10-31-2013, 12:23 PM #21
Even some of the "less" offensive nicknames lack the recognition of the deeply entwined nature of native religion and their culture. Very caricature is a religious slight in addition to a racial one. I doubt many of the Catholics crying foul on the change would feel the same if similar contemporary mockeries of them were done.
And I will say it again....since when does the wrong thing to do require the victim to feel insulted?
10-31-2013, 12:23 PM #22
- Liked 197 Times in 125 Posts
10-31-2013, 12:24 PM #23
I'm offended by the lack of qoutas in baseball.
10-31-2013, 12:37 PM #24
- Liked 54 Times in 38 Posts
10-31-2013, 12:41 PM #25
Minnie and Paul are both pasty white, googly-eyed dopes.
One might say this cartoon logo is of whites only so therefore racially insensitive by not representing other pigments in the Minnesota area or its fans,
Or, one might think the cartoon is a wretched depiction of whites in the area.
Or, you might not have a problem with it.
But we can all agree that the owners selfishly cling to this dopey cartoon from ages past for selfish reasons. Got it.
Hey, at least my analogy gives one the opportunity to find no fault in the logo. For the record, I find no problem with it. Then again, I'm white so what do I know and what does my opinion matter if it's not the "correct" opinion?
I'm just curious that if the Indians left the logo, but changed their colors to purple and green, would this be acceptable?
Final ancillary note: When people bring up slavery to bash America, Americans and white Americans I always wonder how much of their knowledge and perspective is from popular culture and myth, and how much is from an informed reading of world history.
Virtually every color of people have been enslaved and held slaves themselves.
Slavery is an economic institution that has been around for upwards of 4000 years.
Slavery was not unique to America.
What was unique about Slavery in America is that it only was legal for 89 years, then abolished.
The first slave owner in America (the colonies) was black.
American Indians practiced slavery before and after the white man arrived.
Only ~4% of all slaves from Africa came to the U.S. They were sold by black Africans.
In 1860, only ~10% of the white population in the South owned slaves.
Less than 1.5% of whites in America owned slaves in 1860
In New Orleans in 1860 3,000 free blacks owned slaves. That's 28% of the free blacks owned slaves there.
So please stop with the hate America, whites should feel guilty and uber sensitive meme.
Slavery is a horrible institution but ought not be used at every opportunity to further some social justice measure or to bash those who don't find some logos and nicknames offensive.
To do so is facile, but lazy and factually wrong.Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.
10-31-2013, 12:50 PM #26
- Liked 197 Times in 125 Posts
I'm not sure why you think you get to have an opinion about what offends the minority classes. It's not for any of us to say what offends them.
I'm not sure why you broach the subject of trying to dismiss slavery, I don't think that topic was even on the table.
Last edited by nicksaviking; 10-31-2013 at 12:54 PM.
10-31-2013, 12:50 PM #27
It isn't clear what world history you are reading.
Yeah "hate America" is all this has been about? What?
10-31-2013, 12:56 PM #28
- Liked 197 Times in 125 Posts
Over/Under on this thread being closed in 3 hours?
10-31-2013, 12:58 PM #29
10-31-2013, 01:08 PM #30
While this current issue isn't as obviously egregious as an issue like slavery or burning women as witches, it nonetheless is following the same path of people raising it as an issue. If someone declares it stupid without a willingness to try to understand the opposing perspective, that's prejudice (as in "pre-judgement"). Pre-judgement is not nearly as beneficial as judgement.
That said, I also agree that not every issue raised can/should be viewed under a microscope, just because someone raised the issue. But issues with merit tend to rise to the top eventually.
10-31-2013, 01:13 PM #31
I'm going out on a limb here suggesting that the vast majority of fans and people okay with both the Cleveland Indians and Washington Redskins names and logos do not hate or have some person prejudicial animus.
That's what needed to be curtailed.
Last edited by Ultima Ratio; 10-31-2013 at 01:21 PM.Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.
10-31-2013, 01:16 PM #32
- Liked 682 Times in 439 Posts
- Blog Entries
Since I'm from Grand Forks and a staunch supporter of the University of North Dakota...
This discussion is a familiar one. I've heard the passionate side of both arguments and I don't disagree with the points made by both sides.
My response to both sides is simple.
Remove the headache... Change the name and move on.
The bottom line... A name change is only an issue for today and it will only hurt today... Once you change the name and move on... 70 years from now... No one will care.
70 years from now... No one will care anymore. That's a real important point... Any change of anything should be considered for its future worth primarily.
It only hurts and keeps hurting when you stubbornly cling to some notion that the nickname matters more than the team and you keep the discussion alive... Front and center.
I love the Fighting Sioux nickname... I'm a PA announcer for the University... I yelled it out into the microphone with pride. I never had a derogatory thought while doing so... It's gone now and I still have my University Pride intact.
