The Bobcat Nation

This is from the Washington Post

CHEAP SHOTS: To avoid insulting native American heritage, the Seattle Times decided to limit severely the use of the term Redskins in the paper -- even if a team with that name will dominate news coverage this week. The Times will not use the moniker in headlines or captions. Reporters can use it only once, as a first reference, in all stories. The Redskins will be referred to almost exclusively as Washington -- which could get a little confusing for local readers who also live in that state.

Stevicat wrote:This is from the Washington Post

CHEAP SHOTS: To avoid insulting native American heritage, the Seattle Times decided to limit severely the use of the term Redskins in the paper -- even if a team with that name will dominate news coverage this week. The Times will not use the moniker in headlines or captions. Reporters can use it only once, as a first reference, in all stories. The Redskins will be referred to almost exclusively as Washington -- which could get a little confusing for local readers who also live in that state.

I'll take the team from Washington to win big.

Seahawks by 13

Stevicat wrote:This is from the Washington Post

CHEAP SHOTS: To avoid insulting native American heritage, the Seattle Times decided to limit severely the use of the term Redskins in the paper -- even if a team with that name will dominate news coverage this week. The Times will not use the moniker in headlines or captions. Reporters can use it only once, as a first reference, in all stories. The Redskins will be referred to almost exclusively as Washington -- which could get a little confusing for local readers who also live in that state.

Will this PC bs ever stop...?

grizzh8r wrote:

Stevicat wrote:This is from the Washington Post

CHEAP SHOTS: To avoid insulting native American heritage, the Seattle Times decided to limit severely the use of the term Redskins in the paper -- even if a team with that name will dominate news coverage this week. The Times will not use the moniker in headlines or captions. Reporters can use it only once, as a first reference, in all stories. The Redskins will be referred to almost exclusively as Washington -- which could get a little confusing for local readers who also live in that state.

Will this PC bs ever stop...?

About the time people quit using derogatory terms for ethnic groups as the caricature for a sports team mascot, probably.

But hey, as long as the ethnic slur has been the mascot for a long time, it must be right, and those Indians offended by it must be wrong, and any proactive movements to limit the offensiveness of the mascot to those people must be nothing more than whiny political correctness.

"Redskins" is the one mascot that is truly repulsive. Origin of the term:

http://www.aics.org/mascot/redskins.html

Granted, somebody calling a team the Redskins isn't going to inflict any physical harm on anyone. But then, avoiding using that nickname isn't hurting anyone, either. So if a newspaper chooses to ignore a bad sports mascot, more power to them.

Bay Area Cat wrote:

grizzh8r wrote:

Stevicat wrote:This is from the Washington Post

CHEAP SHOTS: To avoid insulting native American heritage, the Seattle Times decided to limit severely the use of the term Redskins in the paper -- even if a team with that name will dominate news coverage this week. The Times will not use the moniker in headlines or captions. Reporters can use it only once, as a first reference, in all stories. The Redskins will be referred to almost exclusively as Washington -- which could get a little confusing for local readers who also live in that state.

Will this PC bs ever stop...?

About the time people quit using derogatory terms for ethnic groups as the caricature for a sports team mascot, probably.

But hey, as long as the ethnic slur has been the mascot for a long time, it must be right, and those Indians offended by it must be wrong, and any proactive movements to limit the offensiveness of the mascot to those people must be nothing more than whiny political correctness.

"Redskins" is the one mascot that is truly repulsive. Origin of the term:

http://www.aics.org/mascot/redskins.html

Granted, somebody calling a team the Redskins isn't going to inflict any physical harm on anyone. But then, avoiding using that nickname isn't hurting anyone, either. So if a newspaper chooses to ignore a bad sports mascot, more power to them.

I don't think there is any 'derogative' intent in any long established team having a name/mascot based on what what could now-days be considered politically incorrect.. These ethnic names were actually an 'honor' to those schools that chose to use them as their banner. They (the local ethnic nation) were 'winners' and 'fighters', and teams from grade school programs through the pros have adopted them either as a team name, or a mascot.

The sole reference as to the definition of a 'redskin' was obviously your choice, but in my mind the 'Seattle Times' refusal to use the nickname only points to the supposed "exclusiveness in society" aka 'political correctness' attitude of the Seattle area in general (very yuppy and extremely liberal.

