U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 11-09-2018, 02:18 PM
 
2,438 posts, read 2,154,016 times
Reputation: 2699

Advertisements

For the point of this conversation, I'm setting aside "Redskins" because its use as a racial slur is a different conversation.

I'm hearing (mostly from the far left) that virtually ALL team names related to that culture is racist. But what is so bad about a team named the Chiefs (or something similar). I don't understand why that would be anymore offensive to a Native American than say, the "Cowboys" are to some folks in Wyoming or "Mariners" are to boaters.

I'm genuinely curious what is offensive about this. I would like for someone who does feel they are offensive to explain it to me. Maybe it is super obvious and I'm just missing it, but I just don't get it.

 
Old 11-09-2018, 02:26 PM
 
13,018 posts, read 12,283,742 times
Reputation: 17764
They are not. Having a very small group make such statement does not make the statement true. I imagine I can find a group who thinks the Earth is flat, does not make it true.

Society for some reason gives a lot of weight to a vocal few, sidelining/ignoring the masses who are indifferent and/or do not agree with those few. Look at the new media stories that use Twitter as some sort of source material, three tweets all of a sudden means a lot now in regards to the subject.
 
Old 11-09-2018, 02:36 PM
 
Location: Colorado Springs
19,294 posts, read 9,087,497 times
Reputation: 18650
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveklein View Post
For the point of this conversation, I'm setting aside "Redskins" because its use as a racial slur is a different conversation.

I'm hearing (mostly from the far left) that virtually ALL team names related to that culture is racist. But what is so bad about a team named the Chiefs (or something similar). I don't understand why that would be anymore offensive to a Native American than say, the "Cowboys" are to some folks in Wyoming or "Mariners" are to boaters.

I'm genuinely curious what is offensive about this. I would like for someone who does feel they are offensive to explain it to me. Maybe it is super obvious and I'm just missing it, but I just don't get it.
1. I think you just want to stir things up. But even if not...why ask a bunch of mostly white people whether they think it's offensive. Why not research if and why American Indians think it's offensive?

2. In the example you gave, could it be because Indians don't have red skin?

3. Could it be that the names are selected because a sports team wants to represent itself as going on the warpath? Which is rather stereotypical?
 
Old 11-09-2018, 02:45 PM
 
2,438 posts, read 2,154,016 times
Reputation: 2699
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
1. I think you just want to stir things up. But even if not...why ask a bunch of mostly white people whether they think it's offensive. Why not research if and why American Indians think it's offensive?

2. In the example you gave, could it be because Indians don't have red skin?

3. Could it be that the names are selected because a sports team wants to represent itself as going on the warpath? Which is rather stereotypical?

1. I'm not really trying to "stir things up" but I'm well aware that is going to be an outcome of this thread. So be it. I don't know the demographics of city-data. Also, I didn't realize that someone had to be of a particular race to understand or explain something about that race to someone. I'm not black but I understand why black people wanted slavery to end.

2. Huh? I said we were putting aside "Redskins". The example I gave was "Chiefs"

3. Could it be? I guess. But I was raised Catholic and am not offended by team names like the Saints or Crusaders. In fact, I don't know any Catholic that is. I also have plenty of people who can trace their ancestry to groups of people who were brutalized by Vikings. Yet they aren't clamoring for the professional football squad in Minneapolis to change their mascot.

Still very unclear to me why it's offensive.
 
Old 11-09-2018, 02:57 PM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
1,801 posts, read 673,338 times
Reputation: 3648
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
1. I think you just want to stir things up. But even if not...why ask a bunch of mostly white people whether they think it's offensive. Why not research if and why American Indians think it's offensive?

2. In the example you gave, could it be because Indians don't have red skin?

3. Could it be that the names are selected because a sports team wants to represent itself as going on the warpath? Which is rather stereotypical?
I'm of Italian heritage. Rome was founded by Trojans (in mythology). I don't feel offended that USC, that bastion of liberal thinking, calls themselves Trojans and hasn't suggested that they change their name. It's an honor-- sort of like when Native Americans ate the heart of a vanquished foe as a tribute to his valor.


