MLB Off-Topic

[jb12780]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

1. PNC was one of the best parks I've been to.

2. I don't think the Celtics logo is going anywhere anytime soon.

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

[Money99]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

It's not the caricature, I'm no Indian fan, it's just the principle of the thing, and this never ending trend of a small group of people being offended, so we have to change it, it's just a joke.

What next? The Boston Celtics logo offending the Irish community? Sounds absurd, but it wouldn't surprise me in this overly sensitive world we live in.

Sent from my HTCD200LVWPP using Tapatalk

But is it the name, or the caricature?
I don't get the sense that Native American's are upset with the team being called the Indians, but rather they don't like how Chief Wahoo resembles a Bugs Bunny patsy.

[DamnYanks2]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

But is it the name, or the caricature?
I don't get the sense that Native American's are upset with the team being called the Indians, but rather they don't like how Chief Wahoo resembles a Bugs Bunny patsy.

It's both, which is what makes it even more laughable. Take the logo out, and their still the Indians, I mean you get rid of Wahoo, what does that change?

And this will start a slippery slope, with the ultimate goal of getting rid of the name completely.



Sent from my HTCD200LVWPP using Tapatalk

[DamnYanks2]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

1. PNC was one of the best parks I've been to.

2. I don't think the Celtics logo is going anywhere anytime soon.

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

Well no, me either, I was just making an example.

Sent from my HTCD200LVWPP using Tapatalk

[Suntan Superman]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

It's now laughable that people don't want an entire race represented by a caricature. Also anecdotally, I can say many Native Americans around here wouldn't mind if professional sports teams didn't use their race as a mascot. Doesn't speak for everyone obviously, but many have shared this sentiment for awhile.

[DamnYanks2]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

It's now laughable that people don't want an entire race represented by a caricature. Also anecdotally, I can say many Native Americans around here wouldn't mind if professional sports teams didn't use their race as a mascot. Doesn't speak for everyone obviously, but many have shared this sentiment for awhile.

But what does it change? Chief Wahoo is forever linked to Indians lore. Removing a patch changes nothing.

Are the Native Americans you know offended by just Chief Wahoo, or do they dislike the Indians name too?

I find it laughable because it's just the mere thought that someone lying awake at night thinking about a "cartoon indian misrepresenting a race.

It seems pretty damn trivial.



Sent from my HTCD200LVWPP using Tapatalk

[Suntan Superman]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

But what does it change? Chief Wahoo is forever linked to Indians lore. Removing a patch changes nothing.

It changes it for future generations, just because something is old, or will be remembered doesn't mean it shouldn't go away. The Negro Leagues are forever connected with baseball, people seem to be fine with those not existing anymore.

Are the Native Americans you know offended by just Chief Wahoo, or do they dislike the Indians name too?

There are way more in column A, most Native Americans I know have a strong dislike for the logo. There is definitely a fair amount in column b as well. Indians isn't as disliked as Redskins, but there's still a strong sentiment against it.

I find it laughable because it's just the mere thought that someone lying awake at night thinking about a "cartoon indian misrepresenting a race.

It's probably not so much someone lying awake at night, it's more like someone you see everyday, who constantly makes fun of you, while also making millions of dollars making fun of you

It seems pretty damn trivial.

Being real honest, I totally get where you're coming from. I used to feel that way as well. The more I thought about it though, the more it just seems, unnecessary. After all the hate the NBA got for the New Orleans Pelicans, I thought to myself, what if we had never used Native Americans as mascots, how ridiculous would it sound if a team came along and said they wanted to be named the Indians, or the Redskins. The only reason those names are even accepted is because they're old, which isn't a real reason at all. I'm not asking anyone to agree with me, but it makes sense overall.

Plus - As a franchise who sells products, you want your products to be purchased by as many people as possible. No matter how small, if a team like the Tampa Bay Rays can sell more merch by not being the Devil Rays, why not try as an organization to try and make as much money as possible?

[Speedy]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I wouldn't mind it if the Indians tried to do something similar to the Blackhawks and go for a more dignified approach with the logo, maybe even try to work in conjunction with a tribe on it.

I never knew of the origin of the Blackhawks logo until you said something...that's really cool.

[DamnYanks2]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

It changes it for future generations, just because something is old, or will be remembered doesn't mean it shouldn't go away. The Negro Leagues are forever connected with baseball, people seem to be fine with those not existing anymore.


