Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 3 of 22 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 329
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Brooklyn New York
    Posts
    22,392
    Quote Originally Posted by spliff(TONE) View Post
    I don't think the name has to have a bigoted connotation either but if a team decides ro move on from a name that has caused some controversy over the years, then so be it. Though I can understand longtime fans of the Indians feeling more passionate in their objections with a name change.

    I used to have more of an eyeroll reaction to something like this. At this point I don't really give a **** though. People don't like change generally but they'll get over it.
    Which furthers your point, most of the people up in arms about this are people outside of Cleveland.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    If Trump can become president with no political background then I don't understand why I need a resumé

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Brooklyn New York
    Posts
    22,392
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    There needs to some dividing line of common sense though. I think an overwhelming majority of us can agree that the term Redskins is racist and that Chief Wahoo was a racist caricature of the Native American culture but what is the major problem with calling a team "Indians"? Sure you could make the case that we don't call teams "Caucasians" or "Blacks" but I dont think naming a team after indigenous people has to have a bigoted connotation to it. To me, its the Cleveland Indian's history that probably hurt them here more than anything else.
    Well I summed up in my previous post how they shouldn’t have even referred to Native Americans as Indians in the first place. Regardless, if a small minority of people find something offensive, the people should listen. It’s not really up to the individual to determine what somebody should be offended or not offended by.

    At this point, calling them Indians was just bad press. They ended up in the fold after the Redskins changed their name and it’s one of those situations where they could’ve fought back and doubled down on their name - which would’ve generated controversy and alienated a fan base OR they could change the name and generate positive press for being willing to make a change. It’s an optics thing and keeping them as the Indians would’ve just made us have this conversation at least a few times a year. Not all press is good press.

    Again, bring back the Cleveland spiders. The design potential could make them one of the coolest uniforms in the game.
    If Trump can become president with no political background then I don't understand why I need a resumé

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    39,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Zmaster52 View Post
    Well I summed up in my previous post how they shouldn’t have even referred to Native Americans as Indians in the first place. Regardless, if a small minority of people find something offensive, the people should listen. It’s not really up to the individual to determine what somebody should be offended or not offended by.

    At this point, calling them Indians was just bad press. They ended up in the fold after the Redskins changed their name and it’s one of those situations where they could’ve fought back and doubled down on their name - which would’ve generated controversy and alienated a fan base OR they could change the name and generate positive press for being willing to make a change. It’s an optics thing and keeping them as the Indians would’ve just made us have this conversation at least a few times a year. Not all press is good press.

    Again, bring back the Cleveland spiders. The design potential could make them one of the coolest uniforms in the game.
    What's an adequate % of people that has to find something offensive before we change it? You can find groups who irrationally find a lot of relatively innocuous things offensive. So does that mean we change things for them as well?

    Sometimes its the entity themselves that creates the significant press. I highly doubt you would have seen the type of reaction you are seeing if the team itself didn't initiate the change. Nor would many people have equated the offensive term of Redskins to Indians. Its also the same reason why you didn't see the same pressure to change the name like there was in Washington.

    I have no problems if they change the name. I agree the Spiders would be great but the precedent has been set now that presumably all team names associated with Indians will soon have to seek a new team name.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,089
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    There needs to some dividing line of common sense though. I think an overwhelming majority of us can agree that the term Redskins is racist and that Chief Wahoo was a racist caricature of the Native American culture but what is the major problem with calling a team "Indians"? Sure you could make the case that we don't call teams "Caucasians" or "Blacks" but I dont think naming a team after indigenous people has to have a bigoted connotation to it. To me, its the Cleveland Indian's history that probably hurt them here more than anything else.
    What is the difference between Chief Wahoo and The Fighting Irish or The Minnesota Vikings mascots? They are both caricature of peoples are they not?

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Zmaster52 View Post
    Well I summed up in my previous post how they shouldn’t have even referred to Native Americans as Indians in the first place. Regardless, if a small minority of people find something offensive, the people should listen. It’s not really up to the individual to determine what somebody should be offended or not offended by.

    At this point, calling them Indians was just bad press. They ended up in the fold after the Redskins changed their name and it’s one of those situations where they could’ve fought back and doubled down on their name - which would’ve generated controversy and alienated a fan base OR they could change the name and generate positive press for being willing to make a change. It’s an optics thing and keeping them as the Indians would’ve just made us have this conversation at least a few times a year. Not all press is good press.

    Again, bring back the Cleveland spiders. The design potential could make them one of the coolest uniforms in the game.
    Then you need to let them know what you deem is acceptable to call them and the Bureau of Indian Affairs as well.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    5,710
    .

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,089
    Quote Originally Posted by R. Johnson#3 View Post
    The best part of this all is the people complaining so far have 0 investment in Cleveland sports. They're just complaining for the sake of complaining. Merica!

