The Fighting Whites

[Hito]

http://www.fightingwhites.org/img/man.gif

The Fighitng Whites Website (http://www.fightingwhites.org/)

In light of the Wong Brothers fiasco and the recent "Kung Fool" debate i went and found a link to a group of people turning the tables on white folks who would presume to peddle charactures of so-called "minority" people back to us and call it harmless fun.

The Fighting Whites basketball team was organized in early February (2002) by a group of Native American and non-Indian students of the University of Northern Colorado with the intent of playing intramural basketball. We came up with the "Fighting Whites" logo and slogan to have a little satirical fun and to deliver a simple, sincere, message about ethnic stereotyping. Since March 6, when our campus newspaper first reported on the "Fighting Whites", we have been launched into the national spotlight, propelled by a national debate over stereotyping American Indians in sports symbolism.

Our objective as students was to make a straightforward statement using humor; to promote cultural awareness through satire. Now that national attention has come to us, we hope that our message will reach a wider audience. As a part of our involvement in this ongoing issue, we have formed the Fighting Whites Scholarship Fund, Inc., a non-profit organization, the profits of which will go entirely to support the education of Native American students.

Written by Ryan White, John Messner, Charles Cuny

[Craig]

I like this design the best ...

http://images.cafepress.com/logo/103164.111.GIF

[achtungbaby]

Concidentally, Jerry Large of the Seattle Times commented on the Fighting Whites when he was doing his piece on A&F.

When there are differences in power or respect, or when there are unresolved conflicts, funny isn't always funny.

This is true in relationships between groups and relationships between individuals, and it is complicated because groups are made up of individuals whose life experiences don't all match.

In March, a group of students at the University of Northern Colorado named their intramural basketball team "The Fighting Whites," as a protest over a local high school's use of Reds for its teams.

The students — many of whom are Native American — started selling T-shirts with the image of a white man in a suit and tie, the team's name and motto: "Every thang's going to be all white."

Thousands of orders for the T-shirts flooded in. White people loved it. There were a few who took offense, but mostly people got the point, and having no reason to feel threatened by Indians, they were fine with it. Besides, there are white members of the team, too.

Look at the way men and women view media images of themselves. Men are dominant in our society, so women rightly feel unease when a bunch of men create advertisements that portray women in negative ways.

http://yellowworld.org/modules.php?op=modl...=article&sid=20 (http://yellowworld.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=20)

[kimpossible]

The Fightin' Whites logo isn't offensive to me, but the Kung Fool costume is. As to why I feel this way, I highly encourage you all to pick this apart, because I have no idea why. My best guess is that my experience with white skin in America seems to be linked with privelige and the Fightin' Whites logo is a white male in a suit. It seems to be an empowering image of a white male.

[nonamerasian]

Unfortunately the Fighting Whites' mascot isn't an example of today's stereotypical Caucasian.

Of course it isn't going to make a point and of course there isn't a reason for the majority to be offended by it.

At least it makes money.

[BeTheReds]

Ahh, the native american sports logo controversy...

Here's what I have to say to that!
http://eugene.whong.org/pirate

[nonamerasian]

My heart goes out to those underrepresented, misrepresented, mistreated Corsair-Americans, however on the subject of Native Americans, there is a substantial amount of Natives offended by the team mascots, names, and rituals and therefore these should be changed.

[BeTheReds]

Originally posted by nonamerasian@Jun 9 2003, 01:26 PM
My heart goes out to those underrepresented, misrepresented, mistreated Corsair-Americans, however on the subject of Native Americans, there is a substantial amount of Natives offended by the team mascots, names, and rituals and therefore these should be changed.
Okay then, when you buy the Redskins, Braves, Indians, Blackhawks, or Chiefs, then you can change them. Until then, there really isn't anything you can do about it other than boycott their stuff.

[nonamerasian]

It's sad that someone new buying these teams just may be what it would take to end what has been perceived as racism by those offended.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by nonamerasian@Jun 10 2003, 03:26 PM
It's sad that someone new buying these teams just may be what it would take to end what has been perceived as racism by those offended.
that perception is hardly as unanimously held as you make it sound, either ...

[nonamerasian]

The perception that it's racist?

I know that there are various opinions on the matter. However, I think more people empathize with the people who couldn't careless or even who support the teams than the others who see them as demeaning and racist.

It's much more interesting to speak about their point of view.

I don't feel it's spoken about enough.

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

There isn't really a threat in calling white people powerful. It's not like you're adopting a tamer manifestation of racial hatred and violence by creating an image like that. Unlike the A&F stuff where they basically turned the very real stereotypes thrown against Asians into a big joke for white people (and the people who love them), this kind of mascot has a message that's not putting a race into a lower place for the amusement of another. It's a social message, a classic satire of racism.

[BeTheReds]

Originally posted by nonamerasian@Jun 11 2003, 07:01 AM
I think more people empathize with the people who couldn't careless or even who support the teams than the others who see them as demeaning and racist.


If this were true, then they would already have been changed.

[nonamerasian]

Originally posted by BeTheReds@Jun 10 2003, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by nonamerasian@Jun 11 2003, 07:01 AM
I think more people empathize with the people who couldn't careless or even who support the teams than the others who see them as demeaning and racist.


If this were true, then they would already have been changed.
Actually... no.

It's precisely the reason the teams still have these names, rituals, and mascots the offended deem offending.

[BeTheReds]

Originally posted by nonamerasian@Jun 11 2003, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by BeTheReds@Jun 10 2003, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by nonamerasian@Jun 11 2003, 07:01 AM
I think more people empathize with the people who couldn't careless or even who support the teams than the others who see them as demeaning and racist.


If this were true, then they would already have been changed.
Actually... no.

It's precisely the reason the teams still have these names, rituals, and mascots the offended deem offending.
Oh, wait, I thought you were saying what you were not.

Anyway, can you please tell me why the Washington Redskins have an offensive logo?

Cleveland Indians logo I can see what the fuss is about. But I don't quite see it in the Skins logo.

[nonamerasian]

Originally posted by BeTheReds@Jun 10 2003, 07:59 PM
Anyway, can you please tell me why the Washington Redskins have an offensive logo?

Cleveland Indians logo I can see what the fuss is about.  But I don't quite see it in the Skins logo.
I can't.

