Time to End Offensive Sports Mascots – Down with Notre Dame! [Reader Post]

Loading

redskins

Hola, amigos. It’s been a while but between my busy season at work and the time that goes into raising Baby Bob my blogging time took a major hit. Over the summer I blogged about the “controversy” regarding the team mascot for the NFL’s Washington Redskins. I put the word controversy in quotes, because outside of a handful of leftists in the media and the Permanent Victimhood Industry nobody really cares about this issue. No wait, I was wrong. After I started writing this post NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell weighed in:

”If we are offending one person, we need to be listening,” Goodell said Wednesday in an interview with 106.7 The Fan, ”and making sure that we’re doing the right things to try to address that.”

Actually Roger, if you give in to one demand of these parasites they’ll be back next week with two more. And then next week with five more. I’m hoping that he’s smart enough to only be throwing this out as a PR stunt to placate some fools, but we’ll see. So with the serious issues facing us today you may be wondering why I would choose to write about such a minor story. Twice. Like other posts I’ve written there’s more beneath the surface. One of the hazards of blogging is that if you procrastinate too long on a good topic somebody smarter than you writes on it. This almost happened when National Review’s Andrew Johnson wrote about other potentially offensive mascots, but luckily he stopped short of the point I was looking to make. He points out other mascots that could offend some because of how they cater to stereotypes – warriors of northern European descent, hillbillies, criminals (Hitmen, Pirates), and of course, the Notre Dame Fighting Irish.

If you haven’t already click on Johnson’s link and scroll through – he provides images of the logos or pictures  for each of these offensive mascots. Do you notice a common thread, or more specifically, what’s missing from them? None of them are part of the leftist trans-race-ethncity-gender victimhood cottage industry. You don’t see kooky Irish Studies professors throwing out anti-American bile from the protection of their tenure, you won’t find “Hillbilly Sensitivity Training” being forced onto a public figure who makes an obnoxious remark about a character on Duck Dynasty, nor will you ever have to endure rants by some self righteous sportscasters about why the Hitmen are a mascot of a different era and need to go. Why is that?

A problem in this country goes to our abandoning the “Melting Pot” principle of us accepting people of any culture who wanted to eventually become Americans to the “Salad Bowl” of retaining your old identity over accepting a new one as an American. Even worse, what we have been seeing since the 60’s has been the left’s efforts to divide and maintain certain groups in a state of permanent victimhood. We saw this silo mentality on full display in the 2012 Presidential election when people who would otherwise be considered intelligent ignored every major issue where the president has failed and instead voted on whatever petty grievances were targeted at them in President Obama’s successful “divide and hate” campaign.

And of course, there are the Native American Indians. While it’s hard not to feel some sympathy for them, conquered people have existed since the start of time, and the Indians weren’t exactly pacifists prior to the arrival of the Europeans. Unfortunately, our efforts to help the Indians have trapped them in a cycle of poverty rather than allow them to grow into part of American society while still beiong able to retain their heritage as other Americans have. At the end of the day, the Redskins name isn’t about being offensive – it’s about the fact that there are people who can make money off of maintaining a class of victims.

Going back to Roger Goodell’s comment, would it be too much to ask that he take into consideration at how offended I am that we have to listen to these nimrods?

Cross posted from Brother Bob’s Blog

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
30 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Ha! Being a minute part Irish, working in Ireland, and having many Irish friends, allows me to sound off with at least a bare minimum of authority: the Irish aren’t likely to take offens at being called ” Fighting Irish”, in fact, you might have more fight than you want by accusing them of not being the fighting type, especially after a couple pints of Guiness.

BB, there are better fights to fight than trying to antagonize Irish men. Remember, God gave them whiskey so they wouldn’t rule the world.

Yes, there are potential victims who relish being victims, the Paddies will just as soon bounce an overhand right off your ear for suggesting they are not the fighting Irish.

You’re comparing Redskins to Irish? Brilliant.

This is a stupid argument. No need to change anything!!

Why would anyone want to name their team after a group of people known for losing even if it does accurate describe the team.

If Goodale is really serious, they can get rid of the racist Browns, the devilish Saints, the non-existent Phoenix Cardinals, the carbon spewing Jets and the tea party Patriots. There is enough for almost every team to offend somebody.

If you really need the sarc tag, you should stop reading posts on the Internet.

I caught a late night Red Eye when they talked about this subject.
Of course, it’s absurd.
But the female guest had a suggestion:
Change the name from ”the Red Skins,” to ”the Redkins,” out of respect for the fabulous hair and beards of the players.

There have been polls of native Americans are perfectly fine with team names such as “the Redskins”

A 2002 Sports Illustrated survey reports:

Asked if they were offended by the name Redskins, 75% of Native American respondents in SI’s poll said they were not, and even on reservations, where Native American culture and influence are perhaps felt most intensely, 62% said they weren’t offended. Overall, 69% of Native American respondents — and 57% of those living on reservations — feel it’s O.K. for the Washington Redskins to continue using the name. “I like the name Redskins,” says Mark Timentwa, 50, a member of the Colville Confederated Tribes in Washington State who lives on the tribes’ reservation. “A few elders find it offensive, but my mother loves the Redskins.”

I think that this is simply yet another “Astroturf” invented outrage issue by the far left in their never ending goal to claim we are all racists.

Come to think of it, why is it when they ask of one’s racial background, that they even have the “Hispanic” subset as a race separate from “Caucasian” when the Spanish were also considered to be of European Caucasian descent? Where are the racial check blocks for Celtic, Saxons, Frankish, Germanic, Mongolians, Nordics, Jewish (etc..) racial subsets? Why are all those of presumed European descent called “Caucasians” when there is no proof that all their ancestors came from the Caucasus Mountains?

@Ditto:

I think that this is simply yet another “Astroturf” invented outrage issue by the far left in their never ending goal to claim we are all racists.

*Note: not directed totally at you Ditto, but to the general conversation
Maybe some of it. But there are people out there that find the name truly offensive. I find it offensive, but I’m not asking anyone to ban the team or make them change their name. I’ll never buy their merchandise or watch their games. The only part that gets me is people telling me I shouldn’t be offended. And just to set the record straight, Native Americans are not one people. There are many tribes with many different customs. What some may find offensive, may not offend others.
And seriously, don’t compare Fighting Irish to Redskins. This is from the Notre Dame website:

The most generally accepted explanation is that the press coined the nickname as a characterization of Notre Dame athletic teams, their never-say-die fighting spirit and the Irish qualities of grit, determination and tenacity.

While there are many theories on the origins of the term Redskin (some even claiming it was coined by Indians), one of the most compelling is from A Mohawks Perspective on Redskins:

The use of “redskins” was among the worse of these labels. That word originally referred to the Beothuks of Newfoundland, a peaceful people who colored their skin with red ochre as adornment and to keep the mosquitoes at bay. Their passivity was mistaken for weakness and after the waves of European diseases killed most of them those who survived were hunted and murdered for sport. By 1830 they were extinct. One of the reprehensible tactics was to remove the skins of the Beothuks and use them as covers for books and as leggings for the hunters.

@Aqua:

Maybe some of it. But there are people out there that find the name truly offensive. I find it offensive, but I’m not asking anyone to ban the team or make them change their name.

It is impossible to go through life without offending someone, and some go out of their way to be offended where no intent to offend exists. While there are certainly some words that are without question insulting, there are degrees that should also be considered. Native Americans historically used the term “redskin” as well as “paleface” be cause they were generally descriptive. “Black” is such a descriptive word that is generally accepted for use. It is the individual who for themselves decides whether the word is merely descriptive or an insult. Now certainly, depending on context, either word could be used in a manner to display contempt, but many other innocuous words could be used contemptuously. It is the person displaying the contempt that is being offensive. Frankly I don’t see any intent whatsoever here to imply insult.

