Are there any Native American NTers? Vol. How do you feel about "Indian" sport logos?

[tr1ll]

..here we go....

 

[grizzly hebert]

^

 

[ninjahood]

You dont have religious zealots picketing outside da NJ devils training facility.

 

With the use of the name "devils", how is that offensive to religious zealots given your example??

So cheering da personification of evil wouldn't anger religious zealots?

da bottom line is if something is not trying to offend you, why take offense?

Its da same as speedy Gonzalez, we not offended....9/10 its da political correctness crowd

Thats doing this nonsense.

 

[lyonbc1]

You dont have religious zealots picketing outside da NJ devils training facility.

 

With the use of the name "devils", how is that offensive to religious zealots given your example??

So cheering da personification of evil wouldn't anger religious zealots?

da bottom line is if something is not trying to offend you, why take offense?

Its da same as speedy Gonzalez, we not offended....9/10 its da political correctness crowd

Thats doing this nonsense.

So thats cool Speedy doesn't offend you but who are you to speak for American Indians and how they have been **** on by immigrants and settlers for the last 400 yrs at least...and then to have a damn sports team with ZERO connection to anything Native American being placed in the capital of the country that literally forced thousands of Indians to either move out of their home territory or get killed....if they have an issue with it then your opinion on it is irrelevant, since its not effecting you or disrespecting your culture or part of your identity, man. Who cares about a football or baseball team name

So the name ******** isn't "trying" to offend them now? Would an old team from the 1930s named the Georgia Negroes or Darkies not be trying to offend black people? Cmon bruh stop it.

 

[lobotomybeats]

9/10 its da political correctness crowd

Thats doing this nonsense.

...or the NAACP?

 

[ninjahood]

You dont have religious zealots picketing outside da NJ devils training facility.

 

With the use of the name "devils", how is that offensive to religious zealots given your example??

So cheering da personification of evil wouldn't anger religious zealots?

da bottom line is if something is not trying to offend you, why take offense?

Its da same as speedy Gonzalez, we not offended....9/10 its da political correctness crowd

Thats doing this nonsense.

So thats cool Speedy doesn't offend you but who are you to speak for American Indians and how they have been **** on by immigrants and settlers for the last 400 yrs at least..

Who em i to speak on Indians? Lulz gee i wonder where da Dominican republic is..

Google Hispaniola & da tainos.

Fake outrage is da worst....if it didnt piss ya off when they first established da team, why pick a fight in 2013?

We celebrate Columbus day EVERY YEAR & we know what that man did..where's that outrage huh?

Da blackhawks, skins, braves, chiefs, warriors & Indians are storied franchises that werent born outta malice YA DO know that.

Political correctness crowd are a bunch of scab pickers as far as im concerned.

 

[tr1ll]

....if it didnt piss ya off when they first established da team, why pick a fight in 2013?

View media item 313749

 

[Methodical Management]

I've spoken out on this before a number of times on the site, (Off the top of my head, http://niketalk.com/t/330759/how-is...r-a-professional-sports-team/60#post_12343048, http://niketalk.com/t/527345/new-ot...change-name-after-outcry-really#post_17334286) but I'm constantly disappointed by both the "quality" and quantity of arguments SUPPORTING these racist team names.  

What you expect others to endure for your sheer convenience is absolutely staggering.  

As long as you're all complaining - you can double up and get your gripe on right now, because I am absolutely in favor of adding the name of Washington's NFL franchise to our profanity filter.

It's a racial slur, plain and simple, and those have always been against NikeTalk rules.  It could cost us users.  It could cost us money.  At this point, I don't care.  It's wrong and if Snyder et al. don't have the decency to do the right thing, it's up to us as consumers to devalue the name.  

Media outlets and online communities have particular power here as we have every right to censor a slur in accordance with our editorial/acceptable use policies.  A brand name that can't be repeated on social media channels or via is at a competitive disadvantage.  

The Washington City Paper stopped using the name this fall.  It's high time we followed suit. 

Individual opinions can and will vary, but I can't in good conscience serve as an enabler of something I so deeply disagree with.  If Dan Snyder et al. want to continue to capitalize on degrading, exploitative anti-American Indian names and imagery, they can do so without our assistance.

 

[ninjahood]

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...hl9yyL&sig=AHIEtbRv4-UIUjk-v3hLxALe-c6NVdOjkA

Now what?

 

[00david00]

768 Native Americans answered that survey, out of 2.9 million in the US (according to the US census)

That's not even 0.3% of the people

according to the canadian wall street journal i might add

 

[kangaroobombs]

Full blooded Zuni tribal member here. I don't find the logo itself as offensive as others Natives do but I would be offended if someone called me a *******.
My tribe also never wore war bonnets like the stereotypical native. I think it's funny that as soon as I mention my heritage everyone wants to claim they're native
too.(they usually say their tribe is Cherokee 90% of the time.)

 

[lobotomybeats]

Now what?

It's as if he turned over Ace high thinking there's no way anyone could have a pair

 

[ninjahood]

Now what?

