Vikings name change?

[RandyMoss84]

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?

[VikingPaul73]

Stop trolling, dude
This thread should be locked ASAP

[RandyMoss84]

Stop trolling, dude
This thread should be locked ASAP

How am I trolling? It could happen!

[VikingsVictorious]

Stop trolling, dude
This thread should be locked ASAP

How am I trolling? It could happen!

No way in Hell it could happen.

[Cliff]

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

[RandyMoss84]

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

[StumpHunter]

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.

[Herschel's Revenge]

How am I trolling? It could happen!

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/

[RandyMoss84]

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

[Cliff]

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

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.

[StumpHunter]

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

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.

[J. Kapp 11]

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

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.

[Cliff]

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.

[Cliff]

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?

[J. Kapp 11]

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.