Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Cleveland MLB team reportedly considering name change


Nine of twelve
 Share

 

Fighting Irish?   Difference maybe giving the name to themselves when they had a team and school full of Irish Catholics.     Just looking at a list of team names.   Marlins, Brewers, Twins, Rangers, Astros  Rockies and Mariners all have pretty good names that relate to their area and appear to have had some thought put into them.  

 

I put together an article for the opinion page of the paper just a week ago from a national opinion writer that stated his home team in Texas should remove the team name of the Rangers due to a brutal and terrible history of that organization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well just like The University of Notre Dame, the team was founded by and created for people of Irish descent. Unlike the Native American team, names those truly were created to represent the make-up of their markets. The Irish are to Boston what Norwegians are to Minnesota.

Notre Dame is in South Bend Indiana.

 

I know it’s easy to assume Boston, as it seems like every big higher ed institution is in Boston....

 

;)

 

Seriously though, if Notre Dame said they were changing their mascot because of cultural sensitivity, I’d support that. Fighting any ethnicity isn’t exactly inclusive, is it? We don’t really think of people with Irish Heritage as persecuted, but the Know-Nothing Party (Nativist anti-Irish political party) had significant clout in the 1850s.

 

“As a nation, we began by declaring that ‘all men are created equal.’ We now practically read it ‘all men are created equal, except negroes.’ When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read ‘all men are created equal, except negroes and foreigners and Catholics.’“ -Abraham Lincoln

 

Notre Dame is an Irish Catholic school, so not the same as the other examples, but a piece of our history to be remembered, not celebrated

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

See, it's this kind of strawman argument, even meant humorously, that sets people's teeth on edge. It amounts to trivializing actual offense.
 

If it is an actual offense (I am not saying it isn't) then you are 100% correct.

I understand what I am going to type is very anecdotal, My buddy of over 30 years is 100% Ojibwe (White Earth) and has license plates covers of the KC Chiefs (and has had for as long as I remember) and when he was over helping with my floors was wearing a Braves hat.

In the past we have talked about the issue and he said his family and friends from on and off the reservation love most of the teams with Native American mascots (except the Indians, didn't ask why), but are not fans of white or black people dressing up like them, but since most associate more with their heritage then the state they live in, they felt like those were their teams. Also a native American families on block growing up always flew a Chiefs flag, and I asked why once and they said it was the closest Native team.

With that being said I would never say a team should or should not change the mascot, I don't have a horse in this race and would never feel comfortable telling somebody they should or shouldn't be offended by it. I think the leagues need to have a real conversation with the Native Communities around each team and basically let them decide. For example if the majority the native communities around a team wants or doesn't want they name, that should be the decision. for example in most around the Washington area want the name change, change it, but if the majority around Missouri don't, then don't change the Chiefs, and tell everybody else too darn bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Notre Dame is in South Bend Indiana.

I know it’s easy to assume Boston, as it seems like every big higher ed institution is in Boston....

;)

Seriously though, if Notre Dame said they were changing their mascot because of cultural sensitivity, I’d support that. Fighting any ethnicity isn’t exactly inclusive, is it? We don’t really think of people with Irish Heritage as persecuted, but the Know-Nothing Party (Nativist anti-Irish political party) had significant clout in the 1850s.

“As a nation, we began by declaring that ‘all men are created equal.’ We now practically read it ‘all men are created equal, except negroes.’ When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read ‘all men are created equal, except negroes and foreigners and Catholics.’“ -Abraham Lincoln

Notre Dame is an Irish Catholic school, so not the same as the other examples, but a piece of our history to be remembered, not celebrated

 

If my post implied Notre Dame was in Boston, that was unintentional. I was just pointing out that like the Celtics, the Fighting Irish were in fact founded and named by Irish Catholics for Irish Catholics.

 

I also could care less if they changed their name. I might scratch my head over the need to do so for some team names, but I'd not go on a rant about it. If they no longer feel it's representative enough, that's more than fair and fine by me. That goes for any of the teams I actually do care about as well. I cheer for my local teams, not the cartoon they choose to use as their logo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dale Murphy suggested that the Braves change to the Hammers in honor of Hank Aaron. I'd be all in favor of that.

It could catch on...

The Atlanta Hammers

The New York Babies (or Sultans)

The St Louis Men

The San Francisco Kids

The Baltimore Robinsons

The Cincinnati Hustlers

The Detroit Peaches

The Seattle Juniors (or Units, or Kings)

The Washington Big Trains

The Boston Splinters (or Big Daddies)

The Minnesota Killers

 

Never mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If it is an actual offense (I am not saying it isn't) then you are 100% correct.

I understand what I am going to type is very anecdotal, My buddy of over 30 years is 100% Ojibwe (White Earth) and has license plates covers of the KC Chiefs (and has had for as long as I remember) and when he was over helping with my floors was wearing a Braves hat.