There are way more in column A, most Native Americans I know have a strong dislike for the logo. There is definitely a fair amount in column b as well. Indians isn't as disliked as Redskins, but there's still a strong sentiment against it.


It's probably not so much someone lying awake at night, it's more like someone you see everyday, who constantly makes fun of you, while also making millions of dollars making fun of you


Being real honest, I totally get where you're coming from. I used to feel that way as well. The more I thought about it though, the more it just seems, unnecessary. After all the hate the NBA got for the New Orleans Pelicans, I thought to myself, what if we had never used Native Americans as mascots, how ridiculous would it sound if a team came along and said they wanted to be named the Indians, or the Redskins. The only reason those names are even accepted is because they're old, which isn't a real reason at all. I'm not asking anyone to agree with me, but it makes sense overall.

Plus - As a franchise who sells products, you want your products to be purchased by as many people as possible. No matter how small, if a team like the Tampa Bay Rays can sell more merch by not being the Devil Rays, why not try as an organization to try and make as much money as possible?

It just reeks of political correctness. I personally see nothing wrong with it. Now am I going to lose sleep over this, of course not, but where does this end?

Just off the top of my head, Seminoles, Braves, Indians, Blackhawks, Chiefs are all names linked with Native Americans, like I said it just seems so trivial.

This is on par with the Reds changing their name to to the Red Legs for a short time, because people had a knee jerk reaction to it being synonymous with Communism aka "The Red Scare"

Utterly pointless imo.

Sent from my HTCD200LVWPP using Tapatalk

[Suntan Superman]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

It just reeks of political correctness. I personally see nothing wrong with it. Now am I going to lose sleep over this, of course not, but where does this end?

Just off the top of my head, Seminoles, Braves, Indians, Blackhawks, Chiefs are all names linked with Native Americans, like I said it just seems so trivial.

It seems trivial to you because it doesn't effect you in any way, I'd imagine. I don't want to make any sweeping assumptions about you, but most people who don't come from oppressed cultures, don't really care about the oppressed cultures.

Moving on, the Seminoles aren't using a caricature, and sought permission from Seminole tribes.
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...0ed_story.html

The Atlanta Braves have moved away from their previous imagery and mascot as well, which used to be more cartoony.

The Chicago Blackhawks are actually named after a WWI fighting division, but they haven't escaped their logo, it's not really a caricature, most concerns stem from the fact that it depicts what the Native Americans were, not what they are today. The Blackhawks have also made strides with Native Americans by working with them, most notably the American Indian Center, to educate people on the history of Black Hawk, whom the infantry division was named after. The Blackhawks also don't use Native American stereotypes to further their brand.

The Kansas City Chiefs got rid of their mascot Warpaint in the 80's other than the arrowhead logo, they don't use Native American imagery anymore. Chiefs is also not a derogatory term.

This is on par with the Red legs changing their name to the Red's, because people had a knee jerk reaction to it being synonymous with Communism aka "The Red Scare"

Well, it was the other way around, the Reds changed to the Redlegs, and removed the "Reds" from their logo until the mid-60's. But this is far different than that, I would posit. They changed because of the Political Agenda surrounding communism, while most of the Native American controversies stem from people not wishing to have themselves, or their culture made fun of by professional sports teams.

Utterly pointless imo.

Like I said, I understand, it's hard to empathise with them when you're not affected by it, at all.

[areobee401]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Who am I to tell another race of people what they should be allowed to find offensive?

That pretty much sums up my thoughts on the subject.

[DamnYanks2]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

It seems trivial to you because it doesn't effect you in any way, I'd imagine. I don't want to make any sweeping assumptions about you, but most people who don't come from oppressed cultures, don't really care about the oppressed cultures.

Moving on, the Seminoles aren't using a caricature, and sought permission from Seminole tribes.
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...0ed_story.html

The Atlanta Braves have moved away from their previous imagery and mascot as well, which used to be more cartoony.

The Chicago Blackhawks are actually named after a WWI fighting division, but they haven't escaped their logo, it's not really a caricature, most concerns stem from the fact that it depicts what the Native Americans were, not what they are today. The Blackhawks have also made strides with Native Americans by working with them, most notably the American Indian Center, to educate people on the history of Black Hawk, whom the infantry division was named after. The Blackhawks also don't use Native American stereotypes to further their brand.