I don't know their logo and I'm too lazy to look it up, however, I do know many Native Americans find the term "redskin" as offensive as many Asians find "chink."

I also now that my dictionary has labeled it a disparaging term.

I can understand the offense over the team name.

[BeTheReds]

Originally posted by nonamerasian@Jun 11 2003, 09:08 AM

I can't.

I don't know their logo and I'm too lazy to look it up, however, I do know many Native Americans find the term "redskin" as offensive as many Asians find "chink."

I also now that my dictionary has labeled it a disparaging term.

I can understand the offense over the team name.
I didn't ask you about the name. I can concede that it is a problem. I however do not find that the use of Native Americans as a mascot is racist.

Anyway here is a picture of the skins logo.

http://eugene.whong.org/pirate/logos/redskins2.jpg

Now compare it with the Indians logo

http://eugene.whong.org/pirate/logos/indians.gif

By comparison it is in no way racist. Even standing alone it is in no way racist. Not in any way I can concieve it.

I don't think I would be abhorrently opposed to them changing the name of the team to "Washington Football Club" or something.

[nonamerasian]

I never said that they find the Washington mascot racist, although I know the smiling red guy has been seen as stereotypical.

I can't recall problems with the Washington mascot, but I do recall complaints about teams using particular feathers during their games while imitating certain sacred rituals.

The Washington guy has a feather in his hair. Is that the offending team?

Anyhow, I've read it being likened to mocking sacred Jewish rituals, which was seen as being of bad taste.

[deez nuts]

bring on the fighting negros!

[nonamerasian]

Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@Jun 10 2003, 08:58 PM
bring on the fighting negros!
...Or the Fighting Chinks with Kung Fool as its mascot.

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by nonamerasian@Jun 10 2003, 08:19 PM
...Or the Fighting Chinks with Kung Fool as its mascot.
hey hey

you didn't have to use the chink word.

not like i used the other "n" word to refer to blacks.

you could've used orientals

who gave you the yellow hall pass anyways?

hahahahah just teasing you newbie.

[nonamerasian]

What gall?!?

How dare I?

My pass!

**Suddenly notices the dangers of her choice of username.**

[pause]

**Then notices she just used the c-word in a room full of Asians**

You're joking?

Oh, I knew that.

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by nonamerasian@Jun 10 2003, 09:09 PM
What gall?!?

How dare I?

My pass!

**Suddenly notices the dangers of her choice of username.**

[pause]

**Then notices she just used the c-word in a room full of Asians**

You're joking?

Oh, I knew that.
lol

[kimpossible]

It's okay. All that was necessary was to let him know you're female. I'm sure he's preening in front of his monitor now.

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by Hello_Hapa@Jun 10 2003, 09:26 PM
It's okay. All that was necessary was to let him know you're female. I'm sure he's preening in front of his monitor now.
i'm not that easy.

[YuheiCarreau]

Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@Jun 10 2003, 08:36 PM
i'm not that easy.
I think 'desperate' is the word you're looking for...

[FACKU]

Originally posted by BeTheReds@Jun 10 2003, 04:33 PM

I don't think I would be abhorrently opposed to them changing the name of the team to "Washington Football Club" or something.
would you have a problem if they change it to Washington Dog-Eaters?

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by nonamerasian@Jun 10 2003, 05:01 PM
The perception that it's racist?

I know that there are various opinions on the matter. However, I think more people empathize with the people who couldn't careless or even who support the teams than the others who see them as demeaning and racist.

It's much more interesting to speak about their point of view.

I don't feel it's spoken about enough.
Even if it is a minority point of view among the people who are supposed to be offended in the first place?

All this noise-making about changing team names is more the result of neurotic white people wanting to demonstrate to the world how "culturally sensitive" they are, than something the Native American man on the street actually gives half a damn about. All the useless dollars and media attention that go into fretting about this "problem" would help the community a thousand times more if it went into finding a cure for alcoholism.

There was a high school team in Socal which was considering changing their name precisely on these grounds. They sent their students on a field trip to a reservation where they got to talk with local kids. Some of them asked those kids how they felt about having teams named "Indians" and "Braves" and whatnot. Result: most didn't care. Some thought it was cool.

Unless you're gonna argue that those poor Native Americans are suffering from a terrible case of false consciousness and need to be rescued from their ignorance by our advanced society, I don't really see what's the point to worry about the team names.

[pinkskyes]

that's a very complimentary logo and a nice non offensive name they've chosen.

imagine if they'd used a caricacture of some hillbillie with the name The Jumpin Crackers

[nonamerasian]

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Jun 11 2003, 01:06 AM

Even if it is a minority point of view among the people who are supposed to be offended in the first place?

All this noise-making about changing team names is more the result of neurotic white people wanting to demonstrate to the world how "culturally sensitive" they are, than something the Native American man on the street actually gives half a damn about. All the useless dollars and media attention that go into fretting about this "problem" would help the community a thousand times more if it went into finding a cure for alcoholism.

There was a high school team in Socal which was considering changing their name precisely on these grounds. They sent their students on a field trip to a reservation where they got to talk with local kids. Some of them asked those kids how they felt about having teams named "Indians" and "Braves" and whatnot. Result: most didn't care. Some thought it was cool.

Unless you're gonna argue that those poor Native Americans are suffering from a terrible case of false consciousness and need to be rescued from their ignorance by our advanced society, I don't really see what's the point to worry about the team names.
It's not clear whether it's the minority view.

The Sports Illustrated survey said it's a minority view, while a survey by the largest Native American publication said it's a majority view.

Either way, yes. Even if it is a minority view, that view should be spoken about more instead of the one-sidedness I hear on the rare occasion there is a public fret on this issue.

Just because it isn't the plague doesn't mean that there isn't any use debating the subject.

In addition, if most have no feelings towards the issue, and others are deeply offended by it, then why not lend an ear to those offended?

It's not as if the apathetic group is going to riot.

[BeTheReds]

Originally posted by FACKU@Jun 11 2003, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by BeTheReds@Jun 10 2003, 04:33 PM

I don't think I would be abhorrently opposed to them changing the name of the team to "Washington Football Club" or something.
would you have a problem if they change it to Washington Dog-Eaters?
Why is it that everyone always tries to appeal to my Korean-ness and call me a dog eater so that I can see their point. After 3 or 4 threads about dog eating, everone should know that I don't care about it, nor do I care about being called a dog eater, because basically I have eaten dog before, so that is what I am.

