It's one of those "half-myths"...the Spiders were sometimes referred to as the Indians when Sockalexis played, so it kind of meshed when it was suggested to change their name and the spin on Braves was brought up.hoops23;1140644 wrote:I think that's a myth. I think they actually changed their name to the Indians because of the Boston Braves.
I wasn't disagreeing with you or calling you out about your statement... Just heard that it was a myth a while back.. Forget where I heard it at though.lhslep134;1140669 wrote:It's one of those "half-myths"...the Spiders were sometimes referred to as the Indians when Sockalexis played, so it kind of meshed when it was suggested to change their name and the spin on Braves was brought up.
So I guess it's not 100% to honor Sockalexis, but if that's a small part of it, it would still be an honor, no?
I am not the one who declared the mascots as "mean."WebFire;1140622 wrote:And, Chief Wahoo or whatever his name is, isn't mean looking either. So I guess it's ok.
Yessir.enigmaax;1140624 wrote:This quote(?):
"it’s about systematically destroying a culture and then using that culture’s imagery as if it belongs to you, which it doesn’t."
Doesn't matter where you heard it hoop23. All that matters is what Wikipedia says about it....(Sarcasm Font and Sarcasm Smiley)hoops23;1140674 wrote:I wasn't disagreeing with you or calling you out about your statement... Just heard that it was a myth a while back.. Forget where I heard it at though.
No, but you insinuated it was ok because the mascot you posted wasn't mean.OSH;1140680 wrote:I am not the one who declared the mascots as "mean."
LOL. Isn't that the point of most mascots?OSH;1140680 wrote:It's pretty lousy and definitely derogatory if they are used to "strike fear" into their opponents on that athletic field.
the spiders were a completely different franchise that ended up foldinglhslep134;1140669 wrote:It's one of those "half-myths"...the Spiders were sometimes referred to as the Indians when Sockalexis played, so it kind of meshed when it was suggested to change their name and the spin on Braves was brought up.
So I guess it's not 100% to honor Sockalexis, but if that's a small part of it, it would still be an honor, no?
A lot of teams mascots are at times depicted in a cartoonish manner. It has nothing to do with mocking or trying to be derogetory. The old colonel reb mascot of Ole Miss looked pretty cartoonish. I can assure you Ole Miss was not mocking the southern rebs they held dear. But he had to go not because his caricature was mocking confederate rebels and their decendents who fought in civil war, but because some saw colonel reb as a symbol of past southern power. Most teams don't choose mascots because of their percieved inferiority but for their representation of superiorty or because of their positive symbolism.WebFire;1140622 wrote:And, Chief Wahoo or whatever his name is, isn't mean looking either. So I guess it's ok.
I know, but it's not like their memory disappeared from the minds of Cleveland baseball fansAl Bundy;1140702 wrote:the spiders were a completely different franchise that ended up folding
more likely Christians are offended by association with the football team. But of course the Christians had better be quiet about it or its concussion time.Pick6;1140695 wrote:Maybe the Saints should change their name, it offends all people who aren't Christian.
perhaps the christians should complain about the lions with the history there.isadore;1140714 wrote:more likely Christians are offended by association with the football team. But of course the Christians had better be quiet about it or its concussion time.
I'm wondering what your take on the bolded part is. Is it ok for Hawaii to call their athletic teams the "Warriors?"OSH;1140530 wrote:Like I said, go on a reservation and say "Redskins." What will be the response?
The SI poll didn't say anything about people saying "Redskins" on the reservation. It's hard to tell what reservations they also polled. But that poll actually is more damaging than others have said...when it says that 69% of Natives and 57% living on reservations feel it's "ok" to use the "Redskins" name. That means there is 30-40% of Native Americans that do not like the usage of the name. That's a pretty large percentage.
