Editorial Cartoon: Racist Team Logos

Advertisements

bd140624fb

25 Replies to “Editorial Cartoon: Racist Team Logos”

  1. I think they should rename them the Washington Obstructionists. Logo could be Boehners face with a slash over it. Or the Washington Do-Nothings, and the logo could be a picture of Congress.

  2. Usually Bill Day’s cartoons are spot on, but I think he’s missed the boat here. Clueless white people are going to say, “So what if there was a team called the white skins? I wouldn’t care”. This cartoon will not enlighten them, drag them out of their cave.

  3. That which we call the Washington Redskins, by any other name, would still be an incredibly crappy team that stinks up FedEx Field.

    In any case, in keeping with the theme of naming sports teams with culturally and/or racially-insensitive monikers laden with a long history of hatred and bigotry … perhaps we should rename the NFL team in Arizona as the “Crackers”.

    And either the New York Giants or Jets — which actually play their home games in New Jersey — should become the “Italian Mobsters”.

    And, of course, the Cowboys should become the “Rednecks”.

  4. Fot it to be properly insulting to caucasians, call them the “Powder White Murders of Native Americans”. I’m part Huron Native American, & my great great grandfather did not have red skin, it was beige.

  5. not only did they attempt to make every logo intentionally offensive, they even turned the Redskins’ proud logo into a caricature. If it is so offensive, why alter it?

  6. I was gonna say “cue some bigot saying ‘I wouldn’t care’ like he is the only person on Earth”.

    Thanks for essentially beating me to it.

  7. I hope they notice the red bulbous nose and overweight image–fat guys with noses morphed into tomatoes due to alcoholism. My guess is you are correct though, and they won’t get it.

  8. I think the cartoon is good. Unfortunately, the term Redskins is actually a racial slur, so to truly make it an analogy, the boxes would have to have nasty racial slurs in them, which I won’t repeat (I’m sure everyone is grown up enough to know what they are). And unfortunately, there are no racial slurs that actually bother white people. They whine and complain if they see cracker or honky, but it doesn’t really have any historical oppression to dig in the nastiness of the word, so white people shrug off the word in reality. Some Tea idiots are sending around a picture of Cracker Jacks and whining that if Redskins must go, then by rights, so should the Cracker in Cracker Jacks. Stupidest argument ever. But that’s just it, they are too freaking dumb to see how idiotic that alleged analogy is.

  9. Why, exactly is Reskins offensive to everyone except actual Native Americans? Time and time again they have supported the name, and say it is not an insult. How insulting is it to have a major pro sports league to be named after your race? ALSO, I find the cartoon tasteless. The Redskins logo is not degrading nor over the top, but the other “examples” in that cartoon are disgusting. Being native american myself, I do not understand the issue here. It is not like Washington is calling their team the Washington Injuns, or Washington Featherheads, or Washington Yazzies….And just to let you know, Red Skin was actually not a derogatory term when first used. It was actually used to show respect. Most importantly, NATIVE AMERICANS ARE NOT OFFENDED BY THE NAME. Remember that.

  10. You’re not really that dumb, are you? Let’s just start with the National Congress of Indians’s Youtube video on the matter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR-tbOxlhvE. Then count all of the Native American protests against the logo (including all of the tribes in our community that come out to the Vikings stadium every time the Redskins come to town). Then, there are the countless articles you could google that would tell you how tribes have been lobbying against the name. Let’s just use one example of an article about their reaction to the patent office ruling: http://www.ibtimes.com/redskins-controversy-tribal-leaders-applaud-ruling-say-its-never-ok-use-native-american-1605208

  11. Deborah, 91% native Americans say it isn’t a racial slur, what gives you the perspective or even the right to say that it is?

  12. Shut up and hail. Oh yes, you WILL hail. Guess what? you don’t have the right to walk around unoffended. Most Indians have NO problem with the Redskins. You can quibble about the name, but the logo is most certainly NOT racist. The Cleveland Indians, and the Atlanta Braves, yes their logos are racist. The ‘skins logo is the picture of dignity. We don’t do war whoops or tomahawk chops. We respect the American Indian. You don’t name a team for something you hate.

    As a point of historic accuracy the Redskins were named after the Boston tea party “indians”who dumped the tea into the harbor.

  13. They were respected so much that genocide was committed. I am quite sure your complexion is pale so I don’t think you have a right to determine what offends someone not like you’

    And as a PSA to you baggers the Boston Tea Party was not what you think it was? I will leave it up to you to find out real history. You people bore me

  14. Look at how more “racist” the other three photos are drawn compared to the redskin logo. An over reaction from literally a hand full of Native Americans who just want to be glorified and said they “accomplished” something in life….Look at historical facts and what the logo really stands for before instantly labeling it as “racist”. What I will agree on is that the mascot does look considerably offensive. As for the logo and name doesn’t both me one bit. Kumeyaay nation

  15. You wouldn’t be one of the Native Americans who only claim it to get benefits but other than that you check white on the census box.

    Not trying to call you out but its a lot of them here in OK.

  16. A historical association between the use of “redskin” and the paying of bounties can be made. In 1863, a Winona, MN newspaper, the Daily Republican, printed among other announcements:

    “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.”

    This association can evoke strongly negative sentiments. In a 2014 interview, one activist commented:
    An Interview with Amanda Blackhorse
    http://abovethelaw.com/2009/11/the-washington-redskins-controversy-an-interview-with-amanda-blackhorse/

    The name itself actually dates back, you know, at the time when the Native American population was being exterminated, and bounty hunters were hired to kill Native American people. And so, you know, one could make a great living off of just killing Native American people. And there was a tier effect that was paid out. You know, the highest paid was for a Native American man and then a woman and then a child. And so, based off of that, there were news clippings and flyers and stuff that were posted up, asking people to go out to kill Indians and bring back the red skin. So, in order to show that they made their kill, they had to bring back a scalp or their skin. And so, that’s where the “Redskin” word has been kind of passed down. So, in our community, we do not use that word

  17. Read the book Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee, then please come & post more about how that term isn’t racist.

  18. I found an article that references the survey he cites. Actual Native American tribal leaders criticized the survey, because it didn’t really determine whether the “Native Americans” who participated in the survey truly represented tribes. Questions asked: ““Are you a tribal person? What is your nation? What is your tribe? Would you say you are culturally or socially or politically native?” Harjo asked. “Those without such connections cannot represent native opinions.” Indian support for the name “is really a classic case of internalized oppression,” Harjo said. “People taking on what has been said about them, how they have been described, to such an extent that they don’t even notice.” Harjo declines to estimate what percentage of native people oppose the name. But she notes that the many organizations supporting her lawsuit include the Cherokee, Comanche, Oneida and Seminole tribes, as well as the National Congress of American Indians, representing 250 tribes/1.2 million…

  19. Methinks all the people for keeping the name cant or wont see how racist it is. Its called willful ignorance. Myself I would call it what it really is but when you are raised with a attitude that you are supreme and infallible in your thinking t wouldn’t matter

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.