The "Screaming Savage", Chief Wahoo and mascots

[Moose Milligan]

I think the top one looks proud. It actually looks like an accurate portrayal of a proud, Native American. I don't think it's disparaging, I don't think it's insulting...but then again I'm not a Native American, thus I'm not someone who'd be offended by such a thing. The name "Braves" isn't a bad thing, either, IMO.

The bottom one is a cartoon that makes fun of Indian features. You wouldn't see a portrayal of Asians or black people in a similar cartoonish light.

[lormat]

I am not Native American but I am tired of all the time hearing about politcally correct this and that. The teams do this about the money. Certain peolpe also bring up things because it makes them money. You do not hear people yelling and complaining about rednecks or hillbillies. Those people should be outraged the way they are potrayed(sp).

Just my 2 cents. I am sorry if I offended any one.

[skanar]

I didn't truly understand this issue until I read a detailed article about a European soccer team nicknamed "The Jews." Opposing fans had (have?) chants like, "Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the Gas."

I don't think it's appropriate, unless, as at Florida State (per SilentJames) the appropriate tribe is involved and approving.

That said, it's not something to get really upset about. Symbols matter, but only to a degree.

Call yourselves the Vikings, Trojans, Golden Horde, Samurai, Crusaders, Huns; if the group is long-gone historically, I'd say that's fine.

[TonySoprano]

Leprechauns aren't real. And is there a movement by Irish people to change their name? After all, nothing is offensive until someone is offended.

Gee, I thought the mascot was called the Fighting Irish and not the leprechaun. Why is it that the Irish aren't offended and the Native Americans are? Shouldn't the Irish be equally offended in such a PC world? If there were Irish offended by the fighting stereotype and Native Americans who were not offended by the Braves logo would that make a difference in the argument about what is an "acceptable caricature?"

[crissfan172]

With this in mind, polls typically show that 90% of Native Americans (dunno if that is a true apples to apples comparison with FSU and a singular tribe) support the Washington Redskins use of the term and find it acceptable.

I dunno what polls show, in terms of support/disdain, as it relates to the Indians, Braves, etc., etc., though.

That's probably because the vast majority of humans couldn't care less about things that don't directly affect them. It's the uptight, self-righteous ones that worry about things like this.

[NewMarketSean]

Comparing the Irish to native Americans is kinda silly. Irish haven't been driven to near extinction, roped into reservations and then had their likenesses used as mascots in arguably demeaning ways. Anyway, I don't have a dog in this race...I just don't think people can sweep this issue under the rug like so many people can. That society is so numb to borderline racist mascots and logos is also noteworthy. But like i said, I won't be petitioning to change names or logos. I won't be shocked or angry if others do.

[skanar]

With this in mind, polls typically show that 90% of Native Americans (dunno if that is a true apples to apples comparison with FSU and a singular tribe) support the Washington Redskins use of the term and find it acceptable.

I dunno what polls show, in terms of support/disdain, as it relates to the Indians, Braves, etc., etc., though.

The Redskins, in particular, have additional problems, in that the term itself is often viewed as offensive. I'm mildly bothered by the existence of a soccer team nicknamed as "The Jews;" I would be much more bothered by a team known officially as the "Chicago Kikes."

I'm unfamiliar with the polls you reference and would be interested in a link. And even then, I'm not sure it's appropriate: do the Redskins consult with any actual native people? Ensure that they are respecting particular traditions? To my knowledge, there is no engagement on the part of the team whatsoever.

Gee, I thought the mascot was called the Fighting Irish and not the leprechaun. Why is it that the Irish aren't offended and the Native Americans are? Shouldn't the Irish be equally offended in such a PC world? If there were Irish offended by the fighting stereotype and Native Americans who were not offended by the Braves logo would that make a difference in the argument about what is an "acceptable caricature?"

Were the Irish involved in a 100-year war with the US Government, featuring frequent massacres and perpetual treaty violations, that resulted in the nearly complete destruction of their way of life, forcible removal to reservations, and another century of extended poverty and social ills?

The histories involved are immensely different, and not remotely parallel (anti-Irish sentiment in the 1st half of the 19th century notwithstanding). Caricatures may not be inherently offensive; that doesn't mean that caricatures of native Americans aren't offensive.

[Stotle]

I don't much care either way, but it should be the affected groups that determine what is offensive. And if you are willing to strip names like "Indians", "Braves", "Redskins" (and I have no problem with changing all of them), then it can't be "because these groups had REALLY bad stuff done to them. The litmus test needs to be the same across the board. Change those names, but if for some reason the National Association for People of Viking Decent want Minnesota to change its football team's name, do that too.

I think there are much larger issues for our society to deal with, so if people want sports named changed let's just change them and move on. If business owners want to fight it for branding/$$$ reasons, let them do it. The public will ultimately decide.

[PaulFolk]

I am not Native American but I am tired of all the time hearing about politcally correct this and that. The teams do this about the money. Certain peolpe also bring up things because it makes them money. You do not hear people yelling and complaining about rednecks or hillbillies. Those people should be outraged the way they are potrayed(sp).

Just my 2 cents. I am sorry if I offended any one.

I'm not offended, but only because I have literally no idea what you said in this post. The teams "do this about the money"? "Certain people also bring up things because it makes them money"? What does any of this mean?

[Stotle]

I'm not offended, but only because I have literally no idea what you said in this post. The teams "do this about the money"? "Certain people also bring up things because it makes them money"? What does any of this mean?

Re-naming and re-branding teams would be expensive.

[lint06]

Offensive? Why or Why not?

Not offensive; created by the Irish, for the "Irish.". If a group of Asians created that logo, then yes.

[scOtt]

Forgive me if this is insensitive, just noticed...

Chief Wahoo =

[24fps]

Wasn't grouping you in camp outraged. You seemed more like camp concerned.

KLaw on the other hand is a maniac about it.

On the amusing side Calcaterra over at hardballtalk is also freaking out about it but back in his Shysterball days I called him out for using either "Hillbillies" or "Rednecks"(I don't recall which). Evidently some social/economic groups can be labeled.

Well the Cleveland Hillbillies and the Atlanta Rednecks seem like a no-brainer to me.

[MChance]

Forgive me if this is insensitive, just noticed...

Chief Wahoo =

Bahahahahahaha! You crack me up, ScOtt!

[Number5]

Not offensive; created by the Irish, for the "Irish.". If a group of Asians created that logo, then yes.

http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/nfl/wasbos/bosskins.html

"1933: Now led by Lone Star Dietz, a Native American Coach, the team moves to Fenway Park. With the move the team also undergoes a name change becoming the Boston Redskins. The Redskins would alternate wins and losses all season and would finish with a 5-5-2 record."

Team moved to Washington in 1937.