Slightly OT: Could the Braves and Indians be next?

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Aj-hman

as americans we have a complicated history.
the story below outlines a march of triumph over a bridge.
i cite the story to help better illustrate that we have the power over objects and what they mean today.

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/17/87968...s-wide-support

Good source. I saw this in this last week somewhere else. Lots of dilemmas. But I don't think sports teams' names need to be one of them. Refer back to Spokane Indian posts above.

[Aj-hman]

Originally Posted by todeen

Good source. I saw this in this last week somewhere else. Lots of dilemmas. But I don't think sports teams' names need to be one of them. Refer back to Spokane Indian posts above.

I would refer you to this post I wrote on 7/13 prior to the excellent example of the Spokane Indians.

Originally Posted by Aj-hman

I believe that the braves, indians and redskins have an opportunity to succeed either way they go. I am sure there is a native american nation that would consider adopting one of these sports teams. If a sovereign native american nation adopts the team it would legitimize the sports organization and provide a benefit to both. Changing the narrative from that of caricature to one of respect could uplift the native american community and propel the sports team in a new respectful direction. Also creating new marketing opportunities. Open a dialogue with the leadership of native american community see what they have say about using their likeness and telling their story. There are so many benefits to opening a dialogue.

If keeping affiliation with native american branding is not the way forward then rebranding the team is an amazing opportunity. You get to create a whole new culture for your fans and create a deep well of marketing opportunities. With the social media allowing almost immediate feedback the fan base would practically rebrand themselves.

With adversity comes an opportunity for tremendous growth. Being positive and open minded to the inevitability of change leads to success.

Aaron

[cannonballsun]

I have never got the idea of people saying - if we remove statues, we're erasing history. History stays the same, just a statue has been moved.
I have always loved to read about history. There are many great books that have been written about history.
If you're getting your history by looking at a statue, and that's it , I would say you don't know much about history.

[Bugsy]

Originally Posted by cannonballsun

I have never got the idea of people saying - if we remove statues, we're erasing history. History stays the same, just a statue has been moved.
I have always loved to read about history. There are many great books that have been written about history.
If you're getting your history by looking at a statue, and that's it , I would say you don't know much about history.

Particularly the Confederate monuments. We're not talking about monuments in a cemetery or on a battlefield. These were erected in public places, like courthouses, decades after the war AND during the rise of Jim Crow. They were a tool of intimidation.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by cannonballsun

I have never got the idea of people saying - if we remove statues, we're erasing history. History stays the same, just a statue has been moved.
I have always loved to read about history. There are many great books that have been written about history.
If you're getting your history by looking at a statue, and that's it , I would say you don't know much about history.

I think "a statue has been moved" is quite a polite way to refer to the destruction of public (and private) property by a mob of people. Should they be moved or removed? Perhaps. But I'm hoping your not condoning that the ends justifies the means in how some of these have been 'moved'.

As to the original OT question. I'm not sure I buy the Braves name change. This gets back to the question of who takes offensive and how many need to be offended to be classified as 'offensive'. Sometime in the 1987-1994 time frame (as I remember where I was living at the time), this was brought up with regard to the Braves (among others). There were a number of Native Americans that were fine with the team name of the Braves as it was a symbol of strength, courage, and nobility. The Redskins and Indians would be a different matter.

[cannonballsun]

Originally Posted by tschock

I think "a statue has been moved" is quite a polite way to refer to the destruction of public (and private) property by a mob of people. Should they be moved or removed? Perhaps. But I'm hoping your not condoning that the ends justifies the means in how some of these have been 'moved'.

As to the original OT question. I'm not sure I buy the Braves name change. This gets back to the question of who takes offensive and how many need to be offended to be classified as 'offensive'. Sometime in the 1987-1994 time frame (as I remember where I was living at the time), this was brought up with regard to the Braves (among others). There were a number of Native Americans that were fine with the team name of the Braves as it was a symbol of strength, courage, and nobility. The Redskins and Indians would be a different matter.

Of course, I don't agree with mobs destroying statues.
I live in New Orleans. The city removed the 4 most prominent Confederate statues in this city. It was a move that I would say the great majority of the residents of the city approved of.
I'm not in favor of destroying art. The statue of P.T. Beauregard in particular was a very beautiful statue of him riding on a very beautiful horse. I think these statues belong in museums, in a proper setting, with the proper context.
The city has placed them in storage, no one knows what will happen to them eventually.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Aj-hman

I would refer you to this post I wrote on 7/13 prior to the excellent example of the Spokane Indians.

Ah, somehow I missed that one. I concur.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk