PDA

View Full Version : Offensive Sports Team Name


mattsmith48
October 19th, 2016, 11:31 PM
Should sports team with offensive and in some cases racist team names and logo have to change their name and logo?

Voice_Of_Unreason
October 19th, 2016, 11:57 PM
Is this about the Canadian experiment with banning the Cleveland Indians uniforms? I actually read this a few days back, and seeing that you are Canadian and this is somewhat prevalent, I assume there is a connection. Fortunately for free speech and common sense this case was dismissed by a judge.

As for the question, I say no. In North America, where we both live, the main issue is professional teams with names based off American Indian characteristics and stereotypes. Atlanta Braves, Washington Redskins, Cleveland Indians, etc. I see no issue with this. Nearly every kind of ethnic or cultural group in the world has some sort of sports team imitating them. And studies have shown that people the team imitate actually enjoy the satire. A recent study (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-americans-arent-offended-by-redskins-name/2016/05/18/3ea11cfa-161a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html) by the Washington Post found that less than 10% of 500 polled American Indians found the use of "Redskins" by the Washington Redskins offensive. Which is consistent with a poll done in 2004. I feel that much of this outcry is from the origin group, but SJWs with nothing better to do than rant about oppression and discrimination.

This remind me of an actual event I once heard about. I don't have the exact details, but a few years back Warner Brothers removed Speedy Gonzales shorts from airing. Speedy Gonzales, for those who've never watched Looney tunes, was a extreme stereotype of Mexicans. You can find videos on the internet. Anyways, they got huge backlash, not from the white racists you are so fond of singling out, but from numerous LATINO groups. Apparently Mexicans just love the exaggerated stereotypes, and the Speedy Gonzales character is very popular in Latin America even today, with words of a movie coming out.

mattsmith48
October 20th, 2016, 12:46 AM
Is this about the Canadian experiment with banning the Cleveland Indians uniforms? I actually read this a few days back, and seeing that you are Canadian and this is somewhat prevalent, I assume there is a connection. Fortunately for free speech and common sense this case was dismissed by a judge.

As for the question, I say no. In North America, where we both live, the main issue is professional teams with names based off American Indian characteristics and stereotypes. Atlanta Braves, Washington Redskins, Cleveland Indians, etc. I see no issue with this. Nearly every kind of ethnic or cultural group in the world has some sort of sports team imitating them. And studies have shown that people the team imitate actually enjoy the satire. A recent study (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-americans-arent-offended-by-redskins-name/2016/05/18/3ea11cfa-161a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html) by the Washington Post found that less than 10% of 500 polled American Indians found the use of "Redskins" by the Washington Redskins offensive. Which is consistent with a poll done in 2004. I feel that much of this outcry is from the origin group, but SJWs with nothing better to do than rant about oppression and discrimination.

This remind me of an actual event I once heard about. I don't have the exact details, but a few years back Warner Brothers removed Speedy Gonzales shorts from airing. Speedy Gonzales, for those who've never watched Looney tunes, was a extreme stereotype of Mexicans. You can find videos on the internet. Anyways, they got huge backlash, not from the white racists you are so fond of singling out, but from numerous LATINO groups. Apparently Mexicans just love the exaggerated stereotypes, and the Speedy Gonzales character is very popular in Latin America even today, with words of a movie coming out.

This is more about that since the Cleveland Indians have made the World Series it is likely that we will see more and more people will complain about the name and logo, just like the controversy over the name of the Washington NFL team really got bigger when they won the Super Bowl. For what happen in Ontario, I think is was brought to court now and not before is because the Cleveland team is good now when they sucked not as many people really gave a shit. The logo is kinda racist, the name a little less, it would be the equivalent to call a team the Seattle Chineses. The Washington one is racist and should be changed, I'm sure eventually they'll get tired of losing money on this and will change the name.

