Disclaimer: I wrote this a while back but with the Chief Illiniwek thing, I thought I would repost.
Josh Q. Public: The high-falutin’est, fastest shooin’est, rootin’ tootin’est cowboy you ever saw. -Quick Draw McGraw
Public Service Announcement: Ok here we go! Maybe its because I’m reading Lonesome Dove right now, I dunno. But this interests me. Yesterday I wrote about the petition against the Redskins logo and name. Not being Native American myself, I know I lack sensitivity on the subject. However, I do feel I can tell what’s in good taste. I may not display that here in this space, but that’s another matter. The name Redskins seems distasteful to say the least, but the logo itself does not. Waddya say we take a look at this issue and judge for ourselves. Sounds like fun don’t it. And how! That’s a Three Stooges joke. Not in good taste at all. So without further adieu:
A Tale of three logos:
Chief Wahoo and the Cleveland Indians. Seems open and shut to me. Far beyond bad taste. Downright demeaning. I can’t believe he still exists. Honestly. The team believes that its logo is justified because Chief Wahoo “is not animated or humanized and insensitive themes such as tomahawks, tepees and warriors on horseback are avoided.” Great. We are looking at the same picture right? “The logo is simply a caricature that has enjoyed decades of fan appeal in the Northeast Ohio area.” Hmm, weren’t #### and Aunt Jemimah “simply caricatures that enjoyed decades of fan appeal” to #### everywhere. Chief Wahoo’s gotta go. Frito Bandito style.
Chief Illiniwek and the Illinois Illini. I may be wrong with this one, but to me, it seems quite tasteful. As handsome a logo as there is. The Indian head appears on officially licensed T-shirts and other merchandise only. It does not appear on any team uniforms. That’s a shame. Chief Illiniwek would look great on an orange helmet. Some say the Native American in feathered headdress, “adds to the use of Native American imagery that the broadest range of indigenous tribes and peoples find offensive and insulting. Despite good intentions and best efforts, the stereotyping of Native Americans into narrow images is an undeniable consequence of choosing such names and symbols.” I dunno. I’m OK with this one.
The Southeastern Oklahoma State Savages. For real? For real, for real? Do I even have to comment? The good news is SEOS has changed its name to the Savage Storm, this year! Mighty white of them. How on God’s green earth did they get away with that for so long? The Savages? I have no problem with the Utah Utes, the Florida State Seminoles, Chicago Blackhawks, and names of that ilk. But the Savages? I don’t get it. Anything red should go as well. Redmen. Redskins. Whatever. It’s just wrong. One Native American activist had this to say: “Are we sub-human? Are we inferior to whites? That kind of puts us in a class with all these other mascots. You know, eagles, donkeys and pigs. (Worse yet, Mr. Met) That’s really disrespectful. I’m just wondering, are any of you slightly understanding where we’re coming from?” Not really. The tragedy that befell the Native Americans in this country is barely taught. Along with slavery, it is our shame. If Native Americans are that offended by these names, get rid of them. Who cares? When I was little, UMass were the Red Men. Now they’re the Minutemen. No one even remembers they were the Red Men. No one cares. No one is hurt if the names are changed. Many are hurt if they stay the same. May I suggest….the Aristocrats?
How about the Washington Screaming Savage Red Godless Heathens who carve the vaginas out of white women. I know what your saying, "Fulltilt how ya gonna fit all that on a helmet" Well we could always shorten it to The Redskins.
2. I can understand some may dislike certain mascots. But where do you draw the line? Athletic teams have mascots. In a country of 300 million people, EVERY CONCEIVABLE MASCOT COULD OFFEND SOMEONE.
For example, someone somewhere has great-grand-pappy that was mauled to death by a bear, so everytime they have to see the Chicago Bears, it creates bad feelings.
One solution would be to assign team numbers instead of mascots, i.e. 32 NFL teams, numbered 1-32. But someone somewhere will be offended by the number 13.
The other solution is just to use the college or city. For example, the Cleveland Professional Football Team, the Houston Professional Basketball Team, the Boston College Football Team, etc. The uniforms will all have to be the same color though, as not to offend any.
My point is, where does PC stop??
Last edited by TJHooker on February 25th at 6:37 PM.
tj,
thanks for stopping by. i'm not sure it's pc. i think its common decency. sure, every mascot could offend somebody, but let's not get silly. if a race of people are clearly being demeaned, and are disrespected, get rid of the mascot or the logo. who cares? i was pissed they changed pat the patriot to the elvis looking dude but they wanted to sell merchandise. i think changing a logo for reasons of racial persecution is a little easier to ####.
Last edited by JoshQPublic on February 25th at 6:41 PM.
There is no line in the sand. While some of these are extremely easy for me to point out, another person might think the opposite. Everything is offensive in one way or another.
