Quote:
Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy
When I was a kid growing up, we played Cowboys and Indians.
If you're in favor of banning the Chief Wahoo logo, then why not the Oklahoma State Cowboys logo? Seriously, what's the difference?
Or as I previously mentioned, the Boston Celtics logo? Why is it that you're only concerned with the minority groups getting offended? Sounds like a double standard to me. |
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you want a sincere response. Here you go.
If our nation's cowboys have been systematically oppressed by the non-cowboys in political power and are hurt by their representation in logos with crude caricatures of them then certainly changing that logo would be a nice thing to do. Otherwise it's not causing any harm so it might as well be left alone. That is the standard I would propose for all of these cases -- not a double-standard, just a standard.
I am primarily Irish, so I'll go ahead and speak as a representative of that particular historically oppressed minority. Irish-Americans were already in power in Boston by the time that logo was created, and my guess is that's why it isn't upsetting to the community. It is a representation of their fan base rather than of some other minority group that could be caricatured for fun. Personally it bothers me that they pronounce it Seltics rather than Celtics, but at least the spelling of the name is fine.
If, on the other hand, you had an English soccer team in the 1800s named the Irish and using this mascot, that would be different with regards to the standard I mentioned in the first paragraph.