do you think this is disrespectful? do you care? I just watched a film on this in one of my anthropology classes which struck a cord with me. This is pretty bad I believe, especially with team names like the Washington Redskins. Being blatently racist, how can things like this still be pervasive in American culture?
What do you think of American Indian Mascots in Sports?
- Thread starter CoolTech
- Start date
Well since the Braves and Redskins are my two favorite pro sports teams, I'd be pretty pissed if they had to change their names. It's not like the teams endorse racism
I think USC is disrespectful of all the trojans out there. Not all of them play the same annoying song over and over and over and over and over again.
No, I don't think all the Native American names are too direspectful. You don't really hear people calling Native Americans "Redskins" too much... I don't think people really relate the two too much.
No, I don't think all the Native American names are too direspectful. You don't really hear people calling Native Americans "Redskins" too much... I don't think people really relate the two too much.
what I am saying is this, if there was a team name like "awesome people", "kikes", "wetbacks", "spics", "gooks", etc. then there would be an uproar. "Redskins" is just as bad of bigotry. The only reason you dont hear much about it, is because native americans were a victim of genoicide and don't have much a voice in our society. But, in our "PC" culture, I would have thought a custom such as this and terms such as "indian giver" would have gone by the wayside, but they continue to be prolific to this date. Just goes to show you how much the people in power can brainwash you.
While it may not be racist, it is offensive mainly because there are Native Americans that view it as such. It is offensive for the same reasons why you don't have the Fighting Chinks or Wetbacks or something. While it is easy to dismiss it as being overly PC, I think it is pretty clear that things like the Redskins, etc, may be viewed as offensive by Native Americans.
"Fighting Whities" is not offensive. Why? Because the majority is white.
Now think of a team called the "Jews", the mascot being a "Jewish guy" wearing a yamaka and carrying scissors. How about an "Irish" mascot wielding a mug of ale and a pipe bomb? Or how about an Italian dressed in an Armani suit and carrying an automatic weapon? Maybe a German identified by a swastika?
"But what about the Cowboys and the Texans?" you may say. Cowboys and Texans aren't portrayed derisively, while the "Jew", the "Irishman", the "Italian", the "German", and the "beloved patriot" are.
Now think of a team called the "Jews", the mascot being a "Jewish guy" wearing a yamaka and carrying scissors. How about an "Irish" mascot wielding a mug of ale and a pipe bomb? Or how about an Italian dressed in an Armani suit and carrying an automatic weapon? Maybe a German identified by a swastika?
"But what about the Cowboys and the Texans?" you may say. Cowboys and Texans aren't portrayed derisively, while the "Jew", the "Irishman", the "Italian", the "German", and the "beloved patriot" are.
When an entire group of people, more or less, is offended, it's time to change your mascot out of courtesy.
Your opinion doesn't matter. What matters is the opinion of the thousands of Indians who are offended. Shouldn't THEY have a say in the debate whether white and black people use THEM as a mascot?
hdeck
Lifer
- Sep 26, 2002
- 14,530
- 1
- 0
*please ignore jellomancer. he is a sports-hating asswhore that shouldn't be allowed to speak in public. he is also my roomate. yes, pittying is welcomed.*
but in all seriousness, if the owner of a sports team in washington d.c. was intentionally being racist by naming the team the 'redskins' it would have changed long ago.
but in all seriousness, if the owner of a sports team in washington d.c. was intentionally being racist by naming the team the 'redskins' it would have changed long ago.
Hmmm, I don't find "Indians" offensive, but I could see the possibility in "beloved patriot". I wouldn't want to see a team called "yellow gooks."
It was deragatory (sp?) word and it still is. I don't see you willing to go around calling a native american "redksin" because you know you shouldn't.
It was deragatory (sp?) word and it still is. I don't see you willing to go around calling a native american "redksin" because you know you shouldn't.
Are you one of those white people who say that it offends the entire group of people when you do not know 1 indian? IF you are...please step back. Many things offend many people...i do not agree with saying the pledge in school, and it somewhat offends me, but I do not b!tch about it because it is a worthless fight. The Redokins fight is the same way. Why? Because MOST people no longer associate it with an Indian. They associate it with a football team. Get over it.
The mascot at University of Illinois, Chief Illiniwek, comes under heavy fire annually (according to my friends who went there). The funny thing is that none of the protestors were from the actual people group (Native Americans) that were supposedly offended.
I couldn't see Indians or Braves as racist... but I can see with "Redskins".
I was suprised to see the new redskins helmet, I like that helmet....
I was suprised to see the new redskins helmet, I like that helmet....
Also, only Polocks should be able to say "polack". It should be considered insulting for anyone else to use a term other than "Polish American".
BTW - Before this thread, I'd never really considered the greater moral implications of calling a sports team the indians.
I don't see anyone complaining about the "Fighting Irish"....
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter