Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Finally
A thread I can comment on with some kind of good confidence.
"Yesh-na-ma" or "Lemututz".. pardon my spelling here, but this is as close as I can get......
These two words mean "Silly" or "Useless" in native tounge... *Blackfoot and Cayuse*
North Central Montana to Northeast Oregon.
Has anyone of those politically correct boobs in D.C. ever bothered to ask our native American friends what they think about all of this nonsense?
I don't know about many of you folks, but my native American friends think that this sort of thing is useless and silly..... "You whites worry about silly things", I am told.
You know?.. I think I can agree with that statement.
One of the biggest problems "us whites" have, is that we always worry about what's unimportant. (I am told)
Many of my native American friends sit back in amusement over stuff like this.
They resent the fact that the white government has chosen to think or otherwise decide for them, when they are perfectly able to decide for themselves.
I addressed your post, and what I said STILL STANDS. People who get offended over things that aren't even MEANT to be offensive should get over themselves and grow a skin.
I mean, there's WAY more important stuff to worry about, like the survival of our nation, for one. This kind of petty garbage does nothing but muddy the waters and hide the REAL discrimination practiced by our ruling elite.
The Negro League in baseball had a team called the Georgia Crackers.
Big Effing deal.
How do you know what the original intent was? Most of these names were established in a time period where racism was very evident in our pop culture. Who's to really say whether offense was meant or not. May of been more subtle, or subconscious for that time period. Even if not, the offense is there.
As an example which coincides with what CelticLady1 had stated, in our early cinematic history, we used as comedy effect, Black American actors to portray their race as afraid of their own shadow. Broadway shows utilized white performers who painted their faces black and were called minstrels. This was highly offensive, and eventually was removed. Now, we're amazingly able to see the offensiveness of it. What do you think the majority said back then? Probably, the same type of things we're saying now in regards to this issue where many Native American representatives have made it perfectly clear these mascots are deeply offensive.
Do you think that if someone in Hollywood wanted to bring back the Montan Moreland type image to the screen, and someone in Broadway wanted to bring back the black faced minstrel, that he should be allowed to? I'm not talking about a Spike Lee movie where it's just a one movie occasion, but on a regular basis? When Black Americans inevitably would oppose it protest, would you tell them to grow thick skin?
It's a similar issue in some ways with the sports teams. The Cleveland Indians have a facial logo on their cap which is similar to an old "Loony Tunes" character. Back then, Loony Tunes was laced with degrading racial depictions. The name Redskins has a very negative connotation in it's meaning by referring to one who was scalped.
Names like Cowboys and Vikings are not the same. We never attempted genocide on Norwegians, Irish, or cowboys.
As far as the nickname Crackers, why do you think we can type and post that word? Why is it that we don't call it the 'C' word like we do the 'N' word? Not because of political correctiveness so much as it is flat out extremely offensive.
It's true, not all Native Americans feel it's an issue. They've taken surveys and the whole bit. But in every racial issue that has ever taken place in our history, even in some very extreme incidences, this has been the case. But, even still there have been enough individuals who felt the change had to come. It's not always about how one personally is effected. It also has to do with how others in the given racial group or ethnicity see it how it affects others personally, and how it affects their ethnic group culturally.
Are you going to break out the 6 string and give us a rousing rendition of 'Kumbayah' now???
The reason that 'Cracker' is acceptable speech is that it, along with redneck, gringo and hillbilly are all directed at WHITE people. I'm only HALF white and I see it as CLEAR AS DAY.
And 'WE' never attempted genocide on ANYBODY. Take your white 'guilt trip' and lay it on someone else.
Are you going to break out the 6 string and give us a rousing rendition of 'Kumbayah' now???
The reason that 'Cracker' is acceptable speech is that it, along with redneck, gringo and hillbilly are all directed at WHITE people. I'm only HALF white and I see it as CLEAR AS DAY.