The Cleveland Naps changed their name to Indians in honor of Indians in general and of an ex-player, Louis Sockalexis , the Major's first Native American player, specifically. To change their name now would be to withdraw that honor.


"Redskins" BTW- does not refer to the color of Native Americans' natural skin, but to the war paint those living near the east coast commonly wore. Again-- a tribute to their strength and bravery. Nobody names a team the Lovebirds, Whimps or Puppies. [Except the Chicago Cubbies. Did I ever mention I was a White Sox fan?]


I think that denying this honor to these people would be be offensive. Haven't you Victims got anything more important to complain about?
 
Old 11-09-2018, 02:57 PM
 
Location: Colorado Springs
19,294 posts, read 9,087,497 times
Reputation: 18650
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveklein View Post
1. I'm not really trying to "stir things up" but I'm well aware that is going to be an outcome of this thread. So be it. I don't know the demographics of city-data. Also, I didn't realize that someone had to be of a particular race to understand or explain something about that race to someone. I'm not black but I understand why black people wanted slavery to end.

2. Huh? I said we were putting aside "Redskins". The example I gave was "Chiefs"

3. Could it be? I guess. But I was raised Catholic and am not offended by team names like the Saints or Crusaders. In fact, I don't know any Catholic that is. I also have plenty of people who can trace their ancestry to groups of people who were brutalized by Vikings. Yet they aren't clamoring for the professional football squad in Minneapolis to change their mascot.

Still very unclear to me why it's offensive.
No. Don't try to manipulate the discussion. The Redskins is an "Indian" team name.

Have you researched why American Indians think it's offensive. Could it be because it has NOTHING to do with anything complimentary?
 
Old 11-09-2018, 03:07 PM
 
2,438 posts, read 2,154,016 times
Reputation: 2699
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
No. Don't try to manipulate the discussion. The Redskins is an "Indian" team name.

Have you researched why American Indians think it's offensive. Could it be because it has NOTHING to do with anything complimentary?
LOL. You are taking straw manning to a whole new level. Like, you know you are doing it and don't even care. Don't manipulate the discussion? You mean don't ask people who are posting in the thread to address the question I posed instead of going off on a tangent?

And actually, I think being called a chief could be quite complimentary. It is a common nickname fathers call their sons. Guess it is in the eye of the beholder.
 
Old 11-09-2018, 03:20 PM
 
Location: Colorado Springs
19,294 posts, read 9,087,497 times
Reputation: 18650
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveklein View Post
LOL. You are taking straw manning to a whole new level. Like, you know you are doing it and don't even care. Don't manipulate the discussion? You mean don't ask people who are posting in the thread to address the question I posed instead of going off on a tangent?

And actually, I think being called a chief could be quite complimentary. It is a common nickname fathers call their sons. Guess it is in the eye of the beholder.
Steve...what did you say in your opening post? First you blamed it on the "left". Then you said, "I'm genuinely curious what is offensive about this". Except that's not why you posted, because if you really wanted to know the reason you could Google it and randomly select a dozen articles to read, and you'd have a good overview of the controversy (and note that I said to randomly select articles).

There's really no mystery to this.

But if you really want to know, here's what a leading group representing many American Indians has to say:

Ending the Era of Harmful
 
Old 11-09-2018, 03:41 PM
 
Location: Madison, Alabama
2,237 posts, read 1,009,378 times
Reputation: 1436
Almost all sports teams that have Indian names use them in a "heroic" sense -- they are very positive and not derogatory at all. I see no problem with such names.

Redskins, however, has always been a perjorative term. It's right up there with the "n-word" in my mind. I can see nothing positive about that name.
 
Old 11-09-2018, 04:16 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
3,540 posts, read 1,209,457 times
Reputation: 4793
When a Native American rings in, this thread might have more value than a strip of bumwad. Used bumwad.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top