I realize you are in a similar environment in the bay area, but once in awhile remind yourself of your Montana roots.

Funny ... the Indians that I know that DO consider it derogatory are from ... where's that liberal place again ... oh yeah ... MONTANA.

Hey, but as long as you don't mind the mascot, I guess nobody should. Being in Montana yourself, you could even go hang out in Browning and start addressing everyone you see as a "Redskin." I'm sure they will appreciate the honor and respect you are showing them.

Bay Area Cat wrote:Funny ... the Indians that I know that DO consider it derogatory are from ... where's that liberal place again ... oh yeah ... MONTANA.

Hey, but as long as you don't mind the mascot, I guess nobody should. Being in Montana yourself, you could even go hang out in Browning and start addressing everyone you see as a "Redskin." I'm sure they will appreciate the honor and respect you are showing them.

If I were in Washington D.C. I wouldn't address everyone I met as a "Redskin". By the same token, if I were in Browning I would not address everyone I met as an "Indian". Hell, they might be a "Blue Ponies" fan.

REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS

Take that Seattle Times!

GOKATS wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:Funny ... the Indians that I know that DO consider it derogatory are from ... where's that liberal place again ... oh yeah ... MONTANA.

Hey, but as long as you don't mind the mascot, I guess nobody should. Being in Montana yourself, you could even go hang out in Browning and start addressing everyone you see as a "Redskin." I'm sure they will appreciate the honor and respect you are showing them.

If I were in Washington D.C. I wouldn't address everyone I met as a "Redskin". By the same token, if I were in Browning I would not address everyone I met as an "Indian". Hell, they might be a "Blue Ponies" fan.

Ummm, yeah. As long as we pretend that Native Americans are mythical creatures that exist only as team mascots, similar to a Blue Pony, then there's nothing to worry about.

longhorn_22 wrote:REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS

Take that Seattle Times!

Would you do the same if somebody informed you for the first time that n**** was a derogatory term for blacks? And then you could say "Take that you Yankee outsiders!"

Wow this is interesting.

After spending all my time reading Griz postings on our Smack Board, I would have assumed that the worst thing you could call someone was a "Californian".

In general, I also think those who oppose the use of Native American names for team mascots are being overly sensitive, but I am with BAC in his belief that this is the one exception. Historically, "Redskin" is a racial slur. There is no way around that. The only reason people don't think of it in those terms today is because of the name of the team, but that doesn't change what the term means.

Chris Rock said it perfectly in one of his standup routines on HBO a few years back:

"The Washington Redskins? That's like having a team called the New York N*ggers or something."

--GL

I'm with Grizlaw and BAC - it's horrid, I always thought it was racial and referring to skin color, not scalping, that makes it worse if that is possible. Coming from a huge redskins fan family I feel really bad now for dressing in Redskins attire when younger and supporting them. Mom always said it was bad taste - what does she know. mom only grew up with native american friends in montana, us we just grew up with shopaholics in CA!!!!

Bay Area Cat wrote:

longhorn_22 wrote:REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS

Take that Seattle Times!

Would you do the same if somebody informed you for the first time that n**** was a derogatory term for blacks? And then you could say "Take that you Yankee outsiders!"

For one, n***** is not the name of a flipping NFL team. I think it is getting ridiculous that we have come to censor ourselves over names of sports teams. Names like Redskins and Indians and Seminoles that are "offensive" really shouldn't be. And when they started complaining that the University of Miami and Tulsa University Hurricane team names were offensive, that really bothered me more than anything. I just don't understand why this is ALWAYS a big deal.

longhorn_22 wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:

longhorn_22 wrote:REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS

Take that Seattle Times!

Would you do the same if somebody informed you for the first time that n**** was a derogatory term for blacks? And then you could say "Take that you Yankee outsiders!"

For one, n***** is not the name of a flipping NFL team. I think it is getting ridiculous that we have come to censor ourselves over names of sports teams. Names like Redskins and Indians and Seminoles that are "offensive" really shouldn't be. And when they started complaining that the University of Miami and Tulsa University Hurricane team names were offensive, that really bothered me more than anything. I just don't understand why this is ALWAYS a big deal.

