Redskins: an improper name... now what?

[Ranger REG]

The university has an arrangement with the actual Seminole tribe, and they approve the use of the name and images.

With or without royalty payment?

 

[Ranger REG]

Thing is about he "agreements" and such, the NCAA doesn't much care to apply a standard uniformly. Whether Florida State has an agreement or not with the tribe doesn't seem to matter a whit. The NCAA has given FSU approval to keep using the name and mascot, and that is why FSU can keep using it. The NCAA has been trying to purge Indian names from use and doesn't seem to be applying the standards uniformly.

Here is the University of North Dakota's President's tersely worded response to the NCAA back in June about the matter. UND's mascot is the Fighting Sioux and the NCAA has told them they must stop using it even though the nearest Sioux tribe gave them written permission, no tribe in the state is offended at the use, and a hundred times more Indian students attend UND vs. FSU.

UND is now suing the NCAA over the issue.

So, it this just a case of unnecessary proactive measure by the NCAA to cover their asses from future discrimination lawsuits, or are there pressure from some lesser known Native American activist group that really don't care if individual organization or institution already have permission from neighboring tribe to use their name and image?

 

[Vigilance]

There's a lot of pressure (within and without) on the NCAA to make sure team mascots aren't offensive, such as changing the St John's Red Men to the St John's Red Storm.

It was my impression that the NCAA was pressuring schools across the board to phase out these mascots. If it isn't across the board, then they need to figure out what their policy is and implement it fairly.

As I said before, the native peoples of America are not all one thing, so if the Sioux are ok with a mascot/team called the Fighting Sioux, then I don't think the Seminoles (for example) have much to say about it.

The experiences of the different tribes with regard to racism and government treatment run the gamut so I think it's the sort of thing that needs to be handled individually.

Chuck

 

[griff_goodbeard]

Until a few years ago (I believe they halted the practice), the Redskins used to have someone dressed as a tribesman come out shirtless, with a spear, riding a horse down the sidelines before the games. They also used to dress their cheerleaders like squaws.

I don't ever remember the 'skins doing this, but I know that FSU does (at least up until last football season).

 

[Mimic]

So, performing in blackface is ok? Having white men dress up like Chinese with big fake buck teeth and speaking in an exaggerated way "ahhhh yes numba one son"... is ok?

Dressing up like a member of a racial group and then acting in racially stereotypical ways is racism.

If something is done without the intent to humiliate, belittle, look down upon, etc. any racial group I don't see how it would be considered racist. Can it be considered bad taste? Yes of course. Would I be considered a racist if I dress up as an Indian for Halloween? Would I be a sexist if I dressed up as a woman? What about everyone who gets dressed up for a Renaissance fair? After all aren't they acting in a racially stereotypical way?

What if I was eating a fried chicken and a black friend of mine came up could I offer him some without being racist? Because we all know that fried chicken and black people is a racist image. Does it mean that no person/business should give/sell fried chicken to black people? What does KFC do when a black person walks into their store. Do they refuse service? They don't want to be racist right?

Of course they serve him, its the intent behind the action that makes it racist.

Well, the word "squaw" itself has a highly controversial history. Many places around the country with "squaw" in the name have been renamed because of Indian activists pointing out the word's origin and history.

Case in point, how many people know what it actually means? I honestly thought it ment woman. Does it make me a racist because I used the word? Will I continue to use the word now that I know what it means? No I wouldn't (not like I use it alot now.)

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

In all truth I find the entire issue to be deranged. From what I have heard it's quite obvious that use of these names has offended people. But the desire to effectively censor out words simply because they offend is to me personally a disgusting thing. This is at its core one group of people telling another group that because they are offended that group can't use the term that offends them. But where did they ever get the idea they have the right not to be offended, in order to FEEL BETTER they would prevent others from using a word they don't like. If they're offended that's fine they can be that way, but how does it give them the ability to tell others what not to do when the actions of the other party are not demonstratably harmful to anyone? I guess what I'm trying to get at is simply by living every human on this planet will be offended by someone and offend others no matter what they do. So if we're going to be logical the only end result of this can be a form of social paralysis where no one can do anything for fear that someone else might be gasp, OFFENDED!!! Ultimately feelings are without value, until it's caused harm (real physical or economic damage) then it's nobodies business to tell anyone else NOT to say or do anything. Because anything one party can use against another can be used against themselves just as easily.

 

[RedWick]

If another person is offended by the sterotype you're portraying, it's racist (or sexist or classist or whateverist). Intent doesn't enter into it.

 

[Ranger REG]

As I said before, the native peoples of America are not all one thing, so if the Sioux are ok with a mascot/team called the Fighting Sioux, then I don't think the Seminoles (for example) have much to say about it.

What if, for example, the Seminole don't want to back off, thinking they must educate the Sioux about their decision being wrong? One can only hope it doesn't turn into a tribal war.

 

[Ranger REG]

What if I was eating a fried chicken and a black friend of mine came up could I offer him some without being racist? Because we all know that fried chicken and black people is a racist image. Does it mean that no person/business should give/sell fried chicken to black people? What does KFC do when a black person walks into their store. Do they refuse service? They don't want to be racist right?

Of course they serve him, its the intent behind the action that makes it racist.

Funny you bring that up. I recalled a brouhaha on the PGA when one golfer wanted to invite Tiger Wood to dinner with fried chicken and collard green. The media caught it and a firestorm of racism being called across the country.

So, who determines if the intent is indeed racism or not? The offendee (e.g., Tiger Wood)? What if he is naive or perceived to be naive by external sources (e.g., Al Sharpton)?

 

[frankthedm]

If another person is offended by the sterotype you're portraying, it's racist (or sexist or classist or whateverist). Intent doesn't enter into it.

That is your opinion. People can claim something is offensive until they are blue in the face. A group of reasonable and uninvolved people have to agree [usually 12 in court cases, though those folks are not always reasonable] that the object, words or icon in question is offensive.

I'll agree is "Redskin" is quite hard to justify not being offensive.

A tribe or rank name is well within sports team naming conventions that someone has to be trying to be offended to be bothered by. A caricature of Chief made a buffoon is a whole nother ballgame, as it were.