Redskins Trademark cancelled

[InsaneBoost]

Just call them Washington. Or do you have to have an actual name after that? I have to say I honestly wouldn't be upset with Braves. Could still keep the Native American imagery too, not to mention it was the original name.

[44Deezel]

Originally Posted by InsaneBoost

Just call them Washington. Or do you have to have an actual name after that? I have to say I honestly wouldn't be upset with Braves. Could still keep the Native American imagery too, not to mention it was the original name.

As soon as the Redskins change their name, Oneida will turn their attention to the Chiefs, Braves, Indians, Blackhawks, etc. We're just the first shoe to drop.

The NCAI has a 30 plus page paper on their website calling for the end of ALL Native American team names and mascots. It's become trendy to hate on the Redskins, so momentum is on their side.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by 44Deezel

As soon as the Redskins change their name, Oneida will turn their attention to the Chiefs, Braves, Indians, Blackhawks, etc. We're just the first shoe to drop.

The NCAI has a 30 plus page paper on their website calling for the end of ALL Native American team names and mascots. It's become trendy to hate on the Redskins, so momentum is on their side.

Chiefs, Braves ,Indians and Blackhawks are not racist terms ,what is the argument against them ?

[HoustonSkinsFan]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Chiefs, Braves ,Indians and Blackhawks are not racist terms ,what is the argument against them ?

Using Native Americans/Native American imagery in general is where the issue is.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by HoustonSkinsFan

Using Native Americans/Native American imagery in general is where the issue is.

Maybe with some but not all of them ,I've heard the argument about the name Redskin ,not saying I agree with it but there is an argument out there .As for the other names I haven't heard the argument against them (yet),the term Brave nor is Chief is not demeaning and as for the chant (that can be stopped very easily) so what is the real argument ?


P.S

Washington Redskins racist? Native American views on NFL team name | The MMQB with Peter King

the Florida State Seminoles and Central Michigan Chippewas use Native American mascots with the approval and input of the tribes

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Maybe with some but not all of them ,I've heard the argument about the name Redskin ,not saying I agree with it but there is an argument out there .As for the other names I haven't heard the argument against them (yet),the term Brave nor is Chief is not demeaning and as for the chant (that can be stopped very easily) so what is the real argument ?


P.S

Washington Redskins racist? Native American views on NFL team name | The MMQB with Peter King

the Florida State Seminoles and Central Michigan Chippewas use Native American mascots with the approval and input of the tribes

For that last line, there are plenty of Seminole tribes. And most dont accept Florida State using it as a mascot. A single Seminole tribe in Florida gave the OK to the NCAA for use of the nickname, after a deal was made between that single tribe and Florida State. Florida State gets their approval to continue using the name, and kids from that single Seminole tribe that graduate HS get a scholarship to attend Florida State.

What is referred to as Seminole Nation, which is located in Oklahoma, has called for the name to change. They are against it. Susan Harjo went on to call that single Seminole tribe in Florida "A bunch of sellouts".

Central Michigan has also got the approval of a single Chippewa tribe, not from all Chippewa's.

As for why the other names are considered that, all you have to do is click the link supplied by SirLK26 just a few posts before yours.

A lot of Indians cant stand that Chiefs is used (some of which dont have a problem with a football team call the redskins). A Chief in their society is not something you just call yourself. It is an earned position and only a very select few are allowed to call themselves. A lot of Indians believe that Chiefs as a mascot is demeaning and racist to Indians as well as their culture.

[44Deezel]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

For that last line, there are plenty of Seminole tribes. And most dont accept Florida State using it as a mascot. A single Seminole tribe in Florida gave the OK to the NCAA for use of the nickname, after a deal was made between that single tribe and Florida State. Florida State gets their approval to continue using the name, and kids from that single Seminole tribe that graduate HS get a scholarship to attend Florida State.

What is referred to as Seminole Nation, which is located in Oklahoma, has called for the name to change. They are against it. Susan Harjo went on to call that single Seminole tribe in Florida "A bunch of sellouts".

Central Michigan has also got the approval of a single Chippewa tribe, not from all Chippewa's.

As for why the other names are considered that, all you have to do is click the link supplied by SirLK26 just a few posts before yours.

A lot of Indians cant stand that Chiefs is used (some of which dont have a problem with a football team call the redskins). A Chief in their society is not something you just call yourself. It is an earned position and only a very select few are allowed to call themselves. A lot of Indians believe that Chiefs as a mascot is demeaning and racist to Indians as well as their culture.