So you're hanging your hat on the fact that since the "Redskins" mascot name has existed for years, that it is therefore not offensive and should not be considered offensive by people who are offended by it?

We as a country are evolving, and we have been for a long, long time. Realizing that things done or begun in the past aren't quite right is a positive step. There are countless examples of this throughout our history, and it's obvious that we're not quite done. Of course, there has been resistance at every step of the way by people who, as they aren't affected by it, assert that nobody is affected by it.

The term nig*** wasn't considered offensive by many for a long, long time. It was just the term they used to describe "those people." I'm sure there were people that weren't using it maliciously (think Huck Finn).

However, at some point in our history, it dawned on us that it probably wasn't a great idea to use that term anymore. And likely, it was just about the time that everybody figured out that if you used it in a group of black people, somebody was likely to justifiably kick your ass. That's how people who otherwise don't think that anyone should be offended by anything they say about their race finally realize that maybe it isn't their decision to make.

Again, anybody who doesn't think that there is anything wrong with "Redskins" is more than welcome to drive to any Indian community in this country and begin to talk loudly about the locals as being "Redskins" in a crowded area. Then, and only then, will you fully comprehend whether or not the term if offensive.

Although I do not jump on the bandwagon that the Redskins name needs changed, I see that it could be offensive to some. But I think some people also go looking for offense.

When we lived in Omaha, PETA sent letters to one of the high schools whos mascot was the Packers. As in Meat Packers. There are more than a few packing plants around there. PETA thought it was an offensive name, and apparently on the behalf of cows and pigs, were asking them to change it to the Pickers. It's the stories like that that make my skin bristle at any talk of changing mascots names.

Weren't the Redskins, and the Flathead Braves, and most other "Native American" mascots chosen because of the noted bravery and warlike nature of many of the tribes? Something the sportsman wanted to emulate? How is that offensive?

I am usually very opposed to changing names that are respectful. The Flathead Braves, the Illini, the Fighting Sioux, etc are all there because of respect. However, the Redskins is one that should be changed as it is an offensive term, just like St. John's Redmen.

All the other names that are done in a respectful way should be left alone, but I think the Redskins should change. They changed the name of the freaking Bullets, but didn't change the Redskins?!?!?!

Speaking of mascots, anyone following what is going on in Kalispell? The new high school's mascot was supposed to be the Wolfpack, but then some folks created a stink saying that the name was insensitive to area farmers. This is where being PC goes to far in my mind!!

ChiOCat wrote:Weren't the Redskins, and the Flathead Braves, and most other "Native American" mascots chosen because of the noted bravery and warlike nature of many of the tribes? Something the sportsman wanted to emulate? How is that offensive?

Maybe some people don't like their race being reduced to being "warlike" and savage cartoon characters to suggest initimidating violence on behalf of a football team. They might feel as though it promotes stereotypes about their culture that aren't flattering.

But like everybody has noted, each case is different. I think a mascot can be done with respect, while some clearly are not. However, "Redskins" is simply vulgar.

ChiOCat wrote:Weren't the Redskins, and the Flathead Braves, and most other "Native American" mascots chosen because of the noted bravery and warlike nature of many of the tribes? Something the sportsman wanted to emulate? How is that offensive?

Yeah, this is all true...

Look, everybody has their own threshhold for what is and is not offensive. For me, it's not the use of Native American symbols as mascots that is offensive; it is only the use of the word "Redskin." If Washington's team was called the Braves, the Indians, the Tribe, the Blackfeet, the Sioux, or pretty much any other Native American name, I would not be offended at all. But they're not; they're called the Redskins, which historically is a racist term. Yes, the name was chosen for the reasons you stated, but it's still a term that offends a lot of people. I am not Native American, but knowing what the term meant historically, I do understand 100% why people are offended by the name (and this is also why I consider the case of the Redskins to be different from all the other teams that have used Native American symbols as their mascots).

Maybe the new Kallispell can take PETA's suggestion and be the Pickers. You know, the Flathead Cherry Pickers. I'd hate for any ranchers to have nightmares about the Wolfpack.