Offensive Team Names

[foxxx]

I just read this article on ESPN.com

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=law/070410&sportCat=mlb

The author claims that the Indians and Braves have offensive names and mascots. He also targets the Washington Redskins. He says that they should all change their names.

Now I recognize that the Redskins is very offensive, it just is.

The Indians is also slightly offensive, their symbol could definately be seen as offensive.

Now I may be a little biased but tell me, what the hell is offensive about "The Braves"?

It does not portray Native Americans in a poor manner. To me, and this is where you can agree or disagree, The Braves is no different from The Warriors, or The Spartans, or The Trojans. Atlanta's symbol is a tomahawk, it is just a weapon, and I do not believe it is offensive to say Native Americans sometimes used tomahawks in battle, since that is historically accurate. Atlanta's team is not called "The Savages" or "The Redskins", or even "The Indians", it is "The Braves", the team name portrays a certain group of warriors who were thought to be fierce and brave, they are named "The Braves" for the same reason that Michigan State is the Spartans, and USC is the Trojans. There have been arguments that all of these "racist Indian mascots" are actually honoring the first inhabitants of this continent, but isn't that argument actually true for Atlanta? What does their team name say other than Native American warriors were brave and fierce? Someone tell me I'm not crazy.

PS- You'll notice in the article the author actually presents no argument against the Atlanta Braves, just the Cleveland Indians, Washington Redskins, and a few college mascots

[hudsonharden]

http://www.wisconsinstories.org/images2002/sports/closer/pennant_cu.jpg

Well, there's this depiction of Chief Knockahoma, which was used in 1957.
(notice him holding a scalp in his left hand)

[foxxx]

Notice that none of those mascots or symbols are used by the Braves anymore and now all that is left is the Tomahawk and the team name. Neither of which I believe to be offensive.

[PJ-34]

Ya I's say the Indians are deffinently offensive but the Braves?? no way, the Braves are if anything identifying their culture, not making a joke out of it, how can you get those 2 mixed up, the Braves are 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000% racist, ESPN is full of crap.

[RuthMayBond]

Ya I's say the Indians are deffinently offensive but the Braves?? no way, the Braves are if anything identifying their culture, not making a joke out of it, how can you get those 2 mixed up, the Braves are 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000% racist, ESPN is full of crap.I'd like to know ESPN's distribution of races among employees in upper positions :rolleyes:

[2Chance]

I'm not going to take sides in this, but I remember the American Indian Movement (AIM) being formed in '68 and took enough of an interest to do some papers about it in school. Here's a quote from an Ojibwe leader, and a couple of pix that can make you think, yeah, they have a point:

“We started fighting mascots in 1969,” Dennis Banks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Banks) said, failing to convince a Native American who played Chief Wahoo that it was demeaning. I said, ‘Why do you do that?’ and he says, ‘They pay my bills. When you guys protesting want to pay my bills, OK, I’ll stop doing it.’ I thought, ‘That’s wrong.’”

[Ubiquitous]

Can you imagine:
http://www.purdue.edu/Admissions/undergrad/graphics/pete_stand_web.gifhttp://www.nflnut.com/store/media/NotreDameLogo.jpghttp://re3.mm-a1.yimg.com/image/2057106876
http://re3.mm-a1.yimg.com/image/2004925640http://re3.mm-a7.yimg.com/image/3880279946

[Utility07]

http://www.wisconsinstories.org/images2002/sports/closer/pennant_cu.jpg

Well, there's this depiction of Chief Knockahoma, which was used in 1957.
(notice him holding a scalp in his left hand)

Thats his right hand, chief.

[Utility07]

Can you imagine:
http://www.purdue.edu/Admissions/undergrad/graphics/pete_stand_web.gifhttp://www.nflnut.com/store/media/NotreDameLogo.jpghttp://re3.mm-a1.yimg.com/image/2057106876
http://re3.mm-a1.yimg.com/image/2004925640http://re3.mm-a7.yimg.com/image/3880279946

I fail to see how Purdue Pete is offensive.
Same with the cowboy.

[Ubiquitous]

That would be my point. Purdue Pete and the others are cartoon caricatures of white people. They display ethnic stereotypes and exaggerate features yet who has a problem with Purdue Pete? Would people have a problem with Purdue Pete if instead of being called Pete he was called Purdue Sockalexis? And instead of a big white double chin he had a big red nose?

[AutographCollector]

Thats his right hand, chief.

Umm... the human scalp is in his left hand. In the right hand is a hatchet.

[Chris from NY]

I don't see how braves or Indians are offensive. I just don't understand the view pointthat people have against those names. Sure, there was some logos and stuff in the past that could be seen as offesive. All of that stuff has been changed as time has gone on to keep it all tasteful.

[Pete Rose Rounding Third]

I'm not principally Native American, though I'm sure a small part of my lineage is if I looked back far enough. I just wanted full disclosure.

For my tastes, "Braves" doesn't come across as offensive. In fact, you could strip all of the Native American references out of the franchise and it would still work as a team name. It's like the Atlanta Pride. Or the Atlanta Heroes, something in that vain. Describing someone as brave encompasses every ethnic group.

Now, the name Cleveland Indians doesn't necessarily strike me as offensive, but that name has been linked to a rather offensive image for a very long time. For that reason, I would make that change as soon as possible. In fact, perhaps the Indians franchise should work with prominent Native American groups to change the name to something which appeals to the fans and honors Native Americans, rather than clumsily caricaturing them in a racist way.

And the name "Redskins" is just awful. I can't believe the NFL hasn't done something about that yet.

[Chris from NY]

the Indians franchise should work with prominent Native American groups to change the name to something which appeals to the fans and honors Native Americans, rather than clumsily caricaturing them in a racist way.
I'm wondering how it caricatures Native people in a racist way. Is there something I'm missing? It just seems to me that people want to treat the whole issue with kid gloves and think anything related to Native culture should be considered racist and/or offensive. I could be completely wrong here in my assesment, but I just don't see anything racist ro offensive.

[Pete Rose Rounding Third]

I realize these things are subject to each person's filter, but the two pictures of "Chief Wahoo" in post #6 appear to be demeaning. In fact, the accompanying political cartoon with similar caricatures of Asians, Hispanics, and African-Americans shows exactly why Chief Wahoo would be offensive to the Native American community.

I'm not a proponent of PC by any means, but dropping Chief Wahoo and changing the team name isn't a knee-jerk reaction to PC sentiments - I think it is the decent thing to do.

[Old Sweater]

My hometown is named Pueblo after the Pueblo Indians.

The Pueblo Community College named their teams the Indians, which makes sense. The Pueblo Indians.

The college has grown through the years going from PCC to SCSC to USC and is now called CSU at Pueblo. They had to change their name and I'm not to sure that the Pueblo Indians wanted this to happen.


Political topic anyhow.

[ElHalo]

I don't see how braves or Indians are offensive. I just don't understand the view pointthat people have against those names. Sure, there was some logos and stuff in the past that could be seen as offesive. All of that stuff has been changed as time has gone on to keep it all tasteful.

Well, Braves because it depicts Native Americans as being particularly warlike, and acts as a gross oversimplification of the Native American social structure, though I suppose it's not really any more offensive than "Spartans." Indians, though... the term "Indian" is generally seen as pejorative, coming as it does from a mistaken Western view of the Americas as having been the East Indies five centuries ago. While there might not be anything inherently offensive in the term itself, its use is generally regarded as such, in much the same way as you'd horrifically offend an East Asian person by calling them "Oriental," even though the literal meaning of that word is just "Eastern."

[Ubiquitous]

Except that the majority of Indians actually perfer being called Indians.

[Brownie31]

It is ironic about the Atlanta Braves being a controversial name. Their minor league team in the old Southern Association was the Crackers-not exactly the most affectionate term for a rural Southerner!

[Erik Bedard]

Except that the majority of Indians actually perfer being called Indians.

I think I read that somewhere too.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Except that the majority of Indians actually perfer being called Indians.

As well as not minding having teams names after them as long as they aren't done so in an insulting manner. The college where I went as an undergrad, Central Michigan, has had a long fight about the school nickname, Chippewa. While some faculty members would cry (literally) about this injustice, local Ojibwa would often speak out saying they had no issues and even considered it an honor to be recognized in that manner.

Gross caricatures can be seen as offensive, but it shouldn't be someone telling them to be offended. That's part of the problem with the PC movement, some of those who adhere to it take it upon themselves to speak for the offended when those getting offended really aren't.

[Erik Bedard]

Then again, the Central Michigan logo isn't in any way offensive.

I agree with you, though. You can't tell somebody to be offended.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Then again, the Central Michigan logo isn't in any way offensive.

I agree with you, though. You can't tell somebody to be offended.

It has been changed a couple of times. It's more than just the logo in cases like this, though. If you're going to "honor" a particular group of people, you should actually honor them as they are, not based on perception.

[Biggtone23]

If the Indians changed their logo to a picture of Ghandi or a sacred cow or the Taj Mahal would this be more or less offensive?

Is it the name or the image that bothers people? I think that is the real question. Should it be the the Cleveland Native Americans with a toned down verison of the current logo or the the Cleveland Indians with one of the above logos?

[Captain Cold Nose]

If the Indians changed their logo to a picture of Ghandi or a sacred cow or the Taj Mahal would this be more or less offensive?

Is it the name or the image that bothers people? I think that is the real question. Should it be the the Cleveland Native Americans with a toned down verison of the current logo or the the Cleveland Indians with one of the above logos?

It's not the images, as many colleges have amended their logos, such as Central Michigan and Illinois, but have still heard calls for changing the team name. The images themselves may be the most outwardly offensive, but it is the name change itself, like with Miami University (Ohio) and St. John's, then is what is ultimately called for. Change the name, the need for the potentially-offensive or insensitive logo no longer exists.

[Dodgerfan1]

As a card carrying member of the Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, I can honestly say that most of my tribe call themselves American Indians, and think the 'Native-American' tag is a bit silly. Another piece of politically correct silliness created by white people in order to make them feel better about themselves. I have a couple of tee-shirts from my tribe, and one of them has 'American Indians' printed on the front.

The Cleveland Indians were named after Louis Sockalexis, a turn-of-the-century player who was great until he was done in by demon rum and became penniless and died from alcoholism (I think. Not 100% sure if that's how he died, but I do know that it contributed mightily.) The name Indians was meant to honor him. It was intended as a compliment.

No, those tags don't bother me, nor do they bother the majority of American Indians, I am willing to bet. They do bother some people, though, but I doubt they offend enough people to make much difference in changing the names. I could be wrong, but that's my belief. This isn't a pet peeve of mine, I really don't care either way. I just shake my head whenever a big issue is made of it.

