The Indians Mascot

• sleeper

  

  BTW OSH, what tribe do you belong to? Just admit your biased and you want money for the color of your skin; like a true American.
• isadore

  sleeper;1140254 wrote:If that's what you want isadore, write a check. Just say what you really want; the rich to pay for the ills of the poor. The only thing more un-American than that is Hitler's Germany, I can't believe you actually are supporting Hitler and what he did to millions of innocent Jews.

  How unbelievebly silly of you who has expressed social darwinist ideas most reflective of nazisim. Hopefully your belief system will not be triumphant in our society and we will have a true fair democratic nation.
• sleeper

  

  isadore;1140273 wrote:How unbelievebly silly of you who has expressed social darwinist ideas most reflective of nazisim. Hopefully your belief system will not be triumphant in our society and we will have a true fair democratic nation.

  Hopefully with the election of someone that believes in equality for all, not just the poor and stupid, so we can work towards a better society of equal opportunity, not equal outcome. That is one thing we can agree on.
• Y-Town Steelhound

  

  Chief Wahoo is pretty racist. Personally I'd like to see the team go back to being the Cleveland Spiders. Unique name and not offensive.
• sleeper

  

  Y-Town Steelhound;1140305 wrote:Chief Wahoo is pretty racist. Personally I'd like to see the team go back to being the Cleveland Spiders. Unique name and not offensive.

  A spider is a derogatory name for a person who has more than 2 legs. Can you imagine the outcry if they were to offend the 3 people this country that have a disability?
• Crimson streak

  

  Sleeper actually has some pretty good points if you sort out the bullshit. Why should the rich be punished because they worked their asses off to get where they got while poor people can sit on there asses and collect off the rich. As for the Indians, how is it offensive? To me it is celebrating the culture of the native Americans. Now the redskins I can see a problem with that.
• OSH

  

  Y-Town Steelhound;1140305 wrote:Chief Wahoo is pretty racist. Personally I'd like to see the team go back to being the Cleveland Spiders. Unique name and not offensive.

  Agreed! Good stuff there! And it is actually "honoring" the original Spiders.
  

  Crimson streak;1140327 wrote:Sleeper actually has some pretty good points if you sort out the bull****. Why should the rich be punished because they worked their asses off to get where they got while poor people can sit on there asses and collect off the rich. As for the Indians, how is it offensive? To me it is celebrating the culture of the native Americans. Now the redskins I can see a problem with that.

  How are the rich being punished in this situation? The "rich" got to own these teams that are marketing themselves off of the plight of other people groups? That's not so awesome is it? The "Indians" name is offensive because of the imagery and language the use, i.e. Chief Wahoo.
  
  The "rich" get to make a buck off of derogatory names and images of others is fair?
• Heretic

  

  sleeper;1140307 wrote:A spider is a derogatory name for a person who has more than 2 legs. Can you imagine the outcry if they were to offend the 3 people this country that have a disability?

  Personally, I'm very proud of my third leg and all of its accomplishments.
• Curly J

  

  sleeper;1140307 wrote:A spider is a derogatory name for a person who has more than 2 legs. Can you imagine the outcry if they were to offend the 3 people this country that have a disability?

  Michael Imperioli agrees. (Spider from Goodfellas)
• isadore

  sleeper;1140275 wrote:Hopefully with the election of someone that believes in equality for all, not just the poor and stupid, so we can work towards a better society of equal opportunity, not equal outcome. That is one thing we can agree on.

  under Republican President we have steadily moved away from equal opportunity as social mobility in our society has declined. Hopefully in Obama's second term we will work toward that goal.
• WebFire

  OSH;1140246 wrote:I believe I have touched on the "plight" subject -- which would also be the "endured something."
  
  It is not offensive to have a team named after you...if that's all it were. To portray Native Americans as "braves," "redskins," "warriors," "chiefs," etc. is definitely a stereotype that should be done away with. As I mentioned earlier, if there were a team called the "Ricemen" and had an Asian-looking mascot with slanted-eyes, wouldn't that be considered offensive? There is NO respect in that.
  
  There is also NO respect in using Chief Wahoo as he is. C'mon, a red-colored, smiling, Native American comic is "respectful?" That's a joke. I do see some teams as "honoring," like the Chicago Blackhawks, Florida State Seminoles, and Utah Utes. I may even through the North Dakota "Fighting Sioux" in there -- although "fighting" may be crossing the line. But, if they use those images and languages, then why no kick-back to the tribes/people? I think the Utes have some sort of kick-back to the Ute tribe, I could be mistaken though. That's not a problem. That would be more like honoring.
  
