Quote:
Originally Posted by dgo71
Empty platitudes aside, there is no denying the intent behind portraying these people in the way they are depicted. And it wasn't hey, let's portray just a couple of happy dudes doing their thing. That's laughably naive. Why does historical context matter? We're not having this discussion in 1922. Obviously it was "ok at the time." That doesn't mean that image shouldn't be viewed as offensive TODAY. Which is the major point of contention here; one of those images is still in use today. If a team had a mascot in blackface I'm sure everyone would agree it would be inappropriate. So why is Chief Wahoo given a pass? Why is one ok and the other not?
|
Yes, it is and deliberately so.
The point remains that until we collectively stop seeing race from either a positive or negative aspect there will always be problems. Human nature what it is I'm not exactly holding my breath waiting.
The bit of art was drawn for Cleveland Scene magazines cover in 2012. Should the artist not draw it since it's not 1922? As a magazine cover about the issue it makes a pretty solid statement. Without that context it's lessened. Context matters a lot.
Interestingly, the guy shown in the other picture later apologized for the facepaint and headdress, but not the team name or sweatshirt.
http://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/201...mbrace-change/
And what are we all to think of things like this?
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/...ostume-7802016
Overall, I think there are much bigger issues with the way Native Americans are treated to this day than a few sports logos.
Steve B