The Daily Show and the Redskins

http://m.reviewjournal.com/sports/s...ntroversial-redskins-vs-american-indians-clip

Recently, a segment was aired on Comedy Central's The Daily Show that showed both sides of the debate on whether or not the NFL team the Washington Redskins should change their name. The segment seemed pretty harmless until the Redskins fans, those who don't want to see the name changed, were confronted by Native American activists who wish to see the name changed. The problem was the fans were told that being in the same panel with Native Americans would be "too serious for Comedy Central" and were then surprised, one fan left in tears and few attempted to revoke their consent before the clip aired.
Personally, I see both sides of the Redskins debate. As for The Daily Show, the fact that fans were told they wouldn't be confronted and then were is wrong.

 

[Pikonic]

One of my friends said keep the name but change the mascot image to an apple or a potato.
It gave me a chuckle.

 

[Mourning Dove]

One of my friends said keep the name but change the mascot image to an apple or a potato.
It gave me a chuckle.

What the Redskins have done are potatoes compared to what Hitler has done.

 

[sparklemilhouse]

This has become a local story in the Richmond area where I get my local news. One of the Redskin fans is trying to sue the show to get the clip off the internet so you know, people in the future can't see that an ignoramus he is.

 

[Artard]

I'm assuming it becomes more "acceptable" to objectify a certain group of people (like American Indians) because they aren't that common. The less common they are, the more likely they're just something mythical and rare like a unicorn. From my recent viewing of Wikipedia, American Indians make up like 1.2% of the United States population. To put that into perspective vegans make up 2% of the U.S. population. Also, when there's less of that rare group of people, there are less of them to protest against being objectified in that way.

I think you can go deeper than that. At least among professional sports teams, Indian mascots and naming conventions become sparser the further West go -- and the further West you go, the more concentrated the Indian population. Out East, most people's connection with an actual Indian at the time the organizations was probably a person at a "human zoo" or circus.

Out west, where Indians actually live, you don't see this naming phenomenon all that much. Probably because these are for-profit enterprises and it's usually in bad taste to even mildly insult a significant portion of your market.

As much as "fans" get enflamed about this shit, the teams could give not a single fuck about "tradition" -- their surveys and projections indicate that there's no profit to be gained and much to lose by rebranding a team in Washington.

 

[Pikonic]

What the Redskins have done are potatoes compared to what Hitler has done.

I told my coworkers about the possible potato mascot and they jumped on it. The mascot can be named Mashy and the concession can serve fries and baked potatoes and fan can wear "prepare to be smashed and mashed" shirts.
My serious idea was name them after a branch of government, I call them the Washington Supremes, their helmets would have a gavel and their mascot would be a judge. Their first home game could be called judgement day.

This has become a local story in the Richmond area where I get my local news. One of the Redskin fans is trying to sue the show to get the clip off the internet so you know, people in the future can't see that an ignoramus he is.

One thing I don't get is these people had no problem saying what they said in front of a camera for millions to see later, but couldn't tell a few people to their face.

I'm assuming it becomes more "acceptable" to objectify a certain group of people (like American Indians) because they aren't that common. The less common they are, the more likely they're just something mythical and rare like a unicorn. From my recent viewing of Wikipedia, American Indians make up like 1.2% of the United States population. To put that into perspective vegans make up 2% of the U.S. population. Also, when there's less of that rare group of people, there are less of them to protest against being objectified in that way.

Also, the biggest atrocities to the American Indians (the massive killings and land stealing) happened over a century ago. Most likely is no one living today to recount any of these horrors inflicted upon their people. Compare this to the Jewish people, where there are still some survivors of the Holocaust living today. Additionally, many registered American Indians are of mixed blood, or are hidden away on reservations. So either they "blend in" with other races, or their issues are just put on the back burner because they live away from the rest of society.

I gave a good example today. Imagine I wanted to start an NFL team here in Hartford. To celebrate our history in helping the Underground Railroad I'd name the team "The Hartford Niggers." Imagine the shitstorm that'd happen. Everyone would want me crucified.
But redskins is ok.

 

[hellbound]

If I was Dan Snyder, I'd probably be an asshole about it. Like name it the Washington Colonials or something (because Cowboys is taken). Their logo can be a pilgrim-looking dude bayoneting an Indian while trampling more with his horse.

In all honesty, I don't really give a shit about the whole Redskins name either way. I'm sure it's not fun to be the owners right now because they have to decide between alienating the die-hard fans or possibly getting effectively shut down. What bugs me is that there's talk of basically forcing them to change by the FCC treating the word as profanity, which I think would constitute a chilling effect on free speech.

I mean, they are literally talking about fining presenters who say the word "Redskins" the same as "fuck" or "shit." I'm absolutely positive I have heard many other slurs used outside safe harbor hours (when broadcast profanity is permitted) so it's clearly not a consistent policy, just being done as a political move. It opens the door for them to declare other things too offensive for broadcast as a political stunt, and I think if they enacted it, it'd go to court and the court really couldn't side with the FCC.