Are the "Cleveland Indians" or "Atlanta Braves" offensive?
Here is a recent article again bashing the mascot and logo: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/...
I think they are more about the fight and bravery an Indian tribe represents, more than as "savages". Someone that commented on the article made these comparisons:
"Lawyers have just announced that all porpoises have joined a class action suit against the Miami Dolphins. Somalian pirates are suing the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Pittsburgh Pirates. The Audubon Society is bringing litigation against the Falcons, the Eagles, the Seahawks and the Ravens. Mother Earth is against the Oilers, short people hate the Giants, Great Britain is planning a strike against the Patriots. Old Man Winter is also upset because of the Miami Heat..."
Are these teams and jerseys really offensive?
- AsdzáníLv 78 years agoBest Answer
There is your answer.
Why are native americans the only ethnic group that it is acceptable to name a team after?
edit**** Kinda funny that some people are arrogant enough to think that we don't have the right to be offended at this kind of crap. Get back to me when you name a team the "Pittsburgh Jews", or the "Miami N****rs". How about the "Philadelphia Guidos"?
edit**********@masternachos.....I'd like to see the source of those "polls", and one you mentioned is 10 years out of date.
As for the other "ethnic groups" team names you cited.: Gaels, Celts, vandals,Tartars, Saxons-- those are all names of European tribes who no longer exist as tribes. They are not a distinct people anymore. Likewise, there are no more spartans or vikings. (what used to be Sparta is now Laconia) Indians, however, still do exist.
As for the Irish...yes, I do know that Irish people don't care for that either.
and as for "honoring" natives?
I am not your sports mascot.
edit***** I would challenge the findings of that poll. It says they only polled 768 native americans. Why so few? There are over 250,000 on my reservation alone. And yeah, every native I know, including other tribes, HATES the name "redskins". Oh, and reading further? Yeah, the poll says they randomly contacted people by phone who "self identified" as native american. Meaning they got EXACTLY the "my great-grandma was a cherokee" sort of people. They probably weren't enrolled tribal members. They weren't people living in a native society and culture.
please watch-Source(s): Navajo
- 8 years ago
Mothers are suing the San Diego Padres. People from the Northeast are suing the New York Yankees. Puffins are suing the Pittsburgh Penguins. People who make a living in the shipping industry are bringing the Seattle Mariners to court. Satan picked one of the many lawyers he knows to press criminal charges against the LA Angels. And the US Army Rangers are suing both the New York and Texas Rangers.
All jokes aside, I'm not Native American so I don't know for sure, but isn't Redskin a derogatory and offensive term?
- SarrafzedehkhoeeLv 78 years ago
No one has ever polled the American Indians. (My great grandmother was a full blood Navajo and never once was she call "Native American". My great aunt Odie won't let anyone use the term in front of her.)
"Redskin" is the N word for Indians. The cartoon Chief Wahoo makes me cringe. The tomahawk chop is DEEPLY offensive. But Indians are probably the smallest part of the population and they have no voice at all, so people can do pretty much as they please. The Seminoles still exist and like the college having their name, as do the Redmen of Northeastern State University in Tahlequah, Oklahoma (capitol of the Cherokees). But it would be nice at least to ask, wouldn't it? It took more than 30 years to get the University of Illinois to stop with their racist depiction of Chief Illinwek. How about asking, huh?
- The Mick 7Lv 78 years ago
The things people get pissed off about is absolutely amazing. As if there wasn't more important things to be concerned about without being concerned with stupidity. It the name "Yankees" offensive to Northerners? My God, where does it end? The only people benefiting from all of this are the blood sucking lawyers. The ACLU loves it to because it's just another reason to file their ridiculous complaints.
It's sports for pete sakes. It's just team names, nothing person, just a tag for a team. Liberals need to get over it!
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- King ColdLv 68 years ago
The Cleveland Indians logo is a tad bit offensive. The Redskins name may be a little bit offensive, but their logo is a not, as it is merely a depiction of a Native American. The Indians one looks like some dumb, savage.Source(s): My great grandmother was a Cherokee.
- jigokusabreLv 78 years ago
The names? Not really. You could argue that that the name "Redskin" is offensive, but Braves or Indians? That's a bit far fetched.
The lampooning of Native American culture and the cartoon Indian logo? Yeah, that's a bit offensive. I think that's what gets to people. People who would never show up in public in blackface have no problem showing up to baseball games in American Indian attire and dance around like jackasses or waggle their foam rubber tomahawks.
At least Redskins fans dress up as pigs.
- Anonymous5 years ago
They give you access to the computer software that may enable you to watch Television channels on your laptop computer or Laptop. It is an application for Windows.
- Mrs. UtleyLv 48 years ago
We really aren't disgracing cultures or ways of living. It's also good we're representing Native Americans as some symbols of America's past time. And we're preserving a part of our early ancestors.
However, I could see the other end's argument in how we are categorizing people and I guess no permission was asked? I'm not sure, I'm kind of torn :p
- 8 years ago
No, they are more defensive type teams. They have better pitchers.
The offense struggles alot, especially in the 9th inning.
- Anonymous3 years ago
This is up for discussion there are basically more possible answers to the question..