The rest of the NFL

Can't get enough of sports even on a development board? Get your fix here. Expect heavy moderation on smack talk.
Post Reply
mean
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 11233
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:00 am
Location: Historic Northeast

Re: The rest of the NFL

Post by mean »

Named Sticky?
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2822
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: The rest of the NFL

Post by phuqueue »

AllThingsKC wrote:There are people offended by these names:

Washington Redskins
Kansas City Chiefs
Cleveland Indians
Atlanta Braves
Florida State Seminoles

All of those teams have been protested against because their names are offensive or potentially offensive. If the government forces the Redskins to change their name, where is the line drawn for acceptable team names?
At overt racism? I mean the government isn't going to "force" anyone to change names anyway but this is a silly question. The line is pretty clear, we aren't sliding down a slippery slope toward abolishing all team names or something.
User avatar
AllThingsKC
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9352
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 10:57 am
Location: Kansas City, Missouri (Downtown)
Contact:

Re: The rest of the NFL

Post by AllThingsKC »

A case could be made that names like "Indians" or "Braves" are just as racist as "Redskins." The name "Redskins" has negative racist views associated with it. The name "Braves" has positive racist views associated with it. In other words, it's like saying:

"All Hispanics are liars."- or - "All Hispanics can be trusted." By singling out Hispanics, both are racist statements. One is negative and one is positive.

So, while I don't believe the gov't will force anyone to change their names, it's kind of silly to only focus on the "Redskins" (because it appears to have a negative meaning) and ignore "Indians," "Braves," or "Chiefs" as names that could be viewed just as racist (in a positive way).

Therefore, if the gov't were to legislate something like this, they'd have to define which names violate whatever "feel-good law" they wish to pass. Again, I highly doubt the gov't will actually go through with something like that. But, the fact Congress is already merely discussing this might show another gov't over-reach of power could be in our future. In my opinion, that would just as stupid as Congress getting involved in the college football playoff system (which they did).

Of course, the Chiefs/Indians/Braves have been protested against for having their names viewed as racist in negative ways, so there's that angle too.
User avatar
AllThingsKC
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9352
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 10:57 am
Location: Kansas City, Missouri (Downtown)
Contact:

Re: The rest of the NFL

Post by AllThingsKC »

Image

Image

Image

Image

If Congress were to legislate this, how exactly would they determine which ones are offensive/racist and which ones were not?
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2822
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: The rest of the NFL

Post by phuqueue »

I haven't read that Congress was "discussing" legislation -- even the link you posted only says that ten members of Congress sent a letter urging the team to change its name.

Re: Indians and Braves, I guess I misunderstood you or you misunderstood me or both. I do think all those names are racist and should be changed (or at the very least can we please do away with the tomahawk chop?). I guess your "where is the line" question meant where is it between Washington and Cleveland or Atlanta (or KC or Florida or Chicago), and my answer would be that all those teams are beyond it. This is not even a remotely murky issue. I can respect that the Chiefs were actually named in honor of Bartle, but adopting Indian imagery to go with the name was a mistake.

I disagree with bobbyhawks' comparison of the Fighting Irish or the Celtics, cases in which white people have adopted their own culture for use as an athletic mascot (I mean the Fighting Irish represent a Catholic university and the Celtics play in a famously Irish city), which is not the same thing as white people appropriating caricatures of cultures they've brutally subjugated. The Fighting Irish and the Celtics were adopted out of pride for their own culture, but the Florida State Seminoles are not operated by the actual Seminole nation.
User avatar
KCMax
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 24051
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 3:31 pm
Location: The basement of a Ross Dress for Less
Contact:

Re: The rest of the NFL

Post by KCMax »

AllThingsKC wrote:A case could be made that names like "Indians" or "Braves" are just as racist as "Redskins." The name "Redskins" has negative racist views associated with it. The name "Braves" has positive racist views associated with it. In other words, it's like saying:

"All Hispanics are liars."- or - "All Hispanics can be trusted." By singling out Hispanics, both are racist statements. One is negative and one is positive.

