Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 4 of 22 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 329
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Rogers Centre
    Posts
    24,636
    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.
    I don't think it's SJW culture. That's just the easy target for people who don't want to admit that it's wrong.

    Take Chief Wahoo for example. For generations nobody saw a problem with depicting an Indigenous person with a big dopey smile and red skin. As time went on people started to realize that was a dick move so it got changed. The logic behind it made sense to most. I'd say there was minimal backlash but still, there was backlash. People didn't want it to change.

    Is calling a team the Indians as bad as parading Chief Wahoo out onto the field? I wouldn't say so. It's holding onto a time when it was okay to do that though.

    Is referring to Indigenous people as Indians wrong? Yes. Regardless if you view it as racist or not (It is), it is geographically wrong. Indians are from India. You're promoting the wrong message by referring to Indigenous people as Indians. That'd be like if everyone started calling Americans Italians.

    Now for the final point. A lot of people who choose to refer to Indigenous people as Indians are just stuck in their old ways. Referring to them as the Indians leaves that little sliver of hope for racism to breed for future generations. Is eliminating the name Indians going to end racism? Of course not. But doing so will be one tiny step in the right direction. It'll be completely eliminating the history of when it was okay to depict Indigenous people in a silly way for this franchise. One of the many millions of band aids will be ripped off.
    Quote Originally Posted by ChongInc. View Post
    Facts can be hypothetical.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Brooklyn New York
    Posts
    22,379
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    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.
    Honestly, sometimes it’s as little as 1% that it takes to promote change. What % should that number be? Who knows. What I do know is that Cleveland has been in the limelight for the Indians name and chief wahoo was obviously retired a few years ago. What kind of logo could they even use if not the ‘C?’

    Trust me, I get it better than anyone here. White people are often outraged on a minority’s behalf, even if the minority isn’t outraged themselves. I see it in my day to day life, lol. Still, it’s not so much about a “well one Native American person is offended, one Indian is offended, and one white person is offended, so who cares?” But moreso about the question of “we’re a baseball team, why should we even entertain the idea of offending people when not offending them is so much easier?”

    Of course the team initiated the name change but it’s doubtful that there weren’t people who didn’t deem their team name is considered racist. It’s an entertainment business and entertainers adjust according to their crowd, it seems that the crowd wanted this change.


    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

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Brooklyn New York
    Posts
    22,379
    Quote Originally Posted by R. Johnson#3 View Post
    I don't think it's SJW culture. That's just the easy target for people who don't want to admit that it's wrong.

    Take Chief Wahoo for example. For generations nobody saw a problem with depicting an Indigenous person with a big dopey smile and red skin. As time went on people started to realize that was a dick move so it got changed. The logic behind it made sense to most. I'd say there was minimal backlash but still, there was backlash. People didn't want it to change.

    Is calling a team the Indians as bad as parading Chief Wahoo out onto the field? I wouldn't say so. It's holding onto a time when it was okay to do that though.

    Is referring to Indigenous people as Indians wrong? Yes. Regardless if you view it as racist or not (It is), it is geographically wrong. Indians are from India. You're promoting the wrong message by referring to Indigenous people as Indians. That'd be like if everyone started calling Americans Italians.

    Now for the final point. A lot of people who choose to refer to Indigenous people as Indians are just stuck in their old ways. Referring to them as the Indians leaves that little sliver of hope for racism to breed for future generations. Is eliminating the name Indians going to end racism? Of course not. But doing so will be one tiny step in the right direction. It'll be completely eliminating the history of when it was okay to depict Indigenous people in a silly way for this franchise. One of the many millions of band aids will be ripped off.
    Great post. I would add this to mine if I could lol.


    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

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Rogers Centre
    Posts
    24,636
    Quote Originally Posted by Zmaster52 View Post
    Great post. I would add this to mine if I could lol.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Thanks, fellow libtard.
    Quote Originally Posted by ChongInc. View Post
    Facts can be hypothetical.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Brooklyn New York
    Posts
    22,379
    Quote Originally Posted by R. Johnson#3 View Post
    Thanks, fellow libtard.
    Brown dude born and raised in NYC. There was no way I wouldn’t be a libtard


    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

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,996
    Wait, is this the politics forum?

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Brooklyn New York
    Posts
    22,379
    Quote Originally Posted by GasMan View Post
    Wait, is this the politics forum?
    Always has been.


    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

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    57,934
    Quote Originally Posted by Dmac View Post
    The name wasn't offensive, their mascot and logo was, which they got rid of. Whatever though.
    I've actually had to deal with aboriginals who have been upset when I refer to the term Indians as part of work (Aboriginals are tax exempt under the Indian Act in Canada). So I can see why some wouod be offended by the name

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    39,559
    Quote Originally Posted by R. Johnson#3 View Post
    I don't think it's SJW culture. That's just the easy target for people who don't want to admit that it's wrong.