It's as if he turned over Ace high thinking there's no way anyone could have a pair

Supreme court legislation in 2009...now what?

 

[thorrocksjs]

U need to watch reel injun

 

[lobotomybeats]

Supreme court legislation in 2009...now what?

Oh you mean the case that was thrown out because the plaintiffs didn't file the lawsuit within the statute of limitations? So you are using a case that was thrown because of a technicality to reinforce what exactly? I'd hope you would realize how ridiculous that sounds. I'm certain you don't.


We hear this from you time and time again, Ninja. You chalk up the fight to stymie ignorance as some sort of disingenuous crusade. You're somehow above political correctness because you don't see the offense.

 

[ninjahood]

Supreme court legislation in 2009...now what?

Oh you mean the case that was thrown out because the plaintiffs didn't file the lawsuit within the statute of limitations?

Following appeals, in 2005 the D.C. Court of Appeals in Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo reversed the cancellation, ruling that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding of disparagement and holding that the majority of the petitioners were barred by laches from maintaining the suit.[sup][64][/sup] Had the cancellation of the trademark been successful, the team could have still used the name, and it still would have had enforceable trademark rights under state and local law. It would thus have been able to prevent others from using its marks on promotional goods, such as jackets and caps. It would, however, have lost various benefits of federal trademark registration, such as the ability to enlist the aid of the U.S. Customs Service to seize infringing imports at the border. On May 15, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed an earlier ruling that the American Indians had waited too long to challenge the trademark. The trademark was registered in 1967. American Indians successfully convinced the court to reconsider based on the fact that one of the plaintiffs, Mateo Romero, was only 1 year old in 1967 and turned 18 in 1984. The court decision affirmed that, even accepting the 1984 date, the American Indians had still waited too long for the 1992 challenge.[sup][65][/sup] In November 2009, in Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc., Case No. 08-327, the U.S. Supreme Court declined certiorari and refused to hear the Indian group's appeal.

aka, alot of huffing and puffing for NOTHING.

in 2013 da red skins is a NFL football team, not a knock to native americans...LET IT GO political correctness folks, go find something else productive to do.

 

[lobotomybeats]

The trademark was registered in 1967. American Indians successfully convinced the court to reconsider based on the fact that one of the plaintiffs, Mateo Romero, was only 1 year old in 1967 and turned 18 in 1984. The court decision affirmed that, even accepting the 1984 date, the American Indians had still waited too long for the 1992 challenge.

Like I said, it was thrown out on a technicality. You're using a court case that was thrown out on a BS technicality to plead you case! THAT'S YOUR ARGUMENT?

aka, alot of huffing and puffing for NOTHING.

in 2013 da red skins is a NFL football team, not a knock to native americans...LET IT GO political correctness folks, go find something else productive to do.

and in 2013 "*******" is still a slur.

 

[ninjahood]

The trademark was registered in 1967. American Indians successfully convinced the court to reconsider based on the fact that one of the plaintiffs, Mateo Romero, was only 1 year old in 1967 and turned 18 in 1984. The court decision affirmed that, even accepting the 1984 date, the American Indians had still waited too long for the 1992 challenge.

Like I said, it was thrown out on a technicality. You're using a court case that was thrown out on a BS technicality to plead you case! THAT'S YOUR ARGUMENT?

aka, alot of huffing and puffing for NOTHING.

in 2013 da red skins is a NFL football team, not a knock to native americans...LET IT GO political correctness folks, go find something else productive to do.

and in 2013 "*******" is still a slur.

you're entitled to YOUR opinion

http://www.discountdisplaycases.com/images/products/p-85961-washington-********-stadium-full-color-8x10-photo-cotg-8stad-*******s01.jpg

and like da court documents said, if they would've WON da court case it they STILL would've been able to use their name and logos

as well as protect its trademark in da united states as far as merchandise, they would've lost protection internationally, which quiet frankly

means other people would've been able to ALSO make ******** teams

 

[jchambers]

Skipping work yesterday, I got to watch the Dan Patrick Showsmokin ) and they touched on how Native Americians find the (I really dont want to say)"Native American Inspired" team logos to be racists(********, Indians ect). I never really thought about it but I guess if there was an Alabama Cottonpickers team with slave looking people on the helmet, I would feel a certain way about it.


Do you think they should change the names, mascots and logos? Would you feel better if they renamed all the teams after real tribes?

your example is a little bit different. one is basically a simple depiction of a native american. their isnt any negative/stereotypical connatations associated with the logo. The only thing that is remotely offensive about it is the usage of ******** as oppose to native americans...which is all schematics to be honest.

your example uses a dark period in time as a name along with a visual depiction of said act. it be like if a team was called yellowman and had a picture of a chinese man. that would be a better example

I think you mean SEMANTICS. It is very offensive and stereotypical.It is not a different situation at all.Native Americans have been living in a dark time since this country was stolen from them. Would you be OK with a team called the Nigers(country in Africa) using this for their logo?

