Hair stylist was like no offense but why do black people get their own category on Hulu what about Asians and Native Americans it makes me so mad.
I need a new hair stylist.
I don’t understand why people have problems with names like Braves and Chiefs. There is nothing derogatory about those.
I guess some fans cheer in insensitive ways as a result of them, but I think going after that problem specifically would be more productive.
Wasn’t the issue with the Braves mostly because of their mascot/logo?
I think you’re thinking of the Indians.
Ahh you’re right
Although looking up the really old braves logo and man it was bad lol
2 Likes
Well if a group of people stole the land of your ancestors and did the genocide on them too, would you be OK if they then incorporated them into being mascots for their sportsball teams?
“Hey indigenous people, we consider you to be on the same level as bears, and panthers, and badgers and beavers. You should feel honored to be a mascot!”
1 Like
Braves and Chiefs are the chants they do
This is kind of a weird argument I’ve never heard. There are lots of other human team names in sportsball. In NFL alone we’ve got Cowboys, Texans, Vikings, and probably a few others.
Do I have to explain the difference between people of european/scandinavian descent in Minnesota naming their team mascot after the vikings, compared to when people of european descent name their team mascot after people they did the genocide on?
2 Likes
No, but that’s a different argument from what you posted. The problem is clearly not that they are in a category with other non-human mascots, which was the very important issue that you seemed to be concerned about a few minutes ago.
To make sure I understand, let me ask you this. Assume there were never any Chiefs. KC team was named something else.
Now, some rich Native American dude gets granted rights to a new NFL team. He chooses to name it the Chiefs. Racist or not?
Now let’s imagine that this guy sells his team to the Koch brothers in 10 years. They keep the name. Racist or not?
I realize this is quite contrived. Not intended as a gotcha. I just want to know where your thought process would lead you on these questions.
I would be okay if all sports teams moved out of the minority genre.
Thinking of Texas teams most are named after white symbols.
Cowboys, Texans, rangers, mavericks, Astros?
Don’t know about spurs, rockets and stars but Texas doesn’t really even tread on animals.
Although now that I think about it going all in on the Wild West theme where a lot of native Americans were killed at the hands of cowboys and others maybe they need to be rethought as well.
I more just want to see redskins changed because Daniel Snyder sucks.
There can be and there are more than one reason why people would be opposed to naming mascots after indigenous peoples.
You brought up the counter point of Cowboys, Vikings, etc. I was addressing that.
If Candace Owens bought a sports team, can she name them the Mandingos? Or is this racist?
Yes, and I’m saying that the reason that involves comparing them to non-human mascots is not a good one.
Your reason given in response to my point doesn’t really work as a response. It works as a separate point. If other human mascots exists, then being in a category is with non-human mascots is not something anyone considers derogatory.
Naming something after the subjects of their genocide is bad because it’s bad. Not because it’s in a category with a mixture of human and non-human mascots.
This debate is interesting to me, as are these questions, because I grew up in Oxford, Oh, and my dad was a professor at Miami University…home of the Redskins until 1998, when they changed to the Redhawks.
So I’ve seen this all before. One of the interesting things that touches on these points is that up until the mid-90s, the name had the support of the Miami tribe. well, they publicly supported it, anyway. Then public sentiment started to change, and they finally came out and worked with the university to change it.
I don’t know if tribe leadership changed, or they felt that it was finally OK to speak their truth, or what happened to make them change their mind, but something did, and just like that, it was changed. Yes, there were heated arguments on both sides, but in the end, MU did what was right.
I still have some old Miami Redskins stuff, and it still sounds weird to me to call them the Redhawks. Of course, we didn’t have a megalomaniacal billionaire standing in the way of the name change. People will adjust. Maybe they could convince Snyder by telling him about all the new merch they’ll sell.
1 Like
I’m not sure Mandingos is the same type of honorific Chiefs is. So, I’ll vote racist. Same reason “Redskins” would be racist even if a Native American founded the team.
I remember playing on a hockey team as a child in the early 90s in Mississauga. Every team in the league was named after a tribe in the region. Cree, Iroquois, Ojibway, Hurons, and I don’t remember the other two. Anyway after 30 years of existence from the 60s until the late 90s, they got rid of all the names for being offensive. Unsure who started the complaints, but it moved pretty quickly from first article written in the local newspaper to the names being changed within a couple years.
I assume naming it after a specific tribe would be less offensive than Chiefs, Braves or Indians which would be less offensive than R*****ns which is a slur.
1 Like
I guess I don’t really view it this way. I’m not convinced that the Native American owner has to support anything. He could just think it’s a cool name (and in his culture it would be a good thing to be), and that ought to be sufficient. But it sounds like your argument comes down to the fact that it’s not the name in a vacuum which is the problem. Because we’re not in a vacuum. I guess that’s reasonable. But on the scale of problematic names, I’d still put it way behind Redskins.
And that is the only place you really lose me: The claim that it might be even worse. You’re never going to convince me that Chiefs is worse than Redskins. Not possible.
1 Like
Fair enough. If you beleive the 1st sentence, then we are for the most part on the same page, and I don’t see a need to belabor the rest of it.