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?
|
Chief Wahoo wasn't drawn maliciously. That's the difference.
http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2017/0...to-offend.html
__________________
Need a spreadsheet to help track your set, player run, or collection? Check out Sheets4Collectors on Etsy.
https://www.etsy.com/shop/Sheets4Collectors
- Hall of Famers
Progress: 318/340 (93.53%)
- Grover Hartley PC
Needs: T207 Anonymous Factory 25 Back, 1914 New York Evening Sun Supplements, 1917 D328 Weil Baking Co., and (possibly) 1917 Merchant's Bakery
- Jim Thome PC
- Cleveland Indians Franchise Hall of Fame
|