View media item 314236

It's even worse, because Native Americans aren't even from India, some uninformed idiots just labeled 'em that.

 

[lobotomybeats]

Ninjahood, as you have done with the pending ruling on same-sex marriage, you use these rulings to determine what is "fair game." It's as if your moral compass points in whatever direction it is told is legal. You cite these cases to make your point in an effort to deflect the fact that you are okay with being offensive. Ask the Pro-Life contingent how that is working out for them. By your standards, they should jettison their beliefs and "let it go" because the court ruled that abortion is legal. Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds?

 

[ninjahood]

Ninjahood, as you have done with the pending ruling on same-sex marriage, you use these rulings to determine what is "fair game." It's as if your moral compass points in whatever direction it is told is legal. You cite these cases to make your point in an effort to deflect the fact that you are okay with being offensive. Ask the Pro-Life contingent how that is working out for them. By your standards, they should jettison their beliefs and "let it go" because the court ruled that abortion is legal. Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds?

umm i COMPLETELY agree with that.

abortion is legal, let it go.

******** is deems not disparaging, let it go

we live in da united states, where speech is Protective under da first amendment, "i may not agree with what you say, but ill fight to da death for you

to have da right to say it"

"morals" is subjective, da RULE of LAW is absolute..this is why da church and state is SEPARATED for reasons like this. **** morals, **** what you

believe in, **** what i believe in. its all about that freedom of speech.

 

[ninjahood]

Skipping work yesterday, I got to watch the Dan Patrick Show(

) and they touched on how Native Americians find the (I really dont want to say)"Native American Inspired" team logos to be racists(********, Indians ect). I never really thought about it but I guess if there was an Alabama Cottonpickers team with slave looking people on the helmet, I would feel a certain way about it.


Do you think they should change the names, mascots and logos? Would you feel better if they renamed all the teams after real tribes?

your example is a little bit different. one is basically a simple depiction of a native american. their isnt any negative/stereotypical connatations associated with the logo. The only thing that is remotely offensive about it is the usage of ******** as oppose to native americans...which is all schematics to be honest.

your example uses a dark period in time as a name along with a visual depiction of said act. it be like if a team was called yellowman and had a picture of a chinese man. that would be a better example

I think you mean SEMANTICS. It is very offensive and stereotypical.It is not a different situation at all.Native Americans have been living in a dark time since this country was stolen from them. Would you be OK with a team called the Nigers(country in Africa) using this for their logo?


 

we had a whole entire negro league...

 

[00david00]

had

 

[jchambers]

had

And they certainly didn't use offensive cartoon images as their logos. I may be wrong, but to me the Negro Leagues seemed more about pride and empowerment than stereotypes and caricatures. Also, the Indians, Braves and ******** aren't composed of only Native American players.

Ninjahood, as you have done with the pending ruling on same-sex marriage, you use these rulings to determine what is "fair game." It's as if your moral compass points in whatever direction it is told is legal. You cite these cases to make your point in an effort to deflect the fact that you are okay with being offensive. Ask the Pro-Life contingent how that is working out for them. By your standards, they should jettison their beliefs and "let it go" because the court ruled that abortion is legal. Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds?

umm i COMPLETELY agree with that.

abortion is legal, let it go.

******** is deems not disparaging, let it go

we live in da united states, where speech is Protective under da first amendment, "i may not agree with what you say, but ill fight to da death for you

to have da right to say it"

"morals" is subjective, da RULE of LAW is absolute..this is why da church and state is SEPARATED for reasons like this. **** morals, **** what you

believe in, **** what i believe in. its all about that freedom of speech.

Morals are definitely subjective. So are laws.The rule of law is far from absolute and is constantly changing as well. Every right we have under the Constitution is being abused and destroyed on a daily basis in this country, but everyone wants to focus on freedom of speech. To be clear, tho, I am not saying that I support it being illegal for them to use these names. I do think that it is offensive and people who oppose it should be boycotting. It's just a funny double standard. Nobody cares about the Native Americans, I guess.

 

[lobotomybeats]

umm i COMPLETELY agree with that.

abortion is legal, let it go.

******** is deems not disparaging, let it go

we live in da united states, where speech is Protective under da first amendment, "i may not agree with what you say, but ill fight to da death for you

to have da right to say it"

"morals" is subjective, da RULE of LAW is absolute..this is why da church and state is SEPARATED for reasons like this. **** morals, **** what you

believe in, **** what i believe in. its all about that freedom of speech.

So using your logic, African Americans who pined for the right to vote, marry whatever race they wanted, and to be treated as equals shouldn't have had a problem with being considered as lesser people? I mean after all, segregation and denying them the right to vote and marry outside of their race was legal. It's always those African Americans and their whining! Do you realize that you are insinuating that one's beliefs of what is right and fair is at the mercy of potentially being overturned? Should those who believe in something alter their views accordingly? I mean if abortion was abolished tomorrow, does that mean that the Pro-Choice crowd was wrong before?