Redskins Taken to Court, is Chief Wahoo Next?

I would be surprised if the Redskins lose this case. Just because something offends someone does not make it unconstitutional or illegal. Ever since “freedom of speech” morphed into “freedom of expression,” lots of offensive things became permissible, such as burning the U.S. flag. There are plenty of other offensive things that are legal, such as soaking a Crucifix in urine and rap lyrics. Also, “defamation of race” sounds like a pretty shaky legal principle. But we shall see.

I don’t think that Native American group is going to win in court, they’ve already lost a couple suites I think, so I doubt they’re going to win. There’s way too many technicalities, it’s too subjective of a suite as to what offends someone. I think there are plenty of Native Americans not offended one way or the other over things like Chief Wahoo and the Redskins.

I wonder if Scandinavian people are filing suite against the vikings and their image representation of the Norsemen.

shouldnt someone in sweden, iceland, or greenland take the minnesota vikings to court too? the indians logo is the best in all of sports in my opinion

also – not all speech is protected by the first amendment. for example, defamatory speech would not be protected under the first amendment. if the court determines that the redskins name is in fact defamatory, then it should not be a type of speech protectable under the first amendment.

fair enough. we can agree to disagree. to me, redskins is a pretty racist term. i would like to point out that many defend it by stating that only X% of native americans are or are not offended, so therefore it is not racist. in my opinion, if any true native americans are truly offended then it is an offensive term. just because it might only be 20% that are offended does not make it any less wrong.

the ironic part of the St John’s name change was the “red men” had nothing to do with american indians but was a reference to the school’s traditional red colored uniforms for sports. however, many in the public interpreted red men as being a native American reference so they changed it.

Scott – It still is. It brings up a good point about high schools using “racist” or “derogatory” names as their mascots. I graduated from Cuyahoga Heights, our mascot – Redskins. Then there’s the Berea Braves, Villa-Angela St. Joseph Vikings, and Lebrons own St. Vincent/St. Mary Irish could even be deemed defamating.

Whether it is offensive may not be where the war is. The Redskins’ problem, I believe, will arise from an argument that the team is a de facto monopoly or public property (It is not as though one may start a new NFL team in whatever city he pleases (though one may move his team, ahem)), which would generally be subject to heavy regulation, and which may give the impression, then, of having a government seal. (In some cities, sin tax pays for stadiums.) If the Court becomes convinced that the name of a local NFL team is, thus, tantamount to government speech, the Redskins may be in for a change. The Court does not, however, seem comprised of people likely to lean that way.

Kudos on a very thoughtful post, Scott. Whatever side of the fence you land on, it’s really easy to get worked up over the issue. It’s refreshing to read something that doesn’t come across as completely reflexive.

For what it’s worth, I spent my college years in a small college out on the Great Plains that had a large Native American population. At the time, I had a bunch of Indians gear that I wore proudly, not really realizing (or caring, frankly) that it could be seen as offensive. Needless to say, it didn’t go over well in certain circles. I got plenty of dirty looks, even if few people said anything to me. Eventually one of the professors whom I was close to took me aside and said that he “felt embarrassed for me” about my unfortunate choice in clothing.

Now, I don’t come down that strongly on the issue. I can understand the Native Americans being upset — I mean, come on, when you think about it I really was going around wearing a little racist caricature on my clothes, and I can see how that could offend the group being caricatured.

Now I don’t think that anyone means to be racist when they wear Chief Wahoo, and I don’t judge them for it. It’s a personal decision, and just because I choose not to wear Chief Wahoo doesn’t mean that I will vilify those who do. It’s tradition. It’s a symbol of civic pride. I’m pretty sure that nobody looks at it and says to themselves, “haha, Indians are so silly with their red skin and giant noses,” etc.

I will come down firmly against anyone who claims that all the people wearing Chief Wahoo are secretly racist, or any such nonsense. It’s patently false. That said, I still think that the mascot is insensitive. I still think that it should be voluntarily abolished over time.