And 'WE' never attempted genocide on ANYBODY. Take your white 'guilt trip' and lay it on someone else.
We want to get technical over the fact that we weren't born, so therefore you want me to be politically correct by saying "they"? As far as singing kumbayah, you're welcome to leave this campfire anytime.
I addressed your post, and what I said STILL STANDS. People who get offended over things that aren't even MEANT to be offensive should get over themselves and grow a skin.
I mean, there's WAY more important stuff to worry about, like the survival of our nation, for one. This kind of petty garbage does nothing but muddy the waters and hide the REAL discrimination practiced by our ruling elite.
The Negro League in baseball had a team called the Georgia Crackers.
What was that, 50-60 years ago?? Hopefully we've progressed a bit beyond that! Look, I'm not saying it's a huge deal, and in fact I've never given it too much thought... but if the people it affects are offended, we can at least have the courtesy to address their concerns (as CelticLady said). If they are in fact offended, that is, which I really don't know the answer to. My ex-boyfriend is 50% Native American, and never had any problem with this stuff - but he obviously can't speak for the entire NA population.
What if those of European descent object to "Vikings" as a mascot? and "Pirates" "Buckaneers" "Raiders". What if PETA protests the use of animal names? At some point it becomes unreasonable, and I think we are there. I do not know of any mascots chosen for any other reason than to portray the team/institution as a winner, and an opponent to be reakoned with.
How about those that are offended by the thought of changing a time honored tradition? Do they count?
I think the Chiefs got their name because "Chief" was Lamar Hunt's nickname. They couldn't very well use a guy in a suit and tie as the mascot, so a Native Chief with a headdress worked better. The arrowhead, the spear, the war paint all fit in better with the concept of courageous battle - the image football teams want.
What if those of European descent object to "Vikings" as a mascot? and "Pirates" "Buckaneers" "Raiders". What if PETA protests the use of animal names? At some point it becomes unreasonable, and I think we are there. I do not know of any mascots chosen for any other reason than to portray the team/institution as a winner, and an opponent to be reakoned with.
How about those that are offended by the thought of changing a time honored tradition? Do they count?
I don't think it's an issue of 'where do we draw the line'. It's been made very clear with specific reasons given as to why particular nicknames bring offense. It's just like old racial stereotypes in the movies we've done away with. No line to draw, we got rid of them for the obvious offense. We haven't gotten rid of it all, but some of it (for obvious reasons) you won't see anymore.
As far as animal mascots, it's not an apparent issue with PETA anyway. You're merely presenting "what ifs" in each scenario.
As far as the comment on the Atlanta Crackers, given certain time periods, words had various connotations. We can see that today. The term Canucks is a derogatory term for Canadiens. Yet, there's a team called the Vancouver Canucks un protested in the NHL. The term Yankees is a derogatory word that foreigners use, yet it's used proudly by the New York Yankees with a different connotation.
As far as time honored tradition? That goes back to the colleges usage issue. As far as professional sports, there's not a whole lot of time honored tradition as far as team owners are concerned. Cleveland named their NFL team after their coach. This is a very honoring gesture, and worthy of honored tradition. One of their owners packed up and left for Baltimore, so Cleveland obtained an expansion team, and called them the Cleveland Browns.
The Green Bay Packers have a unique community co-op ownership, so the team is unlikely to pack up and leave anytime soon. The name Packers has obviously not caused any offense to workers in the vicinity. Names like Redskins however do. Plain and simple. It's not all about the nicknames themselves as it's not a nit-picking issue. It often has to do with caricatures on logos. The Golden State Warriors didn't change their nickname. Instead they incorporated a mascot depicted as a Greek god if I'm not mistaken. I have yet to hear of any Greek American back-lash.
As far as animal mascots, it's not an apparent issue with PETA anyway. You're merely presenting "what ifs" in each scenario.
wrong.
