Skip to main content

View Diary: New report shows negative impact of names like R*dsk*ns on Indian and Alaskan Native children (115 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Because Viking will be mortally offended? (0+ / 0-)

    There's a sliding scale of acceptability when it comes to naming teams after people, and there are, legitimately and honestly, people who have differing opinions on what would be acceptable or not.

    Names like Spartans and Viking and Legionnaires and Pirates and Raiders and Cowboys and Yankees and Patriots and Celtics and Canucks generally aren't considered offensive, and I don't  think most people have an issue with those.

    Names that are self-selected, like the Fighting Irish, perhaps some debate, but again, self-selected.

    Braves and Indians and Blackhawks and Seminoles and Eskimos are more questionable, clearly, and I think more of it has to do with their mascots and fan things instead of the names themselves. I think there's legitimate grounds for debate.

    The Edmonton Eskimos in the CFL are in the interesting state that Inuit in Canada don't worry about the name because, well, first off they aren't Eskimos. They're Inuit. Also, Edmonton doesn't use symbology or mascots that refer to Inuit (the team logo is two stylized "E"s), so there's nothing there except the name, and doesn't really bother anyone. So that's why I think there's a legitimate debate over whether naming teams "Indians" or "Blackhawks" or "Seminoles" or "Mohawks" or "Braves" are inherently offensive: I don't think they necessarily are, that it's the baggage that gets loaded on (the Cleveland Indians logo, the "tomahawk chop" in Atlanta, the people wearing feathered headress wherever) that's the problem. If those weren't there, I don't think there'd be as much of an issue.

    Washington's NFL team? Yeah, not so much. That's a simple, straight-up racial slur.

    •  Not because it's offensive in the particular (0+ / 0-)

      but because if you think about it, it's problematic in the general application.  Racial and cultural signifiers shouldn't be reduced to mascot status.  (Names of professions, like Cowboys and Pirates, are a different issue.)

      Also: removing names like the Vikings and the Celtics and the Canucks will also remove a common counter-argument that bigots generally make against getting rid of names like the Indians or the Mohawks or the Braves.

      There is not, in fact, a legitimate debate about whether those names are "inherently offensive."

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site