More Links

areobee401 · 12-15-2016, 02:40 PM

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 · 12-15-2016, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suntan Superman


	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 · 12-15-2016, 03:01 PM

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 · 12-15-2016, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by areobee401


	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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMH


	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 · 12-15-2016, 03:15 PM

Rod Carew to undergo a heart and kidney transplant.

Suntan Superman · 12-15-2016, 03:18 PM