Vikings name change?

A forum for the hard core Minnesota Vikings fan. Discuss upcoming games, opponents, trades, draft or what ever is on the minds of Viking fans!

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
RandyMoss84
Pro Bowl Elite Player
Posts: 860
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 2:12 pm
x 297

Vikings name change?

Post by RandyMoss84 » Fri Jul 03, 2020 4:07 pm

It looks like the Redskins will be changing their name so I am curious, if Vikings are forced to change their name, are you going to still be a fan or are you done?
0 x

User avatar
VikingPaul73
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3164
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 5:07 pm
x 90

Re: Vikings name change?

Post by VikingPaul73 » Fri Jul 03, 2020 7:44 pm

Stop trolling, dude
This thread should be locked ASAP
1 x

User avatar
RandyMoss84
Pro Bowl Elite Player
Posts: 860
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 2:12 pm
x 297

Re: Vikings name change?

Post by RandyMoss84 » Fri Jul 03, 2020 8:03 pm

VikingPaul73 wrote:
Fri Jul 03, 2020 7:44 pm
Stop trolling, dude
This thread should be locked ASAP
How am I trolling? It could happen! :confused:
0 x

User avatar
VikingsVictorious
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1521
Joined: Sat May 04, 2019 7:27 pm
x 373

Re: Vikings name change?

Post by VikingsVictorious » Sat Jul 04, 2020 1:31 am

RandyMoss84 wrote:
Fri Jul 03, 2020 8:03 pm
VikingPaul73 wrote:
Fri Jul 03, 2020 7:44 pm
Stop trolling, dude
This thread should be locked ASAP
How am I trolling? It could happen! :confused:
No way in Hell it could happen.
0 x

User avatar
Cliff
Site Admin
Posts: 8943
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:51 pm
Location: Kentucky
x 193

Re: Vikings name change?

Post by Cliff » Sat Jul 04, 2020 8:11 am

The Redskins name is blatantly racist and the Vikings name is not. I can't imagine why they'd change the name.
2 x

User avatar
RandyMoss84
Pro Bowl Elite Player
Posts: 860
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 2:12 pm
x 297

Re: Vikings name change?

Post by RandyMoss84 » Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:39 am

Cliff wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 8:11 am
The Redskins name is blatantly racist and the Vikings name is not. I can't imagine why they'd change the name.
True, good point
1 x

StumpHunter
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1916
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:55 am
x 254

Re: Vikings name change?

Post by StumpHunter » Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:55 am

Cliff wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 8:11 am
The Redskins name is blatantly racist and the Vikings name is not. I can't imagine why they'd change the name.
It is the name the colonists gave the Native Americans. Viking is the English, bastardized term for Norse raiders.

Redskin obviously refers to skin tone, so right there you have a direct link to race. However, Viking has far more negative connotations to it, as it refers to a group that pillaged, raped, murdered and enslaved their way across Europe. It actually could be considered far more racist when you really dig deep, since the only reason they are the Vikings is because MN is full of Scandinavians. It is saying MN Scands are related to Vikings and perpetuating a stereo-type!

So why does no one care? The answer is simple. We like being called Vikings and when we think of Vikings that blew horns, wore horns and fought with axes, we don't think of all the bad stuff that goes with it. Scands embrace it, make it their own, and all the negative stuff goes away.

The names of teams are their names because they are perceived as cool or tough. For Vikings, we continue to think of them as cool and tough while the Redskins, Braves and Indians are thought of as attack on the indigenous people of this land. Probably because Scands are the ones who are blowing the horns and dressing up like a stereo type, while with those other teams it ends up being a bunch of non-Indians wearing the stereo-typical garb. Oh, and also, because some people like to be offended and outraged on behalf of others.
2 x

Herschel's Revenge
Waterboy
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2020 2:12 am

Re: Vikings name change?

Post by Herschel's Revenge » Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:52 pm

VikingsVictorious wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 1:31 am
RandyMoss84 wrote:
Fri Jul 03, 2020 8:03 pm


How am I trolling? It could happen! :confused:
No way in Hell it could happen.
Yes way in hell it could happen, at least according to this:

Norway Demands Minnesota Vikings Change Name, Saying It Mocks Country’s Proud Heritage as Murderous Swede-Killing Lutefisk Eaters

OSLO – Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg has sent a letter to Minnesota Vikings owner Zygi Wilf demanding that the team immediately cease and desist from using the name “Vikings” and replace its mascot Viktor the Viking with the dried crushed reindeer testicles Solbeg sent with the letter to better reflect the team’s urgent need to grow a pair and win at least a couple games this year and not be such a humiliation to just about everyone with Scandinavian heritage.

https://breakinginasia.com/norway-deman ... sk-eaters/
0 x

User avatar
RandyMoss84
Pro Bowl Elite Player
Posts: 860
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 2:12 pm
x 297

Re: Vikings name change?