While we're at it, let's do away with the Fighting Irish, too. I don't hear many Irishmen complaining about that (fighting Irishman logo - a drunken Irishman is pretty much implied).

[Seattle1]

Now I recognize that the Redskins is very offensive, it just is.

The Indians is also slightly offensive, their symbol could definately be seen as offensive.

Now I may be a little biased but tell me, what the hell is offensive about "The Braves"?


I think you are pretty much on the right track here.

1. "Indians" is not such an offensive name, but the "Chief Wahoo" logo is wildly, jarringly racist and offensive. They should retire "Chief Wahoo" permanently, and soon. Good Lord.

2. On the other hand, the Native American logo on the side of Washington's helmet seems relatively tasteful and respectful, but with them the name "Redskins" is racist and way over the top. Maybe keep the logo, but change the name to "Braves."

3. The Atlanta Braves seems ok, but cut out the "Tomahawk Chop" and stuff like that for Pete's sake.

All I.M.H.O., of course.

:lookitup

[Craig S.]

Keith Law is one of my favorite ESPN writers, but I can't agree completely with his arguments here. I just don't think you can lump those names together, because they're not equally offensive.

[pauliedanger]

Thats his right hand, chief.

No, in his right hand is a tomahawk. In his left hand is a clump of hair.

I think it all comes down to how the team and the local native community respect each other.

FSU Seminoles I think is a prime example of how the name can be used in a respectful manner. And I think having the war spear spiked into the 50 yard line is one of the best pregame rituals this side of New Zealand's performance of The Haka before rugby games.

The Spokane Indians this year (I think) came out with an alt label using local tribal language. Which I think is cool.

[Seattle1]

Can you imagine:
http://www.purdue.edu/Admissions/undergrad/graphics/pete_stand_web.gifhttp://www.nflnut.com/store/media/NotreDameLogo.jpghttp://re3.mm-a1.yimg.com/image/2057106876
http://re3.mm-a1.yimg.com/image/2004925640http://re3.mm-a7.yimg.com/image/3880279946

You can't be serious. There's no comparison to these and "Chief Wahoo." None whatsoever.

If you want an accurate comparison to white people, it would have to be something more like this:

http://www.rob-clarkson.com/duff-brewery/cletus/04.jpg

Maybe this could be the logo for a team called the "Kentucky Hillbillies."

[Dalkowski110]

"Maybe this could be the logo for a team called the 'West Virginia Hillbillies.'"

Considering I'm talking to two guys right now on an instant messenger from WV that A) think the idea to be good and B) think the logo would be hilarious, that doesn't help your point. Oh yeah, and the Vicksburg Hill Billies really were a Minor League team. And who named them in a naming contest? You guessed it...rural southerners...

[Seattle1]

Didn't we learn anything from Don Imus? Just be respectful of other people, is that so hard?

[Dalkowski110]

Hmm, seems you edited it from WV to KY. Well, I could only get one guy from KY online, but he concurred with the ones from WV...

[Erik Bedard]

You can't be serious. There's no comparison to these and "Chief Wahoo." None whatsoever.

You are absolutely wrong. I'm Irish Catholic, and I can honestly say that both the Notre Dame Fighting Irish logo and the San Diego Padres logo portray negative stereotypes.

The Irish logo (and name, in fact) implies that Irish people like to get drunk and fight each other, which is a common negative stereotype about the Irish. I'm Irish as well, and I take no offense whatsoever at the name or the logo. Hell, I even like the name so much that I used it for one of my fantasy baseball teams.

The Padres logo is totally stereotypical in nearly every possible way. The person pictured is overweight, a negative stereotype of Catholic priests. He also is bald on top of his head, with a ring of hair below. This may be the most offensive part of the whole logo. The word "Padre", translated from Spanish to English, means "Father", the common name for a Catholic priest. However, Catholic priests do not shave the top of their heads as shown in the picture, only some Franciscan monks do. And monks are called Brothers, not Fathers, or Padres. They are very different from priests, and confusing a monk with a priest shows just as much insensitivity as Chief Wahoo's face being bright red. Also, the man shown is wearing a black robe. Priests DO NOT wear black robes. When celebrating Mass, they wear white, red, purple, or green. NEVER black. When they are not celebrating mass, they do not wear a robe. And priests never wear a rope belt or sandals.

What annoys me is when people think that stereotypes and offensive names only apply to minorities. "Padres" is bordering on offensive, both to Spanish and Catholic. And that logo was far less acceptable than Chief Wahoo.

[Seattle1]

Hmm, seems you edited it from WV to KY. Well, I could only get one guy from KY online, but he concurred with the ones from WV...

Let's see, you say you have informally polled a grand total of three people about the idea. That is not a very big sample size. And they were probably joking anyway.

It's important that we just admit that a logo like "Chief Wahoo" is inapprpriate. I'n not Native American and it's offensive and embarassing to me for crying out loud. I'm offended as a human being.

[Erik Bedard]

And yet you aren't offended at the gross misrepresentation of Catholic beliefs portrayed in the Padres logo that Ubiquitous posted.

[Biggtone23]

It's not the images, as many colleges have amended their logos, such as Central Michigan and Illinois, but have still heard calls for changing the team name. The images themselves may be the most outwardly offensive, but it is the name change itself, like with Miami University (Ohio) and St. John's, then is what is ultimately called for. Change the name, the need for the potentially-offensive or insensitive logo no longer exists.