Furthermore I don't understand the question. I am agreeing that Redskins probably isn't the best name for this team. I don't see what you are trying to prove by suggesting a team named the Dog Eaters. What would their mascot be?

[AngryABCGirl]

Originally posted by BeTheReds@Jun 10 2003, 11:25 PM
Furthermore I don't understand the question. I am agreeing that Redskins probably isn't the best name for this team. I don't see what you are trying to prove by suggesting a team named the Dog Eaters. What would their mascot be?
Probably something like this:

http://yellowworld.org/images/articles/specific/10_02/kungfool.jpg

:ph34r:

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by YuheiCarreau@Jun 10 2003, 10:00 PM
I think 'desperate' is the word you're looking for...
pusssssssshaaaaaaah

as if.....

[kimpossible]

Originally posted by BeTheReds@Jun 10 2003, 11:25 PM
Furthermore I don't understand the question. I am agreeing that Redskins probably isn't the best name for this team. I don't see what you are trying to prove by suggesting a team named the Dog Eaters.
Well I'm no genius and it's rather easy for me to figure out. The examples are your basic analogy. They are supposed to show you how the same or similar parameters from the Redskins example can be applied using Korean in place of indigenous peoples in what is now known as the USA. A heavily stereotyped mockery, made much in the image of what non-indigenous (mainly of European descent because they were the 'conquering' force in this land and subsequently hold much of the governmental and financial power) peoples may weirdly interpret as an amusing image at the cost of someone else. The someone else in this case being the legacy and descendants of those who were invaded.

If you want to deny any historical or cultural precedence for how indigenous peoples could find the usage of the name or image of the Redskins offensive and it's not an unreasonable request on their part to have the name and image abandoned, by all means just say "I don't care," or "Tough shit," but don't play stupid. Assuming you're smarter than me and have a similar if not better education, if I can figure out what their point is using an example that is an outsiders crude representation of Koreans to illustrate the similar crude representation of indigenous people, then you should be able to.

[FACKU]

Originally posted by BeTheReds@Jun 10 2003, 11:25 PM

Why is it that everyone always tries to appeal to my Korean-ness and call me a dog eater so that I can see their point. After 3 or 4 threads about dog eating, everone should know that I don't care about it, nor do I care about being called a dog eater, because basically I have eaten dog before, so that is what I am.

Furthermore I don't understand the question. I am agreeing that Redskins probably isn't the best name for this team. I don't see what you are trying to prove by suggesting a team named the Dog Eaters. What would their mascot be?
:lol:
Didnt read those threads... Sorry...

But come to think about the mascot, what if they use your picture? :P Think about it, you'll be famous... I can be your agent...

[BeTheReds]

Originally posted by FACKU@Jun 12 2003, 05:07 AM
Originally posted by BeTheReds@Jun 10 2003, 11:25 PM

Why is it that everyone always tries to appeal to my Korean-ness and call me a dog eater so that I can see their point.  After 3 or 4 threads about dog eating, everone should know that I don't care about it, nor do I care about being called a dog eater, because basically I have eaten dog before, so that is what I am.

Furthermore I don't understand the question.  I am agreeing that Redskins probably isn't the best name for this team.  I don't see what you are trying to prove by suggesting a team named the Dog Eaters.  What would their mascot be?
:lol:
Didnt read those threads... Sorry...

But come to think about the mascot, what if they use your picture? :P Think about it, you'll be famous... I can be your agent...
Go ahead, use my picture, call the team the dog-eaters. It will be appropriate when we play the browns.

[BeTheReds]

Originally posted by Hello_Hapa@Jun 12 2003, 02:14 AM
If you want to deny any historical or cultural precedence for how indigenous peoples could find the usage of the name or image of the Redskins offensive and it's not an unreasonable request on their part to have the name and image abandoned, by all means just say "I don't care," or "Tough shit," but don't play stupid. Assuming you're smarter than me and have a similar if not better education, if I can figure out what their point is using an example that is an outsiders crude representation of Koreans to illustrate the similar crude representation of indigenous people, then you should be able to.
Well okay, if there was a team who called itself the Hwarang, and had a picture of a Hwarang (Shillian Knight) as their mascot, I don't think I would mind terribly.

Calling a team the "Dogeaters" and having a fat Korean guy with buck teeth munchin on a dog would be nothing but mockery, however, I see the Redskins logo as similar to the above example.

Some teams names and mascots I agree are offensive. Redskins (the name) I can see why it is a problem, tho I do not think it is nearly the same as "Dogeaters". However, their mascot is not offensive. I can't see how it possibly could be. If this is offensive then Notre Dame, the Boston Celtics, and the Minnesota Vikings are twice as offensive as the Redskins logo.

It is not a crude representation of Native Americans. It is a picture that commands respect, not mockery.

[BeTheReds]

Originally posted by AzNBuffGrL@Jun 11 2003, 05:03 PM
Probably something like this:

http://yellowworld.org/images/articles/specific/10_02/kungfool.jpg

:ph34r:
Um, that's a Chinese guy. He wouldn't fit the Dogeater role.

[FACKU]

Originally posted by BeTheReds@Jun 11 2003, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by AzNBuffGrL@Jun 11 2003, 05:03 PM
Probably something like this:

http://yellowworld.org/images/articles/specific/10_02/kungfool.jpg

:ph34r:
Um, that's a Chinese guy. He wouldn't fit the Dogeater role.
Yeah, that would be the Monkey-Eaters... :lol:

[AngryABCGirl]

Originally posted by FACKU@Jun 11 2003, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by BeTheReds@Jun 11 2003, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by AzNBuffGrL@Jun 11 2003, 05:03 PM
Probably something like this:

http://yellowworld.org/images/articles/specific/10_02/kungfool.jpg

:ph34r:
Um, that's a Chinese guy. He wouldn't fit the Dogeater role.
Yeah, that would be the Monkey-Eaters... :lol:
Oh we can eat everything. :lol:

Just playing around, I haven't really been following this thread.

[nonamerasian]

It's the Native Americans who are being represented by these names, rituals, and mascots, so it doesn't really matter if others not depicted don't find it offensive.