So, while I don't believe the gov't will force anyone to change their names, it's kind of silly to only focus on the "Redskins" (because it appears to have a negative meaning) and ignore "Indians," "Braves," or "Chiefs" as names that could be viewed just as racist (in a positive way).

Therefore, if the gov't were to legislate something like this, they'd have to define which names violate whatever "feel-good law" they wish to pass. Again, I highly doubt the gov't will actually go through with something like that. But, the fact Congress is already merely discussing this might show another gov't over-reach of power could be in our future. In my opinion, that would just as stupid as Congress getting involved in the college football playoff system (which they did).

Of course, the Chiefs/Indians/Braves have been protested against for having their names viewed as racist in negative ways, so there's that angle too.
You could make that case, but it would only be as an argument to overly define the problem to water it down. You could just as easily go the other way and say if Redskins is not offensive, then NOTHING is offensive, therefore you support a team being called the New York N*ggers.

Redskins is a ridiculously antiquated racist name. Braves and Chiefs and Seminoles and Indians are not. The Indians caricatured logo is ridiculous racist as well. I think its silly for Congress to get involved, but both teams should feel pressure from the public to change.
shinatoo
Ambassador
Posts: 7393
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:20 pm

Re: The rest of the NFL

Post by shinatoo »

If the majority of the Native American tribal counsels find the name racist and offensive then it's racist and offensive. It's a pretty easy line to draw. The same could be said for the Irish or the Vikings. No one would dream of starting a new NFL franchise and calling them the anything close to the equivalent of the Redskins.

I don't know if congress needs to make a law. What it's going to take is someone being drafted by the Redskins and suing the NFL for creating a hostile work environment. You might even be able to make a case for having to play against the Redskins.

Aside: the Redskins we're named to capitalize on the novelty of Lone Star Dietz, the team's coach, and an Navtive American (disputed) who often wore an eagle feather headdress, beaded deerskin jacket and buckskin moccasins. Dietz brought four to six -- accounts vary -- Indian players with him to Boston from the Haskell Indian School in Kansas, where he had coached for four years.
User avatar
AllThingsKC
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9352
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 10:57 am
Location: Kansas City, Missouri (Downtown)
Contact:

Re: The rest of the NFL

Post by AllThingsKC »

phuqueue wrote:I haven't read that Congress was "discussing" legislation -- even the link you posted only says that ten members of Congress sent a letter urging the team to change its name.
This is right. But, what business is it of theirs anyway?
KCMax wrote:You could just as easily go the other way and say if Redskins is not offensive, then NOTHING is offensive, therefore you support a team being called the New York N*ggers.
I'm not so sure about that. If the case can be made that Redskins are not offensive, then probably none of the Native American-themed teams are offensive since it appears most people here think Chiefs/Indians/Braves are not nearly as offensive as the Redskins.

Also, if someone were to make that a solid argument, I don't think it would automatically mean people would be ok with a team being called the "New York N*ggers." That's because different words have slightly different meanings, some meanings being strong than others. I would submit to you that the "N" word is used in a much more offensive way today than the word, "Redskins." Though both are racial slurs, I think one has a stronger meaning than the other.
KCMax wrote:Redskins is a ridiculously antiquated racist name. Braves and Chiefs and Seminoles and Indians are not.
But over the past several decades, all of those teams have been protested against for being offensive and/or racist. So, why focus solely on the Redskins?
shinatoo wrote:If the majority of the Native American tribal counsels find the name racist and offensive then it's racist and offensive. It's a pretty easy line to draw.
What if only 50% of the Native American tribal counsels find the name racist or offensive?

What if the majority of the Native American tribal counsels don't have problem with the name, but the majority of other groups do?

What if the majority of the Native American tribal counsels have a problem with the name, but they're in minority since most people likely wouldn't have a problem with the name?

