(The “Irish” part was, I naively assumed, from the fact that Notre Dame is a Roman Catholic university that was founded, I assumed, by Roman Catholic Irishmen.)

I never ever thought of “Fighting Irish” as a racial slur against real Irishmen who, according to said slur, do nothing but fight all the time. (After, I assume, according to other slurs, do nothing but drink until it’s time to fight.)

Call me naive.

You stated it was about “oppression”, and the time in-between which leads to these offensive terms or images eventually being “less offensive”, as you put it. Remember, you said London hasnt recently oppressed us, so it would be ok if they want to name a team the “Lazy Americans”.

“And why would a Chinese team be named after an American racial slur?”

Why not? Maybe American investors? Maybe they think it just sounds cool? The reason behind it is not important, the fact it would be fought against IS – lack of oppression, or not.

“You really can’t see the difference between the nickname the Fighting Irish and the ethnic slurs you just brought up?”

Of course I can – but the difference is, there is no REAL difference. An ethnic slur or offensive image is always an ethnic slur or offensive image. There is no scale in which one should be deemed appropriate where the other acceptable. That is the entire point. Oh, and so you know, the nickname “Fighting” isnt the only issue on that one.

And you mention the difference between ethnic slur and stereotype image or whatever, but they all lead back to the same offensive icon towards a group of people. Which leads back to what is appropriate and what isnt. Which, anything derogatory towards a group of people should be inappropriate, regardless of the masses realizing it or not. I mean, I can shoot 25 people in front of the white house and have the entire world realize I killed them, or one person in the back woods and have only the local sheriff know my guilt. Either way, I am a murder just the same. Just because a large number of Americans do not realize other images or names are offensive, doesn’t make them any less offensive. And under the guise of “politically correct”, all such names/images would need to be fought against equally. Otherwise you are showing the very aspects that got us to this point in the first place.

So, back where we started. Want to fight against the Redskins name or Indians logo or whatever – well, you have to take up a much bigger fight then you realize. And obviously people don’t care about being politically correct enough to realize it, so it’s rather hypocritical to fight any of them at all.

Joe Gibbs began coaching the Redskins in ‘81, and they started the season 0-5.
The next year in ‘82, they won the Superbowl.

Maybe this gives the Chiefs hope for the future (?)

Of course not. Where in the world did you get that idea? Are you under the impression that Asians and Middle Easterners have never been discriminated against in Canada? And why would a Chinese team be named after an American racial slur? The whole suggestion makes no sense.

You really can’t see the difference between the nickname the Fighting Irish and the ethnic slurs you just brought up?

The main point is that it’s never a good idea to name a sports team after a racial epithet. Notre Dame’s nickname isn’t a slur. It’s a stereotype, but not a hurtful one, because “fighting” implies positive qualities in terms of sports.

If the team was named the Lazy Irish or the Drunken Potato Eaters, you’d better believe a lot of people would be bothered by it. And if actual Irish discrimination was more recent, then the protests would be even stronger.

Yes, some people who aren’t even Irish themselves would be bothered, not just because of “guilt,” but because they don’t want to have ethnic or racial slurs in their entertainment. It’s not necessary and it’s classless.

Guilt really has nothing to do with it. It’s about politeness and treating other people with respect, instead of going out of your way to antagonize them.

That’s why the poll isn’t even the point. Let’s say the poll is accurate, and the name really only offends 20,000 or so Native Americans. But it also offends other people, who aren’t Native American themselves but who don’t want ethnic slurs in their entertainment.

Changing a team’s nickname to something that isn’t obnoxious shouldn’t be a big deal. Lots of team who’ve been around longer than the Washington Redskins have done it, like St. John’s and Stanford. Teams that have had nicknames for over a hundred years have often changed them over time.

So as long as it is only derogatory against people who you have not oppressed, or have not oppressed in years, it is ok? Under this theory, it would be ok for a world-famous Canadian team to be called the “Richmond Rice Eaters” or “Calgary Camel Jockeys”? Similarly, think it would be ok for China to have a team called the “Chongqing Coons”?

Probably not, huh?

