CS85

Chief Wahoo Departs: Indians remove logo from brand in 2019

Recommended Posts

Just now, DC in Da House w/o a Doubt said:

Redskin and the n-word aren't comparible

 

This is really what this whole dumb argument comes down to, trying to will the words onto equal footing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

I was gonna say...

 

One reason I’m so opposed to Wahoo as a logo is because I did the “how would I like it if....?” experiment.

I can’t claim to speak for Natives and what they may deem offensive or not, but I can certainly imagine what it would be like if there were a team named “the Jews” with a Jewish version of Wahoo as the logo. 

I wouldn’t like that at all. 

Would you be offended by the name without the logo?  Again, since I won't claim to speak for everyone, I think most would agree the "Red Sambo" logo was a terrible stereotype.  

1 hour ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

And also...

 

what?

 

I apologize for my careless wording, when I should've added dispossessed by this country, and you were right to highlight Jews.  Their history is full of slavery and being driven from their land.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, the admiral said:

No, they are related if not identical. My point is that you can read a book on queer theory, but you wouldn't call someone a queer. 

 

What makes you think that?

 

At the time that "queer theory" was popularized, sure you would.  There was a movement to reclaim "Queer" as a catchall term to replace the admittedly-clunky LGBT, and that definitely involved calling people "queer."    As with many attempts to reclaim slurs, that was controversial in the community and not wholly successful.  Still, there are some who self-identify as queer today, often because they don't feel other labels are accurate.

 

10 minutes ago, the admiral said:

However we got there, we got to the point where the word has changed, which it has with Redskins.

 

No, it hasn't.  Because even in a football context, the name still refers to Native Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

At the time that "queer theory" was popularized, sure you would.  There was a movement to reclaim "Queer" as a catchall term to replace the clunky LGBT, and that definitely involved calling people "queer."   

 

I meant that you wouldn't use it in the same position that you'd use " :censored:" or ":censored:," as a word meant to hurt the person. 

 

EDIT: look at that, got 'em both

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, the admiral said:

I meant that you wouldn't use it in the same position that you'd use " :censored:" or ":censored:," as a word meant to hurt the person. 

 

EDIT: look at that, got 'em both

 

You don't think that the slur is ever used with intent to hurt?  Really?

 

Reclaiming it is controversial in the community for just that reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What? No, of course it is. I'm saying that it wouldn't be acceptable to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, the admiral said:

What? No, of course it is. I'm saying that it wouldn't be acceptable to do so.

 

And what makes "Redskin" acceptable, other than you're accustomed to hearing it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, the admiral said:

Got me with the ol' logical fallacy identification. MOD EDIT

 

Yes, as is typically done during debates.

 

MOD EDIT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

Yes - after the Gold debacle, the university held a vote with these options:

  • Blue and Gold;
  • Explorers;
  • Golden Avalanche;
  • Golden Knights;
  • Saints;
  • Spirit;
  • Voyagers;
  • Wolves; 
  • Hilltoppers; and
  • Golden Eagles.

 

Of those, Blue and Gold, Golden Avalanche, and Hilltoppers were all former nicknames used by the school (although I think Golden Avalanche only ever applied to the football team).  Hilltoppers is still used by Marquette University High School, which I'm pretty sure was founded by the university but now has no connection to it.

 

It came down to Hilltoppers and Golden Eagles, and Golden Eagles won.  Apparently that was the clear choice of then-contemporary students, while alums tried to stage a write-in for "Warriors".

 

Alums are still offering large amounts of cash to this day to change it back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gothamite said:

 

And what makes "Redskin" acceptable, other than you're accustomed to hearing it?

 

Should i link the native american high school that uses the term again?  The word clearly isn't on the level of the n-word or queer, no matter how much you want it to be.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

And what makes "Redskin" acceptable, other than you're accustomed to hearing it?

The understanding that it continues on as the name of a football team parallel to its use toward Natives. Guess I'm just a capital-letters Bad Person!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, DC in Da House w/o a Doubt said:

 

They don't use the hard "er" do they?  In what universe would a high school team name their sports team the n-words?  That universe doesn't exist.  So yeah, I would say the n-word is a much different story.  Redskin and the n-word aren't comparable*

Well I don't think a team ending in "a" would be considered much better.

 

You are right, though.  We do not live in a universe in which we name our teams after the n-word and we do live in a universe in which a team is called Redskins.  (We also live in a world in which I type out "n-word" but not "r-word").  But that does not, in and of itself, make them not comparable.  History is filled with egregious things that are acceptable (or, rather, deemed acceptable) right alongside egregious things that are unacceptable.  We used to live in a universe in which it was commonplace to call women "dames" but that doesn't make it OK in comparison with some other word that was no OK to use.  That term (in partnership, of course with all kinds of words and practices), even if 84.6% of women were not "offended" by it helped normalize inequities.  

