Hail to the Redskin Potatoes:
I am usually unmoved when activist groups attack the names of various athletic teams for alleged ethnic or racial insensitivity. I don't believe that names like the Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, Florida Seminoles, or Fighting Illini are inherently disrespectful or demeaning. And, from the survey data I've seen in the past, it seems that most Native Americans feel the same way (and I would reconsider my views if I learned otherwise). There is, however, one prominent exception: the Washington Redskins. If there are racially insensitive name in sports, this is it.
Washington plays its first game of the season tonight, and the Washington Post uses the occastion to suggest it's time to change the name.
The Washington Redskins start their season tonight and, as most sports fans will attest, it is a time to think of endless possibilities. . . . We share in the excitement, but in truth we also are embarrassed to embrace a team that is so terribly named.The editorial also suggests a test for determining whether a team name is offensive:
We take team owner Daniel M. Snyder at his word that he sees the nickname as an honor, and we appreciate how hard it is to abandon well-loved traditions. By the same token, it really is not up to the offender to characterize the nature of the offense. We can't imagine Mr. Snyder, or anyone else for that matter, sitting in a room of Native Americans and referring to them as Redskins.By this standard, many other sports names, such as those mentioned above, are okay, but "Redskins" clearly flunks the test — unless, of course, the team mascot is changed to a redskin potato.
Related Posts (on one page):
- American Indians' Views of the Redskins:
- Hail to the Redskin Potatoes:
John &Ken commentary http://rhhardin.home.mindspring.com/johnkencut.indianred.ram (March 11 1999, approx)
(Though one of my complaints about Cleveland are our silly mascots. I understand that the Indians team name precludes a somewhat reasonable mascot, and there's not much you can do with the Browns, but the Cavaliers mascot shouldn't be a cute dog. I demand knights in armor!)
As for the claim "If there are racially insensitive name in sports, this is it." I would claim one more Southeastern Oklahoma State Savages, renamed the "Savage Storm" only this year.
However this can become absurd. Take the College of William and Mary "Tribe". The NCAA (having let Florida State keep the Seminole head as the logo, the name, and the guy on horseback with the flaming spear at the start of every football game) told W&M that they had to get rid of not the name "Tribe" but the two feathers that are attached to the letter M in W&M which serves as the team's logo.
Finally, as to the idea of the Redskin Potatoes as an inoffensive mascot, I quibble. I have seen Idaho's "Spuddy Buddy", which is their state's agriculture mascot. If a team had a dancing potato on the side lines I do not think anyone would be offended. Distrubed beyond belief to see a dancing spud, yes. Offended? No.
But imaging playing for a a team that wanted to depict you as basically a pile of raw starch? If someone walked up to me and said "You are a Potato!" I would consider those fighting words.
We fully agree that the nickname "Redskin Potato" is silly and demeaning to the team.
Sincerely,
The Anaheim Mighty Ducks
We still have Robert E. Lee high school here. It's mascot is the fighting rebels. I believe that the demographics of the school have now changed such that it is about 90% Black.
What do you think of this NY Times article:
Given that, I don't feel bad about using the term "Hurricanes".
Of course, the term I find most offensive is "Yankees". Also, "Fighting Irish". And that's not just because I'm a Mets fans and also don't like Notre Dame football. But I guess insulting northerners and Irish people is OK.
If you had that, people would claim they were "crusaders" and would claim that certain other groups (which I won't name) would be offended.
Houston-
The team was actually supposed to be named for the year of Houston's founding as a city. There are those who have surmised that the whole Mexicans-will-be-offended thing was ginned up by the team in order get some publicity for them. (Certainly, IIRC, polling data on Mexican-American attitudes toward the name didn't bear out the view that they would be massively offended).
In any event, I was offended by the name Dynamos. It reminded me of Dyanmo Kiev and, thereby, communism.