The voice of those offended by these representations of themselves is what should be listened to before all others.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by nonamerasian@Jun 12 2003, 01:40 PM
The voice of those offended by these representations of themselves is what should be listened to before all others.
The veto of the ultrasensitive and whiny over the normal and well-adjusted, as it were ...

What should be listened to is the voice of those whom the representation purports to represent. If most of them don't find it offensive, tough shit for those few who do.

[nonamerasian]

Um, yeah, that's it. :huh:

[BeTheReds]

Originally posted by nonamerasian@Jun 13 2003, 03:40 AM
It's the Native Americans who are being represented by these names, rituals, and mascots, so it doesn't really matter if others not depicted don't find it offensive.

The voice of those offended by these representations of themselves is what should be listened to before all others.
Well, as Eric stated before, it is a minority within those of Native American heritage who are opposed to it. Most don't care, and some even like the teams.

[nonamerasian]

But then again. . .

It's not clear whether it's the minority view.

The Sports Illustrated survey said it's a minority view, while a survey by the largest Native American publication said it's a majority view.

. . .If most have no feelings towards the issue, and others are deeply offended by it, then why not lend an ear to those offended?

It's not as if the apathetic group is going to riot.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Out of curiosity, what is the largest Native American publication, and what's their circulation?

The readership of an ethnic-targeted magazine isn't usually representative of the ethnic group as a whole. Obviously more true for populations with large number of immigrants, but even with Native Americans, I'd imagine you'd get an overrrepresentation among the readership of the angry-activist who distrusts all "white media" and is looking for something to whine about.

Sports Illustrated's readership, of course, would be heavily biased towards men, but at least you could reasonably expect them to be a good cross-section of Native men.

[nonamerasian]

For the Sports Illustrated survey, my question was whether or not the Natives surveyed were, not only men, but sports lovers.

I'd think the ethnically targeted publication would be more representative of the Native American population as a whole, than a publication targeted to those dedicated to sports.

Anyhow, according to what I read last year, Indian County Today is the largest Native American newspaper.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by nonamerasian@Jun 13 2003, 12:08 AM
I'd think the ethnically targeted publication would be more representative of the Native American population as a whole, than a publication targeted to those dedicated to sports.
hmm ... how's that? Their homepage describes their readership as being in the "thousands" and at best a penetration of 90% on a few regional reservations. Small-town newspapers do better.Not exactly awe-inspiring, especially considering that most Natives don't live on reservations these days.

[nonamerasian]

Better representative because it isn't targeting one group of a particular interest anymore than Sport Illustrated does.

I'm not saying their survey is correct and the other isn't, nor am I saying the opposite.

I really don't care for these types of surveys, myself.

However, if I had to choose one as which would probably be the most representative of a healthy cross-section of the Native American community, it would have to be the Native American publication.

[BeTheReds]

Originally posted by nonamerasian@Jun 13 2003, 01:36 PM


. . .If most have no feelings towards the issue, and others are deeply offended by it, then why not lend an ear to those offended?

It's not as if the apathetic group is going to riot.
Cuz man, the Skins are my TEAM!

I don't want to see them wearing teal and being called the Lynx.

[nonamerasian]

They wouldn't be just as good called the Brutes, Destroyers, or anything else?

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by nonamerasian@Jun 13 2003, 12:43 AM
They wouldn't be just as good called the Brutes, Destroyers, or anything else?
Causes massive waste to rename a team. You lose your brand name image, which is gonna piss off all your advertisers. Further, you have to throw out all the old merchandise and start anew. The total economic dislocation would likely be thousands of times greater than any damage caused to Natives by having teams named after them.

In which case, in theory it would be simpler and more efficient for the team owners to pay affected Natives directly to offset damages caused by their team names. In practice, identifying persons so affected is damn near impossible cuz once there's the possibility of a cash settlement. everyone is gonna claim some pain and suffering bullshit about "the humiliation I felt every time I looked at that horrible stereotypical logo," in order to obfuscate the fact that they can't show any actual damage to their bodies or properties from it ...

[nonamerasian]

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Jun 13 2003, 01:51 AM
Causes massive waste to rename a team.
So the only reason to keep a team some deem racist as is is not because it isn't truly racist, but because it would cost too much money to change?

I'm glad to live in a country of morals and character.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by nonamerasian@Jun 13 2003, 01:01 AM
So the only reason to keep a team some deem racist as is is not because it isn't truly racist, but because it would cost too much money to change?

I'm glad to live in a country of morals and character.
Has nothing to do with morals or characters. I doubt you'd find anyone who would disagree that if the team symbol was a picture of a white man holding up a Native's scalp and it inspired killings and destruction of property, obviously it should be changed, cuz it's inspiring far more horrid acts than you could ever justify by brand name value or other mere economic concepts.

However, it's not. The ways in which a team called the Redskins could damage the job prospects of Natives or subject them to physical threat are, to put it generously, wildly unlikely to ever come occur.

Those who are offended should address their grievances without resorting to the brute force of a class-action lawsuit, the publication of libelous articles claiming the team owners are Nazis, or rowdy protests which interfere with pedestrians and traffic (which, unfortunately, are the usual tactics when we hear the "Racism" charge being levelled).

All of us are demonstrably and materially better off living in a free market country where a person's usage of his/her own private property is not subject to the veto of some pissed off and insecure individuals whom he's never met and towards whom he possesses no ill will. "Stamp out racism at any cost" makes a nice absolute slogan people can feel good about, but far fewer people (I hope) would be willing to foot that bill if it included civil liberties and property rights as part of the tab.

[nonamerasian]

This is a matter of morals and character, and if the only reason teams aren't changed is because of the money that would have to be spent to accommodate such changes, this is then a matter of a lack of morals and a lack of character.

Most of the American public wouldn't call those who would object to teams called the Chinks, the Niggers, the Wops, the Ragheads, or the Spics whiney, so the same courtesy should be extended to those who object to a team called the Redskins.

Most members of the American public would listen if they found out Catholics, Jews, or Muslims were upset with teams mockingly using their spiritual symbols and rituals, and the same courtesy should be extended to those are upset with teams who are not hypothetically, but actually mockingly using their spiritual symbols and rituals today.