What if I do not like green eggs and ham?
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2822
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: The rest of the NFL

Post by phuqueue »

AllThingsKC wrote:
phuqueue wrote:I haven't read that Congress was "discussing" legislation -- even the link you posted only says that ten members of Congress sent a letter urging the team to change its name.
This is right. But, what business is it of theirs anyway?
Because they're influential public figures working and, at least some of the time, living in the city that hosts the team, who recognize that something is wrong here and want to fix it? If it was just ten DC residents, or even ten football fans from wherever, you wouldn't ask what business it is of theirs. Just because they're members of Congress doesn't mean they've forfeited the right to voice their opinions on non-governmental matters.
KCMax wrote:You could just as easily go the other way and say if Redskins is not offensive, then NOTHING is offensive, therefore you support a team being called the New York N*ggers.
I'm not so sure about that. If the case can be made that Redskins are not offensive, then probably none of the Native American-themed teams are offensive since it appears most people here think Chiefs/Indians/Braves are not nearly as offensive as the Redskins.

Also, if someone were to make that a solid argument, I don't think it would automatically mean people would be ok with a team being called the "New York N*ggers." That's because different words have slightly different meanings, some meanings being strong than others. I would submit to you that the "N" word is used in a much more offensive way today than the word, "Redskins." Though both are racial slurs, I think one has a stronger meaning than the other.
I don't put much stock in which racial slurs white people think are more offensive than others.
KCMax wrote:Redskins is a ridiculously antiquated racist name. Braves and Chiefs and Seminoles and Indians are not.
But over the past several decades, all of those teams have been protested against for being offensive and/or racist. So, why focus solely on the Redskins?
I already said they should all be changed, so personally I wouldn't focus on just them, but it's not that tough a case to make anyway: one is an outright racial slur and the others are just words that are being used in an inappropriate context.
shinatoo wrote:If the majority of the Native American tribal counsels find the name racist and offensive then it's racist and offensive. It's a pretty easy line to draw.
What if only 50% of the Native American tribal counsels find the name racist or offensive?

What if the majority of the Native American tribal counsels don't have problem with the name, but the majority of other groups do?

What if the majority of the Native American tribal counsels have a problem with the name, but they're in minority since most people likely wouldn't have a problem with the name?

What if I do not like green eggs and ham?
You're trying to make this far more complicated than it actually is, and I don't really understand why.
bobbyhawks
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3890
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:19 pm

Re: The rest of the NFL

Post by bobbyhawks »

The argument that it is too difficult to draw a line is the same one used against any and all gun control legislation. I don't know how things that are "hard to figure out" became things we shouldn't try to figure out. We aren't even close to a grey area yet when Chief Wahoo and the "Redskins" name still exist. Those are pretty easy to decipher as a problem.
User avatar
AllThingsKC
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9352
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 10:57 am
Location: Kansas City, Missouri (Downtown)
Contact:

Re: The rest of the NFL

Post by AllThingsKC »

phuqueue wrote:If it was just ten DC residents, or even ten football fans from wherever, you wouldn't ask what business it is of theirs.
Right. Because those would be private citizens. They do not have the same influence nor the authority as 10 members of Congress.
phuqueue wrote:Just because they're members of Congress doesn't mean they've forfeited the right to voice their opinions on non-governmental matters.
By members of Congress getting involved, they are making it a governmental matter.
phuqueue wrote:I don't put much stock in which racial slurs white people think are more offensive than others.
Which is a racist thing to say.
phuqueue wrote:I already said they should all be changed, so personally I wouldn't focus on just them, but it's not that tough a case to make anyway: one is an outright racial slur and the others are just words that are being used in an inappropriate context.
I agree with this.
User avatar
AllThingsKC
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9352
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 10:57 am
Location: Kansas City, Missouri (Downtown)
Contact:

Re: The rest of the NFL

Post by AllThingsKC »

bobbyhawks wrote: We aren't even close to a grey area yet when Chief Wahoo and the "Redskins" name still exist. Those are pretty easy to decipher as a problem.
I don't think the issue is as black and white as that. 8-[
shinatoo
Ambassador
Posts: 7393
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:20 pm

Re: The rest of the NFL

Post by shinatoo »

AllThingsKC wrote:
bobbyhawks wrote: We aren't even close to a grey area yet when Chief Wahoo and the "Redskins" name still exist. Those are pretty easy to decipher as a problem.
I don't think the issue is as black and white as that. 8-[
So now you have a problem with whites too!