Post by RandyMoss84 » Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:12 pm

Herschel's Revenge wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:52 pm
VikingsVictorious wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 1:31 am

No way in Hell it could happen.
Yes way in hell it could happen, at least according to this:

Norway Demands Minnesota Vikings Change Name, Saying It Mocks Country’s Proud Heritage as Murderous Swede-Killing Lutefisk Eaters

OSLO – Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg has sent a letter to Minnesota Vikings owner Zygi Wilf demanding that the team immediately cease and desist from using the name “Vikings” and replace its mascot Viktor the Viking with the dried crushed reindeer testicles Solbeg sent with the letter to better reflect the team’s urgent need to grow a pair and win at least a couple games this year and not be such a humiliation to just about everyone with Scandinavian heritage.

https://breakinginasia.com/norway-deman ... sk-eaters/
That is a hilarious article :lol:
0 x

User avatar
Cliff
Site Admin
Posts: 8943
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:51 pm
Location: Kentucky
x 193

Re: Vikings name change?

Post by Cliff » Mon Jul 06, 2020 7:46 am

StumpHunter wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:55 am
It is the name the colonists gave the Native Americans.
And the "n" word is just a form of the Spanish word for black (niger). The origin isn't important, the usage is.

Link.
Yes, A 'Redskin' Does, In Fact, Mean the Scalped Head of a Native American, Sold, Like a Pelt, for Cash
Image
The State reward for dead Indians has been increased to $200 for every red-skin sent to Purgatory. This sum is more than the dead bodies of all the Indians east of the Red River are worth.
A few cited a study written by Smithsonian Institution senior linguist Ives Goddard that makes the case that the word did not begin as an insult.

But here is a quote from another member of the Smithsonian – Kevin Gover, a member of the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma and director of the Institution's National Museum of the American Indian:

"I'm really not that interested in where the word comes from," Gover said. "I know how it was used. And it's been used in a disparaging way for at least a couple of centuries. Up to and including the time I was growing up in Oklahoma."
I've got more "logic" arguments if this isn't enough. I feel strongly it is though.
0 x

StumpHunter
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1916
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:55 am
x 254

Re: Vikings name change?

Post by StumpHunter » Mon Jul 06, 2020 8:34 am

Cliff wrote:
Mon Jul 06, 2020 7:46 am
StumpHunter wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:55 am
It is the name the colonists gave the Native Americans.
And the "n" word is just a form of the Spanish word for black (niger). The origin isn't important, the usage is.

Link.
Yes, A 'Redskin' Does, In Fact, Mean the Scalped Head of a Native American, Sold, Like a Pelt, for Cash
Image
The State reward for dead Indians has been increased to $200 for every red-skin sent to Purgatory. This sum is more than the dead bodies of all the Indians east of the Red River are worth.
A few cited a study written by Smithsonian Institution senior linguist Ives Goddard that makes the case that the word did not begin as an insult.

But here is a quote from another member of the Smithsonian – Kevin Gover, a member of the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma and director of the Institution's National Museum of the American Indian:

"I'm really not that interested in where the word comes from," Gover said. "I know how it was used. And it's been used in a disparaging way for at least a couple of centuries. Up to and including the time I was growing up in Oklahoma."
I've got more "logic" arguments if this isn't enough. I feel strongly it is though.
Don't get me wrong, it is fine that they are changing the name, and of all the Native American sports teams, it is the most offensive. However changing it isn't actually going to do anything. In fact, the name was a constant reminder of how Native Americans were treated, so that we never repeat the same mistake. A less offensive reminder would probably be better, but we tend to ignore those type reminders.
0 x

User avatar
J. Kapp 11
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8070
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm
x 726

Re: Vikings name change?

Post by J. Kapp 11 » Tue Jul 07, 2020 6:30 am

Cliff wrote:
Mon Jul 06, 2020 7:46 am
StumpHunter wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:55 am
It is the name the colonists gave the Native Americans.
And the "n" word is just a form of the Spanish word for black (niger). The origin isn't important, the usage is.

Link.
Yes, A 'Redskin' Does, In Fact, Mean the Scalped Head of a Native American, Sold, Like a Pelt, for Cash
Image
The State reward for dead Indians has been increased to $200 for every red-skin sent to Purgatory. This sum is more than the dead bodies of all the Indians east of the Red River are worth.
A few cited a study written by Smithsonian Institution senior linguist Ives Goddard that makes the case that the word did not begin as an insult.

But here is a quote from another member of the Smithsonian – Kevin Gover, a member of the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma and director of the Institution's National Museum of the American Indian:

"I'm really not that interested in where the word comes from," Gover said. "I know how it was used. And it's been used in a disparaging way for at least a couple of centuries. Up to and including the time I was growing up in Oklahoma."
I've got more "logic" arguments if this isn't enough. I feel strongly it is though.
Given this historical context, it’s pretty obvious that the name Redskins needs to be changed. No argument here. Thanks for posting. I did not know this.