People listen when other ethnic groups are upset by people dressing up in what is, or could be compared to, blackface, so extend the same courtesy to Native Americans.

And if the Natives aren't given this courtesy, they should march, they should sue, and they should boycott.

And if team owners have any decency, they should listen.

[BeTheReds]

Dan Snyder?.... Decent? HOHOHOHO :lol:

The Washington Brutes?
The Washington Destroyers?

What is this, any given sunday part 2?

Right now, my team sucks, and the only thing they are living on is memories of the past, when the glorious Redskins won 3 superbowls in 10 years under coach Joe Gibbs. If you were to change their name, but keep the logo the same, people would get used to it. However if you were to change their logo and their name, no one would have any reason to support them anymore.

Teams like the Titans (formerly Oilers) could change easily because the Oilers never won anything other then the AFL championship (I think). Also they moved from Houston to Tennesee, so the Tennesee fanbase never really was attatched to the Oiler name.

Look at how Cleveland kept the name and logo of the Browns despite the Browns moving and becoming the Ravens. They got an expansion team and named it the Browns and used the same logo and jersey.

In contrast, the not at all glorious Washington Bullets changed to become the Washington Wizards "to discourage violence" is what they say, but in reality the marketability of the bullets logo combined with their lackluster performance (last championship in 1978, losing seasons ever since) causes them to want to reinvent something more marketable in terms of colors and mascots. Jordan playing for them didn't hurt too much either.

The Redskins are one of the oldest teams in the NFL, having won their first NFL championship in 1937, formerly the Boston Braves, named because of the Boston Tea Party participants who dressed up as natives as they dumped the English tea into the sea. Their name was changed to "Redskins" to differentiate them from the National League baseball team "Boston Braves" (which became the Milwaukee Braves, then the Atlanta Braves.)

Their logo has changed from a feather on the back of the helmet, to a spear (which we saw all last season at Redskins home games) to a letter R, to the current Native american profile logo.

Changing the Redskins logo and name will also hurt another franchise, the Dallas Cowboys, who are the Arch rivals of the Washington Redskins. You can't have an arch rivalry like that mean the same thing when the Cowboys take on the Washington Destroyers. Given the lore of Western movies Cowboys and (Native Americans) are MORTAL ENEMIES. But again, I am sure this means nothing to all you liberal "lets not step on anyone's feet" people.

The Redskins mascot does not exist. In the past there was a man who dressed up in a headdress however they stopped that and are more in favor of the Hoggettes (Fat middle aged guys who dress up like ugly women with pig noses.) There is very little reference to any Native American culture, religious practices, or customs. Take it up with the chiefs and Braves and their tomahawk chop. The Redskins are best remembered for thier 8 man simultanius hi 5 first performed by "The Fun Bunch". You will see no rain dances at half time, no war paint or feathers on cheerleaders, no scalpings, etc. The only thing is that dude on the helmet, who is based on the picture from the old buffalo nickel anyway.

[nonamerasian]

So, the reason not to do away with what some perceive as racism is because it's tradition?

And this isn't a question of morals and character?

[AliBabaIncorporated]

And this isn't a question of morals and character?
The purpose of a business is to make money from consumers. If it wants to remain a going concern, it must continue making money from consumers. The purpose of a business is not to make non-consumers with low-self esteem feel better about themselves, and this being a free society, no one has any obligation to do that or any right to force others to do that, outside of specific cases such as avoiding libel and false statements. Making people with low-self esteem feel better about themselves, no matter how morally upright some people might think it to be, is as much a distraction from the central purpose of making money as sending employees out to the subway station to yell racial epithets at passers-by would be.

I still don't see how it's an issue of morals or character for team owners not to change a name and logo which are not doing ACTUAL PHYSICAL OR FINANCIAL HARM to other people. Business owners who may be knights in shining armor in real life have to be vicious when it comes to their businesses, because their shareholders and employees depend on them to be. Lots of people perceive various other businesses to be offensive for various other reasons. None of those people have any veto over the activities of those businesses. When a vegetarian's sensibilities are offended by a meat packing company's practices, or a devout Catholic's sensibilities are offended by condom sales at his local drugstore, he has to deal with it, because said businesses are not actually beating them up on the streets, causing their property values to decline, or affecting them in any other area where the government traditionally has jurisdiction.

So tell me why society should give the sensibilities of a few members of a racial minority some special weight, when it doesn't grant the same rights to religious minorities or dietary minorities.

[rakovlam]

Are Canadians offended by a Hockey team called the Canucks? No, that's because teams name themselves for their positive qualities. In this case, Indians and Braves reflect a warrior spirit that can be reflected on a team. This is also why some American weaponry are also named after Indians (Apache helicopters and Tomahawk Missiles) because many of us think Indians are capable of some major ass-whoopin'. I don't know why someone would call themselves the Canucks, but since no one is complaining I'm sure it's for a good reason.

If we were to remove those names, people would probably think of Indians as casino magnates or [tax-free]tobacco peddlers. That would be a positive image of Indians, wouldn't it?

[nonamerasian]

The people who play on the Canucks' team are Canucks themselves.

The situation is a bit different from most Native American themed teams.

[nonamerasian]

Ali, isn't that an example of one of those logical fallacies we were warned against in school?

It may be argued that with the mask protested against on the site, people weren't physically harmed, and the same with other things groups protest against. However, being physically harmed may be your prerequisite for deciding whether something is wrong, but for many others it is fighting the double standard, image control, and finding an end to what they see as belittlingly racist.

To each his own, I guess.

Yes, most people don't have direct veto power over businesses, which is why I respect people who use their power to boycott and protest rather than sitting back and doing nothing about what they find inherently wrong.

Native Americans may not number as much as Latinos, Black, Asians, and the others, however they deserve the same type of respect.

By companies not giving them the respect they deserve. By saying what they feel is racist is financially profitable, that it is tradition, and therefore right--Regardless of whether it is the companies' "right" to do so--It is indeed a slap in the face of morals a character.

[Erendani]

I believe St. John's changed their team name from Redmen to Red Storm... can anyone verify this?

Anyway, "redskins" is a derogatory term and the team should change the name.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by nonamerasian@Jun 16 2003, 07:57 PM
Ali, isn't that an example of one of those logical fallacies we were warned against in school?
don't ask me, I just some po' boy ain't never gone to no school, so cut the condescension crap ...