I am not sure what you mean. On first blush, I think the name "Yids" is no better than "Redskins." I am also inclined to say that, barring a specific context that would create offense, I am not sure I would view the team name "Jews" as meaningfully different than team names like "Indians," "Irish," "Quakers," and the like. Is there a reason I should feel differently?
JHA
My intramural basketball team was the Lonely Sheepherders and our numbers were our GPAs.
The UCSC Banana Slugs
A friend once suggested that the Cleveland Indians should just change their logo to a picture of Ghandi.
That would be my guess. Also, it's worth noting that one of the earlier recorded instances of "redskin," though it originally applied simply to skin color, was a proclamation from the colonial government of Massachusetts in the 1700s or so announcing bounty for proof of dead Indians, including their heads, scalps, and "bloody redskin." (I don't have a cite for that, except to say that I remember learning it in a Native American History course I took in undergrad.)
Those would be the Roundheads*. For Cavaliers, you should have big floppy hats with feathers and puff-and-slash tunics.
* Well, not "knights", really, but there you go.
ps. There seems to be a team called the Colchester RFC Roundheads. I can't imagine that tailgating at a Roundheads game would be much fun.
It's worse than that. The Houston team is actually "Dynamo" singular. It recalls an entire network of Iron Curtain sports clubs that, during Soviet rule, were largely sponsored by the KGB and its predecessors.
That said, it certainly doesn't keep this Kiev-born anticommunist from rooting hard for the modern-day Dynamo Kiev.
Russians who came to the U.S. in the 1970s, as we did, naturally had to be taught this important difference between Russian and American usage.
As does "white."
Your brothers (or sisters) in the struggle,
The Fighting Artichokes
http://www.scottsdalecc.edu/athletics/
The Canes did undergo a mascot revision in the early 90's: the bird (ibis) used to smoke a pipe, but is now smoke-free.
If so, would it change your mind if you heard polls showing that most Indians nowadays are NOT offended by the team name "Redskins"? Such as:
===
WASHINGTON -- A poll of American Indians found that an overwhelming majority of them are not bothered by the name of the Washington Redskins (news).
Only 9 percent of those polled said the name of the NFL team is "offensive," while 90 percent said it's acceptable, according to the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey, released Friday.
Annenberg polled 768 Indians in every state except Hawaii and Alaska from Oct. 7, 2003, to Sept. 20, 2004.
The survey found little disparity between men and women or young and old. However, 13 percent of Indians with college degrees said the name is offensive, compared with 9 percent of those with some college and 6 percent of those with a high school education or less. Among self-identified liberals, 14 percent found the term disparaging, compared with 6 percent of conservatives.
====
A link to the press release is here. (PDF)
Also a sports rival of ours is the Minnesota Vikings. Is that more acceptable than the Cleveland Indians?
I wouldn't find a team named 'whities' offensive though one could rightly point out it doesn't have the same history as 'reskins'. Still despite the horrible history of the word 'nigger' many black people accept it as a friendly greeting in many situations.
Admitedly there are differences between this case and the ones above but I think it illustrates the point that this is really an empirical mater and once can't decide whether something is offensive or not from a priori information.
It's too bad that sports teams, professional and collegiate, kowtowed to the know-nothings in the media PC police whose goal is to foment resentment among our American Indian population by convincing them they should be offended by the use of their tribal name in organized sports.
It's odd too that only sports teams seem to offend. I haven't seen any reports that Indians want Squaw Valley, Apache helicopters or the other countless songs, cities, rivers, towns and businesses named after them to be changed.
It seems to me that this assault on sports teams is just another attempt by the lunatic left's multi-culti factions to try to further divide us.
Well, I'm macrocephalic, and I'm offended that there are giant baseball head mascots.
Other offensive sports nicknames:
- New Zealand All Blacks
- Cincinatti Reds (think of the poor communists offended by this pejorative)
- NY Knicks - which sounds like "picnic," a word some people are offended by because it sounds like the "n" word and somebody argued once that "picnic" is a synonym for taking a celebratory basket lunch to a lynching
- The LA Angels of Anaheim - this religiously named team plays in a government-supported stadium. Establishment Clause violation, anybody?
