I believe that the University of Minnesota's sports team imagery is degrading to vikings.

"wear throwback jerseys at Vikings game

60
More

By Ian Shapira August 7 at 6:45 PM

The University of Minnesota wants the Washington Redskins to wear throwback jerseys without the team name or logo for the Nov. 2 game against the Minnesota Vikings being held at the college’s stadium.

The college, which is leasing its TCF Bank Stadium to the Vikings as the team’s new stadium gets built for a scheduled 2016 opening, has also asked that the game not have any Washington apparel or paraphernalia sold on the premise; that the word “Redskins” not be uttered by the game’s public address announcer; and that the team’s moniker not appear on the scoreboard or in the program guide or other game-related print or digital material.

Vikings officials appeared receptive to the university’s appeal during a meeting in late July, according to Katrice Albert, the college’s vice president in the office of equity and diversity."

It'll be interesting to see how that plays out...

If U of Minn really has that kind of contractual control over their stadium, they could well prevent the Washington team, logo (the current one, with a Native American face), and so on from being on the tickets, programs, scoreboard, mentioned or used during the game, everything.

That's just one game...but it'll be interesting to see how this goes--

If the NFL pulls the game out of there, that'll probably look bad from a PR standpoint...

And if they keep it there, and this works, and Washington has to do all this, not only would that cause the ever-trending Twitterverse to spin that story for the week leading up to the game, game day, and the week following, BUT it could set a precedent...what if other stadium operators or parties decided to do that?

A lot of the teams' stadiums in the NFL are at least partially owned by the city, or have some kind of contract with the city--if this happened, might not another city (perhaps a liberal one...like my beloved San Francisco, where Washington plays November 23rd) perhaps lean on their tenant and ask for a similar concession?

It IS San Francisco...Liberal Land...and the San Francisco Chronicle already won't use the team name in its reporting, so it's not like the 49ers and the city of San Fran are an unlikely candidate here...

Could that be the straw that breaks the camel's back and forces a name and/or logo change, if stadiums and cities started insisting on that, and doing what U of Minn. and the Vikings are doing now, to ban the name on a game-by-game basis?

"I believe that the University of Minnesota's sports team imagery is degrading to vikings."

Actually, I think U of Minn's sports team name is the Gophers... :p

They're just hosting the Vikes.

And given that the Vikings are gone--not the Nordic nations today, but the Vikings of yore that gave your England such a hard time, Jamiet--I think their names are up for grabs...ditto the Trojans, don't hear much outcry from the Trojan Defamation League...whereas the National Congress of American Indians is none too pleased with Washington's team name, to say the least.

lol so if they're dead it doesn't matter whether you make racist caricatures about them?

bear in mind I don't consider the Vikings brand racist but that seems to be the logical continuation of your argument, and it seems ridiculous, obi. you're saying that if the conquistadores and the soldiers and settlers riding west in the name of manifest destiny had been a little more thorough in killing off innocent Native Americans that the Redskins brand would've been ok?

"lol so if they're dead it doesn't matter whether you make racist caricatures about them...you're saying that if the conquistadores and the soldiers and settlers riding west in the name of manifest destiny had been a little more thorough in killing off innocent Native Americans that the Redskins brand would've been ok?"

No, because then we'll have committed (even more) genocide, whereas the Vikings and Trojans, near as we can tell, didn't meet with that fate, so it's an issue of glorifying racism/oppression in the name "Redskins" vs. just using the name of a centuries or millenia-gone group that are memorable but faded from history (plus, Redskin is defined as a slur, and neither Viking nor Trojan is so defined.)

I think that's the key sticking point, really, that it's a slur, and one that was used by conquerors who imposed a genocide upon a people.

Vikings, no...no one murdered them out of existence...and they're hundreds of years gone, so no one really minds anyway...

The Trojans are thousands of years gone, and so far gone that if we're going to talk about eliminating negative references to them, we;'re going to have to go all the way back to Homer (or "Ancient Greece" for the crowd who refuses to categorize those collective epics under the name of that maybe-kinda-sorta-existed poet.)

And then you have teams like the Florida Seminoles, who made an deal with that tribe and thus came up with a way to both keep the name under their consent...which seems fair.

But Redskins is a slur, one that the National Congress of American Indians does not approve of, does not consent to, and as a general rule, your team name REALLY shouldn't be something you'd be uncomfortable calling that group of people in person.

And I highly doubt anyone would really think calling someone a "redskin" to their face would on the whole go over well; there may well be people who aren't offended, but I think it's likewise fair to say that millions still would be, and that at best it'd be awkward, and at worst offensive, and if nothing else...again, is that REALLY what you'd call a person, to their face?

If not...probably a good idea not to have that as a team name.

Redskins PR people have taken to denying that people of color exist. They insist nobody is offended and if anybody is offended they ask them to 'prove' they're actually Native American.