ImCoolBeans
October 20th, 2016, 09:03 AM
What do you think about the Kansas City Chiefs, or even the Minnesota Vikings? Are those names also offensive or are they less offensive since they are not stereotypes? If we force teams like the Redskins or Indians to change their names, do these teams also have to change their names? Also what about the San Diego Padres who use a religious figure as both their namesake and mascot? I think this is opening a slightly larger can of worms than what people are looking to actually change. Where does the line get drawn? These are also privately owned teams.

Voice_Of_Unreason
October 20th, 2016, 09:29 AM
What do you think about the Kansas City Chiefs, or even the Minnesota Vikings? Are those names also offensive or are they less offensive since they are not stereotypes? If we force teams like the Redskins or Indians to change their names, do these teams also have to change their names? Also what about the San Diego Padres who use a religious figure as both their namesake and mascot? I think this is opening a slightly larger can of worms than what people are looking to actually change. Where does the line get drawn? . Exactly, I never really got to that in my post, but almost every cultural and ethnic group has some form of sports team based off them. Right near me there is a prominent university that uses a religious figure for their mascot and team name. And I live in the Bible Belt, yet no one minds. Maybe because we realize mascots are supposed to be exaggerations and not to be taken really serious.The logo is kinda racist, the name a little less, it would be the equivalent to call a team the Seattle Chineses. I see nothing wrong with basing a sports team off an exaggeration of Chinese culture. As I stated earlier, ethnic groups seem to love stereotypical exaggerations of their culture. Nearly all polls and studies find that actual American Indians do not find it offensive to a significant degree.]This is more about that since the Cleveland Indians have made the World Series it is likely that we will see more and more people will complain about the name and logo, just like the controversy over the name of the Washington NFL team really got bigger when they won the Super Bowl. For what happen in Ontario, I think is was brought to court now and not before is because the Cleveland team is good now when they sucked not as many people really gave a shit. You do realize the court decision that dismissed this case was less than a week ago? Did the Indians go from shit to a World Series level team in less than a week?
These are also privately owned teams. Exactly, the government should not be involved in these affairs. Free speech and expression, which is valuable in America. Of course I already know the response,"Well, that free speech hurts my feelings! My feelings are more important than freedoms, so get rid of it." That is basically the argument against it in a nutshell.

mattsmith48
October 20th, 2016, 11:06 AM
What do you think about the Kansas City Chiefs, or even the Minnesota Vikings? Are those names also offensive or are they less offensive since they are not stereotypes? If we force teams like the Redskins or Indians to change their names, do these teams also have to change their names? Also what about the San Diego Padres who use a religious figure as both their namesake and mascot? I think this is opening a slightly larger can of worms than what people are looking to actually change. Where does the line get drawn? These are also privately owned teams.
Exactly, the government should not be involved in these affairs. Free speech and expression, which is valuable in America. Of course I already know the response,"Well, that free speech hurts my feelings! My feelings are more important than freedoms, so get rid of it." That is basically the argument against it in a nutshell.

If the name or logo is racist and offensive to a certain group it should be changed that where the line should be. Those teams are indeed privatly owned the government can put presure on a team to change the name or logo like what happen a couple years ago with the Washington NFL team. The leagues could force some teams to change their name and logo. I mention in a previous post, the other possibility of a team being forced to change their name, its money, when Dan Snyder is tired of losing money because of the name of his team he will change it.

You do realize the court decision that dismissed this case was less than a week ago? Did the Indians go from shit to a World Series level team in less than a week?

You do realize that they had to be all year to be where they were last week. The reason it was brought to court only last week is because they were playing Toronto in the ALCS, if they had played Texas it wouldn't have happened now, maybe its brought to court during the off season or early in the regular season next year probably depending on if Cleveland still makes it to the World Series or eventually wins it.

Vlerchan
October 20th, 2016, 11:31 AM
No.

First amendment, free speech, etc.

mattsmith48
October 20th, 2016, 12:07 PM
No.

First amendment, free speech, etc.

The problem with the First amendment and free speech argument is that most of those teams play games in Canada and hate speech is illegal here and you could make the argument that the name of the Baseball teams in Atlanta and Cleveland, and in the case of Cleveland you can even make a case for the logo. The NFL currently doesn't have that problem, I think England as close to the same aws then here in Canada, so if the NFL want to put a team in London they could eventually have this problem too.

