Court upholds racist team logo on technicality

You are actually arguing that racist language is ok? Seriously?

NFL franchises represent the city they play in. They play up that role for themselves as a way of building fan loyalty and making sure the money will be there when they want a new stadium. If you're going to play that game, take some civic responsibility.

The only reason this has gone on so long is because the Native Americans in this country don't have the numbers or the influence to make the change, not because it isn't wrong. We're supposed to be better than that in this country.

I've never heard anybody call a Jew a Kike except in the movies. It is an outdated term. I've had people insult me for being Jewish and they didn't even know the word existed to use it. So, you think that would be an appropriate name for a professional sports franchise, too?

 

1.) I've heard the word Kike used many times as a slur by people, particularly older people. I've never once, not one time, heard some refer to an Indian as a redskin. So this is a ridiculous comparison.

That being said, if some team wanted to call themselves the Kikes, it is their right to do so and your right to not buy tickets, shirts or banners bearing their logo.

That is how we do things here in private sector America.

 

I've been told somebody had Jewed me out of my change (man, that was an entertaining conversation), but never heard the word Kike used in that way. If it's not out of mainstream use, it's just about there.

Still, there is no way an NFL team would be named the Kikes. it would never happen. Pressure would be brought to bear as soon as people heard about the name, just like what happened when there were discussions of a company that had close Nazi ties getting naming rights for the new football stadium being built for the Giants and Jets.

Native Americans just don't have as much influence. That is the only difference.

 

Ladies and gentleman: May I present you the official logos of The Fighting Whites!





As a full-blooded honky, these are the most hilarious logos I've ever seen and have often been tempted to buy a T-shirt.

http://www.cafepress.com/fightinwhite

 

Yes.

 

On a serious note, here's my take on it. I once argued with a guy at great lengths about this. He was adamant that Redskins, Chiefs, etc. was blantly racist, and I didn't see the big deal.

He said, "You don't know anyone who is Indian."

I said, "My stepdaughter is 1/16th Indian. That makes her great-grandfather half Indian. He lived in a town his whole life where the high school used the name "Indians" and he was known to help often with homecoming floats for the high school parade. We have a picture of him with my wife beside this huge 'Indian' while doing the tomahawk chop with her on her homecoming float. He didn't find any of that racist, and my wife said he had better things to do with his life than worry about something like that."

The issue was never brought up again.

 

There are probably people who wouldn't give a shit about the New York Kikes, either. Some.

 

Everybody should find something better to do than worry about something like that.

But in this PC world, where everyone is offended by something, whether or not it's actually offensive, that's not going to happen.

 

Outdated or not, it is a racist term. You are correct that the PC police do get out of hand on occasion, but I don't see how this is one of those occasions.

 

You know, I feel quite compelled to backlash against the backlash that everything is too PC these days.

The anti-PCers today -- who are overwhelmingly white, male and middle-aged, all playing the victim -- are just as obnoxious and outspoken as the PCers ever were.

 

I think it's ridiculous when people want to change the name of the Cleveland Indians or Kansas City Chiefs. Those terms aren't offensive.

I'm not sure how anybody could argue the term "Redskins" isn't racist.

 

According to a nationwide poll of American Indians, conducted in 2003-04 by a policy centre at the University of Pennsylvania - 90 per cent of respondents said the name does not offend them.

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/Downloads/Political_Communication/naes/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr.pdf

And the poll was pretty wide-randing, having interviewed Indians of both genders and varied age groups in all 48 continental states.

There was little variation among subgroups of Native Americans. Eight percent of men and 9 percent of women said the name was offensive, while 90 percent of each sex said it did not bother them. Ten percent of Indians under 45 found the name offensive, compared to 8 percent of those 45 and older.

Thirteen percent of Indians with college degrees or more education said “Redskins” was offensive, compared to 9 percent of those with some college and 6 percent of those with a high school education or less. Fourteen percent of Indians who called themselves politically liberal said the name was offensive, compared to 9 percent of moderates and 6 percent of conservatives. Among Indians with household incomes of $75,000 or more, 12 percent found the name offensive, compared to 9 percent of those with incomes between $35,000 and $75,000 and 8 percent of those with incomes below $35,000.

Wow. That's pretty telling.

Oh, and just so there's no confusion about the question these people were asked, here it is:

“The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn’t it bother you?”