But what I'm saying is if we changed the meaning of Indians from Natives to people from India is the name still offensive? Is it offensive to name a team after a group of people all together?

I guess what I'm getting at is the name itself isn't offensive it is the image that it puts into our head. If the image (not necessarily the logo) is changed to something else then is it still offensive.

[Seattle1]

You are absolutely wrong. I'm Irish Catholic, and I can honestly say that both the Notre Dame Fighting Irish logo and the San Diego Padres logo portray negative stereotypes.

You're reaching on both the Padres and the Fighting Irish logo. There's no comparison whatsoever. But if people really do find those logos offensive, where's the groundswell of objection? If that materialized then by all means, examine changing those two logos also.

There's a reason why objections to Native American stereotypes keep coming up again and again and again. Because there is a real depth of substance to the concerns. It also has to do with the history of open and deliberate European genocide and racisim perptrated against them. I'm not sure that the average sports fan has a real appreciation for the gravity of what we did to the Native people on this continent over the last 500 years.

[Dalkowski110]

"And they were probably joking anyway."

So, you've known 'em for nine years, four years, and five years, respectively, too? Cool! Oh, and I know about two dozen more from those two states alone. You want me to get all their opinions, too?

"And yet you aren't offended at the gross misrepresentation of Catholic beliefs portrayed in the Padres logo that Ubiquitous posted."

As an extremely devout Roman Catholic who goes to Church every weekend and prays every night? Nope. Not at all.

[Erik Bedard]

Learn your history. The state of Maryland was founded by Catholics seeking refuge from religious persecution. Catholics were burned at the stake by Protestant kings and queens of England. Protestants and Catholics fought in numerous wars against each other, the greatest of which was the Thirty Years War between Germany and other Protestant countries against Spain and the Holy Roman Empire. The Spanish Armada was sunk for a reason, right? It was because the country that controlled it was Catholic. And that's not even counting what the Roman Empire did to early Catholics. The first Pope was crucified. Catholics were often fed to lions for practicing their religion. The Fire of Rome was blamed on the Catholics.

Also, I never said that I wanted them removed, only that they portrayed negative stereotypes and were just as insensitive as the Chief Wahoo logo.

[Seattle1]

Oh, and I know about two dozen more from those two states alone. You want me to get all their opinions, too?

Two dozen respondents would be a start. Report back when you have a sample size of oh, at least 1,000 or so.

;)

[Erik Bedard]

"And yet you aren't offended at the gross misrepresentation of Catholic beliefs portrayed in the Padres logo that Ubiquitous posted."

As an extremely devout Roman Catholic who goes to Church every weekend and prays every night? Nope. Not at all.

I'm not offended either. My point was basically that if you're offended by Chief Wahoo and not offended by the Padres logo, then you're a hypocrite.

[RuthMayBond]

The Fire of Rome was blamed on the Catholics.Which fire are we talking about, what year?

[Dalkowski110]

Don't forget the more recent bloodbath in Northern Ireland and the persecution of Irish Catholics by the English way into the 20th century, while you're at it...

[Dalkowski110]

"Two dozen respondents would be a start. Report back when you have a sample size of oh, at least 1,000 or so."

I can give you about 300 from the rural south. No, I'm not kidding. You get a lot of people from the rural south when you belong to half a dozen guns/hunting/fishing boards as well as this one. I'll bet you right now I'd get 95% positive feedback response...

[Erik Bedard]

Which fire are we talking about, what year?

64. In fact, the emperor Nero may have even sent someone out to set it himself. He then tortured Catholics into confessing, and condemned them "not so much for incendiarism as for their hatred of the human race". They were seen as evil by Roman historians. Arguably, Catholics have been the second most persecuted ethnic group throughout history, behind only Jews.

[Captain Cold Nose]

But what I'm saying is if we changed the meaning of Indians from Natives to people from India is the name still offensive? Is it offensive to name a team after a group of people all together?

I guess what I'm getting at is the name itself isn't offensive it is the image that it puts into our head. If the image (not necessarily the logo) is changed to something else then is it still offensive.

The difference there is one title was erroneous (Columbus's misidentification of San Salvador's natives) while one is the adopted name of the country. No, it's not the naming after groups of people that is offensive, it is the naming based on a misperception.

[Real Tribe Fan]

In the hopes of steering us back toward the right track, I am also Native American, American Indian, Indian, or whatever else we are going to call us these days. As you can tell, I am an Indians fan and I do not find the Indians, Braves, Redskins, Seminoles, Chiefs or any other related team name or logo offensive. It seems to me like people that complain about these sorts of things are doing great in life. What I meanby that is, if Chief Wahoo or the name of the baseball team in Atlanta this is their biggest worry, problem or concern in life they must be doing very well and need to share their secrets with the rest of us.

[Real Tribe Fan]

In my opinion, some people get offended too easily these days. There is also a lot of double standards in their complaining. Take this for example: If we are going to change the names/logos for the Indians or Braves...what about the Giants or Yankees? The names Indian and Braves are offensive to some.... wouldn't the name Giants be offensive to some vertically challanged people? Couldn't the term Yankees possibly be offensive to people or players from other countries? My point is this... any cartoon logo and most team names will offend SOMEONE out there. If we start changing history to make a few people happy where will it stop?