Let’s not get silly? There are people that make a very good living “getting silly” by perpetuating controversial issues that support their very existence – they are called politicians, lawyers, lobbyists.
After they are done eradicating all of the potentially racially offensive mascots, then they will have to address the potentially offensive “Bears” and “Lions”, or go out of business for lack of any reason to take public money.
And if you will change a mascot for a group of people of common race, it only makes sense to change a mascot for a group of people with a common tragedy (loved ones mauled by bears).
You wouln’t call a team the Malignant Malinomas or the Cerebral Aneurisms since these are causes of illness and death, but what about the person who has lost a loved one to a bear mauling?
I say ALL mascots are acceptable, and the free market will say what are desirable. People like you are trying to draw an arbitrary line between acceptable and unacceptable, but it is where YOU think the line should be. But there are 300 million people in this country, and we cant have 300 million interpretations (or lines).
I think that the best control for mitigating potentially offensive mascots is the free market – if a mascot truly is offensive, none will patronize the team.
Reverend- two things. Colleges are different because they will give scholarships to schools just for having that heritage. Also the schools distibute money to the tribes.
second thing is pro teams dont. They use a race as a mascot
No sweat. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I enjoyed reading it. But you miss my point. You are but one of 300 million in the USA. If your standard, out of potentially 300 million standards, was applied, there would still be some offended. But that is why there is the right to free speech in this country. If speech was only free if it offended none, then we wouldn’t have ANY mascots.
Where we differ is that I have concluded that it is impossible to define a universal standard for mascots that will please all, therefore I propose none. I am not so arrogant as to assume that everyone shares my standards.
You are proposing YOUR arbitrary standard, that will leave some still offended. What about those that are still offended after application of your standard? If you make an effort to appease some, then what message does that send to the others? Just some food for thought.
O.K. - Deleted this post out of embarrassment. Just learned that you can TURN-OFF the bleeping on your posts.
Had posted an attempt at a "The Aristocrats" joke here, but was assuming that EVERYONE would see Fox's "bleeps" where in inserted ANY obscene word. If you had the bleep feature turned on, the joke might have made sense. If you had it turned OFF, the obscene/semi-obscene words I'd inserted in order to produce the bleeps (generally #### and f&ck) would actually have appeared and rendered the joke bizarre. The bleeps intended to have made it appear as though someone was telling the joke with racist words inserted, but bleeped out. May have worked for those of you with the bleeps on, and likely looked like one of the worst "The Aristocrats" jokes ever (and there's LOT'S of bad ones) for those of you with the bleeps turned off.
Ah well.
Last edited by Soccer_ref on March 5th at 6:10 AM.
The Redskins is a terrible name for a team, regardless of how offensive it is. They should all re-consider name changes. But these franchises have history, and I don't think they will.
I agree. The reason the name Redskins should go isn't because somebody might sue or how many people might be offended. It's because it's the obvious right thing to do. It will happen, but it may take another 20 or 30 years. Why not now.
You're booting Chief Wahoo? But look how happy he is. He must have been rootin' for KSP... ok just kidding... just had to have one line, since you called me "stupid"... which amazingly made me laugh... funny how one word can do that sometimes. Anyway man... no hard feelings, I enjoy reading your stuff, and will continue to do so. Later - KP
miracle you probably are right but some are just a lot worse than others. and not for nothing, i was in school down in dc back when crack was king. it was nothing nice.
Last edited by JoshQPublic on February 26th at 10:19 AM.
josh q. public. For the public, by The Public. Irreverent sports opinion from a Bostonian in New York. The one blog to read, when you’re reading more than one. Good to the last drop!
Chief Wahoo and the Cleveland Indians. Seems open and shut to me. Far beyond bad taste. Downright demeaning. I can’t believe he still exists. Honestly. The team believes that its logo is justified because Chief Wahoo “is not animated or humanized and insensitive themes such as tomahawks, tepees and warriors on horseback are avoided.” Great. We are looking at the same picture right? “The logo is simply a caricature that has enjoyed decades of fan appeal in the Northeast Ohio area.” Hmm, weren’t 
human? Are we inferior to whites? That kind of puts us in a class with all these other mascots. You know, eagles, donkeys and pigs. (Worse yet, Mr. Met) That’s really disrespectful. I’m just wondering, are any of you slightly understanding where we’re coming from?” Not really. The tragedy that befell the Native Americans in this country is barely taught. Along with slavery, it is our shame. If Native Americans are that offended by these names, get rid of them. Who cares? When I was little, UMass were the Red Men. Now they’re the Minutemen. No one even remembers they were the Red Men. No one cares. No one is hurt if the names are changed. Many are hurt if they stay the same. May I suggest….the Aristocrats?
