Most offensive post ever!

Time to get racist!

So I read this today from our president, and it got me thinking.  Is this something that needs to be changed?  Is this really a problem?  Or, am I so desensitized to this particular question that it doesn't phase me anymore?  I didn't know how to answer, so without further ado...

Ladies and gentlemen, it's that time of year to play America's favorite game show, Which is more offensive!  To start things up, we have a doozy aimed at our Native American friends - Which is more offensive, the team name "Redskins," or the Cleveland Indians logo?

Before you answer, lets take a look at these.

Ok, that's not a great name

The term redskin was first used in the 17th century, specifically for the Algonquin people of the northeast.  The term was mostly in reference to the reddish face paint they used, and not in direct relation to their skin tone.  It wasn't until the late 19th century that redskin began to become a derogatory term, evolving in much the same way the term gypsy did, with the phrase being associated with lying, stealing, and general deceitfulness, leading to it's eventual use as a racial epitaph for Native Americans, and in some circles it is considered a racial slur.

That looks pretty bad

The current Cleveland Indians logo was adopted in 1950, replacing their previous logo.  The logo plays off of the redskin racial epitaph, with bright red screen and a comically enlarged nose.  This particular depiction of an Indian was commonplace in America in the 1950's in political cartoons and children's animated features, with Disney's Peter Pan being a prime example of this particular depiction.

Are both of these offensive?  Totally!  But which one is more offensive?  Since many people don't initially identify either the Indian's logo or the Redskins name as offensive, lets look at this in a way that will offend everyone.

Oh man, I'm so going to hell

Here we have the replacement for the Redskins team name, a term largely considered to be offensive no matter how often it is used in music.  It is considered derogatory to a large group of people, and conveys a negative stereotype for those people along with it.

And on the Hell express, no less!

And here we have the replacement for the Indians logo (I know, the previous image makes this a little confusing, but bear with me here).  Exaggerated features based around the color of the skin, but in a way that everyone deems offensive.

This is an interesting debate that springs up every couple of years.  The Redskins debate has been vehemently fought for decades now, and a documentary was even made about one woman's quest to change the name (I can't find it, sorry, but I was forced to watch it in college, so I know it's real).  The Indians?  Two protests in the late '90's that resulted in some arrests but no charges.  Both of these clubs are using very racist imagery/names, yet only one is attacked for it.  Why?  If you're going to make a stink about one, you should make a stink about both.

So which one is worse people?   A racial slur for a team nickname, or racist imagery for a mascot?  Cast your votes!