[RuthMayBond]

64. In fact, the emperor Nero may have even sent someone out to set it himself. He then tortured Catholics into confessing, and condemned them "not so much for incendiarism as for their hatred of the human race". They were seen as evil by Roman historians. Arguably, Catholics have been the second most persecuted race throughout history, behind only Jews.You're arguing that Catholicism had even begun by 64

[Pete Rose Rounding Third]

The question about the Padres and Irish emerged, and I'll honestly admit that they didn't strike me as particularly offensive, but I won't argue with those who do see them that way. I'm in the "change them all" school - if necessary, change the logos and change the names.

[RuthMayBond]

The question about the Padres and Irish emerged, and I'll honestly admit that they didn't strike me as particularly offensive, but I won't argue with those who do see them that way. I'm in the "change them all" school - if necessary, change the logos and change the names.Don't forget all the teams named after animals, that offends PETA

[bluezebra]

Thats his right hand, chief.

Look again, Uti. The SCALP is in his LEFT hand, the TOMAHAWK is in his RIGHT hand.

Bob

[bluezebra]

Don't forget all the teams named after animals, that offends PETA

EVERYTHING offends PETA.

Bob

[Dalkowski110]

It had, though only technically...not Catholicism as we know it today, but very much Christianity prior to either the Orthodox split or any of the Protestant branches of Christianity.

"EVERYTHING offends PETA."

Why not ban me? I obviously offend PETA by going hunting and fishing. Just wanted to inject a bit of humor in this decidedly dour thread. ;)

[RuthMayBond]

64. In fact, the emperor Nero may have even sent someone out to set it himself. He then tortured Catholics into confessing, and condemned them "not so much for incendiarism as for their hatred of the human race". They were seen as evil by Roman historians. Arguably, Catholics have been the second most persecuted race throughout history, behind only Jews.NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition

[VTSoxFan]

This ground has been trod before in this thread:

http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=32326

And this one:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=3529&pp=25

And this one:

http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=29978

[VTSoxFan]

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition

:laugh

Thanks for the laugh, Cardinal Biggles. 'Twas much needed.

[RuthMayBond]

:laugh

Thanks for the laugh, Cardinal Biggles. 'Twas much needed.My three main weapons . . .
. . . my TWO main weapons . . .
. . . my ONE main weapon is humor

[bluezebra]

Learn your history. The state of Maryland was founded by Catholics seeking refuge from religious persecution. Catholics were burned at the stake by Protestant kings and queens of England. Protestants and Catholics fought in numerous wars against each other, the greatest of which was the Thirty Years War between Germany and other Protestant countries against Spain and the Holy Roman Empire. The Spanish Armada was sunk for a reason, right? It was because the country that controlled it was Catholic. And that's not even counting what the Roman Empire did to early Catholics. The first Pope was crucified. Catholics were often fed to lions for practicing their religion. The Fire of Rome was blamed on the Catholics.

Also, I never said that I wanted them removed, only that they portrayed negative stereotypes and were just as insensitive as the Chief Wahoo logo.

How about mentioning what the Catholic Knights did to the Muslims in The Crusades? Or even sending children on one of the Crusades? Or the wonderful treatment the Spanish Catholics meted-out to non-Catholics during The Inquisition? Or what the Catholic "visitors" did to the the natives in South america? Or how the Catholic Priests enslaved the American Indians?

By the way, the Spanish Armada wasn't sunk "because they were Catholic". It was an invading army and navy attempting to attack England. And England had been Catholic until a Pope wouldn't give Henry VIII a divorce, and Hank left the Catholic Church, and formed the Church of England.

Bob

[Erik Bedard]

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition

If this means what I think you're trying to mean, almost all ethnic groups have persecuted and been persecuted.

But this discussion isn't really baseball-related, so let's drop it here.

[bluezebra]

64. In fact, the emperor Nero may have even sent someone out to set it himself. He then tortured Catholics into confessing, and condemned them "not so much for incendiarism as for their hatred of the human race". They were seen as evil by Roman historians. Arguably, Catholics have been the second most persecuted race throughout history, behind only Jews.

I find YOUR statement offensive. Judaiism and Catholicism are RELIGIONS, not RACES.

And much of the persecution of Jews was done by Catholics. Until a few years ago, Jews were referred to by the Catholic Church, as "The perfidious Jews".

Bob

[Captain Cold Nose]

If this means what I think you're trying to mean, almost all ethnic groups have persecuted and been persecuted.

But this discussion isn't really baseball-related, so let's drop it here.

It's a Monty Python-related joke. While I agree staying on topic is important, a little levity is not a bad thing. At least two mods appreciate it. Maybe you need to sit in a comfy chair.

[Erik Bedard]

I disagree. The American Heritage Dictionary defines race as: A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution.

As to your second line, see my post above.

[Captain Cold Nose]

This is not the place to discuss race and racial distinction, folks. Nor the history of persecution. We're moving too far off-topic when we do that. No one is trying to insult anyone here, so let's not take any posts as such.

[Erik Bedard]

It's a Monty Python-related joke. While I agree staying on topic is important, a little levity is not a bad thing. At least two mods appreciate it. Maybe you need to sit in a comfy chair.

I knew that, just the mention of the Spanish Inquisition was obviously a reference to the Catholic persecution of Jews and Muslims.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I knew that, just the mention of the Spanish Inquisition was obviously a reference to the Catholic persecution of Jews and Muslims.

Not in the context he put it. That's an exact quote RMB threw out there.

