Finally, the Cleveland Indians are done with Chief Wahoo

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by The Game

Indians is better then Redskins.

Of course. I always thought if the Redskins did change their name that a perfect switch would be Warriors. Then they could go back to their old helmets that used the spear instead of that ugly helmet they have now. But no, apparently Warriors is no good either.

Apparently anything referencing Indians is off limits. I guess we need to stick to animals only with the occasional symbol like a star. Anything else is offensive.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

Of course. I always thought if the Redskins did change their name that a perfect switch would be Warriors. Then they could go back to their old helmets that used the spear instead of that ugly helmet they have now. But no, apparently Warriors is no good either.

Apparently anything referencing Indians is off limits. I guess we need to stick to animals only with the occasional symbol like a star. Anything else is offensive.

Native people in North America are not Indians. They do not refer to themselves by that name. Why is it so difficult to understand? Now if we were talking about a cricket team in Delhi it might be different but I'd never assume it was ok.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by msupoke

Exactly. The term "Indian" or "American Indian" is not a derogatory slur.

It may not be a slur, but name a team that & what are fans going to do? They are going to dress according to the name. And that leads to the perceived mocking.

As far as Warriors, Braves & Chiefs.....I never understood why NA's oppose those names. Those are terms not exclusive to NA's.

[msupoke]

Originally Posted by RchW

Seriously? You can't see the obvious difference even in your own words above?

Maybe I am not saying it the right way. I do not consider the word "Indian" as a slur because it has not been used by itself to denigrate a race. The "Indian giver" example is a good one showing how it has been used as an insult, and I agree that "Indian giver" is an insensitive and ignorant phrase to use. However, I would not consider "Jew" as a racial slur just because of the stereotypical phrase "cheap Jew." Of course, naming a team the New York Jews would not be acceptable, so I can get behind your argument a little more in that regards.

I guess my main point is this... The Chief Wahoo image and the name Indians are on two completely different planes. Caricatures like Chief Wahoo have been used throughout history to ridicule races and religions with the purpose of wiping them out (Nazi propaganda against the Jews, American propaganda against Native Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans).

My wife and kids are Native American, and the Indians nickname does not bother my wife in the least, although she does not look at it as honoring her people, either. The Redskins nickname horrifies her because of the history behind it.

[msupoke]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

Of course. I always thought if the Redskins did change their name that a perfect switch would be Warriors. Then they could go back to their old helmets that used the spear instead of that ugly helmet they have now. But no, apparently Warriors is no good either.

Apparently anything referencing Indians is off limits. I guess we need to stick to animals only with the occasional symbol like a star. Anything else is offensive.

Warriors and Braves are nicknames that are completely acceptable. They are not terms used to denigrate a group of people. I doubt either will ever be targeted by any group (except those extreme fringe groups who just want to pick fights).

[msupoke]

Originally Posted by RchW

Native people in North America are not Indians. They do not refer to themselves by that name. Why is it so difficult to understand? Now if we were talking about a cricket team in Delhi it might be different but I'd never assume it was ok.

The American Indian is an accepted label for the Native American. It is historically inaccurate, but it is not a racial slur. Most of that race accept Indian as an acceptable label, and many use it to describe their own heritage.

[msupoke]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

It may not be a slur, but name a team that & what are fans going to do? They are going to dress according to the name. And that leads to the perceived mocking.

As far as Warriors, Braves & Chiefs.....I never understood why NA's oppose those names. Those are terms not exclusive to NA's.

I agree that using the Indian as a nickname can inspire insensitive mascots, dress, etc. I think the Indian as a nickname approaches the line of insensitive, but a team can handle it appropriately (not using racial caricatures, eliminating sacred headdresses from costumes).

I may be naive, but is there a push to eliminate Warriors, Braves, or Chiefs? I have not heard of this.

Interesting side note... my high school mascot was the Warriors. At a football stadium, the restrooms were labeled "Braves" and "Squ*ws" for the men and women respectively. Years later, my wife told me that using the term "squ*w" for a woman is essentially the same as calling a woman a cu*t.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by msupoke

Maybe I am not saying it the right way. I do not consider the word "Indian" as a slur because it has not been used by itself to denigrate a race. The "Indian giver" example is a good one showing how it has been used as an insult, and I agree that "Indian giver" is an insensitive and ignorant phrase to use. However, I would not consider "Jew" as a racial slur just because of the stereotypical phrase "cheap Jew." Of course, naming a team the New York Jews would not be acceptable, so I can get behind your argument a little more in that regards.

I guess my main point is this... The Chief Wahoo image and the name Indians are on two completely different planes. Caricatures like Chief Wahoo have been used throughout history to ridicule races and religions with the purpose of wiping them out (Nazi propaganda against the Jews, American propaganda against Native Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans).

My wife and kids are Native American, and the Indians nickname does not bother my wife in the least, although she does not look at it as honoring her people, either. The Redskins nickname horrifies her because of the history behind it.

Therein lies the problem. My wife has worked in a mine on Attawapiskat First Nation Land for over 3 years and her (and my) experience with people there has informed what I've said in this thread. It's no surprise that opinions differ across the many First Nation communities in North America.


Edit:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...ticle32323030/

[msupoke]

Originally Posted by RchW

Therein lies the problem. My wife has worked in a mine on Attawapiskat First Nation Land for over 3 years and her (and my) experience with people there has informed what I've said in this thread. It's no surprise that opinions differ across the many First Nation communities in North America.