[nonamerasian]

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Jun 17 2003, 09:11 PM
don't ask me, I just some po' boy ain't never gone to no school, so cut the condescension crap ...
Why be ultra-sensitive and whiny?

The comment did not cause you physical or financial harm.

(I hope this just serves to show that something does not have to harm someone physically or financially in order to offend.)

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by nonamerasian@Jun 17 2003, 08:30 PM
Why be ultra-sensitive and whiny?

The comment did not cause you physical or financial harm.

(I hope this just serves to show that something does not have to harm someone physically or financially in order to offend.)
Uh right, so clever ... you'll also notice I am not suing you in court, appealing to have your right of free speech revoked, or holding noisy protests in front of your residence or business which interfere with your and your visitors' right of ingress and egress. Which is what you propose be done to the owners of the Redskins and any other business doing something you deem "racist."

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by Erendani@Jun 17 2003, 08:05 PM
I believe St. John's changed their team name from Redmen to Red Storm... can anyone verify this?

Anyway, "redskins" is a derogatory term and the team should change the name.
yeah they did.

[nonamerasian]

Although I have caused you no physical or financial harm, you've gotten offended.

You're not forcing me to stop, but you are asking me to stop offending you.

Not everyone offended tries to force teams to stop, but many ask for them to stop offending them.

Others choose to go further.

I wonder if I didn't make the follow-up post yet continued to offend you whether you would had brought attention to a mod in order to have me stopped (or at least get back at me), but I guess now I'll never know.

While you've claimed to find such complaining whiney and ultra-sensitive, I see it as taking advantage of one's rights.

One can't stand by the rights of companies and thumb their noses at the rights of individuals.

Yes, whether right or wrong, one can proclaim that these companies have the right to keep on doing what they do--However, if you truly want to know what I propose, what I propose is that the individuals offended use their rights and let their feelings known.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by nonamerasian@Jun 17 2003, 09:20 PM
While you've claimed to find such complaining whiney and ultra-sensitive, I see it as taking advantage of one's rights.
Wrong. I can hardly disagree that individuals have a right to peaceably assemble on public property, to write letters and make non-harassing phone calls to whomever they wish, to contract with willing newspapers to purchase advertisements containing factual information for the purpose of advancing their cause, and various other acts which don't interfere with other individuals' rights. If a protest against a certain product or company doesn't go beyond those bounds, who can complain?

Of course, protests almost always do go beyond that, to the tactics of which I [i]actually[i] complain, the usual one of "anti-racists" when faced with a product or company they dislike --- harassing a company by clogging up their customer service lines with complaining phone calls and preventing them from serving actual customers, publishing blatantly false accusations of deliberate racism in the target company, publishing executives' private telephone numbers on the Internet resulting in their inability to get work done or have a peaceable night at home with their family, standing outside places of business and obstructing and confronting customers who buy "offending" products, demanding businesses hire "diversity consultants" to give their employees "sensitivity training" and "affirmative action" policies to ensure a "diverse workforce," and do other various forms of penance to the diversity gods, et cetera ad nauseum.

As for the rest of your post, if a mod closes this thread, it won't be at my request, since I've never had to bother with this kind of tactic.

[nonamerasian]

So. . . Are you saying that you don't find those who stay within your limits of acceptable forms of protest whiney or ultra-sensitive?

Do you see it as them merely taking advantage of their rights?

If so, was this distinction made earlier in this discussion?

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by nonamerasian@Jun 18 2003, 12:41 AM
So. . . Are you saying that you don't find those who stay within your limits of acceptable forms of protest whiney or ultra-sensitive?

Do you see it as them merely taking advantage of their rights?

If so, was this distinction made earlier in this discussion?
If you'd been reading closely, maybe you'd notice the commonality among the forms of protest to which I objected: they're the malicious behaviors that are seeking to cause economic harm to a company, in response to an original act such as naming a team or manufacturing a product, which caused neither economic nor bodily harm. That kind of a response is rather disproportionate. It's also typical.

The distinction between acceptable and unacceptable forms of protest is hardly one I'm suddenly making up out of whole cloth. If you can't see the difference between exercising one's free speech rights towards a company, and harassing employees and consumers of that company, it's your problem, not mine.

[nonamerasian]

Is suing a form of acceptable protest?

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by nonamerasian@Jun 18 2003, 01:46 AM
Is suing a form of acceptable protest?
I dunno, ask a judge. If he lectures you about wasting the ratepayers' money and throws out your lawsuit as frivolous, that's a sign it probably wasn't acceptable.

[nonamerasian]

It was more of a question of your point of view, not a judge's--Especially since judges' views may vary. Nevertheless, I see your own shining through.

I've concluded that you may not find those who stay within your limits of acceptable protest as frivolous and malicious, but you find a portion of those who stay within society's limits of acceptable protest as such. Correct?

If so, then I wasn't wrong when you quoted me.

My view is that if an individual wants to sue, they have the right given to them by society. Their rights don't end with writing letters and other less visible forms of protest.

What I see as taking advantage of one's rights, you see as being whiny and ultra-sensitive.

I can see you're very much for protecting the rights of the company, but one most not forget the rights of the Native Americans offended.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

I've concluded that you may not find those who stay within your limits of acceptable protest as frivolous and malicious, but you find a portion of those who stay within society's limits of acceptable protest as such. Correct?
My specific objections to lawsuits isn't quite related to the rest of my complain, as it doesn't lie with the individuals filing them but with the government itself. Individuals certainly have the right to petition the various branches of government to do all sorts of crazy things, but the government should refuse them in the instances where doing the things people ask them to do would be a gross overextension of governmental power.

As a libertarian, I believe that the judicial branch should be far more cautious in using its power to force companies (in the end, shareholders, individuals like you and me) to give up portions of their assets to compensate an individual for acts which did not cause that person any financial or bodily harm but only "emotional damages," and that furthermore the judicial branch definitely shouldn't have the power to dictate that a company revise its personnel policies to fall into line with some quota-based standard of "diversity."

[BeTheReds]

Many lawsuits against the Redskins have been filed however most were thrown out because the plaintiffs were searching for economic reimbursement for hate crimes rather than gettting the name and logo changed.

