Giant Octopodes |
11-01-2019 06:00 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mama Hip Rockets
(Post 14567528)
Seriously? You think Chief Wahoo and "Redskins" are compliments?
|
Yes? I mean, mascots are things you are emulating, with desirable characteristics. No one wants to play for the Portland Butterflies, for example. To say that the "Redskins" are a portrayal of anything other than something fierce, strong, terrifying to face in battle, and something whose characteristics are to be strived for, is disingenuous. Now, one might argue it is dehumanizing since so many mascots are animals (real or mythical) but that's only if you believe the athletes are sub human, since again they're trying to emulate the desirable characteristics of the mascot in question.
Is it poorly implemented and clumsy, and potentially disrespectful to a culture who is much more than simply their warrior caste? Of course. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a compliment to the ferocity of their warrior caste.
If another nation, whether China, Russia, North Korea, or whatever, conquered and then genocided the folks of the United States, then later had the "Americans" as a sports team as a recognition of their ferocity in battle, the terrible thing there would be their genocide of the folks of the United States, not the name of their sports team. Do you get that? Do you really think that the Washington Sports Team named themselves after something they felt was to be mocked, as a way to make fun of themselves? It would be like Detroit naming their team the House Cats. Do you really feel that is what has happened here?
|