Edit:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...ticle32323030/

The fan letter referenced in that story did not include the Cleveland nickname. Maybe some Native Americans object to the nickname, but that link did not show that. It stated that Howarth did not use it and a human rights group opposes it and protests happen before every season, but none of that shows that the nickname is a racial slur. I bet that if the logo and images were not present, the nickname would not be an issue.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by msupoke

I agree that using the Indian as a nickname can inspire insensitive mascots, dress, etc. I think the Indian as a nickname approaches the line of insensitive, but a team can handle it appropriately (not using racial caricatures, eliminating sacred headdresses from costumes).

A team may handle it properly, but they would have to ask themselves if they would want to indirectly create an environment that encouraged insensitivity. UNLV calls themselves the Rebels. No one connects them to the Confederacy. Ole Miss calls themselves the Rebels. Their fans have brought the Confederate flag to games. Everyone has their own perception of things. And granted, it is not always in your control how people perceive you. I think the fact no new franchise has chosen to take a similar mascot as "Indians" shows there is an understanding that such names aren't worth alienating a segment of the public that would be offended.

I may be naive, but is there a push to eliminate Warriors, Braves, or Chiefs? I have not heard of this.

The cry for such is not as strong as it once was. But yeah, there was a time when those names were under fire as well. Marquette used to be called the Warriors but changed to the Golden Eagles. But again, I personally believe that was shifting the meter too far in the opposite direction. Balanced thinking is sadly in short supply these days.

Interesting side note... my high school mascot was the Warriors. At a football stadium, the restrooms were labeled "Braves" and "Squ*ws" for the men and women respectively. Years later, my wife told me that using the term "squ*w" for a woman is essentially the same as calling a woman a cu*t.

And I think that brings up an important point. When such info is brought up they can't hit a person over the head with it. Otherwise the natural reaction is to be taken aback & feel attacked and insulted. Then you're less likely to come to a compromise. On the other hand, once a person is informed, they can admit their innocent ignorance & make a change. There is no need for unnecessary hurt pride. I think both sides of this issue have handled themselves badly & torn down any possibility of bridges being built.

[G-Force]

Originally Posted by msupoke

"Indian" and "Indian giver" are two separate things. That is like saying "African-American" is offensive because of the racist phrase "African-American engineering."

For the Roosevelt quote, substitute "Caucasian" for "Indian" and tell me if that makes "Caucasian" an offensive term. Using a word in a racist sentence does not make the word itself offensive.

The core point - that a phrase isn't offensive just because it gets tied to an offensive phrase - is true. But your comparison here is WAY off.

I have no problem with them removing the logo, which is certainly cartoonish and can be seen as belittling. The Indians name itself isn't offensive. The reverse holds true with the Redskins. I find their logo to be proud and dignified. But the nickname is surely derogatory.

I don't buy the Washington Post poll that 90% of Native Americans aren't offended by the Redskins name. I'd certainly be inclined to question how the poll was conducted.

I'm a fan of neither team, though, so it doesn't affect me either way. I'm far more offended by the Wilpons mismanagement of my Mets

GH

[RchW]

Originally Posted by msupoke

The fan letter referenced in that story did not include the Cleveland nickname. Maybe some Native Americans object to the nickname, but that link did not show that. It stated that Howarth did not use it and a human rights group opposes it and protests happen before every season, but none of that shows that the nickname is a racial slur. I bet that if the logo and images were not present, the nickname would not be an issue.

I'm sorry I put that link in. It allowed you to misinterpret the point I was making above it. I'll bow out now.

[mitchkenn]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

I guess Cleveland could go back to the Blues or dig Nap Lajoie way up and go by the Naps again.

Give 'em the Spiders name back.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by G-Force

I don't buy the Washington Post poll that 90% of Native Americans aren't offended by the Redskins name. I'd certainly be inclined to question how the poll was conducted.



GH

https://www.thenation.com/article/on...redskins-poll/

My feeling is do we need opinion polls to tell us if "Raiders" is offensive? "Giants"? "49ers"? Even if the poll is accurate, do we want a name that turns off 10 percent of the public? Like the cliche goes, if you have to ask, it probably isn't a good idea.

[G-Force]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

https://www.thenation.com/article/on...redskins-poll/

My feeling is do we need opinion polls to tell us if "Raiders" is offensive? "Giants"? "49ers"? Even if the poll is accurate, do we want a name that turns off 10 percent of the public? Like the cliche goes, if you have to ask, it probably isn't a good idea.

Well I don't think we HAD to ask, but I get your point. But fact is, we live in an age of the "professionally offended." That said, in the case of the Redskins, I believe the offended have a right to be.

GH

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by mitchkenn

Give 'em the Spiders name back.

That might be insensitive to spiders.

[Caporegime]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

That might be insensitive to spiders.

Spiders? Don't you mean Arachnid-Americans?

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by Caporegime

Spiders? Don't you mean Arachnid-Americans?

Would eight legged creepy crawlers be offensive?

[Westheim]

How many people these days would find the "Yankees" moniker offensive?

What about "Cardinals"?

And is there any name at all that would not offend anyone these days, considering that we live in a world where everybody has a Twitter and Facebook and uses them to be professionally outraged about what 95% of the time amounts to nothing and never actually affects their lives?

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by msupoke

Warriors and Braves are nicknames that are completely acceptable. They are not terms used to denigrate a group of people. I doubt either will ever be targeted by any group (except those extreme fringe groups who just want to pick fights).

But they are. A school here in NJ was pressured to rid themselves of the name Warriors. They are now the Patriots.