You really can't be serious, right?

So the many images of Native Americans protesting the logo, that can be found by a simple Google search, aren't enough? The indigenous people who have already voiced their concerns don't count because they haven't met your arbitrary minimum requirement for offensiveness? You're just content with a poll that represents less than one quarter of one percent of the effected group of people? Cool, cool...

The logos are one thing but that stupid 'effin tomahawk chop down in Atlanta is just the lamest thing in the entire sports world. 1000s of people standing up like idiots with dumb smiles on making some imiatation of a tomahawk chop and hooting. Uggh.

Lighten up Steve.

The Tomahawk Chomp, which, honestly, originated at Florida State, is fun when the Braves are rallying.

What was very, very lame was them orchestrating a 'final chop' after the last game at Turner Field. That game was a great 1-0 pitchers' duel between Teheran and Verlander, but the 'celebration activity' that followed was very, very lame...seeing Hank Aaron was the only great part of it.

On the other hand, EVERYTHING about the opening game at SunTrust Park was great!...including thousands of foam tomahawks in unison when the Braves started winning the game.

If it were not for the Tomahawk Chop, you never would have heard that hilarious report of a truckload of the foam tomahawks overturning and stopping yet more traffic in Atlanta...now, that was funny!

If you see people as people....... both are just happy guys doing their thing.*

If you see people as part of a certain group with whatever attaches to that.....well, I suppose they are stereotypes.

Until "we" can see people as people, we'll always have problems.

* Part of it is also that that as shown, there's also no historical context. In his time Al Jolson was ok. As were minstrel shows. It's only after that stuff became unpopular that it became negative. Who are the biggest collectors of most offensive stuff? Yep, usually someone from the group offended. Quite a puzzle there eh?

Steve B

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?

+1
Defined as "empathy."

Chief Wahoo wasn't drawn maliciously. That's the difference.

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2017/0...to-offend.html

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

I agree there are bigger issues but that wasn't what this thread was about. I have a hard time believing the tough issues will be addressed anytime soon if grown people aren't even willing to negotiate about a cartoon mascot. Not sure what point you're trying to make with the link to the native American in blackface. Are you suggesting one incident of bigotry cancels out another, or justifies another? And yes, the artist who drew the bobblehead image was making the sole point that one image is offensive and the other doesn't seem to be, and how silly that is. Simple as that. The artist didn't feel the need to cloud the real issue with tangential debates about historical context that serve only to direct the conversation away from the actual point. I don't agree that seeing people as people is the solution, although I understand the sentiment. The problem with that is it implies that everyone is the same. I think the solution lies in seeing our differences and accepting them, and not marginalizing a group because of them. As long as otherwise rational adults feel changing a sports logo is too heavy a price to pay to show respect to a different group of people though, I'm not holding my breath either.

So we'll remove a sports mascot so we don't have to see the poverty and other problems we have forced on them for a century or more. Yeah, that's a feel good moment. :(

While the eastern tribes mostly either moved, were killed off or went with being assimilated the central and western ones got totally clobbered and are still struggling today. Not all of them can start up casinos, unlike some eastern tribes that are for the most part pretty sketchy as still being tribes.

Maybe if we made sports teams with native american mascots pay a licensing fee? For pro teams a large one that would fund some needed improvements in their living conditions? And maybe a sliding scale of smaller fees for college and HS teams. That might be actual progress. And if the fee was big enough, it would effectively remove some of the mascots.

Yes, celebrate our cultural differences, but under the skin for the most part we're all just people. We generally tend to want the same basic things and behave the same basic ways.

The Native American using blackface was included to point out the frustrating hypocrisy and double standards that exist across our entire society. Probably should have left it for its own post.

Steve B

I don't think the two things are mutually exclusive

I think that's a fantastic idea.

There are two issues here.

One is funding, particularly public funding. Grade School Systems would probably ditch anything related to Native Americans in a heartbeat due to funding - no way can a licensing fee be justified in many cases for a mascot. Colleges would probably ditch it in most cases, barring Florida State and other schools that truly honor their Native American relationship. Pro sports need to become private entities that no longer fund anything related to their organizations with public money - yes that includes stadiums. Too much money involved with sports to be asking for public funds on top of all other revenue. However, I do agree that at the pro level, if they were to take public funding out of it, a licensing fee to use a Native American-related logo/mascot/name would be terrific. Donate it to the reservations, and bring awareness to the atrocity that is the reservation.

The other issue is where does the line get drawn? For Notre Dame, is someone going to require schools/teams send money to Irish-related charities to use an Irish-related logo/mascot/name? What about about the mascots/logos/names with American historical relations - Patriots, Minutemen, etc.? It's a bit of a slippery slope.


Otherwise, I think the idea is great.

The fee wouldn't need to be large depending on the organization. The Indians? Yeah, a BIG fee. A local High school that maybe has a team named after the local tribe? (Plenty of those in the northeast) Maybe $1 a year.

I was in a car club when Chrysler had a bit of a flap over trademarks. Every Chrysler related car club got a cease and desist over any trademarked anything they were using. Which was a major problem for the "Slant Six Club" and "New England Mighty Mopars" It got settled pretty quickly once the people from the "Hemi Owners Group" and a couple others where most of the members have a lot of money threatened to sue. In the end they were just being heavy handed about needing to actively license or protect trademarks so they wouldn't be lost, and pretty much everyone got a license for $1 a year to use any of Chryslers trademarks.