Voice_Of_Unreason
October 20th, 2016, 12:39 PM
The problem with the First amendment and free speech argument is that most of those teams play games in Canada and hate speech is illegal here and you could make the argument that the name of the Baseball teams in Atlanta and Cleveland, and in the case of Cleveland you can even make a case for the logo. The NFL currently doesn't have that problem, I think England as close to the same aws then here in Canada, so if the NFL want to put a team in London they could eventually have this problem too.

Well, I'm glad I don't live in Canada then, no free speech. That is a very broad definition of Hate Speech if a picture of a cartoon Indian and a term that American Indians use to describe themselves are wanting to be banned.

This is not the NFL's problem, never sacrifice freedoms in the face of political pressure is my motto here. Yet you want the opposite.
If the name or logo is racist and offensive to a certain group it should be changed that where the line should be. You can say the exact same thing for nearly every other sports team in the USA, should the Celtics change their name because you find their mascot offensive to Irish? Should the Yankees change their name because someone finds it offensive towards people in the Northeast? Should the Vikings change their name because someone find them offensive to Norse? Should the Demon Deacons change their name because someone find it offensive to Christians? I believe in freedom over feelings, and someone who wants to reduce our freedoms due to the feelings of a few has no respect from me.

mattsmith48
October 20th, 2016, 12:46 PM
This is not the NFL's problem, never sacrifice freedoms in the face of political pressure is my motto here. Yet you want the opposite.

Like I said as long these people are running the NFL the only thing that would make them to force teams to change their name is to lose money

You can say the exact same thing for nearly every other sports team in the USA, should the Celtics change their name because you find their mascot offensive to Irish? Should the Yankees change their name because someone finds it offensive towards people in the Northeast? Should the Vikings change their name because someone find them offensive to Norse? Should the Demon Deacons change their name because someone find it offensive to Christians? I believe in freedom over feelings, and someone who wants to reduce our freedoms due to the feelings of a few has no respect from me.

If the people the name is representing find it offensive, yes they should change it.

Voice_Of_Unreason
October 20th, 2016, 12:58 PM
Like I said as long these people are running the NFL the only thing that would make them to force teams to change their name is to lose money Sure, except that you are not saying that. You are advocating for governments to put pressure on these teams, and seem pretty supportive of the Canadian government's possible ban on Cleveland uniforms. That is far different than citizens making a personal choice over watching or not watching a football game.
If the people the name is representing find it offensive, yes they should change it. Feelings over freedoms, oh how you amuse me constantly.

phuckphace
October 20th, 2016, 01:03 PM
more like the Washington Thinskins

Vlerchan
October 20th, 2016, 02:06 PM
The problem with the First amendment and free speech argument is that most of those teams play games in Canada and hate speech is illegal here and you could make the argument that the name of the Baseball teams in Atlanta and Cleveland, and in the case of Cleveland you can even make a case for the logo.
The legal definition of hate-speech is that with which there is a willful effort to incite hatred against a protected class. You first, have no evidence of willful intent, as is required - but you second have no argument that the naming of teams as per current is incites hatred against the a protected class. In fact: You have had a continued preference for the term 'offence' - which is not covered under hate speech statute - and I am the only person who has used the term 'hatred' or even 'incite'.

If I also recall correct you in the past have defended comedians who engaged in hateful (:O) ablest humor on grounds of freedom of speech. Implicit in those arguments was that being hateful towards someone is not what hate speech seeks to stop (and, you were correct, it doesn't). I am unsure why you have seem to have forgotten the intent of such statute now.

Flapjack
October 20th, 2016, 03:20 PM
I think they should change racist names but don't think they should be legally forced to.

