Political Correctness

[LMU]

I just don't like any nickname/logo that is stereotypical or offensive. Chief Wahoo and the Redskins name qualifies. Florida State's logo is very noble, which I have no problem with. The Braves nickname is fine as well, but I think the tomahawk chop goes too far. The Chiefs and Blackhawks are also fine, as their logos aren't offensive in the least (except the Blackhawks' play as of late can be quite offensive). Just as long as Native Americans are protrayed as noble and men of strength, I'm fine.

-A member of the Blackfoot tribe.

[MC Buffalo]

your insinuation that the united states is treating all muslims as terrorists is misinformed and lucacris. some islamic charities have shipped money to terrorist hence investigations into some of them, but saying we are treating all muslims as terrorists is honestly one of the most extreme things i've ever heard. yes, some individual citizens may have the ignorant point of view that muslims are all terrorists, but equating that to an official government point of view that all muslims are terrorists is just a rediculous jump.

I never implied that the US government had an official stance that everything islamic=terrorism (though I'm pretty sure that's how Bush & Co. feel "off the record). That was a response to a hysterical post that claimed islam was taking over the western world. That'll never happen given the paranoid climate of this post 9/11 society.

But you and I both know that had these been christian organizations that attacked us, christians would NEVER have to go through what the muslim community has.

MilTown,

I agree that to say the Muslims are on their way to taking over the Western World is a ridiculous statement I must take issue with one thing you said in your post...

But you and I both know that had these been christian organizations that attacked us, christians would NEVER have to go through what the muslim community has.

9/11 was not a one-time thing. The Western World had seen a series of attacks for years from Muslim Groups (and I hate using that term because it's not really a Muslim group as much as it's a Militant Group who claim to do these things as good Muslims) leading up to it. There is plenty of documentation of their Leadership preaching hate towards the West (especially Americans). Leaders like Bin Laden seem to have decided that it's not enough to disagree with how we live our life but necessary to try and destroy us and all we stand for.

If the same sort of attacks had been carried out over the years culminating in a 9/11 type of attack and the attackers were a Christian Group who originated in the Southern USA who flew the Confederate Flag as their banner. And if we had years of stock footage of their leadership screaming that all "other Americans who did not see things the way they did" were dogs who must die, you better believe that a similar attack that killed thousands of people would have a big impact on a large segment of Christians. Many Southerners who now refuse to give up their Confederate Flag would be a little less inclined to fly the Confederate Flag out in public, and there would probably be some repercussions against those that did just like there were repercussions (whether warranted or not) against Muslims after the real 9/11.

I know this example may be convoluted but I hope you understand what I am getting at. If we as Citizens of the USA are told that we don't deserve to live because we have a different belief system than the Muslims, and then they go ahead and follow through with an attack to kill thousands, how does ill will towards the Muslim community NOT happen. It's human nature. Let's also remember that not all the extra scrutiny was without merit. There were some US based groups who supported the Al Queida who were uncovered.

[Saintsfan]

your insinuation that the united states is treating all muslims as terrorists is misinformed and lucacris. some islamic charities have shipped money to terrorist hence investigations into some of them, but saying we are treating all muslims as terrorists is honestly one of the most extreme things i've ever heard. yes, some individual citizens may have the ignorant point of view that muslims are all terrorists, but equating that to an official government point of view that all muslims are terrorists is just a rediculous jump.

I never implied that the US government had an official stance that everything islamic=terrorism (though I'm pretty sure that's how Bush & Co. feel "off the record). That was a response to a hysterical post that claimed islam was taking over the western world. That'll never happen given the paranoid climate of this post 9/11 society.

But you and I both know that had these been christian organizations that attacked us, christians would NEVER have to go through what the muslim community has.

MilTown,

I agree that to say the Muslims are on their way to taking over the Western World is a ridiculous statement I must take issue with one thing you said in your post...

But you and I both know that had these been christian organizations that attacked us, christians would NEVER have to go through what the muslim community has.

9/11 was not a one-time thing. The Western World had seen a series of attacks for years from Muslim Groups (and I hate using that term because it's not really a Muslim group as much as it's a Militant Group who claim to do these things as good Muslims) leading up to it. There is plenty of documentation of their Leadership preaching hate towards the West (especially Americans). Leaders like Bin Laden seem to have decided that it's not enough to disagree with how we live our life but necessary to try and destroy us and all we stand for.

If the same sort of attacks had been carried out over the years culminating in a 9/11 type of attack and the attackers were a Christian Group who originated in the Southern USA who flew the Confederate Flag as their banner. And if we had years of stock footage of their leadership screaming that all "other Americans who did not see things the way they did" were dogs who must die, you better believe that a similar attack that killed thousands of people would have a big impact on a large segment of Christians. Many Southerners who now refuse to give up their Confederate Flag would be a little less inclined to fly the Confederate Flag out in public, and there would probably be some repercussions against those that did just like there were repercussions (whether warranted or not) against Muslims after the real 9/11.