Change it... Be done with it and time will make it alright. It is so much better than sustaining the discussion for year after year.
70 years from now... No one will care. Just change the name and watch it all get better as time goes on.
Last edited by Riverbrian; 10-31-2013 at 01:19 PM."9. Lipstick"
"How can Canada produce Tie Domi and not have a better military"?
"I noticed while robbing the First State Bank last night that if you go into the vault when nobody is looking... You can get away with it".
10-31-2013, 01:19 PM #33
Again, as mentioned in the ESPN article on the Redskins, most American Indians (is that term okay?) don't care and many of the reservation schools have adopted the trademarks for their own. So you're saying it's okay from them to do so, but not for an NFL, MLB team, even when those who are supposed to offended are not?
As I said in that other thread: I find that reasoning bigoted. If you're not saying that American Indians should be offended when in fact they are not, what are you saying?Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.
10-31-2013, 01:19 PM #34
No I don't think that those fans are racists. They are ignorant, however. Our society ignores racism against Native Americans since it has NOT been pushed to the forefront. One wouldn't get away with the Seattle Yellowskins, the San Antonio Brownskins, the Minnesota Whiteskins, or the Chicago Blackskins, would one?
10-31-2013, 01:23 PM #35
Growing up in Bemidji (for you non-northerners, this means between Red Lake, Leech Lake/Cass Lake, and White Earth) the racism was readily apparent to me and after I eluded my own ignorance and also moved to Indiana, it became quite clear how ignored the problem of racism and our own American history towards Native Americans was indeed. It's so flabbergasting to me that a name like "Redskins" is still allowed given every other legit and illegit PC stuff is going on in America.
10-31-2013, 01:25 PM #36
- Liked 29 Times in 15 Posts
We're not talking about some obscure thing here... the big pro sports teams have been known to basically everyone. So it's not really true that the public was "painfully slow" to catch on to 'the cause.' It's more accurate to say that no one (outside some Native Americans) cared until they had an opportunity to promote their own self-interest. That's what the current media & political push is all about.
Chief Wahoo probably deserves to go, but the holier-than-thou act is just transparent garbage from 99.9% of the people pushing for change.
10-31-2013, 01:30 PM #37
- Liked 197 Times in 125 Posts
Even if some Native Americans support a nickname or mascot, plenty don't. Why do those that support it get to speak for all others? You clearly are in the minority in this thread, therefore your ideas are no longer valid by your logic, I get to speak for you and will do so thusly:
All Twins Daily posters vigorously protest the offensive nature of the Cleveland baseball and Washington football team names.
10-31-2013, 01:41 PM #38
The meaning of words can change over time, but intent if the most important element to look at when gauging harassment and offense. We have no reason to believe the word Indian or Redskin with respect to the teams, was ever drawn up with the intent to offend or marginalize. Why doesn't this matter to you?
I'll take a shot, and this is the reason why these issues are only getting the push they are now -- it's because we're changing the laws and ethos with respect to when offense and harassment happen.
Now "intent" is irrelevant. Only outcome of feelings are relevant.
So when, you look at a women's shirt because it has a funny picture on it, it doesn't matter if you were ogling her or not, harassment has occurred if she feels uncomfortable.
Likewise, offense of words are apparently reached solely on the grounds that someone is…uncomfortable/offended.
If that is the metric or calculus we've arrived at in society then what else needs reforming? How many people and what kind of people must be offended for something to be offensive enough to change it?
At what point will we being doing more harm than good? How will we know it?Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.
10-31-2013, 01:50 PM #39
Okay, so some native do support it and some don't -- since you and I aren't natives so we don't get to vote right?
And, so what then?
Yes, I can't tell you what offends you, and I haven't BTW. But look at the poll from that ESPN article. Those who are relevantly impacted by the word overwhelmingly are not offended. You are.
Okay, so we should change the name on those grounds? Where is the inference?Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.
10-31-2013, 02:02 PM #40
Comics enjoy the freedom and right to draw and otherwise lampoon religious figures held sacred by many. Quite a few posters here love to ridicule religion full stop, but largely just Christianity.
No doubt comics that work for newspapers who lampoon Jesus, Moses, Buddha or whatever; they offend many. Should they be forced to stop the presses?
We've already seen that comics won't dare to lampoon "Allah" in their strips and those brave enough to do so have been killed or are living in hiding. Surely these comics are offensive to the point were those offended are super-duper offended that the offense merits death -- so the newspapers (private business ventures all of them) like any private business in the NFL and MLB should be silenced or change their comics/names/logs to more appetizing and benign objects.
I think I have that right.
Tolerance is a two-way street. Don't try to offend someone especially with malice, but if you find yourself offended, try to be tolerant also. Keep free speech alive. Or being principled and go after every single freaky offense and completely paralyze expression.Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.