Jump to content

The "Screaming Savage", Chief Wahoo and mascots


SilentJames

Recommended Posts

I think the top one looks proud. It actually looks like an accurate portrayal of a proud, Native American. I don't think it's disparaging, I don't think it's insulting...but then again I'm not a Native American, thus I'm not someone who'd be offended by such a thing. The name "Braves" isn't a bad thing, either, IMO.

The bottom one is a cartoon that makes fun of Indian features. You wouldn't see a portrayal of Asians or black people in a similar cartoonish light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 38
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I am not Native American but I am tired of all the time hearing about politcally correct this and that. The teams do this about the money. Certain peolpe also bring up things because it makes them money. You do not hear people yelling and complaining about rednecks or hillbillies. Those people should be outraged the way they are potrayed(sp).

Just my 2 cents. I am sorry if I offended any one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't truly understand this issue until I read a detailed article about a European soccer team nicknamed "The Jews." Opposing fans had (have?) chants like, "Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the Gas."

I don't think it's appropriate, unless, as at Florida State (per SilentJames) the appropriate tribe is involved and approving.

That said, it's not something to get really upset about. Symbols matter, but only to a degree.

Call yourselves the Vikings, Trojans, Golden Horde, Samurai, Crusaders, Huns; if the group is long-gone historically, I'd say that's fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leprechauns aren't real. And is there a movement by Irish people to change their name? After all, nothing is offensive until someone is offended.
Gee, I thought the mascot was called the Fighting Irish and not the leprechaun. Why is it that the Irish aren't offended and the Native Americans are? Shouldn't the Irish be equally offended in such a PC world? If there were Irish offended by the fighting stereotype and Native Americans who were not offended by the Braves logo would that make a difference in the argument about what is an "acceptable caricature?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With this in mind, polls typically show that 90% of Native Americans (dunno if that is a true apples to apples comparison with FSU and a singular tribe) support the Washington Redskins use of the term and find it acceptable.

I dunno what polls show, in terms of support/disdain, as it relates to the Indians, Braves, etc., etc., though.

That's probably because the vast majority of humans couldn't care less about things that don't directly affect them. It's the uptight, self-righteous ones that worry about things like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparing the Irish to native Americans is kinda silly. Irish haven't been driven to near extinction, roped into reservations and then had their likenesses used as mascots in arguably demeaning ways. Anyway, I don't have a dog in this race...I just don't think people can sweep this issue under the rug like so many people can. That society is so numb to borderline racist mascots and logos is also noteworthy. But like i said, I won't be petitioning to change names or logos. I won't be shocked or angry if others do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With this in mind, polls typically show that 90% of Native Americans (dunno if that is a true apples to apples comparison with FSU and a singular tribe) support the Washington Redskins use of the term and find it acceptable.

I dunno what polls show, in terms of support/disdain, as it relates to the Indians, Braves, etc., etc., though.

The Redskins, in particular, have additional problems, in that the term itself is often viewed as offensive. I'm mildly bothered by the existence of a soccer team nicknamed as "The Jews;" I would be much more bothered by a team known officially as the "Chicago Kikes."

I'm unfamiliar with the polls you reference and would be interested in a link. And even then, I'm not sure it's appropriate: do the Redskins consult with any actual native people? Ensure that they are respecting particular traditions? To my knowledge, there is no engagement on the part of the team whatsoever.

Gee, I thought the mascot was called the Fighting Irish and not the leprechaun. Why is it that the Irish aren't offended and the Native Americans are? Shouldn't the Irish be equally offended in such a PC world? If there were Irish offended by the fighting stereotype and Native Americans who were not offended by the Braves logo would that make a difference in the argument about what is an "acceptable caricature?"

Were the Irish involved in a 100-year war with the US Government, featuring frequent massacres and perpetual treaty violations, that resulted in the nearly complete destruction of their way of life, forcible removal to reservations, and another century of extended poverty and social ills?

The histories involved are immensely different, and not remotely parallel (anti-Irish sentiment in the 1st half of the 19th century notwithstanding). Caricatures may not be inherently offensive; that doesn't mean that caricatures of native Americans aren't offensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't much care either way, but it should be the affected groups that determine what is offensive. And if you are willing to strip names like "Indians", "Braves", "Redskins" (and I have no problem with changing all of them), then it can't be "because these groups had REALLY bad stuff done to them. The litmus test needs to be the same across the board. Change those names, but if for some reason the National Association for People of Viking Decent want Minnesota to change its football team's name, do that too.