“But there isn’t a controversy, because most Irish in the US are comfortable enough to not really mind the stereotype anymore, to the point where many proudly celebrate it on St. Patty’s Day.”

Couple things on this. First, most Irish in the States are not really Irish anymore. This is especially true of those celebrating stereotypes on St. Patty’s Day. And actually, most people celebrating that holiday are not Irish at all. Or they are people making claim to an Irish heritage they know absolutely nothing about or that they are so far removed from that it hardly means anything.

Second, if you are only worried about offending certain people within the US, you have proven the insensitivity you are attempting hide in your attempt to remove icons which can be taken as offensive. Are you only attempting to show sensitivity to a select few out of guilt over past actions? Does this not show a bigger issue then the one at hand?

Third, you are assuming the Irish population (well, we will call it that for arguments sake) of the US doesnt “really mind the stereotype anymore”, but that the Native-American population is still offended by the name of the Washington Football team. This however ignores the poll Smokey Joe referenced which stated only 9% of Native Americans found it to be offensive, and there is no evidence to show how the Irish feel really about ND – for all you know it could be 30%.

In actuality, isnt it more appropriate to say that Americans of other heritages are concerned with the Redskins name under the guise of it offending a group of people, but more importantly, the internal guilt associated with it because of past actions – guilt they do not harbor over the relationship with the Irish? Only care if it causes guilt?

And more importantly… If it does stem from guilt related to the Native American people, why would these same people somehow be completely ok with the name New England Patriots? This too is a name which is likely to stir sensitivity to the Native American people. Afterall, it was the “Patriots” who won the right to destroy and steal from the Native American people; and instantly started doing so with the Battle for Ohio. Native Americans actually fought on the side of the British in the Revolutionary war. Well, for the most part – unless of course they were fed lies by those same American “Patriots”.

But let’s be honest, we arent THAT sensitive to the feelings of others, are we? I mean, if we were really concerned about racial slurs, improper mascots or otherwise politically correct images, there would have been much more change to the UNLV and Ole Miss mascots and team names; right? Instead, UNLV changed their logo a bit in the late 70s but hardly made the change they should have. And Mississippi has had difficulty in distancing themselves from their racial mascot despite claiming to have been doing so since the early 80s.

Overall, it sure seems as though the American peoples politically correct awareness extents only to what is convenient, and causes the instant internal guilt to be removed without a real effort to change being expressed. Like I said before – cant pick and choose those you fight against. Yet that is exactly what the American people have decided to do with the random and rather have-assed way they choose to go about removing offensive icons. “Offend as many as you like as long as it doesn’t make us feel too bad about ourselves” I guess is the real motto. It sure seems to be the only one being upheld.

The Fightin’ Irish is a derogatory slang term for an ethnic group. And if most Irish Americans still felt oppressed in this society, there WOULD be a huge controversy over Notre Dame’s nickname, with Irish people angrily decrying it. And if that were the case, Notre Dame would probably change it.

But there isn’t a controversy, because most Irish in the US are comfortable enough to not really mind the stereotype anymore, to the point where many proudly celebrate it on St. Patty’s Day.

The Liverpool Lazy Americans would be funny. Speaking as a lazy American, I know well that I am not oppressed by Liverpudlians or other Brits in any way, so I can laugh at that.

But if England still held power over us and were using their power to abuse us, while calling us all Lazy Americans, then they named a sports team the Lazy Americans, then it wouldn’t be funny, it’d be insulting, because it’d be an example of them rubbing our noses in their abuses.

Sport team nicknames are usually intended to be a tribute, not an insult. So Redskins is really the only one that bothers me, because it’s a slang that’s intended to denigrate a group that has suffered oppression. But if they were called the Washington Warriors, most people wouldn’t have much of a problem with it, because at least it wouldn’t be using a derogatory term.

I vote for changing to the Washington Pigskins, that’s a great nickname. It’s about football and evokes the Hogs, and the fans who dressed up as hogs.

Or if they want to keep their helmet logo so badly, go with the Washington Warriors or Algonquins– those aren’t derogatory, they’re tributes.