Sometimes people just have to let go.
Take this badge from Scunthorpe United in the 80s
England had huge problems with football hooliganism, and this was somehow suitable? The team finally saw sense and changed it at the end of the decade.
I see no difference between that badge and the racist names, badges and mascots that some american sports teams currently use. They are all in poor taste at best.
I suppose you wouldnât think of picking up an I beam in a fight, now would you?
Not the only problem Scunthorpe have.
Bourbon whiskey isnât a European mark, itâs a distinctly American product named after either the American county or the American street, which were indirectly named after the French house.
While the Redskins and Chief Wahoo are clear examples of where that is the case, I donât think itâs quite as simple as reflexively kowtowing to anyone who claims to be offended. Should the Vikings have to change their logo because a bunch of SCA nerds get huffy about the historically-inaccurate portrayal of horned helmets? âYankeeâ is a derogatory term in the South, should the team change its name to avoid offending people whose ancestorsâ property was burned by Shermanâs march?
Actually, something like 71% think they should not change their name. A poll from earlier in 2013 had that at 79%. It seems plausible that the increased publicity (including, perhaps, swearing) has had an effect on how people think of this issue.
That language blog ridicules one of the litigants, talking about the âunsubstantiated and implausible theory advocated by Suzan Harjo, who exhibits no knowledge of the history of English usage of redskin,â while at the same time making the clearly erroneous assumption that the origins of the termâas opposed to itâs perception at the time of the patent applicationâis legally controlling.
@anon50609448 I found good evidence that the people in question donât mind, while their political organizations clearly do.
Sample size is admittedly low (n=768), but that still gives us a confidence interval of +/- 5% for a 99% confidence interval (over and above the 95% standard CI used in polling).
In a study performed in 2004 by the National Annenberg Election Survey, Native Americans from the 48 continental U.S. states were asked âThe professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesnât it bother you?â In response, ninety percent replied that the name did not bother them, while nine percent said that it was offensive, and one percent would not answer.
I think when people complain about excessive political correctness this entire posting/conversation is what bothers them. Why the hand-wringing?
@bwv812 You really find someone cursing at you or insulting you over your opinion to be convincing? Most people I know tend to stand their ground when attacked, but maybe youâre a French Canadian surrender monkey 
If the Vikings were still around and voiced a strong opposition to using that name then youâd have to be pretty insensitive not to change it. Not to mention stupidâwho would want to risk the wrath of Arinbjorn the Bloody?
Saying âDrop the fucking name!â isnât cursing or insulting anyone other than perhaps Dan Snyderâand even then it doesnât insult him, but the name of his team. So while that statement may not be very persuasive to Dan Snyder, it can help shape the larger dialogue amongst Americans that do not own the Washington football team.
A lot can change in 10 years. How much? Well, a 2014 survey says 67% of native Americans think the Redskins name is racist. Sure, the sample size is much smaller and thereâs not enough on methodology, but even under a 2002 SI survey only 75% of natives felt the term was OK. At the very least, we need new data.
Itâll probably not go down too well when Ragnarok comes around, either.
Living in Tyneside, that means âevery Novemberâ.
Youâre fighting a loosing battle.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
