Why is this such a terrible name, when there are the Kansa City Chief or worse, the Cleveland Indians? I mean the logo of the cleveland indian couldn't be much more offensive in any case.
The Cleveland logo is pretty terrible. But it's not as if there's some rule that says only one thing in national sports can be offensive at a time. The name "Redskins" is also terrible.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Not really, but it falls under artistic expression. Note that he's rapping about murder here. That he uses a racial slur to do it is almost superfluous.
Singing about racially motivated murders is artistic expression, but a sports team name and logo isn't? Don't get me wrong, I support the right to sing about racially motivated murders. But I can't fathom how that isn't far, far more egregious than a team name and logo.
Singing about racially motivated murders is artistic expression, but a sports team name and logo isn't? Don't get me wrong, I support the right to sing about racially motivated murders. But I can't fathom how that isn't far, far more egregious than a team name and logo.
We're not talking about rights. To my knowledge, on this whole forty-page thread, there still hasn't been a single person denying the Redskins' First Amendment rights. The issue is whether it's appropriate to express the connotations of the word "redskin" in the context of branding a sports franchise. We generally accept racial slurs, violence, and other edgy stuff when it's contained within recognized artistic products aimed at adults: songs, books, movies, and so on. But we generally expect mainstream advertising to be uncontroversial. We don't see national restaurant chains named "The Monkey Porch."
In other words: remember what it's an artistic expression of.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I brought this debate up with my younger brother and he made a remark that I don't remember seeing in this thread. Since the issue is that the term "Redskins" is derogatory, isn't the team really simply insulting itself and its players by describing themselves using a derogatory term?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Proving god exists isn't hard. Proving god is God is the tricky part" - Roommate
I brought this debate up with my younger brother and he made a remark that I don't remember seeing in this thread. Since the issue is that the term "Redskins" is derogatory, isn't the team really simply insulting itself and its players by describing themselves using a derogatory term?
American sports teams pick names because they're aggressive. It's not derogatory to say that your sports team has an aggressive warrior nature. It is derogatory to then add "Like those people, who we named the team after."
Why is this such a terrible name, when there are the Kansa City Chief or worse, the Cleveland Indians? I mean the logo of the cleveland indian couldn't be much more offensive in any case.
Chief isn't a slur, and Wahoo is being phased out for exactly this reason.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Singing about racially motivated murders is artistic expression, but a sports team name and logo isn't? Don't get me wrong, I support the right to sing about racially motivated murders. But I can't fathom how that isn't far, far more egregious than a team name and logo.
In other words: remember what it's an artistic expression of.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Chief isn't a slur, and Wahoo is being phased out for exactly this reason.
Yea, interesting culture when a group of people can ask you to stop naming your sports team and profiting off a slur used to degrade their people.