Cardinal Fang, you know what to do . . .

[Dalkowski110]

This is just about as far OT as I've seen one of these threads go...seriously.

[RuthMayBond]

This is just about as far OT as I've seen one of these threads go...seriously.All right, the sketch is over, move along, nothing to see here

[Old Sweater]

All right, the sketch is over, move along, nothing to see here


Sure there is. Do you flatlanders find this offensive.

[Brownie31]

All right, the sketch is over, move along, nothing to see here

Since September 11, 2001, my favorite college team, outside of Auburn and UAB, has been the Holy Cross Crusaders!;)

Brownie31

[Captain Cold Nose]

Sure there is. Do you flatlanders find this offensive.

Offensive, no. Envious? Yes.

[ReignInBlood]

Any midget out there is sure to find this offensive:

http://www.mlbmascots.com/images/Francisco/giantslogo.jpg

[Dodgerfan1]

This ground has been trod before in this thread:

http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=32326

And this one:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=3529&pp=25

And this one:

http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=29978

It's difficult to find almost ANY thread that hasn't been discussed a few times before.

[plask_stirlac]

Some names are offensive but they are just sports teams, you don't have to like them.

How often do the Indians show Chief Wahoo in various forms?

If any team is going to spend big bucks changing the name or logo, why not just give it to American Indian charities?

BTW I think Canada has the best name: "first peoples."

[Dodgerfan1]

It's a Monty Python-related joke. While I agree staying on topic is important, a little levity is not a bad thing. At least two mods appreciate it. Maybe you need to sit in a comfy chair.

Captain, I can see your chief weapons are surprise and fear, fear and surprise.....

[Seattle1]

All this stuff about religious persecution and whatnot in comparison to what was done to the Native population on this continent only goes to reinforce my point that few truly have an every day appreciation for how bad it really was for them. There's no parallel remotely close in all of human history. Even the Holocaust, as hideous as it was, only lasted a few years.

[RuthMayBond]

All this stuff about religious persecution and whatnot in comparison to what was done to the Native population on this continent only goes to reinforce my point that few truly have an every day appreciation for how bad it really was for them. There's no parallel remotely close in all of human history. Even the Holocaust, as hideous as it was, only lasted a few years.How many native Americans were killed?

[RuthMayBond]

Sure there is. Do you flatlanders find this offensive.Not at all, you hillbilly ;)

[plask_stirlac]

No comparison? Many peoples have been forced from their lands violently, often into slavery. Nobody bothered with missionaries or (broken) treaties, just war. (I'm not saying anything made the European side "right" at all). The Jews have often been scattered by larger forces.

I also think the Holocaust was worse though they're both dreadful. Both were racially destructive in taking land, but the Nazi's systematic approach to racial dominance was worse.

[Dirt Dog]

Came across this. It's a parody over the Chief Wahoo controversy. Some may like it, some may not.

http://www.shipbrook.com/jeff/ChiefWahoo/ChiefWahoo.swf

[Real Tribe Fan]

:applaud: That was retarded, but I laughed all the way through it. :applaud:

[BoSox Rule]

World War III:

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~tgoday/images/BostonRedSoxLogo.jpg

vs.

http://www.champaignschools.org/staffwebsites/bauerda/White-Sox-logo1.gif

vs.

http://eteamz.active.com/augustagreensox/images/GreenSox.jpg

vs.

The killer shoes
http://wvs.topleftpixel.com/photos/lot_of_shoes.jpg

[catbox_9]

That was pretty funny.

[Utility07]

I think alot of it is the cartoony mascots, not the name. For instance, my ex highschools mascot was the vikings, and the school was going to change the name, to avoid a mess like all the ones with native americans. When descendants of the vikings found out, a bunch of nordic associations came to the school board and implored them not to change it, and that they thought it was an honor.

That is why I truely think its not the name, but the way in which its portrayed.

[ElHalo]

How many native Americans were killed?

That's very hard to know exactly, but the best estimates are somewhere around 10 million directly killed (either through straight out murder or through working to death after enslavement), with another 50 million to 100 million dead of disease and starvation. It might not have been intentional, but when the first Europeans came in, close to 80% of the indigenous peoples died from Old World diseases brought over on the ships. Kind of rough to go through.

Basic overview at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peoples) , of course.

[Sean Casey]

If the Indians name and logo is offensive, what about the Minnesota Vikings, or the Boston Celtics? Both have stereotypical caricatures as their logos, yet I see nobody complaining on behalf of Norwegians or the Irish.

While we're at it, let's address such names as the Raiders, Chargers, Pirates, Giants, Titans, and other names that promote violence or are potentially intimidating to opposing teams. Instead, let's just use politically correct, abstract names like the WNBA has, including the Sky, Sun, Liberty, and Silver Stars.

</sarcasm>

[ElHalo]

If the Indians name and logo is offensive, what about the Minnesota Vikings, or the Boston Celtics? Both have stereotypical caricatures as their logos, yet I see nobody complaining on behalf of Norwegians or the Irish.

The Celtics have never bothered me, but I do have to say that, as an Irish American, I'm certainly offended by Notre Dame's logo. This is stepping kind of far afield from baseball, though.

[Utility07]

You can take anything any way you want. Im irish too. Some people read into it that they have to be drunk to fight. I feel that reading too far into it. I feel it means they have the fighting spirit most irishmen do.