I suppose if it is desired, we can all simply decide to find insult with every nearly every niggling little word or term someone happens to say and and scream at them, take them to court, or violently react to it. Politically correctness can be taken to ridiculous extreme. Perhaps when the next African-American calls a Caucasian a cracker, whites should take offense to justify “going postal” on the offender, or a Jew can get in the face of someone who says the word “Jew” with the wrong infliction. Maybe those of Irish heritage should take offense at non-Irish who wear “kiss me I’m Irish” t-shirts. Christians could adopt the practice of Jihad to finally end their persecution by the anti-christian crowd. There’s also the extreme possibility that we all decide “screw it,” get offended at everything and just nuke the whole damn planet. Or maybe we could all quit being such a bunch of whiny babies.

@Aqua:

Maybe some of it. But there are people out there that find the name truly offensive. I find it offensive, but I’m not asking anyone to ban the team or make them change their name. I’ll never buy their merchandise or watch their games. The only part that gets me is people telling me I shouldn’t be offended. And just to set the record straight, Native Americans are not one people. There are many tribes with many different customs.

Now let me pluck out this one sentence:

And just to set the record straight, Native Americans are not one people.

That’s right, I am not related to any “indian tribe or descent, that I’m aware of” but I’m certainly a Native American. I was born in the state of Georgia and neither my mother or father were Indians but they were Native Americans, both having been born in the state of Georgia.
Definition of Native: 1.being the place or environment in which a person was born or a thing came into being: one’s native land.
2.belonging to a person by birth or to a thing by nature; inherent: native ability; native grace.

I will accept that there may/are different and additional definitions of the word Native, but those two serve my purpose well. There is not an Indian alive today that was here before the Europeans came to this country. If they were born here, they are ‘native’, exactly the same as I am. I find it offensive that some people want to infer special status on someone just because their ancestors were here 300 years ago, when in my opinion that actually gives them an advantage because they had it all to begin with and squandered it all by not protecting their rights and forcing the immigrants to live by their laws rather than make up a whole new set of laws that put them on reservations.
But while we’re all getting on our ‘high horse’ because of certain names or groups, remember that that new set of laws gives us rights to be offended and to be able to offend someone. If someone doesn’t like the name Redskins, then don’t like them, but don’t try to step on someone else’s right to name their team anything they want to name it. I’m partly of Irish descent, but I find no offense in the name “Fightin Irish” anymore than I do ‘Redskins” or “Braves” or “Seminoles”, etc. So, if someone wants to name their team the “Tumblin Tumblebugs” then let them name it that. Who cares?
I have no problem with anyone being “offended” by anything they want to be “offended” by, but when they find out that the person that owns a team has every right to name it whatever they want to name it, then just accept that those person has the right to be ‘offended’ by you being ‘offended’. So just remember that what you are offended by may be the same thing that someone else has the right to have, such as a name such as “Redskins”.

@Ditto: Hey!

Politically correctness can be taken to ridiculous extreme. Perhaps when the next African-American calls a Caucasian a cracker,

I’m a white guy that was born and grew up in the state of Georgia and I always thought being called a “Georgia Cracker” was an endearing term. I never knew it was supposed to be an insult. Will wonders never cease?

cracker

Ads
Repossession Insurance http://www.atiginc.com/ Includes Wrongful Repo, Drive Away & Direct Primary Garage Keepers
Cracker http://www.ask.com/Cracker Search for Cracker Find Great Results on Ask.com!
crack·er
[krak-er] Show IPA
noun
1.
a thin, crisp biscuit.
2.
a firecracker.
3.
Also called cracker bonbon. a small paper roll used as a party favor, that usually contains candy, trinkets, etc., and that pops when pulled sharply at one or both ends.
4.
( initial capital letter ) Sometimes Disparaging and Offensive. a native or inhabitant of Georgia (used as a nickname).
5.
Slang: Disparaging and Offensive. a poor white person living in some rural parts of the southeastern U.S.
Relevant Questions
What Is A Cracker?
What Does Cracker Mean?
How To Make Christmas Cr…
What Is Cracker Meal?
Who Invented The Christm…
Why Are They Called Oyst…
adjective
10.
crackers, Informal. wild; crazy: They went crackers over the new styles.
Origin:
1400–50; late Middle English craker. See crack, -er1 ; (defs 4–5) perhaps orig. in sense “braggart,” applied to frontiersmen of the southern American colonies in the 1760s, though subsequently given other interpretations (cf. corn-cracker); for crackers crazy, cf. cracked, -ers

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cracker?s=t

Hmmm, I didn’t know it was initially directed just at persons from the state of Georgia, very interesting.

