Native Americans In Sports

[ltjets21]

I know this is a topic very often discussed but, I'd like to know what you guys think is Fair or Foul. I personally think there is no need for a change for any Native American team but, thats just me.

[aci]

Only Redskins is offensive. All the others are fine, but that is a racial slur and clearly crosses the line.

[NEW.ERA]

Agreed about the Redskins but all across the board teams and schools aren't mocking the tribe or whatever they're honoring them.

But if people are going to complain about the Fighting Sioux then why aren't they complaining about the Fighting Irish?

[HedleyLamarr]

Because the Irish are violent drunks....therefore, a name that isn't offensive.

[infrared41]

Because the Irish are violent drunks....therefore, a name that isn't offensive.

I'm half Irish and half Native American. When I'm drunk I can never decide if I should fight or take peyote and chant. I am however drunk most of the time. With my heritage being a drunk comes with the territory.

[andrewharrington]

Just so people are aware, 'redskin' is not intended to be a term that is used in a racist manner to refer to any Native American person or the people as a whole, as is often believed. It actually comes from trading post lingo: Hunters would go out and kill whatever animals they could find, bears, deer, etc. and sell the skins back to the trading post. Sometimes on these adventures, the hunters would be attacked by Native Americans, or they would attack the Native Americans. If they were skilled/lucky enough to emerge victorious in the battle, they would scalp the Native American and bring he scalp along with the other animal hides back to the trading post. The term 'scalp' was said to have been offensive to the females and children, so eventually, the term 'redskin' was adopted to refer to Native American scalps when they were being sold to the trading post so as not to disgust the ladies. The term is said to have come from the bloody mess that became of the patch of skin after it was cut from the skull. Instead of saying, "I have a scalp to sell." the hunters could now say, "I've got a bearskin, two deerskins, and a redskin." Still not politically correct, but the origin of the term is not racist as it is often made out to be. Probably doesn't help that the logo could be interpreted as a severed Native American's head.

[IceCap]

I find it interesting that the two most talked-about teams when this topic comes up, the Washington Redskins and the Cleveland Indians, are mirror images of each other.

The Redskins' name is indeed a problem, as it is a racial slur that is still used in some circles today. Yet the logo is actually a respectful depiction of a Native American.

The Indians' name isn't a problem, as "Indian" isn't a slur. It's incorrect, but it's not a slur (Columbus, when he named the Natives "Indians," wasn't trying to be offensive, he honestly thought he was in India). Yet their logo is a racist depiction of a Native American.

So really if the Redskins went with something like "Warriors" or "Potomacs" they would be fine, and if the Indians went with a new logo they would be fine. As these are the two worst offenders, I think those changes would put this topic to bed, at least on the professional level.

[The_Admiral]

Chief Wahoo isn't racist, he's just silly. There's not enough happening for it to be racially charged. It's just a goofy-looking drawing of an Indian. It doesn't connote anything about anyone other than the wearer supporting or playing for the Cleveland Indians.

[Jigga]

Just so people are aware, 'redskin' is not intended to be a term that is used in a racist manner to refer to any Native American person or the people as a whole, as is often believed. It actually comes from trading post lingo: Hunters would go out and kill whatever animals they could find, bears, deer, etc. and sell the skins back to the trading post. Sometimes on these adventures, the hunters would be attacked by Native Americans, or they would attack the Native Americans. If they were skilled/lucky enough to emerge victorious in the battle, they would scalp the Native American and bring he scalp along with the other animal hides back to the trading post. The term 'scalp' was said to have been offensive to the females and children, so eventually, the term 'redskin' was adopted to refer to Native American scalps when they were being sold to the trading post so as not to disgust the ladies. The term is said to have come from the bloody mess that became of the patch of skin after it was cut from the skull. Instead of saying, "I have a scalp to sell." the hunters could now say, "I've got a bearskin, two deerskins, and a redskin." Still not politically correct, but the origin of the term is not racist as it is often made out to be. Probably doesn't help that the logo could be interpreted as a severed Native American's head.

I don't doubt this. Most racial slurs have benign origins, but the fact they are used as racial slurs kind of gives them the whole racist connotation...just sayin'. It's an emotional thing, not a rational thing.

[rams80]

And here I was thinking this would be a thread about Jim Thorpe.