[Pete Rose Rounding Third]

If the Indians name and logo is offensive, what about the Minnesota Vikings, or the Boston Celtics? Both have stereotypical caricatures as their logos, yet I see nobody complaining on behalf of Norwegians or the Irish.

I've seen this sort of response to this issue before, and to be frank it doesn't serve the discussion at all.

You don't see anyone complaining on behalf of the Norwegians or Irish, and I don't either - but I'm not the world and neither are you. I'm sure that if I looked hard enough, I probably would find someone complaining about them.

And what would be wrong with that, exactly? There are millions of things you could name a team franchise - why does the team need to use an ethnicity as an identifying mascot? And why does the preservation of a (bad) tradition trump basic human decency?

To me, the argument that says "Well, no one is protesting _________" is a none too sophisticated way of saying, "American Indians need to just deal with it and they shouldn't be offended." That's not your call to make, and it's not mine.

We have brains. If some crackpot says, in some half-baked scheme to get attention, "I'm offended by the name Red Sox", we can recognize that person or group as a charlatan. When a legitimate complaint surfaces, we need to address it with honesty and sensitivity. If the Native American community is offended by the name Redskins, Indians, or Braves, steps should be taken. Tradition isn't a reason to ignore wrongdoing - it's an excuse.

[Dirt Dog]

With the way it's going, one day it might be that Team A plays Team B, Team C plays Team D, etc.

Then some group might find it offensive b/c they feel that teams should be numbered.

Then teams will have to rename themselves, but yet another group will get upset.

Then teams will be identified by a certain color, perhaps their socks or jerseys.

Then we're back to square 1 . :crazy

[Dodgerfan1]

If the Native American community is offended by the name Redskins, Indians, or Braves, steps should be taken. Tradition isn't a reason to ignore wrongdoing - it's an excuse.

And just what do you consider a 'community'? As I mentioned in a previous post, I am an American Indian and these names don't bother me in the least. The tribe I belong to (Absentee Shawnee Tribe) holds tribal councils every once in a while. We have agendas for those meetings, and we cover all sorts of subjects, and the subject of sports team names once came up. It wasn't on the day's agenda, but sometimes things just arise out of talking about other things. The vast majority of us thought the idea of people other than American Indians getting pushed out of shape about team names involving Indians is laughable.

Again, it's not the vast majority of us who have a problem with these names. It's do-gooders from the outside who think they are performing some sort of noble deed by 'taking up the cause' for all of us. Believe me when I say they are not. There is a vocal minority among the tribes in the US who get all the press, mostly because they are the ones seeking out the news cameras like heat-seeking missiles. Get the other side of the story. Most of us just don't care, and can only shake our heads as to why so many people who don't represent the majority of us make such a big deal out of a very minor thing. There are real problems in the world, and this ain't one of them!

[Hazy]

there can be a perceived difference between something being inherently offensive and people being offended by it.

the way i judge these issues is: how is it impacting society? how are people acting because of it? are people seeing chief wahoo and thinking racist thoughts about native americans, or are they thinking "cleveland indians"? i'm sure as hell thinking cleveland indians baseball.

if looking at these images and mascots evokes painful memories or history for native americans ... well, all i can say is that it shouldn't. it doesn't represent anything, and fighting against them is an empty gesture. people take offense and take action against things like this because it's easy due to PC mentality, and it makes them feel like they've won something important.

i hate to burst anyone's bubble, but i doubt anyone involved in the creation and perpetuation of these logos and mascots is racist against native americans. striking a blow against racism is more complicated than hiding and suppressing things until everyone's so afraid to talk about these issues that real racism will go unchecked.

[Ubiquitous]

Supposedly the original owner of the Washington Redskins was a huge racist. A good old boy from down south but I think his venom was reserved for blacks not Indians. Though even if it was towards Indians I find it kind of weird that someone would name their company, their pride and joy after somebody they hated.

[Pete Rose Rounding Third]

To Dodgerfan1: I wasn't suggesting that I speak for that community, far from it. It's not my place to define the community, and you, who are much closer to it than I, believe that the community at large is not offended by it. That's good enough for me.

To Dirt Dog: Thanks for nothing.

To Hazy: I don't understand how you can actually say "people shouldn't be offended by [the image of Chief Wahoo]". It's not your place to tell people how to feel. And before you think that's what I'm doing, all I'm saying is that those affected (in this case, the Native American community) should be asked. If they are fine with Chief Wahoo, then so am I.

[Utility07]

The majority of the time, its the do-gooders, and not the actual people who have the opportunity to be offended, making the noise.

[Pete Rose Rounding Third]

Of course there are people who like to stir the pot, though I'm not sure of the "most of the time" frequency. Regardless, we don't have to treat every single complainant like the boy who cried wolf. As I said before, we have the ability to distinguish between legitimate complaints and bogus ones. Lets use that ability for the greater good instead of dismissing everything.

[mikeymussina35]

Yankees have an offensive team

[Dirt Dog]

To Dirt Dog: Thanks for nothing.


Care to explain. You didn't get the point or what?

[SamtheBravesFan]

Wow, I'm late to the party. I agree with Dodgerfan1 the most in this whole issue. It's political correctness on display. The Braves don't use the "laughing Indian" head logo anymore, and that should be the end of it.

If people are offended by the Tomahawk Chop, then they need to talk to Florida State, because the Atlanta Braves took it from them.

[Padday]

I think the most important thing to question in this situation is: Is the author a Native American?