@Redteam:

But while we’re all getting on our ‘high horse’ because of certain names or groups, remember that that new set of laws gives us rights to be offended and to be able to offend someone.

I’m getting offended at all these people who are getting all offended. I hope that doesn’t offend anyone.

…I will accept that there may/are different and additional definitions of the word Native, but those two serve my purpose well. There is not an Indian alive today that was here before the Europeans came to this country. If they were born here, they are ‘native’, exactly the same as I am…

I’ve thought about that also. If scientists are to be believed, those that have been referred to as “native Americans” are also immigrants, having crossed over the Russia-Alaskan land bridge many millennium ago. perhaps “Original Migratory Residents” or “First Immigrants” would be a more correct term.

I’m a white guy that was born and grew up in the state of Georgia and I always thought being called a “Georgia Cracker” was an endearing term.

I’d forgot about the term Georgia Cracker”. I’m not sure where that fits in with the derogatory use, or even if it does. The state nickname I’m still stumped about is “Hoosier”. If you are a male parent in Indiana that would make you a “Hoosier Daddy”. I expect at any time that the easily offended politically correct will soon demand that the “Hoosier State” change the name of the state, because someone from India might be somehow be offended.

@Ditto:

“Hoosier Daddy”.

That could be offensive, but don’t be offended if I’m offended. Right it would seem strange for a Daddy to look at his son and say “Hoosier Daddy”, wouldn’t it?

I’m getting offended at all these people who are getting all offended. I hope that doesn’t offend anyone.

Just remember that they have a ‘right’ to be offended.

@Redteam:

Right it would seem strange for a Daddy to look at his son and say “Hoosier Daddy”, wouldn’t it?

Not if it were a self declaration and the father pointed to himself.

Just remember that they have a ‘right’ to be offended.

Just so, and the 1st Amendment recognizes the right for people to express, even if what they express could possibly be construed to be “offensive” by someone, that does not indicate in of itself that there was such intent by the one who expressed it unless there can be no other interpretation. I think that the too easily offended need to be told to get over it. on the other hand, none of the above “offensive” terms that the leftists declare as “offensive” comes anywhere close to the clear offensiveness behind the slang term “teabagger” that the far-left continuously, maliciously bestows on TEA Party protestors.

@Redteam:

That’s right, I am not related to any “indian tribe or descent, that I’m aware of” but I’m certainly a Native American. I was born in the state of Georgia and neither my mother or father were Indians but they were Native Americans, both having been born in the state of Georgia.

You know very well Native American in the way I used it was in the context of Aboriginal people.

But while we’re all getting on our ‘high horse’ because of certain names or groups, remember that that new set of laws gives us rights to be offended and to be able to offend someone. If someone doesn’t like the name Redskins, then don’t like them, but don’t try to step on someone else’s right to name their team anything they want to name it.

Did you read this part of my post?

I find it offensive, but I’m not asking anyone to ban the team or make them change their name. I’ll never buy their merchandise or watch their games. The only part that gets me is people telling me I shouldn’t be offended.

No huh? I don’t care what they name their team. But you nor anyone else has the right to tell me what does and does not offend me. And you wouldn’t call me a redskin to my face twice.

@Aqua: Yes, Aqua,

You know very well Native American in the way I used it was in the context of Aboriginal people.

I understood that you were using the term selectively, but my point is that selective use excludes persons that should not be excluded. But to do so implies authority to speak for someone that doesn’t desire or need anyone to speak for them. As in, “native Americans are offended by the use of the word, Redskins’ (I’m not quoting you, I’m quoting myself) implies that I, being a Native American, am offended by the use of the word Redskins, when, in fact, I’m not. Now I’m not a Native American if the term only applies to aboriginal or “Indians”, but as we both know, the term ‘aboriginal’ more implies(as commonly used) native persons of Australia, and “indian’ implies someone from India. But in my opinion, the persons generally referred to as Indians only got here some years before my ancestors (alright, maybe thousands of years) but they all came here from somewhere else.