I know this example may be convoluted but I hope you understand what I am getting at. If we as Citizens of the USA are told that we don't deserve to live because we have a different belief system than the Muslims, and then they go ahead and follow through with an attack to kill thousands, how does ill will towards the Muslim community NOT happen. It's human nature. Let's also remember that not all the extra scrutiny was without merit. There were some US based groups who supported the Al Queida who were uncovered.

While I essentially agree with everyuthing said here, I wouldn't say that 'muslim' attacks culminated with 9/11, ask the people of Bali or madrid. At the end of the day, Al Qaeda and the like have shown they are fairly ruthless about there targets.

Anyway, political correctness rocks. there I said it. its why we don't use the term anymore. and the world is better off for it. yes it goes to far sometimes, but then again so does the language of hate and fear and at least PC has its heart in the right place.

[Swiss]

I just don't like any nickname/logo that is stereotypical or offensive. Chief Wahoo and the Redskins name qualifies. Florida State's logo is very noble, which I have no problem with. The Braves nickname is fine as well, but I think the tomahawk chop goes too far. The Chiefs and Blackhawks are also fine, as their logos aren't offensive in the least (except the Blackhawks' play as of late can be quite offensive). Just as long as Native Americans are protrayed as noble and men of strength, I'm fine.

-A member of the Blackfoot tribe.

Yeah, I agree with you. I never saw as offensive the images of Chief Wahoo or those Indian heads in football's logos.

Remember that there is, per example, the caricature of a Irisn man in the logo of the Boston Celtics. Is it offensive or stereotypical? No, and I add the love of the Celtics fans for that logo. Same thing with the "Fightin' Irish" of Notre Dame.

And the NE Patriots? With that logo of theirs, are being insulted the people of 1776? I don't think so.

The Cleveland Indians are called so in honor of a former player of theirs... a Native American. That was in the awful times when Black people were still out of the MLB (The Indians were the second team that supported the full integration putting Larry Doby on the field).

[STL FANATIC]

The team is called the Redskins not because the owners were/are racist, not because that is the exagerated color of an American Indians skin, but because there was a tribe who painted their faces (and maybe bodies) an actual shade of red.

I can't give you any good source to say that my info is right and the other is wrong, but that is how I have always understood it.

[Cyclopsis Joe]

Well, I'm deeply disturbed..

Why do white people get to decide what's offensive or not offensive? If a Native American (Or Indian if your non PC ) is offended..yay for them. If a team wants to change their logo, yay them too.

I happen to be offended at the fact that someone thinks that all Dale Earnhardt fans are white trash.

And I'm offended that someone thinks that a person owning a piece of *cough* American History (Confederate Flag, North America is American, donkey) is an act of treason.

I'm also offended that I have to defend myself. I have a confederate flag, I'm a Dale Earnhardt fan, and I do the Tomohawk chop!

Now, isn't it ironic, that a white, middle-class, American citizen (though not native), is the most offended person IN THIS POST!?

[OnWis97]

I just don't like any nickname/logo that is stereotypical or offensive.  Chief Wahoo and the Redskins name qualifies.  Florida State's logo is very noble, which I have no problem with.  The Braves nickname is fine as well, but I think the tomahawk chop goes too far.  The Chiefs and Blackhawks are also fine, as their logos aren't offensive in the least (except the Blackhawks' play as of late can be quite offensive).  Just as long as Native Americans are protrayed as noble and men of strength, I'm fine.

-A member of the Blackfoot tribe.

I have a sense that your view is not too uncommon. The problem is that I am sure everyone (white, native or otherwise) draws that line in a slightly different place. I would suspect that no expansion/relocated team will ever use a Native American nickname again and many will tone-down there logos (ie the Golden State Warriors, who did use such a logo long ago).

I read a story about it several years ago and there were two particularly alarming high schools. One in Illinois called the Pekin Chinks--they changed their name in the mid-1980s, I think. The town is called Pekin because it is on the same parellel as Peking. They are now called the Dragons. The otehr was in Colorado and they had a Native American mascot. Their name--the Savages. I don't know whether that still lives. If you are not offended by that, then I guess everything is OK to you.

Personally, I am not fond of any of it. I don't think it was originally intended to be offensive (but neither were 1970s cartoon portrayals of Asians and Native Americans). But it is good to hear what some people with Native American backgrounds think. Some of the names (save for Redskins) may not be so bad, but the logos and rituals are worse--Tomohawk Chop, Chief Wahoo or the use of the tomohawk at all by Atlanta.

But I guess it is not for my white @$$ to say what offends Native Americans--particularly on the logos and names that appear to try to be honorable.

[gosioux76]

JoshJ182 and I got a taste of this debate first-hand up at the good 'ol University of North Dakota -- home of the Fighting Sioux.

Back when I was there in the late '90s the debate was roaring again with protesters closing down streets. I ran the student paper there for two years and had a front-row seat to the debate. The Student Senate at the time even voted to change the name, although they had no real power.

I never really felt the name was disrespectful and I personally liked it a lot. But, to straddle the fence here a bit, I always reminded myself if anybody WOULD be upset it would be the Native Americans.

Whether I agreed with them or not, I wasn't about to tell them they can't be offended by something. I can't dictate their feelings, so I've always chosen to respect those people against Native American names in particular.