The most sucessful lawsuit came with the realization that Redskin is a racist term, and therefore any copywrite or trademark that the club has with that term is invalid. The team then swiftly copywrited the font it is written in.

Therefore bootleggers can make any T-shirts, caps, sweaters, etc with the name Washington Redskins on it without paying a dime to the Redskins, as long as the font is different.

The plaintif swiftly printed up as many Redskins shirts as he could and sold them in the streets of Washington.

[nonamerasian]

Originally posted by BeTheReds@Jun 18 2003, 04:42 AM
Therefore bootleggers can make any T-shirts, caps, sweaters, etc with the name Washington Redskins on it without paying a dime to the Redskins, as long as the font is different.

The plaintif swiftly printed up as many Redskins shirts as he could and sold them in the streets of Washington.
Is that true?

If so, I love it!

[BeTheReds]

Originally posted by nonamerasian@Jun 19 2003, 04:06 AM
Originally posted by BeTheReds@Jun 18 2003, 04:42 AM
Therefore bootleggers can make any T-shirts, caps, sweaters, etc with the name Washington Redskins on it without paying a dime to the Redskins, as long as the font is different.

The plaintif swiftly printed up as many Redskins shirts as he could and sold them in the streets of Washington.
Is that true?

If so, I love it!
They can't use the logo tho.

And why do you love it? You love hypocracy? The guy went around moaning and groaning about how hurt he was that society allows such a name and logo, then he himself goes and makes money off of it.

[nonamerasian]

It's not as if the court made the team change it's name.

Perhaps the extra cash in his pocket can help ease the pain. ;)

[jimmyzee]

The Fighting Whites!!!!!!!

Man I wish I'd thought of that!!!!

LOL


:P

[nonamerasian]

<!--QuoteBegin-jimmyzee+Jun 22 2003, 05:00 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jimmyzee @ Jun 22 2003, 05:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The Fighting Whites!!!!!!!

Man I wish I'd thought of that!!!!

LOL


:P [/b][/quote]
That's too nice.

If they really wanted to prove a point, they could have picked better name.

[Mister Lovegrove]

The Fighting Whites!!!!!!!

Is this supposed to prove something? If so, what? That using native americans as mascots is racist and offensive? Well I'm not offended. If it proves anything it proves that those who complain about it are just whining. It's not like there haven't been sports teams with white mascots. What about the vikings, celtics, and the fighting irish? I never heard of anyone whine about those mascots.

[BeTheReds]

<!--QuoteBegin-Mister Lovegrove+Aug 2 2003, 04:44 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mister Lovegrove @ Aug 2 2003, 04:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Is this supposed to prove something? If so, what? That using native americans as mascots is racist and offensive? Well I'm not offended. If it proves anything it proves that those who complain about it are just whining. It's not like there haven't been sports teams with white mascots. What about the vikings, celtics, and the fighting irish? I never heard of anyone whine about those mascots. [/b][/quote]
I agree with you, but that argument is not valid.

1.&nbsp; You are not offended because that mascot does not challenge you identity.

2.&nbsp; Yes, there are white mascots, but because whites are the majority, anything that the mascot does will not be taken by ignorant people to be an accurate representation of white people.&nbsp;


And try telling that to a native American on the reservation who has white visitors greeting him with the tomahawk chop and the tomahawk chop song.

But I do agree that the majority of it is whining.&nbsp;

[angel nympho]

<!--QuoteBegin-Mister Lovegrove+Aug 1 2003, 07:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mister Lovegrove @ Aug 1 2003, 07:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Is this supposed to prove something? If so, what? That using native americans as mascots is racist and offensive? Well I'm not offended. If it proves anything it proves that those who complain about it are just whining. It's not like there haven't been sports teams with white mascots. What about the vikings, celtics, and the fighting irish? I never heard of anyone whine about those mascots. [/b][/quote]
I kind of agree with you.&nbsp; It's not like the names are used in a derogatory fashion.&nbsp; If anything, I feel like they're kind of making heroes out of them.&nbsp; The team names they use are all used to kind of communicate power and strength.&nbsp;

[nonamerasian]

<!--QuoteBegin-Mister Lovegrove+Aug 1 2003, 03:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mister Lovegrove @ Aug 1 2003, 03:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Is this supposed to prove something? If so, what? That using native americans as mascots is racist and offensive? Well I'm not offended. If it proves anything it proves that those who complain about it are just whining. It's not like there haven't been sports teams with white mascots. What about the vikings, celtics, and the fighting irish? I never heard of anyone whine about those mascots.[/b][/quote]
In addition to some of what Red has written, I haven’t noticed a strong Viking or major Celtic identity amongst Whites.&nbsp; So naturally, any depiction of such groups are less likely to arouse any ill emotions.

There are Irish offended by the Fighting Irish mascot, but since it probably isn’t proportionally equal to the amount of Native Americans, Fighting Irish comparison maybe valid, although not perfect.&nbsp;

Some differences between the groups may be because many of Dame’s base are of Irish descent (they’re representing themselves); maybe Irish tend not to feel as marginalized; maybe many don’t feel represented by little leprechauns; and maybe an overwhelming majority are people who are proud of the fighting stereotype (but if it were another, they’d probably be as vocal as Native Americans, if not more so).

Years back when a group decided to make fun of the Fighting Irish by referring to them as drunks, a group of Notre Dame fans described the statement to the media as stereotypical of the Irish and racist.

Albeit, there were other comments that offended the group, but the “stinkin’ drunks” comment too was described a stereotypical and racist. . .But portraying the Irish as spunky little leprechauns isn’t?

It is as to say, stereotype me only with the stereotypes I like.

Well, there are Native Americans who don’t like the stereotypes that they are portrayed as, and this has caused some anger.

So, to answer your question: If it doesn’t offend you, then no.&nbsp; It doesn’t prove anything.

Nevertheless, just because you don’t find something offensive doesn’t prove that other people shouldn’t be either.

[Mister Lovegrove]

Nevertheless, just because you don’t find something offensive doesn’t prove that other people shouldn’t be either.

