View Full Version : Will this type of $hit ever end?
05-02-2001, 05:57 AM
05-02-2001, 06:08 AM
As someone who is part Native American (1/8th), I'm not all that offended. Of course, I'm dilluted, so ...
I think names like the "Fighting Sioux" the Indians of Cleveland (except the mascot ... a bit cartoonish if you ask me) and the Chiefs actually show some respect to Native Americans. As far as the Chiefs go, they were named by the fans after H. Roe Bartle, who was a Native American Indian Chief. Plus, Chief is a word of French origin, so there really is no argument I can find against them.
Although I will have to say that calling a team the "Redskins" is a bit much. It's like having a team called the New York N------ (I think we know what the "N------" stands for).
People are just too damned sensitive these days, IMO.
~~Adding his 2¢
05-02-2001, 06:12 AM
Will it ever end? Probably not...
When these groups get their way, the animal rights groups will be calling for an end to exploiting animals by using their name and likeness. Bob Dole fully expects that we'll eventually end up seeing teams like the <i>Cleveland Parking Lots</i> and the <i>Kansas City Light bulbs</i>.
05-02-2001, 06:41 AM
A Redskin is also a kind of peanut.
I think Washington should change their helmets by slapping a goober on the side and then just ride this thing out.
As to the issue, I always considered when you were picking your team mascot you ended up honoring them. I don't see anyone clambering for names like Moron's (Good name for Denver), A-holes (Good name for Oakland).
I see nothing wrong with most team names, although the Cleveland Indian logo is a bit much.
That's my .02
05-02-2001, 07:05 AM
47 - not as long as we let it. We started a minor league (very minor I might add) here in the city and the name was supposed to the the "Soos". Well, after some complaining from the local reservations they threw that out, and put it up to a vote. Needless to say, I came up with a few names...
05-02-2001, 07:33 AM
This topic always reminds me of one of Norm McDonald's best jokes.
"Native Americans protested outside last weeks Redskins' game by shouting, pacing, and brandishing placards. . . It didn't help their cause when, two minutes into their protest, it began to rain."
05-02-2001, 07:37 AM
As someone who is almost full blooded Indian (3/4), I'll throw in my 75 cents.
Do any of you remember the posters that were made called "The Tribe"? It was comprised of the Chiefs D. And, yes, DT is in it. He was named Chief Iron Eyes. The posters were done as a fund raiser for the Heart of America Indian Center in KC.
The photo shoot involved many people from the Indian community. They contributed the regalia that was worn by the players. Albert Lewis (Bear Paw) is wearing a set of bear claws. Not too many people ever get to do that. Much less get to hold a fan made from eagle feathers and intricate bead work that has been passed down many generations.
Those guys from the old D had a blast. And they hung around long after the shoot was finished because they were asking a lot of questions. Their curiousity was piqued.
So, I figure it was a good thing. And imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Mocking, however, is juvenile.
And the Cleveland cartoon is stupid IMHO. If I want to see a cartoon there is Warner Bros. and Bugs Bunny. Or Cartman ;) Thank goodness.
05-02-2001, 08:31 AM
When you think about it native americans are not really indigenous to North America as they migrated from Asia.
Clint in Wichita
05-02-2001, 08:45 AM
They were the first humans in North America, therefore, they are Native Americans. Nobody has the right to tell members of another race what is or is not offensive to them.
05-02-2001, 08:56 AM
Clint - let me make sure I have this straight. I have NO RIGHT to discourse with another human being regarding the merits of their position on an issue, if I do not share that person's race? I can see where it could, to varying degrees, be discourteous or unwelcome, but no RIGHT?
How about the propriety of assuming that a race is monolothic on "what is offensive to them?"
05-02-2001, 02:39 PM
"light bulbs" would be an insensitive name to use for a team mascot...it could be used to mock the "dim Bulbs" on the team by opposing fans....and promotes use of electricty made by burning fossil fuels....increasing global warming.
the "parking lots" is insensitive because large concrete parking lots increase the "urban heat island effect" which contributes to temperature thermoclines in urban environments....which increase SMOG concentrations....which is environmentally irresponsible as well.
BTW...The Oklahoma state "cowboy" is offensive to me...It implies that we all wear big hats and walk bow legged and chew on straw....count out the cowboys while you're at it.
maybe "spotted owls" and "speckled monkeywolves" would be more appropriate...or the "Mighty Snipe"
I suppose Casino entrances are the only place that Indian symbols are respectable...drinking and gambling....wampum and glass beads.