No huh? I don’t care what they name their team. But you nor anyone else has the right to tell me what does and does not offend me. And you wouldn’t call me a redskin to my face twice.

Maybe I’m missing something here. Why would anyone call you a redskin any number of times? I think I made it clear that everyone in this country has the right to be offended by anything they want to be offended by. What I don’t think you have the right to do is ‘speak for me’ without my permission and as I’m a Native American, as I stated, you don’t have the right to say Native Americans other than you are offended by the use of some name.
Just curious, is it okay for Indians to refer to others as ‘paleface’?

@Redteam:

the term ‘aboriginal’ more implies(as commonly used) native persons of Australia

True, I should have used the term indigenous. Frankly, I prefer the term American Indian, but that’s just me and I’m only half.

some years before my ancestors (alright, maybe thousands of years) but they all came here from somewhere else.

Many thousands of years. In some estimates as many 12 thousand. In almost every tribal religion, the American Indians claim to have always been here.

I don’t think you have the right to do is ‘speak for me’ without my permission and as I’m a Native American, as I stated, you don’t have the right to say Native Americans other than you are offended by the use of some name.

Don’t recall once speaking for all Native Americans, American Indians, or indigenous people, only for myself.

Just curious, is it okay for Indians to refer to others as ‘paleface’?

Since the only place you could trace the origin of this term is back to old western movies, no. There is no evidence whatsoever that American Indians used this term except on the movie screen and TV.

@Aqua:

Many thousands of years. In some estimates as many 12 thousand. In almost every tribal religion, the American Indians claim to have always been here.

Mostly true, I’d guess. I know ‘I”ve always been here’ and that is the extent of my existence, same as theirs.

Don’t recall once speaking for all Native Americans, American Indians, or indigenous people, only for myself.

True, I guess but you did say:

Maybe some of it. But there are people out there that find the name truly offensive.

Which seemed to me when I read it that you were referring to Native Americans finding it truly offensive. Sorry if I interpreted incorrectly.

Since the only place you could trace the origin of this term is back to old western movies, no. There is no evidence whatsoever that American Indians used this term except on the movie screen and TV.

I will agree that’s the only place I’ve seen the term used.

@Brother Bob: I agree with that generalization. That seems to also be true about many controversial subjects. That’s how race baiters such as Jesse Jackson and Twana Sharpton exist, by feeding on and making every incident a ‘racist’ issue. If there is nothing to gain by being ‘offended’ by the word Redskin, the objection will disappear. I’m sure that the persons that perpetrate the issue is the one that has something to gain, they get followers to sympathize that often times do not feel quite as much allegiance.

@Brother Bob:

The main reason that some names are offensive and some are not seems to have a direct correlation to how much a group identifies itself by its race or ethnicity (as opposed to just being an American) and how much money there is in keeping them cordoned off in that identity.

I don’t know if that is the only reason. American Indians are not different than any other group. There are some that will never be happy, even if every person not of American Indian descent left the country. I even know some very radical American Indians, and they will never change. But if you give a sports team a name that you wouldn’t say to someone’s face, I think it’s wrong. The great thing about our country is that you can still do it.
I’m a Georgia boy, been living here for 17 years. I love the Braves, (unless they’re playing my Cubbies). I won’t do the tomahawk chop, but I have no problem with others doing it. I don’t find it offensive and I actually think they fans are being respectful. I’m a Florida State fan, have been since I was a little tyke. Love the Seminoles and they are the only team that has ever asked for and been granted permission to use an Indian Tribe as a mascot.

The more money there is the more offensive the name is deemed.

I guess you can say that as it relates to the media, but not for individuals. I’m still going to find it offensive and I have nothing to gain.

@Aqua:

I’m a Georgia boy, been living here for 17 years.