If he's just some guy who thinks he knows what's best for everyone and is the type of guy who thinks that anyone who says black instead of african american might as well be Hitler, then I don't think that his views should count for anything.

Also he mentions Jackie Robinson in his article. Jackie Robinson was part of a great cultural revolution. To compare his legacy to some trivial debate over some caracatures is just plain ignorant.

Just for the record, the Celtics' Leprechaun is a pretty good representation of the Irish.:nod:

[Williamsburg2599]

Just for the record, the Celtics' Leprechaun is a pretty good representation of the Irish.:nod:


What about the Notre Dame mascot? Your more Irish than myself, do you find that offensive?

http://http://www.blackfive.net/photos/uncategorized/fighting_irish.jpg

[bigtime39]

The single most toxic word in American English has its genesis in the inability of a bunch of Dutch guys to understand a bunch of English guys pronunciation of the word "Negro", and vice versa.
When Atlanta's minor league white team was the Crackers, the Negro League team was the Black Crackers.
There are way too many people out there with NO sense of humor whatever.

[Pete Rose Rounding Third]

With the way it's going, one day it might be that Team A plays Team B, Team C plays Team D, etc.

Then some group might find it offensive b/c they feel that teams should be numbered.

Then teams will have to rename themselves, but yet another group will get upset.

Then teams will be identified by a certain color, perhaps their socks or jerseys.

Then we're back to square 1 . :crazy

I understood this post perfectly well, but I consider it nothing for this reason:

You take the position that all protests are equal. In other words, you believe that if we respond to a protest against the name "Redskins", we have to respond to a protest against the name "White Sox". Well, we don't. We have brains. "Redskins" is an offensive term, a slang term for American Indians. "White Sox" identifies footwear. They are hugely different, and the fact that a few crackpots want to get their name in the paper doesn't demand that we act upon it.

To me, protests against Chief Wahoo or Redskins are not crackpot, and I think it's appropriate to listen to those protests. Evidently, you don't feel the same way. I hope I'm wrong about that.

The tone of this discussion is an indictment against the knuckleheads in the PC movement. They have utterly failed. By protesting everything under the sun, they have in effect protested nothing. They have been confrontational and shrill over absolute nothings, and as a result people aren't listening to geniune concerns.

[SamtheBravesFan]

The tone of this discussion is an indictment against the knuckleheads in the PC movement. They have utterly failed. By protesting everything under the sun, they have in effect protested nothing. They have been confrontational and shrill over absolute nothings, and as a result people aren't listening to geniune concerns.

I will agree with this. Being anti-PC is part of my backlash against this whole thing. I would understand and accept it if team nicknames were changed to "non-offensive" names, but I will never stop seeing it as an issue about political correctness.

I just wonder, though... is it going to end once all team nicknames that could be seen as offensive to a racial group are obliterated?

[Dirt Dog]

I understood this post perfectly well, but I consider it nothing for this reason:
You take the position that all protests are equal. In other words, you believe that if we respond to a protest against the name "Redskins", we have to respond to a protest against the name "White Sox". Well, we don't. We have brains.

And so do I. I was making a joke out of the whole thing, tongue-in-cheek. You probably read too much into what I was saying. I was simply making a point that before long, if every team gives into the name changes, that teams are going to end up back where we started in the late 1800s with teams being identified with the color of socks and jerseys and no team name. Then, then process will start all over. :D

[Padday]

"Redskins" is an offensive term, a slang term for American Indians.
I believe that words can only be offensive if used in an offensive manner. As the nickname of a football team, I hardly believe that its purpose is to have a go at Native Americans. Plus, Indians is hardly a correct term for them either.

What about the Notre Dame mascot? Your more Irish than myself, do you find that offensive?

http://http://www.blackfive.net/photos/uncategorized/fighting_irish.jpg
That's a much more acurate depiction of the Irish.:sigh:

[Elvis]

I believe that words can only be offensive if used in an offensive manner. As the nickname of a football team, I hardly believe that its purpose is to have a go at Native Americans. Plus, Indians is hardly a correct term for them either.

Can anybody explain to me the logic of refering to American Indians as native Americans when they clearly prefer the former term? :confused:

PC Man: "You're a Hebrew-American"
Me: "That's lame, I'm a Jew."
PC Man: "No, 'Jew' is offensive.
Me: "But, I prefer it."
PC Man: It doesn't matter what you prefer - I'm PC and know what's best for you."
Me: "You're a retard"
PC Man: "Mentally challenged, please."
Me: Ok, you're a mentally-challenged retard.
PC Man: "Thanks"

[Padday]

In trying to make the world free for all, PC police have have taken away the freedom of speech.

One very interesting fact I came about. Borat was actually the highest selling DVD in Kazakhstan in internet sales. People just need to have more of a sense of humour about themselves like the Kazakhs.

[Dodgerfan1]

Can anybody explain to me the logic of refering to American Indians as native Americans when they clearly prefer the former term? :confused:

PC Man: "You're a Hebrew-American"
Me: "That's lame, I'm a Jew."
PC Man: "No, 'Jew' is offensive.
Me: "But, I prefer it."
PC Man: It doesn't matter what you prefer - I'm PC and know what's best for you."
Me: "You're a retard"
PC Man: "Mentally challenged, please."
Me: Ok, you're a mentally-challenged retard.
PC Man: "Thanks"

VERY GOOD!! :clapping