You disagree with me. And because of that, I'm offended.. :angry:

Just joking. but when does it stop? Where do we draw the line? People can claim to be offended by all sorts of things. Does that mean we should sue them? It's not like there was any ill will meant by the mascots.
Yes, stereotypes can be annoying, but it's something we ALL deal with. Yes, even including us white people. We just have to realize that people who automatically stereotype us based on our appearance, either don't know any better, or in some cases are simply stupid.

[BeTheReds]

Check out my fight for pirates rights page that I linked to in an earlier post in this thread. I think you would like it.

ah here, i will even link you

http://eugene.whong.org/pirate.html (http://eugene.whong.org/pirate)

I draw the line surrounding the cleveland indians' logo and the name of the washington redskins... and the end to that rediculous tomahawk chop which even found its way to the world cup somehow...

[Mister Lovegrove]

Check out my fight for pirates rights page that I linked to in an earlier post in this thread.&nbsp; I think you would like it.

Great link! :lol:

I have a new platform! No more stereotyping pirates! they weren't ALL bad. ;)

[nonamerasian]

Without finding substantial evidence that the term “Redskins” offended a substantial amount of Native Americans back in 1967 when the team’s first trademark was registered, the court has found that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office didn’t have a reason to cancel the team’s patent of their trademarks.

In 1999, after reviewing contemporary evidence of the offensiveness of the term “Redskins,” a panel of the US Patent and Trademark Office came to the conclusion that six of the team’s trademarks could not be protected due to patent laws forbidding the patenting of offensive material.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/10/02/MN24965.DTL

[kasia]

Causes massive waste to rename a team. You lose your brand name image, which is gonna piss off all your advertisers. Further, you have to throw out all the old merchandise and start anew. The total economic dislocation would likely be thousands of times greater than any damage caused to Natives by having teams named after them.

that's hardly a reason to keep a racist name/logo.

anyway, i'm having difficulty understanding how naming a team after a name of a tribe is different from naming it 'spartans' or 'trojans' etc. please help?

(note: b/c while i realize that some ppl find 'redskin' offensive, they're now pushing a bill in cali to ridding all public schools of native-american mascots.)

[BeTheReds]

anyway, i'm having difficulty understanding how naming a team after a name of a tribe is different from naming it 'spartans' or 'trojans' etc. please help?




Spartans and Trojans and Vikings are all White.

Makes perfect sense.

[>:^|]

that's hardly a reason to keep a racist name/logo.

anyway, i'm having difficulty understanding how naming a team after a name of a tribe is different from naming it 'spartans' or 'trojans' etc. please help?

(note: b/c while i realize that some ppl find 'redskin' offensive, they're now pushing a bill in cali to ridding all public schools of native-american mascots.)

Well, most of the teams aren't named after tribes, are they? Instead, they use words that are considered slurs like "redskin" and "brave."

But even if they were named after tribes, isn't that like cultural cooptation?

And of course, being within the majority culture means a lot.

PS: I have decided I love nonamerasian after reading this old thread.

[nonamerasian]

Arnold Schwarzenegger just vetoed a bill banning "Redskins" public schools, putting the issue into the limelight again. I was reading an article about it and the defense by the Washington Redskins communications vice-president made me laugh.

If [they] think it's offensive, does that, per se, mean it is? It's pretty well understood that in football, the Washington Redskins stands for a tradition that honors Native Americans

This is how the situation has been for years...

Defenders: We keep everything as is out of respect for Native Americans because these things honor the people.

Native Americans: We aren't feeling very honored. Actually, we feel dehumanized and our traditions are being made a mockery of.

Defenders: D00d, you find our using a slur and your ethnic group as a mascot as offensive?

Native Americans: Yes. Can you please change the name and mascot out of respect for my community?

Defenders: Respect for your community? Why should we care about what YOU think? Be honored or STFU, dammit!

The issue of using "Redskins" as a moniker stems from its original employment over 400 years ago when Europeans put a bounty on the lives of Native Americans. Since packing around large amounts of Native American corpses was so difficult, it became acceptable for Europeans to receive payment upon the presentation of Indian scalps. The bloodied mess from the scalps compelled Europeans to coin the term "Redskins" when referring to Native Americans.

"Stands for a tradition that honors Native Americans"?

I have difficulty seeing how calling a team the "Redskins" honors Native Americans.

They should consider having a team called Nigger Toes after the memento body parts taken from Blacks who were lynched.

Or Jew Teeth after the gold-capped teeth plucked from the mouths of Jews during the Holocaust.

Or just having teams named Niggers or Kikes should suffice.

http://www.thehilltoponline.com/news/2004/10/08/NationWorld/The-Fight.For.Civil.Rights.Continues-747291.shtml?page=1

[A.R.A.M.]

In addition to some of what Red has written, I haven’t noticed a strong Viking or major Celtic identity amongst Whites.&nbsp; So naturally, any depiction of such groups are less likely to arouse any ill emotions.

There are Irish offended by the Fighting Irish mascot, but since it probably isn’t proportionally equal to the amount of Native Americans, Fighting Irish comparison maybe valid, although not perfect.&nbsp;

Some differences between the groups may be because many of Dame’s base are of Irish descent (they’re representing themselves); maybe Irish tend not to feel as marginalized; maybe many don’t feel represented by little leprechauns; and maybe an overwhelming majority are people who are proud of the fighting stereotype (but if it were another, they’d probably be as vocal as Native Americans, if not more so).

Years back when a group decided to make fun of the Fighting Irish by referring to them as drunks, a group of Notre Dame fans described the statement to the media as stereotypical of the Irish and racist.

Albeit, there were other comments that offended the group, but the “stinkin’ drunks” comment too was described a stereotypical and racist. . .But portraying the Irish as spunky little leprechauns isn’t?

The Irish drunk was a very common stereotype used to marginalize the Irish back in the nineteenth-century (and early twentieth-century?) when the Irish weren't considered "white." This is back when the Irish were micks and signs on business doors said, "Irish need not apply." I think the leprechaun thing is, as you said, a self-representation adopted by the school, whereas the drunk thing is an something applied to them.

I think you are right that if the team had a different name, it might not be so well received. The "Fighting Irish" and leprechaun image are probably not as offensive to Irish ears as, say, the "Fighting Firecrotches." And before anybody thinks that leprechauns aren't as badass sounding as Vikings and Spartans, watch Leprechaun 3 through 6. That should disabuse anyone of any ideas that leprechauns are wimps.