That being said, in our current cancel culture, almost any name is going to offend someone. If Washington changed its nickname to the Fluffy Puppies, PETA would probably protest outside the stadium.
0 x
Image
Go ahead. I dare you.
Underestimate this man.

User avatar
Cliff
Site Admin
Posts: 8943
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:51 pm
Location: Kentucky
x 193

Re: Vikings name change?

Post by Cliff » Tue Jul 07, 2020 7:52 am

J. Kapp 11 wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 6:30 am
Given this historical context, it’s pretty obvious that the name Redskins needs to be changed. No argument here. Thanks for posting. I did not know this.

That being said, in our current cancel culture, almost any name is going to offend someone. If Washington changed its nickname to the Fluffy Puppies, PETA would probably protest outside the stadium.
No problem.

Well, that's obviously not true. To my knowledge there aren't any other team names being protested. Maybe the Chiefs? Which I can see though I have less of a problem with.

Though, again, I could see making important leaders of tribes represented by a cartoon wolf with googly eyes and fans filling the stadium in Native American headdress could come off as offensive. I'm sure it's not a great feeling to have your culture cartoon-ized and marketed to the ancestors of the people that slaughtered your forefathers.
0 x

User avatar
Cliff
Site Admin
Posts: 8943
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:51 pm
Location: Kentucky
x 193

Re: Vikings name change?

Post by Cliff » Tue Jul 07, 2020 8:09 am

StumpHunter wrote:
Mon Jul 06, 2020 8:34 am
Don't get me wrong, it is fine that they are changing the name, and of all the Native American sports teams, it is the most offensive. However changing it isn't actually going to do anything. In fact, the name was a constant reminder of how Native Americans were treated, so that we never repeat the same mistake. A less offensive reminder would probably be better, but we tend to ignore those type reminders.
It does change something. The reminder that it gives Native Americans is almost certainly not "we can't let this happen again!". For just about everyone else, it amounts to the first reason you gave for the name:
The names of teams are their names because they are perceived as cool or tough.
Any rationalization for the name in hindsight just comes off as disingenuous.

I'm sure the intention wasn't to insult Native Americans everywhere but now that we know it does shouldn't it stop?
0 x

User avatar
J. Kapp 11
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8070
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm
x 726

Re: Vikings name change?

Post by J. Kapp 11 » Tue Jul 07, 2020 12:11 pm

Cliff wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 7:52 am
J. Kapp 11 wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 6:30 am
Given this historical context, it’s pretty obvious that the name Redskins needs to be changed. No argument here. Thanks for posting. I did not know this.

That being said, in our current cancel culture, almost any name is going to offend someone. If Washington changed its nickname to the Fluffy Puppies, PETA would probably protest outside the stadium.
No problem.

Well, that's obviously not true. To my knowledge there aren't any other team names being protested. Maybe the Chiefs? Which I can see though I have less of a problem with.

Though, again, I could see making important leaders of tribes represented by a cartoon wolf with googly eyes and fans filling the stadium in Native American headdress could come off as offensive. I'm sure it's not a great feeling to have your culture cartoon-ized and marketed to the ancestors of the people that slaughtered your forefathers.
Sure there are.

There were tons of protests in Cleveland over the Indians. Thus far, they've changed their logo from the cartoon Indian to the rather plain "C," and they got rid of Chief Nockahoma in the stands.

Just you wait ... others will be in line, especially if Washington makes the switch. Teams like the Atlanta Braves, Florida State Seminoles, Kansas City Chiefs, Chicago Blackhawks and others will come under fire. I mean, how big a leap is it from criticizing the Redskins to blasting Florida State for making money off of the forced relocation of thousands of Native Americans, including the Seminoles, via the Trail of Tears? That was an injustice equal to the slave trade, in my estimation, given that most West African slaves were actually captured by other, more powerful West African tribes and sold into slavery to Europeans and Americans. That certainly doesn't excuse the practice of slavery, but Native Americans were here long before we were, and we drove them out.

It's hard to know whether the founders of these teams actually meant any racism. Some of these teams were born during a time in America when racism was far worse than it is today, so I suppose it's possible. But it seems more "tough image" to me. My "fluffy puppies" comment was obviously meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but very few teams adopt nicknames that don't evoke an image of toughness or something to fear. Obviously there are exceptions, like the Packers (who's afraid of a person who works in a packing plant?), the Jazz and the Lakers, but the majority of teams adopt "tough" nicknames. Of which "Vikings" might just be the toughest.

I don't know what the right answer is. There probably isn't one that will make everybody happy.
0 x
Image
Go ahead. I dare you.
Underestimate this man.