Congrats on your choice. Good state to live in. Though I don’t live there now, it is still my home. Born there a long time ago and spent many years of my life there and still have a ton of relatives that all live there.

But I don’t understand this “being offended by’ thing. As I said before, some think the word ‘cracker’ is offensive, I love it. Grew up being proud of being a Georgia Cracker. But, for some reason, blacks (I find that offensive)(just kidding) started calling white folks ‘cracker’ as if it were derogatory and sure enough some people ‘take it as derogatory’ tho Lord knows I don’t see it. I can’t for the life of me see why anyone with “red skin’ would be offended by being called redskin. Probably the most ‘un-descriptive’ color of all is ‘white’. I’m Caucasian but I’m not ‘white’. if you think so, take a sheet of white copy paper and hold it next to your arm and see how well it matches. Aqua, you’ve said “you wouldn’t call me redskin to my face”, why not? Is your skin ‘red’ or not? Not that it matters. (In fact, don’t even answer that question if you find it ‘offensive’. ) You ever heard the phrase ” you can ride out of town on the same high horse you rode in on”?
Aqua said

” even if every person not of American Indian descent left the country. ”

I’d like to point out that if they’re looking for ‘all’ immigrants to leave, they need to pack their bags also.

@Redteam:

Aqua, you’ve said “you wouldn’t call me redskin to my face”, why not? Is your skin ‘red’ or not?

No, my skin isn’t red. I have several friends that are American Indian as well, and their skin isn’t red either.

The accepted practice today is supposedly that people should not be judged by their skin color.

So what about “rednecks” or “leather neck?” What about calling a sunburned person a “lobster,” a heavily tanned person as “bronzed” or “tawny?” What about the term “mulatto”? Calling a pretty “Africa(n)-American” woman “Brown sugar” or referring to conservative blacks as “Oreos” and what about just the word “blacks” or “whites?” The use of “dusky” or “swarthy” meaning an olive-skinned person? “Honkies” for Caucasians?

Noting that no human is completely transparent, aren’t all of us “persons of color”?

I feel sorry for the author’s of the world who will have a tough time describing characters without the worry that someone somewhere will be offended. I still think this is mostly overreaction, but far be it from me to tell someone that they they don’t have a right to be offended if they really want to be. However, we should note that the 1st Amendment protects the right to say things that might offend, and I think it is hypocrisy to play politically correct censorship towards words that one group of person (or individual) might find offensive, while accepting the use of terms that greatly offend another group of people.

How homosexuals and the left can be offended by the word “f*gg*t” and yet then turn around and call a TEA Party protesters “tea b*gg*r” tells me that “politically correctness,” which is supposedly to keep people from being offended, is a false hypocritical standard that they preach but do not practice.

Let us call a spade a spade. (or not.)

@Aqua: Well, it doesn’t make sense to me for someone who is not red to be offended by someone referring to Others as Redskins. Since you don’t seem to even know any redskins, how do you know that there are some ‘redskins’ that are offended. This whole thing is taking a strange turn. Why are you speaking for someone that has not specifically asked you to be their spokesperson?

@Ditto: All so true. The worst offense is that 99% of the time, when someone is being called a ‘racist’, it is a racist that is doing the calling.
It is particularly funny to me that when someone refers to a TEA Party protesters as “tea bagg*rs”, it is most likely the ones that practice the procedure that is using the word as derogatory

the word “f*gg*t” and yet then turn around and call a TEA Party protesters “tea b*gg*r”

@Redteam:

Since you don’t seem to even know any redskins, how do you know that there are some ‘redskins’ that are offended. This whole thing is taking a strange turn. Why are you speaking for someone that has not specifically asked you to be their spokesperson?

First, I have spoken for no one except myself. A point I’ve made to you at least twice. Second, the term Redskin has several derogatory origins, all of them linked to American Indians. Please use the search engine of your choice to verify if you please.

@Aqua

:First, I have spoken for no one except myself.

From #9

But there are people out there that find the name truly offensive.

What some may find offensive, may not offend others.

Though you say you’re not speaking for others it seems as if you may be.
how can you ‘know’ that what some may find offensive, others, may not?