  But using this logo is not honoring anyone:
  
  
  
  And the name is definitely not honoring anyone. The "honor" thing is a scapegoat. There is absolutely no honor in it. If it were, then why aren't there teams "honoring" black people with big-lipped mascots? Why aren't there teams "honoring" Jews with mascots wearing yarmalukes? Why aren't there teams "honoring" those that slaughtered the Native Americans?
  
  The "honor" loses it's credibility once these teams started painting the people groups with the same look. Not all Natives wear feathers and look like they make them. That's a negative stereotype. Just like the cartoon pictures I posted in the first page. It's not right.

  What is wrong with the mascot? Looks like fucking indian.
• WebFire

  Y-Town Steelhound;1140305 wrote:Chief Wahoo is pretty racist. Personally I'd like to see the team go back to being the Cleveland Spiders. Unique name and not offensive.

  Why is it racist? Is the patriots logo racist? It's a white guy.
• WebFire

  OSH;1140246 wrote:I believe I have touched on the "plight" subject -- which would also be the "endured something."
  
  It is not offensive to have a team named after you...if that's all it were. To portray Native Americans as "braves," "redskins," "warriors," "chiefs," etc. is definitely a stereotype that should be done away with. As I mentioned earlier, if there were a team called the "Ricemen" and had an Asian-looking mascot with slanted-eyes, wouldn't that be considered offensive? There is NO respect in that.
  
  There is also NO respect in using Chief Wahoo as he is. C'mon, a red-colored, smiling, Native American comic is "respectful?" That's a joke. I do see some teams as "honoring," like the Chicago Blackhawks, Florida State Seminoles, and Utah Utes. I may even through the North Dakota "Fighting Sioux" in there -- although "fighting" may be crossing the line. But, if they use those images and languages, then why no kick-back to the tribes/people? I think the Utes have some sort of kick-back to the Ute tribe, I could be mistaken though. That's not a problem. That would be more like honoring.
  
  But using this logo is not honoring anyone:
  
  
  
  And the name is definitely not honoring anyone. The "honor" thing is a scapegoat. There is absolutely no honor in it. If it were, then why aren't there teams "honoring" black people with big-lipped mascots? Why aren't there teams "honoring" Jews with mascots wearing yarmalukes? Why aren't there teams "honoring" those that slaughtered the Native Americans?
  
  The "honor" loses it's credibility once these teams started painting the people groups with the same look. Not all Natives wear feathers and look like they make them. That's a negative stereotype. Just like the cartoon pictures I posted in the first page. It's not right.

  Sorry, I think this whole post is horse shit and and example of looking too hard at something to make issue of it. I guess I am offended that the New England Patriots paint all whites as human killing soldiers. What a stereotype! They better change it now!
• WebFire

  And I'm offended by the Brewers. I don't even like beer.
• WebFire

  And let me get this straight. You think the Seminoles and Blackhawks are honoring, but they use very similar "racist" logos like the Indians.
  
  
  
  
• ts1227

  

  
• bigkahuna

  WebFire;1140426 wrote:And let me get this straight. You think the Seminoles and Blackhawks are honoring, but they use very similar "racist" logos like the Indians.
  
  
  
  

  I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone, but at least Florida State has the support of the Seminole Tribe; same with Utah. The Blackhawks, I have no idea. I think if a large group of Native Americans came up and said "It's all good," everyone would shut up.
• OSH

  

  WebFire;1140416 wrote:What is wrong with the mascot? Looks like ****ing indian.

  Yeah, you apparently aren't around many Native Americans these days. Talk about stereotyping a people group...
  

  WebFire;1140426 wrote:And let me get this straight. You think the Seminoles and Blackhawks are honoring, but they use very similar "racist" logos like the Indians.

  I don't think they are honoring, Florida State was approved -- as far as I know -- by the Seminole tribe to use it. They were honoring it. Sort of similar to the ordeal in North Dakota, only Florida State was permitted by ALL Seminole tribes, whereas North Dakota only had approval by one or two Sioux tribes. See the difference?
  