The Kansas City Chiefs got rid of their mascot Warpaint in the 80's other than the arrowhead logo, they don't use Native American imagery anymore. Chiefs is also not a derogatory term.


Well, it was the other way around, the Reds changed to the Redlegs, and removed the "Reds" from their logo until the mid-60's. But this is far different than that, I would posit. They changed because of the Political Agenda surrounding communism, while most of the Native American controversies stem from people not wishing to have themselves, or their culture made fun of by professional sports teams.



Like I said, I understand, it's hard to empathise with them when you're not affected by it, at all.

Right, I know the history of most of those names. We're probably beating a dead horse here, but how is the Florida State Seminole not as offensive as the Indians logo?

They have a mascot that literally rides around on a horse dressed as a native american and throws a spear. Is it because it has a more elegant look?

That doesn't really make much sense to me.

I think the Braves logo has the most justifiable grounds for banning because it was deemed the "screaming savage" which obviously is offensive.

But the Indians logo? You know what that reminds me of, "Major League" that's really it. Now your right, while I have indian in me, I'm not fully blooded.

Ah well, agree to disagree.

Sent from my HTCD200LVWPP using Tapatalk

[CMH]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

One has to admit that if they are not the people feeling offended, they probably don't understand why those people feel offended.

If Native Americans, which are a group of people that have been typecast and stereotyped, believe that the logo further enforces those negative stereotypes, I think it makes much more sense to side with them on it than a non Native American who isn't offended.

The Celtics name was brought up as an example. One of the reasons it has likely led to much less uproar is because the team was named after a group of people that made up its city. Those people embraced it. Good on them.

In a similar example, the Florida State University Seminoles have had their name sanctioned by the Seminole Tribe of Florida after the team was named in their honor.

One of the other primary issues with Cleveland Indians is that it is named after no one specifically but instead a generalization of a group, and represents no individual group from the area that can either accept it or sanction it.

In addition, unlike the Blackhawks logo or Seminoles logo, the depiction of the Indian is entirely derogatory. If you can't see that it's derogatory, meaning it isn't, then that's likely because you've accepted that as a proper depiction of an Indian which goes back to the initial issue: it enforces a negative stereotype.

This isn't about political correct pansies. This is about a group of people that don't like how they are being depicted.

If the Celtics were instead called the Irishmen and it depicted a man throwing back a mug of beer, I guarantee you there would be upset Irish.


Edit. In the event someone tries to say that the Irishman logo I mentioned doesn't come close to being as derogatory as the depiction of a smiling Indian, please stop. A red-faced, bug tooth Indian is exactly the stereotype they have dealt with. It is exactly as derogatory and offensive to the people.

[DamnYanks2]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Who am I to tell another race of people what they should be allowed to find offensive?

That pretty much sums up my thoughts on the subject.

Fair point, but on the flipside who are you to tell a privately owned team, what is acceptable on your uniforms, and the use of your name?

One has to admit that if they are not the people feeling offended, they probably don't understand why those people feel offended.

If Native Americans, which are a group of people that have been typecast and stereotyped, believe that the logo further enforces those negative stereotypes, I think it makes much more sense to side with them on it than a non Native American who isn't offended.

The Celtics name was brought up as an example. One of the reasons it has likely led to much less uproar is because the team was named after a group of people that made up its city. Those people embraced it. Good on them.

In a similar example, the Florida State University Seminoles have had their name sanctioned by the Seminole Tribe of Florida after the team was named in their honor.

One of the other primary issues with Cleveland Indians is that it is named after no one specifically but instead a generalization of a group, and represents no individual group from the area that can either accept it or sanction it.

In addition, unlike the Blackhawks logo or Seminoles logo, the depiction of the Indian is entirely derogatory. If you can't see that it's derogatory, meaning it isn't, then that's likely because you've accepted that as a proper depiction of an Indian which goes back to the initial issue: it enforces a negative stereotype.

This isn't about political correct pansies. This is about a group of people that don't like how they are being depicted.

If the Celtics were instead called the Irishmen and it depicted a man throwing back a mug of beer, I guarantee you there would be upset Irish.

Regarding the Celtics logo, take a good look at it, isn't it pretty stereotypical of an Irishman? Someone could find that just as offensive as the Indian logo.



Sent from my HTCD200LVWPP using Tapatalk

[countryboy]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Rod Carew to undergo a heart and kidney transplant.