 

The idea that most people think of "Redskins" as a football team and would not think that way if some team named themselves after, say, the n-word, is not entirely without merit.  But language is powerful and it impacts us in many ways we don't even realize.  The fact that Redskins is not an en vogue slur doesn't mean it's not impactful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BigBubba said:

 

Yes, as is typically done during debates.

 

MOD EDIT

 

MOD EDIT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, DC in Da House w/o a Doubt said:

Coming in late on the Redskins talk.  Check out this Native American majority high school in Arizona:

 

http://www.hs.rmusd.net/

 

 

Maybe there are different tiers of offensive terms.  Seems to me redskin is a pretty tame one if their own people use it.

 

17 minutes ago, the admiral said:

No, they are related if not identical. My point is that you can read a book on queer theory, but you wouldn't call someone a queer. However we got there, we got to the point where the word has changed, which it has with Redskins. The idea of using it in any other context than the football one is ridiculous, but acting as if merely using the word will cause you or a nearby Indian to burst into flames is ridiculous, too.

 

Admiral is right here in my opinion. Words do evolve. DC, I can see why one might assume if Native people use it then it’s all good right? There is more nuance there. Let’s take the N-word for example.

 

Was created as a way to harm black people, and over time it evolved into something black people use amongst themselves. It was a sense of victory to take something and strip its power away from the “oppressor.” However, I don’t think white people today should go around using it.

 

Somerhing that has become unique to a certain culture doesn’t give a pass to the masses, especially in areas where profit is to be gained. Which is probably the root of all of this. Redskin may very well be tame to the Native people because it evolved, but (speaking on the N-word again) I’ll be damned if some oil tycoon builds his brand on that term. I’m sure that’s the way many Native people feel about Wahoo or Redskins. There will always be outliers, but the vocal minority should never outweigh the silent majority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, the admiral said:

MOD EDIT

 

MOD EDIT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd argue that goes back to who is choosing the name and whether it's appropriation discussion. If the high school of Native American Indian people is fine with using Redskins for themselves then I guess I can't argue, though there's been evidence posted in this thread that those names do some actual harm so one example of an anecdote traded with another backed up with some research into the issue. Now, the Washington Redskins are not a high school of Native Americans. The name was chosen by a famous racist and they appropriated the name for a team that was famously all-white. Also there are a lot of Native Americans who do want the NFL team to change regardless of that one high school. I don't see the high school and the NFL team as being in the same situation when they were both named with very different intentions by different people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, the admiral said:

The understanding that it continues on as the name of a football team parallel to its use toward Natives. Guess I'm just a capital-letters Bad Person!

 

Come now, that last part is really unworthy of you.  And it's hardly conducive to a productive discussion.

 

As for the "parallel use" of the term, I don't see any such thing.  It's not like the word has multiple meanings; it still explicitly means Native Americans, even in a football context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

I'd argue that goes back to who is choosing the name and whether it's appropriation discussion. If the high school of Native American Indian people is fine with using Redskins for themselves then I guess I can't argue, though there's been evidence posted in this thread that those names do some actual harm so one example of an anecdote traded with another backed up with some research into the issue. Now, the Washington Redskins are not a high school of Native Americans. The name was chosen by a famous racist and they appropriated the name for a team that was famously all-white. Also there are a lot of Native Americans who do want the NFL team to change regardless of that one high school. I don't see the high school and the NFL team as being in the same situation when they were both named with very different intentions by different people. 

 

I regret that I have but one "like" to give this comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Lee Noire said:

 

Admiral is right here in my opinion. Words do evolve. DC, I can see why one might assume if Native people use it then it’s all good right? There is more nuance there. Let’s take the N-word for example.

 

Was created as a way to harm black people, and over time it evolved into something black people use amongst themselves. It was a sense of victory to take something and strip its power away from the “oppressor.” However, I don’t think white people today should go around using it.

 

Somerhing that has become unique to a certain culture doesn’t give a pass to the masses, especially in areas where profit is to be gained. Which is probably the root of all of this. Redskin may very well be tame to the Native people because it evolved, but (speaking on the N-word again) I’ll be damned if some oil tycoon builds his brand on that term. I’m sure that’s the way many Native people feel about Wahoo or Redskins. There will always be outliers, but the vocal minority should never outweigh the silent majority.

 

I can appreciate what you're saying and it makes sense to me.  I think those are valid points.  But using the n-word example, would a predominantly African american high school ever adopt that name for their sports teams?  There's no way.  My main point is, I realize that both are slurs but I think the comparisons end there.  It's apples and oranges in my opinion.  There's a reason we're all openly typing redskin, but not typing out the n-word.  They're on a completely different playing field.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.