    Take Chief Wahoo for example. For generations nobody saw a problem with depicting an Indigenous person with a big dopey smile and red skin. As time went on people started to realize that was a dick move so it got changed. The logic behind it made sense to most. I'd say there was minimal backlash but still, there was backlash. People didn't want it to change.

    Is calling a team the Indians as bad as parading Chief Wahoo out onto the field? I wouldn't say so. It's holding onto a time when it was okay to do that though.

    Is referring to Indigenous people as Indians wrong? Yes. Regardless if you view it as racist or not (It is), it is geographically wrong. Indians are from India. You're promoting the wrong message by referring to Indigenous people as Indians. That'd be like if everyone started calling Americans Italians.

    Now for the final point. A lot of people who choose to refer to Indigenous people as Indians are just stuck in their old ways. Referring to them as the Indians leaves that little sliver of hope for racism to breed for future generations. Is eliminating the name Indians going to end racism? Of course not. But doing so will be one tiny step in the right direction. It'll be completely eliminating the history of when it was okay to depict Indigenous people in a silly way for this franchise. One of the many millions of band aids will be ripped off.
    I wonder how many Native Americans are offended by the Cleveland Indians name. Just curious. The funny thing was that polls were done multiple times among Native Americans and they came in overwhelming support for even the Redskins name. I understand that doesn't represent all Native Americans but it goes to prove a point that its not always the people affected who are taking up the cause.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...f9a_story.html

    And this is coming from someone who definitely finds the Redskin name to be entirely offensive.

    I do think its more white SJW culture than you think but yeah, many people are going to take offense to it that are or aren't Native Americans.
    Last edited by metswon69; 12-14-2020 at 10:17 PM.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Rogers Centre
    Posts
    24,636
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    I wonder how many Native Americans are offended by the Cleveland Indians name. Just curious. The funny thing was that polls were done multiple times among Native Americans and they came in overwhelming support for even the Redskins name. I understand that doesn't represent all Native Americans but it goes to prove a point that its not always the people affected who are taking up the cause.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...f9a_story.html

    And this is coming from someone who definitely finds the Redskin name to be entirely offensive.

    I do think its more white SJW culture than you think but yeah, many people are going to take offense to it that are or aren't Native Americans.
    It has nothing to do with who’s offended over it and everything to do with eliminating even the slightest bit of racism from the name. Re-read my response. You’ll see that I never took into account who the name offends. It’s just inherently wrong.

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    39,559
    Quote Originally Posted by R. Johnson#3 View Post
    It has nothing to do with who’s offended over it and everything to do with eliminating even the slightest bit of racism from the name. Re-read my response. You’ll see that I never took into account who the name offends. It’s just inherently wrong.
    I read your response. Again, I do think there is that element to part of this response by the team. I also don't think Native Americans equate the term Indian to how black people would treat the n-word, or Spanish people the s-word, etc. You still have the Oxford dictionary which textbook definition of the word "Indian" (aside from natives of the country of India) is "a member of any of the indigenous peoples of North, Central, and South America, especially those of North America." There are plenty of other resources that refer to Indian in the same context as well. You have entities like the National Congress of American Indians who represent the various tribes in the USA.

    I understand they arent the ultimate authorities on the subject but you could at least have a debate if referring to Native Americans as Indians is wrong.
    Last edited by metswon69; 12-14-2020 at 11:24 PM.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    56,678
    Just because Native Americans don't equate the word "indian" with what is very likely the most hateful and derogatory term in the English language, doesn't mean it can't still be an offensive or distasteful term.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    39,559
    Quote Originally Posted by spliff(TONE) View Post
    Just because Native Americans don't equate the word "indian" with what is very likely the most hateful and derogatory term in the English language, doesn't mean it can't still be an offensive or distasteful term.
    Sure but you have plenty of Native American tribes that refer to themselves as Indians. If the mindset was universal that the term "Indian" was offensive then why would any native American tribes use it?

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    37,631
    Quote Originally Posted by Zmaster52 View Post
    Old people don’t like change and chalk it up to cancel culture...it’s a reaction and justification for them to be upset.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I'm 31 and don't like cancel culture

    Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Rogers Centre
    Posts
    24,636
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    I read your response. Again, I do think there is that element to part of this response by the team. I also don't think Native Americans equate the term Indian to how black people would treat the n-word, or Spanish people the s-word, etc. You still have the Oxford dictionary which textbook definition of the word "Indian" (aside from natives of the country of India) is "a member of any of the indigenous peoples of North, Central, and South America, especially those of North America." There are plenty of other resources that refer to Indian in the same context as well. You have entities like the National Congress of American Indians who represent the various tribes in the USA.

    I understand they arent the ultimate authorities on the subject but you could at least have a debate if referring to Native Americans as Indians is wrong.
    So what do we call people from India?
    Last edited by R. Johnson#3; 12-14-2020 at 11:50 PM.

Page 4 of 22 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... 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
  •