05-02-2001, 03:01 PM
I am personally offended by the thought of the "Light Bulbs" as I belong to the often maligned, mistrusted, and generally joked about sector of the population known as Folically Challenged. Opposing fans would mock me if I did not wear a hat, and if I did wear a team hat they would say that our teams logo was really a picture of my head. I feel oppressed.
-Never mind, it's really a solar panel for a sex machine.
Clint in Wichita
05-02-2001, 04:02 PM
How about the San Antonio Spics?
The Green Bay Gooks?
San Diego Sand Diggers?
None of those are offensive to ME.
05-02-2001, 04:42 PM
I look at a name like "Indians" the same way I look at "Spartans" or "Trojans" or "Cowboys."
05-02-2001, 06:17 PM
Clint - Being the first in an area does not make you a native.
I was born in North America, therefore I am a Native American.
If someone owns a name, it shouldn't be used by anyone else. If you don't own it and you are offended - boycott 'em. But trying to steal their name is ridiculous.
****** was not an offensive word 100 years ago. Negro was not offensive 50 years ago. I imagine that with the advent of 'African American' that 'black' will be an offensive term in another 50 years.
Fairy and gay were not offensive 50 years ago.
Changing names because someone is offended is assinine. The Washington Bullets and the St Johns Redman were the biggest cowards on this hemisphere. To allow someone else to think for you and tell you what is right with no proof is ridiculous.
05-02-2001, 06:20 PM
"How about the San Antonio Spics?
The Green Bay Gooks?
San Diego Sand Diggers? "
By all means, BUY a team and name them that. You have the right to do so.
05-02-2001, 07:04 PM
You need to learn how to speak your mind and not worry so much about what other people will think. :D
keg in kc
05-02-2001, 07:24 PM
Being the first in an area does not make you a native.
Fine, call them the Aboriginal Americans if you'd rather. The fact remains that they were the original inhabitants of this continent before being virtually (and actively) wiped-out by western European countries, and then the United States.
That's called "genocide," and the United States has had a long history of condemning that activity, as long as it's someone else perpetrating the crime. We condemn the actions of Hitler against the Jews while at the same time refuse to recognize that an entire branch of humanity was very nearly removed from the face of the earth, and by us.
I don't have a problem with teams being named "Indians" or "Redskins" or anything of that nature. It's only disrespectful to someone if they have a political agenda and/or want publicity. And I'm someone with numerous ethnicities, ranging from Dutch to German to even Cherokee, so chances are there's some name out there that some folks think is disrespectful to some ancestor of mine, whereas I, on the other hand, realize we're dealing with sports teams and that not every word uttered is meant as an insult.
Not a very good representation of my views, but in short I think the actions of PETA and other groups against certain sports franchises regarding their names is simply idiotic...
I just couldn't let that little stab against "Native Americans go" though. My statements on that are not political correctness, rather I consider them looking at history clearly and without nationalistic and racist bias. I am the melting pot, as they say, so I have ancestry on both sides of the fence. My English and French ancestry did wipe out my Native American, or Aboriginal, ancestry, and to recognize that is simply facing the reality of history.
05-02-2001, 08:16 PM
That's the way it was all through history. One tribe moved into another tribes area. Using Europe for an example, one of three things happened:
1) One of the two tribes exterminated and or drove out the other one (Angles and Saxons over the Celts, Huns over the Germanic tribes, Slavs over the Huns, etc.)
2) One of the two tribes subsumed the other one (didn't kill them all off, but destroyed their heritage and replaced it with their own. (Visigoths over the Franks, Moors over the Visigoths, Normans over the Saxons, etc.)
3) One of the two tribes made vassals of the other
(Romans over the Greeks, Romans over the Gauls, French over the Burgundians, Prussians over the Germans, Poles over the Lithuanians, etc.)
It is truly a 20th Century phenominon to conquer a country and NOT incorporate it into your own holdings. What was done to the Aboriginal Americans is nothing different than what has been done since time immemorial. While we may look back into history with a jaded eye, it is quite unfair to impose 20th (now 21st) Century norms and values on people who lived hundreds of years before us.
