What's in a name?

[Coriolis]

I heard that the former Cleveland Indians played their first game under their new name, Cleveland Guardians. They are one of several teams who replaced names that referenced Native Americans in some way. Washington Redskins are another. This article discusses the change, and the notion that such names perpetuate racist stereotypes. So, how far do we go? Should the Minnesota Vikings change their name, too?

 

[ceecee]

I heard that the former Cleveland Indians played their first game under their new name, Cleveland Guardians. They are one of several teams who replaced names that referenced Native Americans in some way. Washington Redskins are another. This article discusses the change, and the notion that such names perpetuate racist stereotypes. So, how far do we go? Should the Minnesota Vikings change their name, too?

The biggest issue I have with the entire renaming venture are white people who continue to say - Well, *I* don't have a problem with the names so they should keep them. Of course, these clowns aren't Native American and really have no place speaking on who should have a problem and who shouldn't in the renaming of two teams - one using a horrible Native Americana caricature and one just going along using a racial/ethnic/cultural slur like it's ok. I give Cleveland some credit here - they stopped using Chief Wahoo imagery long before any of this. It would be very helpful to hear more on why it's a problem from the people that find it problematic, such as with the Dakota tribe in Cleveland's case. I dislike the new Cleveland name and Washington should have just kept being The Football Team - it fits well.

The Minnesota Vikings - Not a slur, if anything Vikings have gotten quite the image rehab in the last decade or so but hey, ask some actual Vikings how they feel. Danes, Norwegians, Swedes...

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

I'm pretty close to what you would consider a modern viking. I mean, no, I'm not big and musclebound and chopping heads off, but i am descended from danes, swedes, norwegians, germans and celts, meaning i am made up of the stock of conquerers who successfully spread their genetic and cultural seed across northern europe. My ancestors made Romans take pause and say perhaps the Danube was far enough to extend the empire. Beyond their martial prowess, they were expert sailors and established trade routes as far as Russia and the middle east. Their cultural contributions have influenced modern day culture and traditions in Europe and beyond. You can thank my ancestors for the most memorable and fun aspects of holidays such as Christmas and Easter--boring Christian holidays spiced up with some pagan flair. With the possible exception of the zulus, the japanese, the apaches and the mongols, my ancestors were the closest thing our species has ever seen to actual Klingons, and that is worth celebrating by keeping the name of the Vikings .

Native americans need to be the ones to debate over and decide when they find native american cultural stereotypes to be either offensive or inspiring--I think it's a case-by-case thing, but I am white and thus have no "skin" in the game and will shut up. I don't get huffy and complain over these changes, I could care less what these teams name themselves, I just think they can come up with something better than guardians or commanders. Those are some of the most uninspired, bland names and sound like generic high school team names. Redskins may have been about as racist as they come, but at least it stuck in the memory and had a pretty iconic, albeit outdated logo.

What I would like to see for amusement's sake would be for these teams to keep the offensive and outdated names, but let's see other teams rename to various offensive slurs. Let's see the North Jersey wiseguys and the mascot is just a fat mobster in a track suit. How about the Kentucky Crackers and their mascot is a redneck? There's a lot more I can think of, but I can't list them here because it will probably get me banned.

I also think that the NFL could be reinvigorated by adding 2 or 3 randomly placed landmines to every game, and by equipping the players with various melee weapons such as bats, blades, maces, etc. This would cause a lot of death, but imagine the ratings. It would mean a very high player turnover, but this is good because it would give more up and coming college players a shot.

 

[Coriolis]

The biggest issue I have with the entire renaming venture are white people who continue to say - Well, *I* don't have a problem with the names so they should keep them. Of course, these clowns aren't Native American and really have no place speaking on who should have a problem and who shouldn't in the renaming of two teams - one using a horrible Native Americana caricature and one just going along using a racial/ethnic/cultural slur like it's ok. I give Cleveland some credit here - they stopped using Chief Wahoo imagery long before any of this. It would be very helpful to hear more on why it's a problem from the people that find it problematic, such as with the Dakota tribe in Cleveland's case. I dislike the new Cleveland name and Washington should have just kept being The Football Team - it fits well.

The Minnesota Vikings - Not a slur, if anything Vikings have gotten quite the image rehab in the last decade or so but hey, ask some actual Vikings how they feel. Danes, Norwegians, Swedes...

I agree that I would not consider Vikings a slur. Names like Indians seem comparable to that, though others like redskins clearly are slurs. I can see some merit in allowing the cultural group behind the name to decide whether it is an insult or not, but that assumes their position on the matter will be monolithic, or at least that there will be a clear consensus. The zero-tolerance approach some people take to any native-American-based names does seem like it should extend to any team names based on cultural groups. What is the threshold here? Is it OK to name a team after a cultural or ethnic group as long as a majority of that group have no objection? Where is the middle ground between being insensitive and letting political correctness get out of hand? Is there a middle ground?

 

[ceecee]

I agree that I would not consider Vikings a slur. Names like Indians seem comparable to that, though others like redskins clearly are slurs. I can see some merit in allowing the cultural group behind the name to decide whether it is an insult or not, but that assumes their position on the matter will be monolithic, or at least that there will be a clear consensus. The zero-tolerance approach some people take to any native-American-based names does seem like it should extend to any team names based on cultural groups. What is the threshold here? Is it OK to name a team after a cultural or ethnic group as long as a majority of that group have no objection? Where is the middle ground between being insensitive and letting political correctness get out of hand? Is there a middle ground?

I agree that it can get out of hand but I feel it would be helpful to actually ask the people who are offended. I guarantee most white people don't have clue one about specifics and nuances of Native American tribes, their culture and beliefs or why they would find something offensive and hurtful. And that should said this publicly. The more you know, right? 20 years ago (unless you lived in a heavy Muslim area) most wouldn't know when Ramadan is, what Iftar is, Eid or that adhan is no different than church bells calling people to prayer. But I do think there is middle ground, we just don't have enough conversations about it publicly, which is the actual problem behind most issues. Much easier to just ban something with no conversation and let authoritarian reactionaries have control of the narrative.

 

[Kephalos]

"Oh, it's gonna be so sad to lose Chief Oh no, he didn't!"

 

[Coriolis]

I agree that it can get out of hand but I feel it would be helpful to actually ask the people who are offended. I guarantee most white people don't have clue one about specifics and nuances of Native American tribes, their culture and beliefs or why they would find something offensive and hurtful. And that should said this publicly. The more you know, right? 20 years ago (unless you lived in a heavy Muslim area) most wouldn't know when Ramadan is, what Iftar is, Eid or that adhan is no different than church bells calling people to prayer. But I do think there is middle ground, we just don't have enough conversations about it publicly, which is the actual problem behind most issues. Much easier to just ban something with no conversation and let authoritarian reactionaries have control of the narrative.

Americans definitely are ignorant about other cultures and beliefs on the whole. To go back to my VIkings example, most don't know much about what real Vikings were like. Many probably think of some caricature of raiders pillaging foreign lands which, come to think of it, is not the best image to promote. Isn't that what European settlers did to Native Americans, after all?

 

[ceecee]

Americans definitely are ignorant about other cultures and beliefs on the whole. To go back to my VIkings example, most don't know much about what real Vikings were like. Many probably think of some caricature of raiders pillaging foreign lands which, come to think of it, is not the best image to promote. Isn't that what European settlers did to Native Americans, after all?

True. Vikings were also mass murders and slave traders/owners. And they are currently held up as a masculine ideal by some people who have little to no Nordic ancestry and don't seem to be aware there is a millennia + between the Viking age and now. Not taking any of the very real, positive accomplishments away from the Vikings (sea navigation, boat building, discovering America..) but let's keep their age in perspective. In the end, these conversations go back to white people appropriating as they wish, from anyone they wish and using it in any way they wish. That needs to end now. Does it really impact any white person if a sports team decides to change their name? No of course it doesn't. The same can't be said for the group the slur or horrible imagery from another century is being stuck in their face, without their permission. Reverse the situation and the outcome would be incredibly different or would never have happened at all.

 

[Coriolis]

True. Vikings were also mass murders and slave traders/owners. And they are currently held up as a masculine ideal by some people who have little to no Nordic ancestry and don't seem to be aware there is a millennia + between the Viking age and now. Not taking any of the very real, positive accomplishments away from the Vikings (sea navigation, boat building, discovering America..) but let's keep their age in perspective. In the end, these conversations go back to white people appropriating as they wish, from anyone they wish and using it in any way they wish. That needs to end now. Does it really impact any white person if a sports team decides to change their name? No of course it doesn't. The same can't be said for the group the slur or horrible imagery from another century is being stuck in their face, without their permission. Reverse the situation and the outcome would be incredibly different or would never have happened at all.

So, is calling a team the Vikings a bit like calling them the Klansmen?