Laley23;1527278 wrote:Ive never understood what is offensive about it?

So the mascots used in sports are sometimes cartooned a bit...who cares? They wouldnt be using your name as a mascot if they didnt think you were "tough, scary, hard working, etc". Its much more of a compliment to these tribes and other groups than discriminatory.

No one in sports is poking fun at the tribes. They arent making fun of their existence. They arent making fun of the way you live or lived. Its literally because its a cartooned picture or the name is slang??? Is that it? Would all the natives be happy if the Indians changed Chief Wahoo to a dark brown and didnt have the big eyes and smile? Just a normal drawing of an "indian"? Would that magically make it all better? Cause that is the only thing they are doing that is considered offensive...

Gblock;1527326 wrote:as usual you are the only one complaining..we get it..it sucks to be white..poor white people...11 posts later no one cares move on. you gotta get over it dude and try to find some joy in life

sleeper;1527357 wrote:I don't gain any additional benefit from being white. I just am. I'm proud of my skin color and think minorities that are offended by their own skin color should move back to Africa or wherever they came from. I don't understand the incessant need to whine and complain about how so and so group is offensive and therefore we demand it be changed; and if you don't change you are racist. This type of race baiting and rent seeking by minorities needs to stop, otherwise they will continute to self-handicap themselves by needed benefits solely because they cannot compete with white people on any scale; which to me signals an inferior race. If I'm black, I go campaign against affirmative action, the NAACP, and any group that tries to exploit and blackmail honest organizations because I would understand how these are negatively destroying any chance for me to just be a black man; rather than a poor little minority who constantly needs a leg up.

One can dream I suppose ~ MLK

Gblock;1527362 wrote:but you have made this exact same post..at least 50 times...beating a dead horse

HitsRus;1527293 wrote:thank you for proving my point about the real reason that this is an issue....that this group has a political ax to grind and it's a great way to accomplish their agenda.

I am exactly right when I say that some liberal college professor filled your head with guilt.

OSH;1527379 wrote:Shouldn't a group of Native Americans "have an ax to grind?" They are tired of being depicted of red-faced, smiling, tomahawk-wielding, scalpers. They are not that. It's racial stereotypes and/or profiling (however you want to look at it). So...they (Native Americans and their allies) should have an agenda they are trying to accomplish. It's the same agenda that aided the Jews during the Holocaust. It's the same agenda that abolished slavery. During those times, the respective people groups faced the same type of imagery and stereotypes that still takes place in America towards Native Americans.

When slavery was abolished, this same type of mentality was the pro-slavery group..."this group just has a political ax to grind" or "those people are just trying to accomplish their agenda." Well YEAH! Those people saw the discrimination and heinousness of slavery. Granted, the Native American imagery isn't as bad as slavery, but they are still being depicted how they shouldn't be.

No other people group has went through what they have and are being depicted as mascots. Vikings weren't slaughtered from their land. Fighting Irish (and their leprechaun mascots) hunted for bounty.

And no...there was absolutely no liberal college professor that filled my head with guilt. I can think for myself. Good job "profiling."

sleeper;1527373 wrote:I get a lot of criticism especially on religious threads but its not worth my while to come up with any new content when simply going directly to the point is all you need.

Gblock;1527399 wrote:i think mohican00 should have to change his name :RpS_w00t:

Gblock;1527399 wrote:i think mohican00 should have to change his name :RpS_w00t:

Gblock;1527326 wrote:you gotta get over it dude and try to find some joy in life

HitsRus;1527293 wrote:I am a clown when I say that some liberal college professor filled your head with guilt.

thavoice;1526715 wrote:Didnt hawaii have to change their name away from Rainbows?

justincredible;1526546 wrote:I think Dan Snyder should be free to do as he pleases with the name of the team.

Scarlet_Buckeye;1527581 wrote:So if Dan Snyder pleases to name his team "The Washington N*ggers" you think he should be free to do so?

while the US government continues to systematically marginalize them through ongoing policies that ignore their inherent sovereignty and Indigenous rights to the land.

Shouldn't a group of Native Americans "have an ax to grind?"

HitsRus;1527598 wrote:Half the world's problems come from the misguided notion that people have rights to land just because their ancestors lived on them 500 or more years ago.....But as long as you can guilty Westerners into thinking that because their great great great grandaddy took the land from your great great great grandaddy....they owe you something.

That's up to them depending on how they are actually being harmed by the U.S. Government, but it is important that you realize that cartoon characters aren't really harmful....and I don't care if you are talking about Wahoo, Hagar the Horrible, or pugilistic Irishmen....unless of course, you are going to use them as a weapon politically.
Some Native American activists do exactly that, manipulating this into a racist issue. Nobody believes that Native Americans today are tomahawk wielding savages, or that Scandanavians are pillaging, plundering raiders.

Incidentally, the Mother Jones article you cite, shows that the dislike for sports teams named after Native Americans is hardly universal among the tribes or of those of that descent.

Native Americans do not look like the Washington football mascot.

WebFire;1527651 wrote:Then why is Yankees allowed? It is a derogatory name.

WebFire;1527651 wrote:Then why is Yankees allowed? It is a derogatory name.

OSH;1527781 wrote:I guess they do have a pretty controversial depiction of the people group...

GOONx19;1527784 wrote:I don't think the Redskins logo is any more offensive than the FSU logo. But I guess if the Seminoles didn't get any money out of the deal, they would probably cry racist, too.