Just as people who live in the 23rd Century will certainly look back at those barbarians in the 21st Century. :D
keg in kc
05-02-2001, 08:38 PM
This is not ancient history from hundreds and/or thousands of years ago. The eradication of the aboriginal people of the North American continent continued into the "enlightenment" of the late nineteenth and, in fact, early twentieth centuries, less than a single century ago. It is no more a part of the distant past than is the Civil War and is a part of the heritage and history of this country, not something to be disregarded or conveniently swept under the rug. It was written in the late eighteenth century that "all people are created equal" with a right to "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness".
As long as they aren't "Native Americans" I suppose...
It's yet another example that we should use to help us understand the what drives this great land.
Not freedom. Not equality.
Anyway, I digress, this isn't the real subject here. I concur with the rest of you folks that the pressure on sports franchises such as has been discussed is ridiculous. Certain mascots (such as the Cleveland Indians logo) I can understand people voicing concern over but to condemn a franchise for being called the "Indians" is ridiculous, no less ridiculous than PETA trying to get Green Bay to change their name from the "Packers"...
i buy the kansas city football franchise and need to name it, i struggle with the decision, and decide to let the fans decide, its voted upon, and the winner is: The Chiefs.......people are happy because we just named our team after our hated, despised, former inhabinates, the native americans??????........wrong.....they are happy because the name has a nice ring to it, and represents a certian spirit that they can identify with.....
anyone who says a team name is racist is crazy........better yet, over sensitive.........ok, maybe it is offensive to some people, but i would be more for sending these people to sensitivity training rather than changing my team's name
i say rewind 30 years, when beer was cheap, women were loose, and no one was sensitive
05-02-2001, 10:40 PM
The Great U.S.A. has a long tradition of Genocide from the Native Americans to the Philipines, from ostracizing the Chinese to barring the Irish from jobs. We would like to hold Germany responsible for the mass slaughtering of the Jews, when most the Germans were not even born then.. well.. we are responsible as well...
Just a moral statement, not a remark on sports teams, I know. I don't have a problem with Seminoles, or Indians.. but Reds? Redskins? Yes, those are slightly offensive... We are discussing a time when you killed an Indian and traded his "savage" skin as a commodity.
We should be ashamed, and not need someone else to remind us... I guess High School forgot to teach this, just like I never heard about the U.S. Japanese Concentration Camps during WWII.
05-02-2001, 11:55 PM
I always thought the name "Chiefs" was given by Lamar out of respect for the nickname of that current Mayor in Kansas City.
Speaking of name changes...
It went from the "N" Bomb to Coloreds to Blacks and now African Americans correct?
Can somebody explain why this proud race has not changed the name of the N.A.A.C.P. ?
Not as catchy I guess.....
05-03-2001, 02:48 AM
Good one, Cal!
05-03-2001, 04:07 AM
Since the usual suspects declined to pick up Iowanian's suggestion and run with it, Bob Dole feels the need to step in. [insert throat clearing noise here]
Kansas City should definitely jump on the "Mighty Snipes" name, since Carl Peterson has left all the KC fans sitting in the woods and holding the bag waiting for him to deliver a championship.
05-03-2001, 06:34 AM
I always thought that Cincinatti's baseball team name was short for Redlegs, not unlike the Boston Red Stockings or the New York Knickerbockers. The Redlegs being the nickname for certain Union troops, then adopted by the US Army Artillery units. (320th Artillery Regiment specifically)
I could be wrong, but I do know over time several teams original names have been truncated.
And refering to the Chiefs, I work with the Grandson of the original rider of Warpaint. He was full blooded Osage Indian and talking to his grandson, the name Chiefs certainly wasn't offensive to him. Apparently Lamar's nickname for him was Chief also, which he took as a distinct complement, coming from Lamar.
(just a little trivia there for you).
05-03-2001, 07:46 AM
San Diego Sand Diggers?
Hate to disillusion you further, Clint. But the few times I've heard this term used, it wasn't sand [d]iggers the person was saying.
05-03-2001, 01:54 PM
If my kid is too big of a sissy to play dodgeball, the kids at school won't have to kick his @rse...I will.
05-03-2001, 09:40 PM
KEG - No disrespect was meant to any people, I was merely stating a fact regarding "native" Americans.
For those of you who believe that teams are OBLIGATED to change their names, answer me this:
Hypothetically - The word 'Clint' (Clint, don't interpret as a slam, you are merely an example here) takes on a slang term meaning a derogatory term for South Americans. The word 'Clint' is now the worst derogatory term in American History.
Is Clint obligated to go to court and have his name changed? Is Clint obligated to pay for this name change out of his own pocket?