ThisBougieLife
October 20th, 2016, 05:16 PM
I like these:

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/browbeat/2013/10/10/mascot_hats.jpg.CROP.cq5dam_web_1280_1280_jpeg.jpg

mattsmith48
October 20th, 2016, 05:33 PM
The legal definition of hate-speech is that with which there is a willful effort to incite hatred against a protected class. You first, have no evidence of willful intent, as is required - but you second have no argument that the naming of teams as per current is incites hatred against the a protected class. In fact: You have had a continued preference for the term 'offence' - which is not covered under hate speech statute - and I am the only person who has used the term 'hatred' or even 'incite'.

If I also recall correct you in the past have defended comedians who engaged in hateful (:O) ablest humor on grounds of freedom of speech. Implicit in those arguments was that being hateful towards someone is not what hate speech seeks to stop (and, you were correct, it doesn't). I am unsure why you have seem to have forgotten the intent of such statute now.

I never said I think those name and logos are hate speech I just said someone could easily make a case that the Cleveland logo or the Washington NFL team name is hate speech

Vlerchan
October 20th, 2016, 05:37 PM
I never said I think those name and logos are hate speech I just said someone could easily make a case that the Cleveland logo or the Washington NFL team name is hate speech
You think that the Cleveland Indians (or whatever their name is) are [1] willfully intending to [2] incite hatred against Native Americans, and [3] believe this is 'easily' demonstrated?

Because I don't think a song one of those premises ([1] - [3]) are even remotely true.

candorgen
October 20th, 2016, 07:34 PM
Should sports team with offensive and in some cases racist team names and logo have to change their name and logo?

It depends to the degree of how much a team name is already causing significant persistent offence to a level of harm in many people seeing it.

Unless something is confidently guessed to probably cause that to happen if it were to be publicly used, nothing should be 'pre-emptively' banned from usage because of its argued semantic connection to past racist views and such.

Having a power to ban names/logos on their argued semantic connection to hateful views, has great capacity to be abused also. I hope you can consider this.

If X is not effectively racist in a harmful way, then X should not be banned from usage on grounds of racist connections.


Apparently Mexicans just love the exaggerated stereotypes, and the Speedy Gonzales character is very popular in Latin America even today, with words of a movie coming out.

I have also heard though that many Spaniards are displeased with the presence of sombrero shops in their homeland. :P


If the people the name is representing find it offensive, yes they should change it.

I suspect the number of such offended people is low, and their claims on being harmed are trivial enough.

Uniquemind
October 21st, 2016, 01:34 AM
I think the only court that should be involved on this issue is the court of public opinion and the court of cash flow capitalism.

Other countries laws also need respecting as well so, when traveling abroad it's on the owners to either not play there or have alternate uniforms ready to go.

I also do not believe government pressure on a private entity to do a said action, is the same as actually passing legislation to force a private entity to do a said action.

There's a difference there that in some contexts will make it legal and constitutional, and another that is not constitutional in some contexts.

Babs
October 21st, 2016, 01:50 AM
Regardless of whether or not one finds the names offensive, I don't think they should be legally forced to change. I'm having a hard time giving a shit about something as minuscule as a football team name. Freedom of speech and all that.

phuckphace
October 21st, 2016, 12:28 PM
I like these:

image (http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/browbeat/2013/10/10/mascot_hats.jpg.CROP.cq5dam_web_1280_1280_jpeg.jpg)

is the first one also available in kippah style

Porpoise101
October 22nd, 2016, 04:22 PM
Well I certainly think that the logo is a poor caricature. Like, real Indians don't wear feather headdresses....

Joking aside, it should be treated as any other private firm with offensive/distasteful products: you stop buying it.

phuckphace
October 22nd, 2016, 09:48 PM
it's also funny when Natives form petty little grievance groups like this because they are otherwise at or around 100% assimilated and their tribal awareness is about the extent of the plastic paddies who get a clover leaf tattoo to show that they're 1/100th Irish or whatever. there are a shitton of Cherokees and Seminoles in my state, and try as they might to revive the Cherokee language, none of them can speak more than a few broken sentences, and they can't even be accidentally mistaken for Mexicans because their English has zero trace of accent. sorry Chief but the White Man took over your brain a few generations back, might as well knock off the L.A.R.P.ing and find something more productive to do with your time