But in all seriousness it seams like you are just wanting to argue because your are taking every argument to some hyperbolic extreme. I have made my point and I stand by it. Reasonable people have to make reasonable choices based on the factors of the time they live in. Times have changed and they will continue to change. The line will keep moving and some people, who don't want to change, will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
User avatar
KCMax
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 24051
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 3:31 pm
Location: The basement of a Ross Dress for Less
Contact:

Re: The rest of the NFL

Post by KCMax »

I'm not so sure about that. If the case can be made that Redskins are not offensive, then probably none of the Native American-themed teams are offensive since it appears most people here think Chiefs/Indians/Braves are not nearly as offensive as the Redskins.
But that's not what you're arguing. You're saying "if you think Redskins is offensive, then you have to think Chiefs and Braves and Indians are offensive too!" But you don't. You can say "Redskins is offensive because it goes beyond the pale as an offensive term, whereas Braves and Indians and Chiefs are quite a bit more ambiguous." Lumping them all together just distorts the issue. The only question really is "is Redskins offensive" and I think the answer is hands down - yes.
Also, if someone were to make that a solid argument, I don't think it would automatically mean people would be ok with a team being called the "New York N*ggers." That's because different words have slightly different meanings, some meanings being strong than others. I would submit to you that the "N" word is used in a much more offensive way today than the word, "Redskins." Though both are racial slurs, I think one has a stronger meaning than the other.
I agree, which is why I think "Redskins" is much stronger and offensive than "Indians", "Chiefs" or "Braves."
pash
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3800
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 2:47 am

Re: The rest of the NFL

Post by pash »

.
Last edited by pash on Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
AllThingsKC
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9352
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 10:57 am
Location: Kansas City, Missouri (Downtown)
Contact:

Re: The rest of the NFL

Post by AllThingsKC »

KCMax wrote: But that's not what you're arguing. You're saying "if you think Redskins is offensive, then you have to think Chiefs and Braves and Indians are offensive too!"
That's not exactly what I'm trying to say. I don't mean to suggest that, "If you have a problem with Redskins, you should have a problem with Native American-themed names."

I agree with you that "Redskins" is by far the much more offensive name. Not denying that at all. But, people haven't only protested the Redskins. They've protested teams with much less offensive names. If Google is any indication (and I'm aware that it's far from scientific), it would appear more people are upset with the Cleveland Indians logo than the name, "Redskins."
KCMax wrote:I agree, which is why I think "Redskins" is much stronger and offensive than "Indians", "Chiefs" or "Braves."
Right on. But, all those teams have been protested against.
User avatar
KCMax
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 24051
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 3:31 pm
Location: The basement of a Ross Dress for Less
Contact:

Re: The rest of the NFL

Post by KCMax »

AllThingsKC wrote:
KCMax wrote: But that's not what you're arguing. You're saying "if you think Redskins is offensive, then you have to think Chiefs and Braves and Indians are offensive too!"
That's not exactly what I'm trying to say. I don't mean to suggest that, "If you have a problem with Redskins, you should have a problem with Native American-themed names."