  If you look back on my comments about the Blackhawks, I didn't necessarily say they DID honor a specific tribe. There is a debate on who they are "honoring." Some claim they honor a specific military unit that were nicknamed the "Blackhawks" -- which actually were named after a tribe. So, IF they were approved of their imagery and language with using the Native American man...then yes, it could be honoring. That would mean they have to go through the tribes in order to get permission and approval.
  
  That's completely different than using "Indians" or "Redskins" or "Braves" using Native American imagery to promote their program. There's absolutely NO alluding to a specific tribe or gaining approval from anyone. It's calling a certain [plighted] people group "Redskins" or "Indians" or "Braves" while also saying they all wear feathers, paint their faces, use tomahawks, and do war cries. That isn't true.
• WebFire

  OSH;1140449 wrote:Yeah, you apparently aren't around many Native Americans these days. Talk about stereotyping a people group...

  White people don't look like the Patriots logo either. Talk about stereotypying. Where is the outrage?
• OSH

  

  Here's the gist of what I am saying:
  

  [LEFT]The issue here...isn’t about ethnic stereotyping; it’s about systematically destroying a culture and then using that culture’s imagery as if it belongs to you, which it doesn’t.[/LEFT]

  If there were permission, that's good! I think it'd also be good to see a licensing fee or royalties paid.
  
  For instance, the Whiteskins.org link I posted...it was satirical at first. But then has a goal behind it now. They sell merchandise that actually goes to Native Americans -- a fund of some sort, I am not sure what or to whom it benefits directly.
• WebFire

  Overthought.
• OSH

  

  WebFire;1140460 wrote:Overthought.

  I guess so wasn't women's suffrage, Civil Rights, freedom of religion, and/or any other conflict in the history of the world.
• HitsRus

  

  quote from OSH...

  It is insulting. It was demonstrated how other similar situations would be insulting...so how is it not insulting when it deals with Native Americans? I guarantee you go to a reservation and say something about the "Redskins" you'll get more than 90% of people feeling insulted

  uhhhh...not quite
  from the article

  "Asked if they were offended by the name Redskins,(the name deemed 'most offensive') 75% of Native American respondents in SI's poll said they were not, and even on reservations, where Native American culture and influence are perhaps felt most intensely, 62% said they weren't offended. Overall, 69% of Native American respondents -- and 57% of those living on reservations -- feel it's O.K. for the Washington Redskins to continue using the name. "I like the name Redskins," says Mark Timentwa, 50, a member of the Colville Confederated Tribes in Washington State who lives on the tribes' reservation. "A few elders find it offensive, but my mother loves the Redskins."

  The truth of the matter is that most people don't really have a problem. Those that do have a problem are activists or those with an axe to grind.
  
  Those that are "insulted" usually say something like this:

  "This is no honor," says Michael Yellow Bird, an associate professor of social work at Arizona State. "We lost our land, we lost our languages, we lost our children. Proportionately speaking, indigenous peoples [in the U.S.] are incarcerated more than any other group, we have more racial violence perpetrated upon us, and we are forgotten. If people think this is how to honor us, then colonization has really taken hold."

  So you have a vocal minority like the guy above...and all the white bleeding heart liberals that they can heap a pile of guilt on.
  The sad thing...is that it works.
• WebFire

  HitsRus;1140485 wrote:quote from OSH...
  
  uhhhh...not quite
  from the article
  
  
  The truth of the matter is that most people don't really have a problem. Those that do have a problem are activists or those with an axe to grind.
  
  Those that are "insulted" usually say something like this:
  
  
  So you have a vocal minority like the guy above...and all the white bleeding heart liberals that they can heap a pile of guilt on.
  The sad thing...is that it works.

  Yup.
• enigmaax

  Haven't read the whole thread, but I don't understand a few parts of this argument. First, why are white people always "bad" in the whole land-taking thing just because we won? Natives killed plenty of other natives for land and whatever else. Would the world have ever progressed had we not expanded our horizons?
  
  I'm not sure how using a logo that represents a historical figure implies that all those with native heritage wear feathers and warpaint. Mascots/logos are one representation of a particular era/character. That's it. The wahoo logo doesn't mean all Indians are goofy asses. Not all "Raiders" wore eye patches. Not all "Texans" have cattle. Not all "Vikings" wore horns. Not all New Yorkers are Metrosexual. Not all "Celtics" are leprechauns. Nobody in Utah even likes Jazz and for the love of God...a "Maverick" is NOT a fucking horse.