Look, context matters. A logo with a caricatured Native American IS different in many ways than a logo with a caricatured Viking. I am hardly a wild-eyed multiculturalist, and I think that oftentimes multiculturalism is, to put it indelicately, stupid. But still — you can’t really deny that the Native Americans got a pretty raw deal. Trail of Tears, smallpox blankets, etc., etc. We did some awful things to Native Americans. I don’t get worked up about it the way some people do, because hey, pretty much every nation has some pretty serious skeletons in its closet, and hey, it’s not like the perceived sins of Andrew Jackson really have anything to do with the here and now.

I still think it is pretty willfully ignorant to play the whole Chief Wahoo = Minnesota Vikings logo card. And if we want to play the awful analogies game, I can just point to a hypothetical Black Sambo logo, and people going to the game in blackface. Is this better, worse, even pertinent at all? The two would be different situations.

I don’t get worked up over the issue, because there are plenty of serious things in the world far worse than a silly, outdated logo. Heck, I think that Native Americans should have far more pressing issues than Chief Wahoo. That said, I found that going to a school with close to a 10% Native American population, I felt like a complete idiot wearing around my Wahoo gear. The people who were caricatured were right in front of me, and I felt offensive. I stopped wearing my Wahoo gear, and carried this habit back to Ohio with me.

Again, I won’t judge anyone who wears Wahoo, because I know that nobody means any harm — but really, I wish that we could just bury the Chief and get back to focusing on awful, awful baseball.

heh, my company makes those “I” pretzels. IMO, some things are apart of history and are tradition.. and should be respected as much. Regardless if that Louis Sockalexis story is true or not.

First things first, the group has only petitioned the Supreme Court to review it, something they have done before. The last time the Supreme Court basically told them to go away (denying to hear the claim because they waited to long) and I imagine that will happen again. If they do hear it the Redskins and Tribe could be in trouble though.

The NCAA tried to be proactive a few years back and ban all Native American related college mascots. Certain schools (Florida State and Central Michigan) were able to get around it because they could show that they worked with the Tribes and accurately portrayed their heritage. While that was strictly an NCAA ruling, the Court may look at that as persuasive, which would screw over the Indians more than any team since there are no other teams who have a logo that would be deemed as offensive as Chief Wahoo (the Redskins logo is generic but slightly more accurate than ours).

Agree with #7 on the term “Redskins.” They shouldn’t be made to change, but it is in rather poor taste. As for the term “Indians,” that is one rather slightly less offensive and a testament to the boorish Europeans that got lost depending on how you look at it.

Also, if you examine the etymology of the nickname “Indians,” it’s unknown, but it seems it may very well have been inspired by a Native American that put a dent into baseball’s color barrier in Cleveland and dealt with similar taunts and harrassment, years before Jackie Robinson broke it in Brooklyn. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Sockalexis

Im assuming you meant you own a lot of Indians stuff, apparel, hats even….

So we don’t have readers that own actual Indians?

The Indians were named in HONOR of an Indian. How is this offensive? This is nothing more than people with too much time on their hands. Get a freaking life.

The irony of this, is that one of the most offensive Chief Wahoo logos (arguably) is displayed on the banner of this website.

#30 – Scott – I own a few Indians. But they’re from India and they help me with my computer and health issues. And for the record they are NOT offended by the logo itself, but instead by the Indian’s poor display of “cricket”.

Change it to the Cleveland Jews.

lightenup its a cartoon character! how about seagulls or sliders?

Can you hear my deep sigh from north of the border here in Canada? I work in a high school on an Indian reservation (here was call the First Nations not Indians). We’re discussing the issue of Native mascots and team names.

I find it interesting that we as (mostly?) white people who just don’t get it, are the voice here.

We are reviewing the double standard since, as mentioned, it would NEVER be accepted to call a mascot Mr. Ni**er and, let’s face it, “wahoo” is comparable — no matter HOW long that mascot or team name had been around.

In Canada subtle racism is still racism no matter how you cut it. It’s a deplorable mascot. He needs to go, no matter how many angry rich white people make a stink. It’s no good.