I think there are much larger issues for our society to deal with, so if people want sports named changed let's just change them and move on. If business owners want to fight it for branding/$$$ reasons, let them do it. The public will ultimately decide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not Native American but I am tired of all the time hearing about politcally correct this and that. The teams do this about the money. Certain peolpe also bring up things because it makes them money. You do not hear people yelling and complaining about rednecks or hillbillies. Those people should be outraged the way they are potrayed(sp).

Just my 2 cents. I am sorry if I offended any one.

I'm not offended, but only because I have literally no idea what you said in this post. The teams "do this about the money"? "Certain people also bring up things because it makes them money"? What does any of this mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not offended, but only because I have literally no idea what you said in this post. The teams "do this about the money"? "Certain people also bring up things because it makes them money"? What does any of this mean?

Re-naming and re-branding teams would be expensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't grouping you in camp outraged. You seemed more like camp concerned.

KLaw on the other hand is a maniac about it.

On the amusing side Calcaterra over at hardballtalk is also freaking out about it but back in his Shysterball days I called him out for using either "Hillbillies" or "Rednecks"(I don't recall which). Evidently some social/economic groups can be labeled.

Well the Cleveland Hillbillies and the Atlanta Rednecks seem like a no-brainer to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not offensive; created by the Irish, for the "Irish.". If a group of Asians created that logo, then yes.

http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/nfl/wasbos/bosskins.html

"1933: Now led by Lone Star Dietz, a Native American Coach, the team moves to Fenway Park. With the move the team also undergoes a name change becoming the Boston Redskins. The Redskins would alternate wins and losses all season and would finish with a 5-5-2 record."

Team moved to Washington in 1937.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Posts

    • After a really disappointing April that saw his ERA balloon to 7.78, Alex Pham has found his bearings in May, allowing 3 ER in 14.1 IP, allowing 8 hits and 4 walks while striking out 17.   Yesterday Pham allowed a run on 2 hits and a walk in 4.2 innings, striking out 7.   53 of 72 pitches were strikes.  The sole run charged to Pham scored when reliever Kyle Virbitsky allowed a 2-out double to the first batter he faced after relieving Pham in the fifth.    Due to the poor start, Pham’s ERA still rests at an unimpressive 5.29, but he’s definitely been headed in the right direction.  Also, he’s struck out 40 batters in 34 innings.     
    • I can’t emphasize enough how stupid that rain delay was.  No rain at all for 45 minutes, then two hours of light mist, the kind that teams play through all the time.  I was standing near the kids play area during most of the delay and believe me, that rain didn’t deter any kids from using the playground equipment for two hours. Then, 15 minutes before the game is going to start, the grounds crew is watering the infield.  What? The game itself was not worth the wait, needless to say.   But what annoys me most is the complete lack of communication during these delays.  How about letting the fans who are there know what the thinking is about how long the delay will be?  How about an update every 30 minutes or so.   Nope, nothing.   Just a generic message on the scoreboard saying that the start of the game will be delayed to to the “threat” of inclement weather.   My phone was showing .05” of rain expected in the next six hours.  Some threat! On the bright side, the team did announce that ticket holders would be given vouchers that could be used for a Monday - Thursday game.  That was the least they could do.       
    • 19,286 for that rain-delayed mess of a game.  I’d say about 2/3 of those stuck through the 3 hour delay and were in their seats at game time.  
    • And paid Scherzer, and Zimmerman, and Corbin, and Werth.   They didn’t all work out, but nobody could say the Nats didn’t spend to put a winning team on the field during their run.  The run basically ended because Stras II and Corbin blew up in their face.   But there’s always 2019.   
    • I can’t believe that 8 hours after Grayson stepped off the mound, I’m the first person to update his thread.   After a 19-day IL stint and without a rehab stint, Grayson threw 6 innings of one-hit shutout ball last night.  The one hit was an infield squibber hit 59.5 mph off the bat.  His command was a tad shaky at times, as he walked three and hit a batter, but he still breezed through 6 innings on 82 pitches, 50 for strikes.  If it hadn’t been his first outing in three weeks, he certainly could have pitched the 7th inning.  Unfortunately, the bullpen blew it for him. Fastball topped out at 98.4 and he was still hitting 97 in his final inning.  
    • I think half of Fangraphs’ staff over the years came from Lookout Landing.   I rarely read other teams’ sites, but I agree Pinstripe Alley is one of the best Yankee sites.     
    • For one thing, they don’t have Bautista shutting things down in the 9th inning or extra innings.   Second, 30-16 just doesn’t happen every year.  I’m actually pretty encouraged that the O’s have played .650 baseball without winning a disproportionate number of close games.    
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...