Steve B

I don't have a problem with the fee, but you need to take the tax payer money out of all sports, then. The difference between your two scenarios is the car companies are privately owned companies.

I also am not a fan of fundraisers to bring awareness to something. People are always looking to dip into somebody else's pocket. If you see something wrong, or want to bring awareness, speak up. Use your 1st Amendment Right, not my money.

While I'm not a fan of taxpayer money for the current crazy stadiums, I don't see why you'd have to remove all taxpayer money from all sports.

School bands license music unless they buy sheet music and perform it almost exactly as written.
http://www.halftimemag.com/features/...licensing.html

The same goes for plays if I'm not mistaken.

So what would be different about paying a fee to license a logo.

Not as a way to bring awareness, but as a way for the tribes to make a bit of money.

I'm totally with you on the awareness fundraisers. The first time it really clicked for me was when a bunch of musicians, some pretty big names were doing a concert to save Walden Woods a then privately owned bit of forest near Walden Pond that the owner wanted to develop. I heard the lineup and that they were trying to raise 7 million. And it dawned on me that some of those performers could simply write a check and get it done.

Steve B

Somewhat relevant here.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.d138d749cf77

Wow, you beat me to it by a few seconds. I was just about to revive this thread and post the same thing. Very relevant and sets precedence for the Redskins by ruling that a ban on offensive names is unconstitutional.

In my opinion, good for the Supreme Court. No matter your opinion on the matter, there is a lawful/unlawful line that needs to be upheld.

hyperbolic bull$hit quotes like this are why everyone is getting sick to death of a certain side's mamby pamby identity crap.

Remember back in the 80's when christian groups complained about TV programs being too violent or sexy and the response was "you have a dial on your TV use it" well, you have a choice of sports team to support, make your choice and let the rest of us make ours. Your opinion means nothing, being offended is nothing but a whine for attention and an attempt to make everyone do your bidding like a foot stomping toddler.

Well said.

Actually one of the most ridiculous comments I've ever read on the board. No offense intended of course.
Were the people who published articles and expressed opinions that slavery was wrong toddlers who were looking for attention? How about people who stood up for the Jews in Nazi Germany? Were they toddlers too? How about people in the 1960s who said it was wrong that blacks and white couldn't marry? How about people who stepped forward and said homosexuals really shouldn't be thrown in jail for no reason? Yeah, I guess just more toddlers expressing their views and stamping their feet.

Being offended is nothing but a whine. Does that apply to people who have an issue with Kapernick, or just people with different political or social views than you?

Thank you for more of your hyperbolic bull$hit. Comparing the weak examples you cited as being comparable to Indian logs for sports teams is apples and orangutans. Chief Wahoo and the WA Redskins is not even close to Jews being gassed in Nazi Germany.

I'm pissed. Screw you Rob Manfred and Paul Dolan.

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireSto...forms-52686021

I'm not happy about Wahoo being removed, but I wonder if there will be a name change in the future. I think it'd be cool if they went back to being the Cleveland Spiders, or even cooler if they took the name of the Cleveland Naps.

So why isn’t this offensive?
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...e3c144727b.jpg
Stereotypical, aggressive, ape-like depiction of the Irish. And you’d be hard pressed to find any Irishman who would want Notre Dame (or any other institution using the logo) to change it. This is such a typical target for many in today’s PC environment to focus on. “Offensive” images...let’s get rid of them because if they go away, we solve the problem. Would love to know what those fighting this fight are doing to help Native Americans who have been screwed by this country since before it was a country. What a fake and disingenuous effort. Ugh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can't go back to the Naps. Can you imagine the backlash if they renamed their team after a white guy? And I say that tongue in cheek with a little bit of anger towards political correctness.

If anything, go back to the Spiders, but it still wouldn't be the same.

because middle class suburuban white leftists know what's best for all of us, and if you disagree? well they will try and ruin your life, or call you racist or sexist until they shout you down with their tyrannical fascistic rubbish.

Thome doesn't want Chief Wahoo on his hall of fame plaque
 

He must be a middle class suburban white leftist. Well, maybe upper class given his salary.

Nothing to add here.

As I'm not a native american, whether I am offended or not is irrelevant.
If a native american tells me the image is offensive to them, well, I would have to believe that person.
I look at it this way, if there was a team called the New York Jewboys, and the logo was a hooked nosed caricature, I'd probably be offended.

I do find it somewhat humerous that the middle aged white men on THIS board are so bent out of shape about a sports logo.

Possible simple solution: lighten his skin. I would think that the Redskins would be more offensive than the Indians.

Back in the 1990's my local minor league team, a Cleveland affiliate, changed it's name from Indians to Red Stixx (local Indians would use sticks painted red to communicate between villages) - it was silly, but it worked for that team...for a while, then they changed it to Mudcats (Chattahoochee River catfish)- nobody was ever offended with that one.


Wouldn't that make things okay for everyone?

I brought this up in the thread that was started in the main forum: why not go back to the original, "vintage" Chief Wahoo? I asked if that would be offensive, and people said yes because of the shape. I always thought it was the skin color, but I guess the shape offends people, too, because not all Native Americans look like that. :rolleyes:

This thread has gotten a bit caustic and too political. We lost 2 longtime members recently because of politics. So with that let's get back to cards please....Again, I think we can all agree that we want harmony and peace in the world. That is all...