I am definitely not a "bleeding heart liberal." This is something that really opened up my eyes when I spent two years in South Dakota. There just needs to be a sensitivity towards others. It's built around respect -- I feel. I never had this opinion. I would use terms like "Indian giver," "Indian run," "Indian style," or similar terms for things only replace with a different people group. You never know who is around that may be offended, for whatever reason, when using stereotyping terms.
I know, I know...where does it stop, start, or end? Well, it's pretty simple to not use the term Indian, Jew, or other people group names that may be stereotyping.
I guarantee you that if the Hawaii Rainbow Warriors used a caricature that happened to stereotype the LGBTQ community...even if 60% were okay with it...that it would be changed. And, rightfully so.
People don't care how much you know, until they know how much you care. Saying something that may be offensive will never get you anywhere.
I have always took it as a respect for the fighting spirit of those native groups of people. Rarely does a victor on the battlefield name or allow current names to continue for its states, rivers, lakes, landmarks, and teams of sport after a defeated foe. Perhaps that is why you see native american support to preserve their namesake and fighting spirit in the lands they once held dear.bigkahuna;1140730 wrote:I'm wondering what your take on the bolded part is. Is it ok for Hawaii to call their athletic teams the "Warriors?"
I'm an all or none type of person. In general people can't spot pick what's ok and what's not. Either it's ok for the Illini, Braves, Redskins, Seminoles, Chiefs, Tarblooders(I always thought this was Native American related) to be named that, or none of them are.
That's a good point, there's more things to worry about then the names of sports teams.sportchampps;1140740 wrote:When I loved in Lawrence Kansas which was home of the second largest Indian college I got to meet many native Americans. The few I got to know or worked with were not offended at all and often joked about the teams. Our one coworker always picked all the indian teams in our office pickem polls each week. The thing people should be worried about is alcohol use amongst native Americans and not some stupid sports team names. If you drove past their college each weekend you would see passed out students in the bleachers from the night before. The drinking led to students dropping out and the school had a 9% graduation rate.
I don't know...is it?WebFire;1140693 wrote:LOL. Isn't that the point of most mascots?
Honestly, I don't know the history behind their nickname. There is nothing wrong with the "Warrior" name if there is no alluding to all Native Americans being warriors.bigkahuna;1140730 wrote:I'm wondering what your take on the bolded part is. Is it ok for Hawaii to call their athletic teams the "Warriors?"
I'm an all or none type of person. In general people can't spot pick what's ok and what's not. Either it's ok for the Illini, Braves, Redskins, Seminoles, Chiefs, Tarblooders(I always thought this was Native American related) to be named that, or none of them are.
I totally agree! It is terrible.sportchampps;1140740 wrote:When I loved in Lawrence Kansas which was home of the second largest Indian college I got to meet many native Americans. The few I got to know or worked with were not offended at all and often joked about the teams. Our one coworker always picked all the indian teams in our office pickem polls each week. The thing people should be worried about is alcohol use amongst native Americans and not some stupid sports team names. If you drove past their college each weekend you would see passed out students in the bleachers from the night before. The drinking led to students dropping out and the school had a 9% graduation rate.
See above. There is something than can be done to help.bigkahuna;1140781 wrote:That's a good point, there's more things to worry about then the names of sports teams.
Could you outlay Obama's plan for increasing social mobility? From what I've seen, he wants to achieve this by taking from the haves and giving to the non-productive have nots. That isn't social mobility, that's enforcing equal outcome not equal opportunity; how did that work for Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea?isadore;1140350 wrote: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.
You are right. I should have said many, not most. And I should have added that most (all?) name their team after something fierce or honorary, or something of prevalence to the area. And none of these reasons are bad.OSH;1140800 wrote:I don't know...is it?
I guess the Kernels are fierce. So aren't Ceramics. Penguins are too. Boll Weevils are as well.
Cardinals are fierce too -- I can't tell you how many times the color has scared me. Cornhuskers, Hoosiers, Buckeyes, yada yada yada...
yep.sleeper;1140832 wrote:I'm a broken record