The original poster really needs to learn how to write better thread titles.

[MattF]

....Oh, Native American team names. My bad.

[IceCap]

Chief Wahoo isn't racist, he's just silly. There's not enough happening for it to be racially charged. It's just a goofy-looking drawing of an Indian. It doesn't connote anything about anyone other than the wearer supporting or playing for the Cleveland Indians.

To me it looks like it came right out of a racist cartoon from the 1930s. I really don't see it as benign, honestly.

[infrared41]

Chief Wahoo isn't racist, he's just silly. There's not enough happening for it to be racially charged. It's just a goofy-looking drawing of an Indian. It doesn't connote anything about anyone other than the wearer supporting or playing for the Cleveland Indians.

To me it looks like it came right out of a racist cartoon from the 1930s. I really don't see it as benign, honestly.

You don't see it as benign because it isn't benign. Chief Wahoo is indeed offensive. While the intent behind Wahoo may not have been malevolent, to say he's "just silly" is no different than saying this image is "just silly." It's easy for a white guy to sit back and wonder why Native Americans are bothered by Chief Wahoo.

[Canadian_Idiot]

Chief Wahoo isn't racist, he's just silly. There's not enough happening for it to be racially charged. It's just a goofy-looking drawing of an Indian. It doesn't connote anything about anyone other than the wearer supporting or playing for the Cleveland Indians.

To me it looks like it came right out of a racist cartoon from the 1930s. I really don't see it as benign, honestly.

You don't see it as benign because it isn't benign. Chief Wahoo is indeed offensive. While the intent behind Wahoo may not have been malevolent, to say he's "just silly" is no different than saying these images are "just silly." It's easy for a white guy to sit back and wonder why Native Americans are bothered by Chief Wahoo.

^this.

/endthread.

[Lee.]

Nothing makes me smile more than a bunch of white kids determining what is and isn't racist.

[charger77]

Chief Wahoo isn't racist, he's just silly. There's not enough happening for it to be racially charged. It's just a goofy-looking drawing of an Indian. It doesn't connote anything about anyone other than the wearer supporting or playing for the Cleveland Indians.

To me it looks like it came right out of a racist cartoon from the 1930s. I really don't see it as benign, honestly.

You don't see it as benign because it isn't benign. Chief Wahoo is indeed offensive. While the intent behind Wahoo may not have been malevolent, to say he's "just silly" is no different than saying these images are "just silly." It's easy for a white guy to sit back and wonder why Native Americans are bothered by Chief Wahoo.

I know what you're getting at but I'm not sure if the images you provided are the best example.

True, the Cleveland Indians logo is considered to be offensive to some, even know the consensus here is that it was not intended to be that way.

However, the images you provided were intended to be malicious.

[infrared41]

Nothing makes me smile more than a bunch of white kids determining what is and isn't racist.

Some of us aren't entirely white. Or kids for that matter.

[infrared41]

Chief Wahoo isn't racist, he's just silly. There's not enough happening for it to be racially charged. It's just a goofy-looking drawing of an Indian. It doesn't connote anything about anyone other than the wearer supporting or playing for the Cleveland Indians.

To me it looks like it came right out of a racist cartoon from the 1930s. I really don't see it as benign, honestly.

You don't see it as benign because it isn't benign. Chief Wahoo is indeed offensive. While the intent behind Wahoo may not have been malevolent, to say he's "just silly" is no different than saying these images are "just silly." It's easy for a white guy to sit back and wonder why Native Americans are bothered by Chief Wahoo.

I know what you're getting at but I'm not sure if the images you provided are the best example.

True, the Cleveland Indians logo is considered to be offensive to some, even know the consensus here is that it was not intended to be that way.

However, the images you provided were intended to be malicious.

First off, I said the intent behind wahoo wasn't malevolent. Second, last I checked, Merrie Melodies wasn't in the business of being malicious. With that in mind, I changed the original post and deleted the propaganda pics. The intent behind the Merrie Melodies cartoon wasn't malicious either but my guess is that most African-Americans still find it offensive.

[JQK]

I miss Speedy Gonzales...

[Lee.]

Nothing makes me smile more than a bunch of white kids determining what is and isn't racist.

Some of us aren't entirely white. Or kids for that matter.

Exception to the rule.