If you answer "NO" to either of the questions, why do you expect a corporation to be obligated to your whims if you do not expect individuals to be obligated to them?
05-03-2001, 09:45 PM
KEG - To be further specific - I was born in North America; therefore, I am a "Native American". However, my lineage is not.
I find that most who insist that life is unfair due to a prejudice are the first to point out differences due to our cultures. If you don't want the differences to make a difference, then quit pointing them out.
Geronimo, Sitting Bull, Clarence Thomas, Connie Chung, and myself are ALL "Native" Americans.
05-03-2001, 09:51 PM
By the way...
Most Indians don't call themselves "native". Except for the ones that have bought into political correctness. Like the ones screaming for team name changes.
05-04-2001, 05:14 AM
Good Keerist, Iowanian... It's not even 7am and Bob Dole is ready to leave the country (again). What a pack of f*cking <b>whiners.</b>
"When it's played with the traditional rules, the kids who need the most practice are eliminated," she [Juditch C. Young] said. "Physical education classes are supposed to make kids like physical activity. There aren't any other activities even in real sports where the idea is to throw things at people. We throw things to be caught, but not to hit people."
Last time Bob Dole played, you <b>could</b> catch the d@mned ball and the person who threw it was out... Maybe the b#tch ought to learn the rules before she publicly comments on it.
05-04-2001, 07:31 AM
she obviously hasn't watched much boxing, hockey, baseball when a pitch comes in high-n-tight...things are "thrown" at opponents all the time...hell, even in Denver, you have to duck the duracells at a football game.
People like this are the ones who are making kids fat...."have another cookie little billy, you could get stung by a bee if you play outside...and the ground is soooo dirty."
I've come up with a new PC name that includes most residents and isn't descriminating of Pirates...Raiders is derogatory...
The Oakland "Looters" sounds better to me ;) or the LA Riot...whereever they play this year.
05-04-2001, 08:11 AM
It's just amazing to Bob Dole that these people manage to function at all.
Let's see...no dodgeball because it makes the slow kids feel inferior. No basketball because short kids will be damaged. No track because slow kids will suffer damage to their self esteem.
We need to make sure there's no math team or chess team, because the stupid kids might actually realize they're not really suited to pursue a career as a rocket scientist. Same for debate competition--the ones with language skill deficiencies and no critical thinking abilities might feel bad about themselves.
Better do away with band and choir...wouldn't want the tone-deaf to feel insecure about singing First Monotone...
Like the topic said: Will this type of sh#t ever end?
Ok, Yevettevoice, Here I am, I'm another refugee from the Stars Message board.
I don't think most team names are the problem, it's special interst groups.
Except for one name I will not pick on, I think in many ways we have honored and remembered the traditions and history of the native americans through professional sports venues.
05-04-2001, 11:44 AM
This type of $hit wouldn't happen so often if the wonderful press didn't plaster it all over the TV, radio and internet.
05-04-2001, 07:39 PM
Obviously you need to go visit with Professor Knowles again.
I say screw dodge ball. SMEAR THE QUEER WAS MUCH MORE FUN!!!
05-05-2001, 10:09 PM
Ahhh... Smear the Queer!
THAT was a great game (especially when you took the ball and stuffed it in the ribs of the wimpy guy and then dogpiled the hell out of him)!
Speaking of canines, anybody ever play the game called "Bulldog"?
05-05-2001, 10:13 PM
What 's bulldog? I have played bull in the ring a few times.
05-05-2001, 10:23 PM
Rules of Bulldog:
One guy stands in the middle of the field (The Bulldog)with every other player facing him about 10-20 yards away. He then yells "Bulldog" and everybody runs from that line to the other line 10-20 yards behind him.
The Bulldog attempts to tackle somebody. If successful, there are now 2 "Bulldogs". This is repeated every time with the numbers slowly changing in the "Bulldogs" favor.
Eventually there is only one guy remaining to be tackled with about 10-15 "Bulldogs" in the center of the field. This remaining guy is the new "Bulldog" and is given temporary glory as the toughest SOB on the field.
The game gets quite chaotic when you get 8-10 "Bulldogs" trying to tackle an equal number of runners trying to make it through to the other side.
This was testosterone at its zenith!!!
05-05-2001, 10:31 PM
That sounds pretty damn cool!
vBulletin® v3.8.8, Copyright ©2000-2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.