In '01, PETA sent a letter to my alma mater, the U. of South Carolina, and to another university, demanding that we change our mascot, the "Gamecock". This started a big local controversy. Here is an excerpt from the letter sent to (former) USC president John Palms:
Quote:
Dear Dr. Palms,
The Washington Wizards basketball team did it, and now, on behalf of our more than 750,000 members and supporters, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is asking the Carolina Gamecocks to do it: make a long-overdue name change to better reflect society's increasing awareness of, sensitivity to, and rejection of needless violence in all its forms.
After deciding that they didn't want to be associated with lethal projectiles, the Washington Bullets changed their team's name to the Washington Wizards. On behalf of animal-respecting, law-abiding sports fans everywhere, we ask you, in all earnestness, to score points for kindness by benching the name Gamecocks. Show the nation that USC athletes are first-string champions of compassion. The ball is in your court and we're eager to know the final score.
Thank you for your consideration.
the president responded with:
Quote:
Dear Ms. Phelps:
This morning, I received your letter requesting that the University of South Carolina (USC) abandon its Gamecock mascot. For nearly 100 years, the University has celebrated the virtues of the Gamecock as its mascot, and we will continue to do so for as long as we are the University of South Carolina. Because your letter implies disgust with the Gamecock itself, I hope you will allow me the opportunity to provide some information about the Gamecock and its association with South Carolina and the University.
(goes on to explain the history of the Gamecock mascot, found here http://media.www.dailygamecock.com/media/storage/paper247/news/2001/10/19/News/Letter.From.Usc.President.John.Palms.To.Kristie.Ph elps.Of.Peta-128990.shtml (broken link))
As you can see, South Carolina and the Gamecock have a history that incorporates far more than the sport of cockfighting. While cockfighting is illegal in South Carolina, gamecocks are not.
The University of South Carolina is proud to be known as the Fighting Gamecocks, and we will remain so for many years to come.
It's been made very clear with specific reasons given as to why particular nicknames bring offense. It's just like old racial stereotypes in the movies we've done away with.
No, in fact is has not been made clear why those nicknames bring offense.
What kind of odd-ball team would pick a mascot with the intent of offending an ethnic group? Wouldn't that be self-deprecating on the part of the team? The whole point of a mascot is that it is brave, and noble. The Tigers, Eagles, Volunteers, Patriots, Trojans, Aggies, Huskies - it is always something to be proud of, by definition.
The Atlanta Braves, the Cleveland Indians, the FSU Seminoles - those names were chosen in order to honor Native Americans, and have nothing to do with "old racial stereotypes". What old racial stereotypes do these Indian mascots conjure up? Anything I can come up with is a major, major stretch, and isn't something that is condoned by the team anyway. As far as I'm concerned, this is a way for someone to get attention, and no more. The Oakland Athletics are offensive to fat people. The Nebraska Cornhuskers are offensive to farmers. The LSU/Clemson/Auburn/Detroit/etc. Tigers are offensive to Indians. The Notre Dame Fighting Irish are offensive to the Irish. The North Carolina Tarheels are offensive to slow people. The Duke Blue Devils are offensive to Christians. The Miami Dolphins are offensive to Tuna Fishermen. The Ohio State Buckeyes are offensive to the Sierra Club. The Michigan State Spartans are offensive to Greeks.
If, as you say, it is not the name that is offensive but the logo/imagery.. then what about North Dakota Fighting Sioux or the Illinois Fighting Illini? They are being harassed over this, and what is offensive about their logos?
Last edited by anonymous; 05-15-2007 at 10:05 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Look, I'm not saying it's a huge deal, and in fact I've never given it too much thought... but if the people it affects are offended, we can at least have the courtesy to address their concerns (as CelticLady said). If they are in fact offended, that is, which I really don't know the answer to. My ex-boyfriend is 50% Native American, and never had any problem with this stuff - but he obviously can't speak for the entire NA population.
What about tradition?