That's why this issue is so complicated. There are about 500 recognized tribes and there is little consensus among them. Most of the Native Americans who are offended by the word Redskin are also offended by the use of any Native American imagery or words being used as team names or mascots.

Those other teams will be going down soon after the Redskins change their name.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

For that last line, there are plenty of Seminole tribes. And most dont accept Florida State using it as a mascot. A single Seminole tribe in Florida gave the OK to the NCAA for use of the nickname, after a deal was made between that single tribe and Florida State. Florida State gets their approval to continue using the name, and kids from that single Seminole tribe that graduate HS get a scholarship to attend Florida State.

What is referred to as Seminole Nation, which is located in Oklahoma, has called for the name to change. They are against it. Susan Harjo went on to call that single Seminole tribe in Florida "A bunch of sellouts".

Central Michigan has also got the approval of a single Chippewa tribe, not from all Chippewa's.

As for why the other names are considered that, all you have to do is click the link supplied by SirLK26 just a few posts before yours.

A lot of Indians cant stand that Chiefs is used (some of which dont have a problem with a football team call the redskins). A Chief in their society is not something you just call yourself. It is an earned position and only a very select few are allowed to call themselves. A lot of Indians believe that Chiefs as a mascot is demeaning and racist to Indians as well as their culture.

Ok , please understand I'm not trying to make this hard but the word Chief is used by many different cultures ,what makes the NA think they control the way the word is used .We have people who have come from Africa at work and are called Chief ,he is a real Chief and takes the fact that we address him as such as a sign of respect .What if you are a Chief Petty Officer ,I'm not making lite of this but I'm trying to understand where it will end ?Not liking it used is one thing but they are not derogatory ,the word Seminole is not derogatory in anyway .

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Chiefs, Braves ,Indians and Blackhawks are not racist terms ,what is the argument against them ?

It's very offensive to call a NA "chief" unless they are actually a Chief of a tribe. The point with the Indians (Cleveland) is their logo. The Braves have the tomahawk chant that is not very well received by the NA nation from what I hear, and there has been issues against the Blackhawks.

It doesn't have to be anything associated with race to be considered offensive.

[SirLK26]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

It's very offensive to call a NA "chief" unless they are actually a Chief of a tribe. The point with the Indians (Cleveland) is their logo. The Braves have the tomahawk chant that is not very well received by the NA nation from what I hear, and there has been issues against the Blackhawks.

It doesn't have to be anything associated with race to be considered offensive.

Some Native Americans feel like those mascots dehumanize their people. Who knows what percentage actually hold that opinion, but it is where some of the problem with those names you mentioned comes from.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Chiefs, Braves ,Indians and Blackhawks are not racist terms ,what is the argument against them ?

Redskins isn't a racist term. What is the argument against it?

BTW, more than one NA"activist" has said ALL the above names are racist. So where is the line between what is racist and isn't? And does it stop at NA names, or do we consider other names NFL teams use?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

BTW, more than one NA"activist" has said ALL the above names are racist.

ok , who ?

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Giantone

ok , who ?

Consider yourself educated on this, giantone:

Amanda Blackhorse : I personally believe that all use of Native-themed mascots and team names are inappropriate.

National Congress of American Indians:The report NCAI has released today provides the history of an overwhelming movement to end the era of harmful “Indian” mascots – including the fact that Native peoples have fought these mascots since 1963 and no professional sports team has established a new ‘Indian’ mascot since 1964.

John Two-Hawks: How 'Indian' mascots oppress

Nevermind most NAs, and most other Americans, don't consider the name "Redskins" offensive.

So if you think the people protesting the name are right, guess the KC Chiefs, Florida Seminoles, and everybody else is next.

Using the logic, well the press thinks it's offensive now: 10 Frightening Ways We Discriminate Against Fat People, Sizism. Didn't intend the name NY Giants to be discriminatory? Too bad.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

Amanda Blackhorse : I personally believe that all use of Native-themed mascots and team names are inappropriate.

National Congress of American Indians:The report NCAI has released today provides the history of an overwhelming movement to end the era of harmful “Indian” mascots – including the fact that Native peoples have fought these mascots since 1963 and no professional sports team has established a new ‘Indian’ mascot since 1964.

John Two-Hawks: How 'Indian' mascots oppress


So if you think the people protesting the name are right, guess the KC Chiefs, Florida Seminoles, and everybody else is next.
.

Thank you for the information and just to educate you ,I have never agreed with any of this ,ever .