    Do you? Because if you don't, by your logic you shouldn't be saying a thing either.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    39,667
    Quote Originally Posted by nessythegreat View Post
    What is the difference between Chief Wahoo and The Fighting Irish or The Minnesota Vikings mascots? They are both caricature of peoples are they not?
    The Fighting Irish is probably going to go at some point. I don't care if it does honestly. Its a dumb stereotype that I'm sure a significant portion of Irish people find offensive. The question will be who picks up the cause? Will it be Irish people who effectively call for the change or will it be groups on their behalf?

    The problem with some of this is that you have a large white SJW culture (its not just white people though) that thinks they are representing the needs or wants of other people. That said, because white people are the majority of consumer culture, its easy to bend to their will when we are talking about matters of money.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,089
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    The Fighting Irish is probably going to go at some point. I don't care if it does honestly. Its a dumb stereotype that I'm sure a significant portion of Irish people find offensive. The question will be who picks up the cause? Will it be Irish people who effectively call for the change or will it be groups on their behalf?

    The problem with some of this is that you have a large white SJW culture (its not just white people though) that thinks they are representing the needs or wants of other people. That said, because white people are the majority of consumer culture, its easy to bend to their will when we are talking about matters of money.
    So do you agree that they are same and depict people in a cartoony way? Because if you do, true equality would be that they all go. Not just certain ones. All
    I am well aware that these causes are pushed by people who have nothing better to do in their lives besides trying to feel victimized or those that want try to make themselves feel good about showing how "caring" and "empathetic" they are. They are pathetic and frauds. And as I said earlier, people need to get a ****ing backbone and stand up to these people.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Bethlehem
    Posts
    42,203
    Quote Originally Posted by spliff(TONE) View Post
    I don't think the name has to have a bigoted connotation either but if a team decides ro move on from a name that has caused some controversy over the years, then so be it. Though I can understand longtime fans of the Indians feeling more passionate in their objections with a name change.

    I used to have more of an eyeroll reaction to something like this. At this point I don't really give a **** though. People don't like change generally but they'll get over it.
    Same.

    I honestly don’t care at all about names being changed. Change the Phillies, I don’t care. Just stay in the city.

    I can see fans being upset about merchandise. That I can understand but another reason I don’t purchase much merchandise either.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack of Blades View Post
    I don't consider Brand New indie. I consider them ****ing awesome and don't belong to a genre.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    39,667
    Quote Originally Posted by nessythegreat View Post
    So do you agree that they are same and depict people in a cartoony way? Because if you do, true equality would be that they all go. Not just certain ones. All
    I am well aware that these causes are pushed by people who have nothing better to do in their lives besides trying to feel victimized or those that want try to make themselves feel good about showing how "caring" and "empathetic" they are. They are pathetic and frauds. And as I said earlier, people need to get a ****ing backbone and stand up to these people.
    Yeah well when you call a team "the Fighting Irish" and you have a leprechaun with his hands up, that's pretty freaking racist. That would be like if they had a team called the Fighting Italians and the mascot was a guy with slicked back hair and a mustache eating a plate of meatballs. If you see a problem with the latter, you should also see a problem with the former, irrespective of history.

    It doesn't come from a fraudulent place. Its just sometimes misguided. A lot of it is guilt people carry for the actions (and inactions) of societies for hundreds, sometimes thousands of years. The pendulum shifted where certain people feel the way to eradicate that guilt is through taking up causes they don't always have the business of taking. Some are justified. Others are not. The Redskins name had to go. Chief Wahoo had to go. People can hate it all they want but if you were starting a team today, none of those names or likenesses would even be considered. Its only the history that keeps people in support of it.
    Last edited by metswon69; 12-14-2020 at 07:41 PM.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    56,828
    Quote Originally Posted by nessythegreat View Post
    I am well aware that these causes are pushed by people who have nothing better to do in their lives besides trying to feel victimized or those that want try to make themselves feel good about showing how "caring" and "empathetic" they are. They are pathetic and frauds. And as I said earlier, people need to get a ****ing backbone and stand up to these people.
    Go get 'em, tough guy.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Rogers Centre
    Posts
    24,692
    Quote Originally Posted by nessythegreat View Post
    Do you? Because if you don't, by your logic you shouldn't be saying a thing either.
    That's not my logic at all. I don't care one bit about them changing the name hence why I haven't complained about it. Nice try though.
    Quote Originally Posted by ChongInc. View Post
    Facts can be hypothetical.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by nessythegreat View Post
    This stupid **** is getting out of control. Get a ****ing backbone people. The name isn't offensive... Would love to hear the reasoning on why they are changing it.
    I had this same argument on this forum years ago. The only group of people you're supposed to call an "indian" are the people from India. Using it for the Natives is derogatory and it always has been since from the time the first Europeans arrived. Would you be ok if New York was called the New York N*****s?

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by dodgerdave View Post
    "Redskins" is racist. "Indians" is not.
    They are both racist

Page 3 of 22 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •