North Dakota sues over mascot

[doctorpeligro]

I've posted this before, but, should I be offended that an NFL team in Houston, Texas uses my ancestors as a mascot? I assume the reason I'm not is because the term "Texan" is not derogatory. I'm used to it because it has been in use for so long, but I think the Redskins might be the only undefensible nickname in use today. Anyone care to defend? I do, however, think that Cleveland should keep Chief Wazoo but change their nickname to the Americans, since they were the first Americans and it would be cool to have a minority group represent all of us Americans (cartoon and all).

Yes, you should be offended that an NFL team in Houston, Texas uses your ancestors as a mascot. But only because the football team sucks.

Your analogy is not valid because "Texan" is not a race or ethnicity. A name equivalent to "Washington Redskins" would be something like "Houston Wetbacks" or "Houston White Trash."

[ColeJ]

isn't the mascot of the texans a bull?

but yeah... if the redskins changed their name to warriors, but kept the same logo, uniforms, colors, and everything else, they'd be respectful and well dressed.

indians should change to something else, too... either change team names to something more fitting, or actually get a design inspired by the country of india. they aren't really offensive, as much as they're a misnomer.

names like fighting souix, seminoles, braves, blackhawks, chiefs, and the like... those are perfectly fine, and no more offensive than texans, canadiens, canucks, americans, or cowboys. the fighting souix have one of the most respectfully design identities i can think of, and it pisses me off that they're being forced to change them.

[doctorpeligro]

names like fighting souix, seminoles, braves, blackhawks, chiefs, and the like... those are perfectly fine, and no more offensive than texans, canadiens, canucks, americans, or cowboys. the fighting souix have one of the most respectfully design identities i can think of, and it pisses me off that they're being forced to change them.

It is troubling to me that people can equate team names like Texans, Canadiens, Canucks, Americans, or Cowboys with team names that refer to races of people. Unless you are somehow able to represent every Native American nation that you listed, you are not in a position to say what is offensive and what is not offensive. The fact that a nickname is offensive to any member of the Native American nations listed above is the problem.

In regards to the Redskins, here are a couple of articles talking about the two cases that are challenging their trademark of the word "Redskins" in court (U.S. law prevents the trademarking of racial or ethnic slurs):

Washington Post article about first trademark trial.

Law.com article about both active Redskins lawsuits.

[powersurge]

names like fighting souix, seminoles, braves, blackhawks, chiefs, and the like... those are perfectly fine, and no more offensive than texans, canadiens, canucks, americans, or cowboys. the fighting souix have one of the most respectfully design identities i can think of, and it pisses me off that they're being forced to change them.

It is troubling to me that people can equate team names like Texans, Canadiens, Canucks, Americans, or Cowboys with team names that refer to races of people. Unless you are somehow able to represent every Native American nation that you listed, you are not in a position to say what is offensive and what is not offensive. The fact that a nickname is offensive to any member of the Native American nations listed above is the problem.

In regards to the Redskins, here are a couple of articles talking about the two cases that are challenging their trademark of the word "Redskins" in court (U.S. law prevents the trademarking of racial or ethnic slurs):

Washington Post article about first trademark trial.

Law.com article about both active Redskins lawsuits.

I think the comparison is being made because all of those names refer to a group or region of people. Are you telling me for example that a Seminole tribeman and a Cherokee tribesman are not BOTH Native Americans? Do they differ in race? They are essentially the same race. The main difference is what they call their tribe as well as some more specific tribal beliefs and some cultural differences. Essentially, the names Canucks, Canadiens, Texans, etc. are doing much the same thing in the literal sense.

Now Redskins, Indians, Savages etc. are refering to the Native American people as a whole and that is the true issue because they are being depicted in a way that is not accurate and as a result is offensive. Therefore THAT should be troubling not the previous names I mentioned. The only reason why the above names (i.e. Seminoles, Blackhawks, Chiefs, etc.) would be offensive to a group of people would be if they believed they were being depicted in a wrongful way. In many cases, the people that are annoyed by use of the Native American tribal names as team monikers are non tribesman ironically. That is the TRUE problem. For example, the NCAA's case against North Dakota. The NCAA believes "Fighting Soiux" to be offensive but the actual Soiux tribal nation does not. That needs some explanantion.