I agree with you that "Redskins" is by far the much more offensive name. Not denying that at all. But, people haven't only protested the Redskins. They've protested teams with much less offensive names. If Google is any indication (and I'm aware that it's far from scientific), it would appear more people are upset with the Cleveland Indians logo than the name, "Redskins."
KCMax wrote:I agree, which is why I think "Redskins" is much stronger and offensive than "Indians", "Chiefs" or "Braves."
Right on. But, all those teams have been protested against.
I'm not arguing the standard should be "who has been protested against." The standard should be "what is ridiculously racist"?
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2822
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: The rest of the NFL

Post by phuqueue »

AllThingsKC wrote:
phuqueue wrote:If it was just ten DC residents, or even ten football fans from wherever, you wouldn't ask what business it is of theirs.
Right. Because those would be private citizens. They do not have the same influence nor the authority as 10 members of Congress.
phuqueue wrote:Just because they're members of Congress doesn't mean they've forfeited the right to voice their opinions on non-governmental matters.
By members of Congress getting involved, they are making it a governmental matter.
So when John Boehner buys a sandwich it's a government matter?
phuqueue wrote:I don't put much stock in which racial slurs white people think are more offensive than others.
Which is a racist thing to say.
No it isn't. White people can conceptualize racism in the abstract but I doubt very many can understand the actual experience of it. Even in countries where white people are a minority, they don't experience the kind of institutionalized discrimination they've imposed on other races over the centuries; even when they're a fairly small minority they often still impose such discrimination on others (eg South African apartheid). I say this as just about the whitest person you will ever meet. There is no scale on which you can determine that one racial slur is "worse" than another, particularly when they target different groups of people. It's condescending (to put it as politely as possible) for one who will never be the victim of racism himself to decide which slur is more offensive to members of the target groups.
No one involved with the Redskins or Indians organizations seems to think their names or logos are racist, and I imagine most of their fans are fine with them as well. I don't think they're malicious or denegrating; on the contrary, I think it's pretty obvious that these orfanizations have co-opted Indian imagery for its associations with laudable qualities like bravery and skill and the warrior spirit.

And then there are people like you who think people like me are bigots. So the ground looks pretty gray.
It doesn't matter what the organization thinks, or what the fans think. Southern governments thought Jim Crow was fine, and so did most white Southerners. It's a racial slur. They've coopted Indian imagery for its associations with a demeaning caricature that they are helping to perpetuate. Racism is racism. It's not gray, but you can tell yourself that it is if it makes you feel better.
User avatar
AllThingsKC
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9352
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 10:57 am
Location: Kansas City, Missouri (Downtown)
Contact:

Re: The rest of the NFL

Post by AllThingsKC »

phuqueue wrote:So when John Boehner buys a sandwich it's a government matter?
Well, let's see: Is he and teaming-up with other members of Congress and sending a letter to the sandwich maker suggesting they change the name of their sandwiches? Or is he merely buying a sandwich?

Are members of Congress merely buying tickets to Redskins games or they sending a letter to the Redskins asking them to change their name?
phuqueue wrote: No it isn't. White people can conceptualize racism in the abstract but I doubt very many can understand the actual experience of it. Even in countries where white people are a minority, they don't experience the kind of institutionalized discrimination they've imposed on other races over the centuries; even when they're a fairly small minority they often still impose such discrimination on others (eg South African apartheid). I say this as just about the whitest person you will ever meet. There is no scale on which you can determine that one racial slur is "worse" than another, particularly when they target different groups of people. It's condescending (to put it as politely as possible) for one who will never be the victim of racism himself to decide which slur is more offensive to members of the target groups.
I respectfully disagree. And we're not likely to make each other change our minds. But, I did want to clarify that I wasn't trying to suggest that the "N" carries more weight than the word, "Redskins." They are both racial slurs meant for 2 different races. I can't speak to their level of offensiveness among those races. But, based on my own personal experience, the "N" word seems to be used more than the word, "Redskins." In fact, I have never heard anyone call a Native American a "redskin" (not saying people don't use that word). But, people and media seem to be more hung up with the use of the "N" word (which, in my invalid opinion, is probably more likely to be heard in America). But, I wasn't trying to downplay the significance of either word, just trying to evaluate which one you'd be more likely to hear if you're walking down a street.
bobbyhawks
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3890
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:19 pm

Re: The rest of the NFL

Post by bobbyhawks »

I guess that means throwback slurs are perfectly acceptable.
Post Reply