Should The Redskins change their name and Logo?

[EvilRyu2099]

But it already has that connotation so you can't really separate it. The fact that it has the historical context it does is what makes it the slur it is.

Redskin has the exact same historical context, but because Native Americans are of a huge minority(0.9% of the population), you won't get as much protest.. Simple as that.. So while I feel that both the Redskins name/logo and Cleveland logo should change, they probably won't..

[Jmustang1968]

oppressive

And that is the subjective part.

Is it oppressive that Superman isn't black? (there has been STEEL)

People are offended, not oppressed. French people may be offended by Pepe Le Peu, but they aren't being oppressed.

Luke, both you and JMustang are very esteemed in the community, and I bear no malice in my posts. However, I cannot let this sit unchallenged, because in reality this is still oppressive and the history of it does not speak otherwise.

Systemically people and communities of people are oppressed. It's hardly subjective at all.
Oppressed: unjustly inflicting hardship and constraint, esp. on a minority or other subordinate group.
Offensive: causing someone to feel deeply hurt, upset, or angry.
It's a simple cause and effect, the use of this language of "Redskin" and its logo has caused and does cause harm.
In turn, it only further solidifies the long standing history of oppression their people has experienced, whether they embrace the term or not.

And you seriously attempted to draw a parallel with a Pepe Le Pew? Are you just trolling or have you lost all semblance of what's being discussed? But since you brought it up, there's plenty of harmful, stereotypical cartoons that were produced during that era, which have been shelved because of their negative stereotyping. Speedy Gonzales for example, pretty racist no? Funny that Cartoon Network and Warner Brothers pulled them. Even on retail releases of the cartoons, there's this disclaimer:

"The cartoons you are about to see are products of their time. They may depict some of the ethnic and racial prejudices that were commonplace in American society. These depictions were false then and are still false today. While the following does not represent the WB view of society, these cartoons are being presented as they were originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as to claim these prejudices never existed."

Food for thought: Would an expansion team entering the NFL be given a name that could be racially charged and be well received? Just as Speedy Gonzales was pulled, why don't we follow the same logic and apply it to the Redskins?

I can see it being offensive to some, but I disagree on the oppression. No one made WB remove those characters. They did so for PR reasons and only recently with the growing campaign for being PC. The thing is when is it harmless stereotyping that is based on some truths and when is malicious?
Who and what draws the line? Many are just removing the line as they don't want to offend any potential customer.

Growing up in Texas there is a heavy Mexican. Growing up, guess who most of my hispanic friends favorite character was? Either Bugs Bunny or Speedy Gonzalez. Many identified with Speedy and loved him for it. Why is that inherently bad? Because a group like LULAC takes it upon themselves to speak for all hispanics.
These character representations highlight a lot of cultures, some are negative yes but not all and they aren't inherently so even if some want you to believe otherwise.

[oxymoron]

But it already has that connotation so you can't really separate it. The fact that it has the historical context it does is what makes it the slur it is.

Redskin has the exact same historical context, but because Native Americans are of a huge minority(0.9% of the population), you won't get as much protest.. Simple as that.. So while I feel that both the Redskins name/logo and Cleveland logo should change, they probably won't..

Of course they won't. Do you think that these multimillion dollar corporations (maybe even billion) are going to spend buku bucks to change a name that would please only a handful of people? This is an assumption but I don't think most of these fundamentalist Natives even watch football or baseball for that matter.

[Jmustang1968]

But it already has that connotation so you can't really separate it. The fact that it has the historical context it does is what makes it the slur it is.

Redskin has the exact same historical context, but because Native Americans are of a huge minority(0.9% of the population), you won't get as much protest.. Simple as that.. So while I feel that both the Redskins name/logo and Cleveland logo should change, they probably won't..

But it doesn't. Noise linked things that say it is generally thought that way now but not by all and didn't always have the historical context but has become more so recently.

[EvilRyu2099]

Of course they won't. Do you think that these multimillion dollar corporations (maybe even billion) are going to spend buku bucks to change a name that would please only a handful of people? This is an assumption but I don't think most of these fundamentalist Natives even watch football or baseball for that matter.

Gee the Bullets changed their name/logo because of the drug homicides involved with the city itself.. Why not the Redskins?

[Stark]

...are going to spend buku bucks to change a name that would please only a handful of people?

beaucoup

[EvilRyu2099]

But it doesn't. Noise linked things that say it is generally thought that way now but not by all and didn't always have the historical context but has become more so recently.

It's always associated with the murder and bounty of an Indian.. I find that pretty offensive and similar to "Nigger" but then again we can clearly associate the latter term more, because African Americans actually exist in decent numbers.. How many Native American areas are there now?

[oxymoron]

Of course they won't. Do you think that these multimillion dollar corporations (maybe even billion) are going to spend buku bucks to change a name that would please only a handful of people? This is an assumption but I don't think most of these fundamentalist Natives even watch football or baseball for that matter.

Gee the Bullets changed their name/logo because of the drug homicides involved with the city itself.. Why not the Redskins?

Capitalism. Does it mathematically make sense to spend millions of dollars to please a very small group that most likely doesn't even go to or watch your games?

[EvilRyu2099]

I don't remember being that much outcry over the Wizards' former name and logo..

[oxymoron]

...are going to spend buku bucks to change a name that would please only a handful of people?

beaucoup

Thanks. I didn't know how it was spelled. I just sounded it out.