blackhawks change.


You're right, we draw different lines.  When it is YOUR team, then hands off.  When it is someone else's team, God forbid.  Doesn't matter if the same Native Americans want both gone, tsk tsk.

What you describe as common sense, others will say hypocrisy.  What you describe as not all that offensive (in your view), some Native Americans disagree.

Apparently they are just all too hot and bothered for some names, but not bothered enough for others.  The good news is that we have arbiters such as yourself to help us decide.

[brandx]

Native Americans (some) want Redskins changed.  Native Americans (some) want Blackhawks change.

It doesn't really surprise me that you don't get the difference.

A derogatory nickname vs. someone's actual name.

It is the equivalent of two teams called the Honkies and the Lincolns.

[willie warrior]

I guess what it comes down to, is that I don't understand why a high school, college or professional sports franchise would willingly keep a nickname that apparently offends at least 30% of the people in a given ethnic group.

It's really just a nickname.  It just isn't all that important.

Tell that to the PC crowd who have their nose out of joint over it.

[ChicosBailBonds]

It doesn't really surprise me that you don't get the difference.

A derogatory nickname vs. someone's actual name.

It is the equivalent of two teams called the Honkies and the Lincolns.

Doesn't matter, these folks don't see the difference if they are offended. Some of them want it changed.  You don't get to decide, they are the ones offended.  Thus, your hypocrisy on this.  They are upset about the imagery being used on a sweater, they don't feel it has a place.  Why are they offbase if they claim any form of visualization of Native Americans for sports teams is demeaning?  Why do you get to decide? 

Your equivalencies are wrong, in their eyes.  That's all that matters....apparently.