one is named after people who did the raping and pillaging, the other is named after the ones being raped and pillaged.
bit of a difference, esp considering one isnt even a race.
Cleveland Indians changing names
- Thread starter SHUSA
- Start date
bit of a difference, esp considering one isnt even a race.
True that I can't speak for Native people, and I don't know what the ratio is on who is/isn't offended by the Cleveland Indians (this whole area has been very under-studied, from an academic research perspective).
Back in July, one of my Native American coworkers had provided to me a research study about the Washington Redskins name, with hard numbers about how many tribe members disliked it, and how Native representation in America was linked to things like high suicide rates for example (highest of any ethnicity), and it really changed my perspective. So that's where I'm coming from, I guess.
As a Jets fan...trust me...."Jets" alone is pretty offensive.....
well, not "offensive" as in they score points...but you know...
How about the Cleveland Native Americans and call them the Americans for short? They can celebrate the Native American culture and use it for good to educate how much the American Indian did and how they lived off of and respected our land. Just a positive take on all of this instead of totally cancelling their brand.
Probably offensive to those that are not Native but are still Americans.
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
This makes me laugh. It's like white liberals telling Latinos that they should go by the name LatinX to be gender neutral. No actual Latino thinks Latino is offensive, but a white liberal said it is, so now Latin X is a thing. The word Indian isnt offensive to the majority of natives as evidence by actual polls. Welcome to 2020 America where people are offended by everything. What will be next?
Nope, they did because white-guilt, hypocritical, PC police just like to do something to make themselves feel good to make up for all of their intolerance, hate, and divisiveness.
idk i think they did it because they saw how much extra money they could make while pretending to have good pr.
i dont think pro sports owners really fall under the white guilt category.
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
Stuff like this is why Rutgers is starting a "diversity" position to be staffed by someone with no real world qualifications who will be paid 330,000 a year.
Jokes and insults were common place when Italian immigrants came to America. For anyone who cares, on March 14, 1891, New Orleans the murders of 11 Italian Americans took place by a mob, for their alleged role in the murder of city police chief David Hennessy after some of them had been acquitted at trial. It was the largest single mass lynching in American history. No one is joking now because like so many other immigrants Italians assimilated into society. They put their heads down and went to work and earned respect from others. There is a very simple message at work here.
American Indians started protesting the use of the the name and their mascot in the 70's.
40+ years later, they stopped using the logo and said they would revisit the use or the name.
So why this is happening now as opposed to 40+ years ago is because culturally we have a moment where we can revisit some past decisions and make changes where appropriate.
they dont. public sentiment has been the same for decades but now it makes sense for owners to change. you basically double your merchandise profits without angering the fanbase because it was for a "good" reason.
hell they probably want everyone to think theyre pressured
They better not mess with the Charleston Chiefs!
You're correct on the "Latinx" issue, which points to the nuance required to look at this subject with any honesty. Sometimes these things do run amok, as with overzealous white liberals imposing their conventions on the Spanish language.
There is no correct all-or-nothing approach to this. So by this token, you go off the rails when you point to a supposed poll of native Americans showing that a majority of them believe the "Indians" name is not offensive. No such authoritative, statistically viable survey exists.
The thing is, though, that "Pirates" is a profession, something what the word describes is entirely elective and, after all these years, is almost as much lore as it is history. Perhaps pirates themselves will tell us through protests whether they take issue with the term? (
) The ethnic makeup of a people is immutable; they are unable to hide or simply choose another identity in order to escape harm or unjust treatment.The other issue is of power dynamics. Pirates (and I realize is use here is for example) were not disenfranchised, abused, herded off and relocated. Yes, they could be killed and/or jailed but that's because the very essence of their work was illegal. But they were justifiably feared for their ruthless dominance over their opponents - usually lawful sea merchants. As this profession passed from current life to lore, it was a natural moniker for a sportswriter to tag our teams - hyperbolic, but catchy. You'll recall that it was given after our baseball team stole something like ten bases in a game. "Stealing" is literally the statistical category that earned our team that nickname, which over time became official.
"Indians" never enjoyed that sort of power advantage over the groups that came to define and shape American culture. They never have, either, and yet still very much exist as a large segment of our society. They are still real. Going back to its origins, "the word Indians" is wrong simply because the people the caricature references aren't even Indians, the use of which goes back to European explorers' (Columbus? Not sure who) mistaken belief that they have reached India when they had in fact reached the Caribbean. These peoples' subsequent history on this land since the arrival of Europeans has been well documented and does not need to be rehashed here, but it's clear that is has been disgraceful. I don't think anyone honestly disputes that. So the "caricariturization" of them as "Indians," complete with its mocking imagery as warlike savages, is a continuing offense against a real, actual, present-day people. That's the distinction.
And a tough profession it is.
I recall a retired pirate who goes into a bar and starts talking up how tough it was. He tapped on his wooden leg and then talked about how he lost it by one swing of a sword. Then he pointed to his hook hand and told how it was shot off by a cannonball. Just brutal. Then he told about how he lost his eye when a seagull flying overhead sh_t in his eye.
The guy sitting next to him said, "That's ridiculous. You don't lose an eye because of a little bit of seagull poop"
The pirate snapped back, "You can if it's your first day with your hook!"
Last edited:
Similar threads