A university, state or private, should have the right to refuse to host an event if it doesn't fit within their values.

They should refuse to let the NFL to do anything. They defend wife beaters and dog torturers.

Given the language spoken throughout Scandinavia and the naming practices in Iceland, I'm not sure one can argue the Vikings are long dead. They've undergone a bit of behavioral change, but... As for the Vikes' logo being a caricature, just lose the horns on the helmets (of the actual game helmets and on the illustrated helmet of the viking guy), and we are pretty good on historical accuracy. Finally, Viking wasn't a pejorative, it was the self-identifying term in the Norsemen's own language, whereas the DCNFL team name isn't in a native tongue and was never used in a remotely self identifying or favorable context by anyone. So. Bravo on UM. I look forward to the "Columbia Indigenous Peoples'" contest in the Twin Cities.

Interestingly, there was a trademark suit over the name the went to the Supreme Court that held the name is a slur and not protectable under trademark. Not sure how that would influence any first amendment suit. More likely, they have to play elsewhere

And of course the difference between Vikings and Washington is context. The US did not engage in genocide against Vikings and does not today subjugate Vikings as one of the most discriminated against groups in the US. That is why it is didferent

If someone says Redskins, they mean the football team.

Maybe it was a slur in the past. It's a football team now.

It's such a non-issue. People are too sensitive.

White guy declares a racial caricature a non-issue. So then it must be so.

Except I'm 1/4 Cherokee, so I think I can have some sort of opinion, even in Putin-land.

But all the people who disagree with you don't get to have an opinion, but you speak for all Native Americans, right?

Glad we cleared that up.

So how this went:

1. I gave an opinion
2. You said it didn't count because I'm white
3. I'm part Cherokee
4. So now my opinion doesn't count because I'm part Cherokee

All bow to mighty Putin, knower of truth and declarer of validity.

It's a different story to name your team after a specific tribe as that at least is a nod to those peoples history. Using a derogatory band is ridiculous and should be considered as such. A specific tribe name would be similar to Vikings, Canadians or whatever - not offensive.

A native musician in Canada wore a Cleveland Caucasians shirt with a money symbol replacing the feather. He took a lot if criticism from white peopke including the assertion he was being racist. To me, this reaffirms the point.

If you disagree with this you are a horrible hate filled person and I am sorry for you.


A musician in Canada

Here's the thing.

They've been named the Washington Redskins since 1937. That's 75+ years. Yes, the term as (and I guess still is) offensive, but who gives a shit?

"Guinea" is an offensive term against Italians, but yet there are three countries that are named with it. CHANGE THE NAME! BOYCOTT GUINEA!

Fucking sensitivity and political correctness... it's a waste of time and energy. There's much greater injustice in the world.

And the treatment of native Americans and Canadians by our respective governments from the first colonists until today doesn't register on that level? This is a current issue, descriptors aside.

"A university, state or private, should have the right to refuse to host an event if it doesn't fit within their values."

Yeah, the first amendment is a lot less popular than it used to be.

"All bow to mighty Putin, knower of truth and declarer of validity."

You're the one claiming this issue doesn't matter because you unilaterally declared it not to matter. Everybody else's opinions are invalidated because you decided you speak for everybody, including, apparently Native Americans.

The first colonists, by and large, did not commit genocides against the natives. Diseases spread (unknowingly, for the most part) killed off most of the natives. Lots of land was just open - the region where the Pilgrims landed, for example - Squanto was the last member of his tribe, iirc.

Yes, historically natives were treated poorly. Reservations, the Trail of Tears, and more, but if we try to answer every historical injustice it would never end. Natives have full rights and protection just as any other citizen, I think it's behind us pretty solidly.

@Putin: you're spinning it all. My post was my opinion on the subject. Did you see a "This is everyone's in the worlds opinion, FACT" or anything anywhere?

Great, you think US treatment of Natives is just peachy and they should suck it up and put up with racial caricatures, because you personally aren't offended.

Got it. Moving on.

There is no treatment. That's a thing of the past.

I don't dwell on history. I prefer to look at the present and the future.

Because you know what their present is. Because you live on Wounded Knee or something.

Your reality isn't the only reality.

"Yeah, the first amendment is a lot less popular than it used to be."

The usual suspects only seem to get bothered by the first amendment when it pertains to forcing marginalized groups to put up with racial abuse.

When it comes to firing people who not voting for Mitt Romney, or firing people for having unpopular views on the US government, the Semcks of the world are nowhere to be found.

And when it comes to forcing people to be indoctrinated with religious propaganda, that aspect of the first amendment isn't quite popular with the "I love the first amendment" crowd.

This is coming from a dipshit that dehuminized an entire people in 2 posts less than a week ago. Yet a tireless prosecutor on the words other people use.

On this topic, change the fucking name already, it's offensive without a doubt why snyder insists on keeping it is beyond me. People will be angry for maybe two years before no one even remembers the last team name.