Jason Mark
October 22nd, 2016, 10:50 PM
Mmm, give me concrete examples

Stronk Serb
October 24th, 2016, 06:24 PM
Also in basketball there are the Boston Celtics whose logo is a leprechaun. Is that offensive to the Irish? I don't think so. Also by removing native references from private club names, I think you lessen the impact the natives had on the country, I don't know how to phrase it, but it is not hate speech. I wouldn't call it hate speech unless I would see a native with a noose around his neck. I mean there is one Australian/New Zealander club which immitates a funny native war dance. I don't find it offensive, I find it a way to keep parts of culture alive through the mass media. How many Americans have seen a native? I think this is a good way to keep the natives alive in the eyes of most Americans IMO.

Porpoise101
October 24th, 2016, 07:25 PM
How many Americans have seen a native? I think this is a good way to keep the natives alive in the eyes of most Americans IMO.
Maybe instead of relying on mass media to depict an outdated caricature of indigenous peoples, we should actually work to improve their living conditions. If they are so marginalized, then we aren't doing enough to bring them into the mainstream. The reservation system has failed natives; they need to have some better replacement and come into middle-class society. This is getting a little off-topic, but I would rather have the reservations as 'historic areas' where they can maintain their history and cultural sites.

Voice_Of_Unreason
October 24th, 2016, 08:31 PM
Maybe instead of relying on mass media to depict an outdated caricature of indigenous peoples, we should actually work to improve their living conditions. If they are so marginalized, then we aren't doing enough to bring them into the mainstream. The reservation system has failed natives; they need to have some better replacement and come into middle-class society. This is getting a little off-topic, but I would rather have the reservations as 'historic areas' where they can maintain their history and cultural sites. I live relatively close to the Eastern Cherokee Reservation, those injuns are literally rolling in casino money! Modern American Indians are really no different that any other American. Only the old and very reclusive even have accents. The "Indians" you see in National Geographic documentaries and magazines are basically the equivalent of Civil War Reenactors. They play the part of people in the past, but when the day is over they head back to their heated homes to watch TV and catch up on sports.

Devinsoccer
October 24th, 2016, 09:12 PM
The problem with the First amendment and free speech argument is that most of those teams play games in Canada and hate speech is illegal here

Whats the hating about calling a team Redskins or any other one, sure it may sound racist, but its definately note in a hateful way. What its actually doing is representing those people.

ThisBougieLife
October 25th, 2016, 12:44 PM
Just wanted to say that not all Native Americans who still hold to their traditions are "playing a part"; just because they have air conditioning and TVs doesn't mean they've completely disregarded their traditional culture. Much of it is still alive and well. And many Native American languages are in the process of revival, and some, like Navajo, are fairly vibrant from a linguistic standpoint.

Tpyro
October 25th, 2016, 01:34 PM
I think the sport team names are not to be racist at all but, signify warriors .chiefs, redskins, Indians, pirates, rangers, twins ,giants , Celtics, warriors, Blackhawks, kings. any name can be made to be racist, sexist or offensive to someone. I think people are making something out of nothing. I think its more the symbolization to be represented. sure twins Celtics and giants aren't warriors but its singling out a group of people where does it stop.

Porpoise101
October 27th, 2016, 02:20 PM
I live relatively close to the Eastern Cherokee Reservation, those injuns are literally rolling in casino money! Modern American Indians are really no different that any other American. Only the old and very reclusive even have accents. The "Indians" you see in National Geographic documentaries and magazines are basically the equivalent of Civil War Reenactors. They play the part of people in the past, but when the day is over they head back to their heated homes to watch TV and catch up on sports.
While I agree that they tend to adopt the 'typical American' lifestyle for the most part, they tend to be poorer and live in worse off households as a whole. However, their lifestyle does seem to be improving. You can check out these stats (http://www.ncai.org/about-tribes/demographics) if you want. When it comes to casinos, it's usually a small elite that opens them, the majority of the people don't really benefit that much. I guess it is better than nothing though.