- Boston Celtics - offensive to protestant Englishmen
- Duke Blue Devils - offensive to Christians everywhere, not to mention gubernortorial candidates who have ingested colloidal silver
- Tampa Bay Devil Rays - offensive to fans, survivors of, Steve Irwin
It seems that only a small activist minority of Indians makes the name an issue. In fact, most people who campaign actively against "Redskins" are white. Is it offensive to you that they are substituting their judgment for the actual opinion of the people whom they are supposedly representing?
I agree that no NEW teams should have controversial names. But, not a big fan of straining to purge existing team names outta politically corrupt formulations, sorry.
That's how I remember the Eastern Michigan University situation. They were the Hurons, now the Eagles, even though some actual Hurons were totally fine, and even honored, by the association. But PC suppression won the day....
Wikipedia:
Twice in the 1950s (the McCarthy era), the Reds, fearing that their traditional club nickname would associate them with the Communist threat, officially changed the name of the team to the Cincinnati Redlegs.
See also: Baseball-Reference.
He quickly tired many non-offensive teams, because he couldn’t keep their names straight. They all meant the same thing, whether they were birds or prey (Seahawks, Eagles, Falcons, Hawks) or regular birds (Bluejays, Cardinals, Orioles) or horses (Broncos, Colts, Mavericks, Phillies) or bears (Bears, Cubs, Bruins, Grizzlies) or big cats (Jaguars, Panthers, Lions, Tigers, Bengals) or big dogs (Coyotes, Timberwolves) or just things that are hot (Heat, Suns, Flames, Lightning).
A fear of flying obviously prevented him from watching the Astros, Supersonics, Flyers, Rockets and Jets.
The few franchises drove him to irresponsible and self destructive behavior. They urged him to drink too much (Brewers), drive too fast (Pacers), hastily spend all his cash (the Bills), and then overextend himself on credit cards (the Chargers).
It nearly ruined him.
BTW, people can also decide if they would have been happier if the Braves were named the Bees, their name at the time of the 26-inning 1-1 tie with the Brooklyn Robins in around 1920.
Since the Redskins are the most valuable franchise in the NFL, I'm sure they could also work out a deal with the various Indian tribal authorities. It would probably cost them less than one bad Dan Synder free agent decision.
What a stupid, stupid test.
If I remember my baseball history, the "Bees" name, adopted by ownership, never stuck because the "Braves" was too popular with the fans.
I don't think that was the nickname in 1920 because the 1914 team was the famous Miracle Braves. They did change it to the Bees for a while in the late 30s after a horrendous 38 - 115 season. (The Phillies also changed their name to the Blue Jays for a couple of years after some terrible seasons, and continued to play terribly.) The Braves were the Beaneaters in the 1890s.
One of the nicknames for the Chicago Cubs around 1906 was the Spuds.
The vast majority of Indians aren't offended, so why are they allowing themselves to look petty by people who have no interest in their well being and why are team owners and colleges allowing themselves to be black-mailed into changing their traditional team names?
Rick Georges
On the contrary, as a Hiberno-American, I find offensive the gross ethnic stereotype portrayed by the emblem of the Celtics: a grinning leprechaun leaning on a shillelagh, smoking a clay pipe. You can almost hear him saying, "He's after me Lucky Charms."
(Of course, that puts me in mind of a possible TV commercial for Irish Spring deodorant soap:
(Scene: Celtics locker room, after a game)
Player One: Liam, sure an' you're a strong man.
Player Two: Aye, at times too strong.)
The term "blackmail" is (or should be) offensive to African Americans.
I always thought it was the Bees, but the Internet confirms your feeling that I was mistaken. thanks!
(I don't have a cite for that, except to say that I remember learning it in a Native American History course I took in undergrad.)
I suggest that you make an effort to identify everything you learned in that course, and that you haven't since verified from reliable sources; you should consider all such "facts" as probably untrue.