In the past we have talked about the issue and he said his family and friends from on and off the reservation love most of the teams with Native American mascots (except the Indians, didn't ask why), but are not fans of white or black people dressing up like them, but since most associate more with their heritage then the state they live in, they felt like those were their teams. Also a native American families on block growing up always flew a Chiefs flag, and I asked why once and they said it was the closest Native team.

With that being said I would never say a team should or should not change the mascot, I don't have a horse in this race and would never feel comfortable telling somebody they should or shouldn't be offended by it. I think the leagues need to have a real conversation with the Native Communities around each team and basically let them decide. For example if the majority the native communities around a team wants or doesn't want they name, that should be the decision. for example in most around the Washington area want the name change, change it, but if the majority around Missouri don't, then don't change the Chiefs, and tell everybody else too darn bad.

 

An issue with that...while it's often incorrect imagery, many of the images portrayed into popular folklore about indigenous people comes from states where there is no local professional team or where they wouldn't have say in a professional team using their likeness. For instance, artist renditions of the Wounded Knee massacre and of many Sioux chiefs and warriors inspired logos and images that are still used today in some places by teams, yet Sioux tribes wouldn't be privy to a discussion with the Indians, Braves, or Chiefs as they're not a local tribe in your proposed agreement with local tribes solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

An issue with that...while it's often incorrect imagery, many of the images portrayed into popular folklore about indigenous people comes from states where there is no local professional team or where they wouldn't have say in a professional team using their likeness. For instance, artist renditions of the Wounded Knee massacre and of many Sioux chiefs and warriors inspired logos and images that are still used today in some places by teams, yet Sioux tribes wouldn't be privy to a discussion with the Indians, Braves, or Chiefs as they're not a local tribe in your proposed agreement with local tribes solution.

So your point is we shouldn't let the Native Americans decide what they are offended by?  (There should be some way to do it)

My guess is there are lots of Natives that are offended by the names (maybe some names more than other names) and there lots of Natives that will be offended by the names being changed.

I guess I don't believe my opinion matters on changing the names, unless of course the majority of Natives decided a name should be changed but isn't then I would speak up, but I don't think so highly of myself to decide which side of the Native Americans should be on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I taught for a year out on the Three Affiliated Tribes (Fort Berthold) Reservation.  When I started there I exclusively used the term Native American and they laughed at me.  They preferred the term Indians.

 

It was a bit odd to me, but they would wear Braves, Chiefs, etc. headgear.  I don't recall seeing any Chief Wahoo though.

 

I do recall them not being a fan of the Washington Redskins name or gear, and they were pretty vocal about that one.

 

Most of the students and adults seemed to defer to the Sioux tribes opinions about UND's name though, as most of them didn't identify as Sioux.  I assume that the same would hold true for other specific tribal names such as the Seminoles and Aztecs.

 

My Take: Chief Wahoo was definitely bad, and Washington should definitely change their name.  The specific tribal names should be left to the tribes.  

 

IDK about the generic names like Braves, Chiefs, and Indians though.  IDK the percentages across the board, but I can anecdotally say that the students I had seemed to view those more as homages then insults.  There might be better information I'm missing and I'm welcome to hear it.

That is what I was always told in my limited conversations with Indians. Yet, even here, people prefer to assign them Native Americans. Interesting, no? 

 

From another poster:

"The problem is this: naming a mascot after a now-living ethnic group--we don't do this to any group except First Nations people."

I guess, regardless of the qualification, we find from further discussion, that this is not true. Although, Indians and variations are certainly preferred in the history of naming athletic teams. And I don't know that I am part of the proverbial "we" when it comes to naming.

 

The Negro Leagues 100 year anniversary just passed, and celebrations recently happened. There is no call by anyone, as far as I know, to change the name of the leagues that were, nor the name of Negro Leagues Baseball Museum in KC. In fact, those involved that still live would be furious if somone, anyone or group, tried to change it, even those of their own race.

 

https://theapopkavoice.com/on-the-100th-anniversary-of-the-negro-leagues-a-look-back-at-what-was-lost/

 

The main point I would make in this discussion, is that "Redskins" is nothing like Braves, Warriors, Chiefs, Seminoles, and Indians. It is so far to the extreme, and there is no question of honor. To classify without nuance is irresponsible and accademically unsound. I don't have the answer(s) going forward, but just like people trying to say Colin Kaepernick was saying something he wasn't by kneeling, and not listening to the only message it had, I will ignore the prejudice. I will tend to pay most attention to the Tribal people who are being offended, or not (as many aren't), and not the blevy of extemporaneous opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So your point is we shouldn't let the Native Americans decide what they are offended by?  (There should be some way to do it)

My guess is there are lots of Natives that are offended by the names (maybe some names more than other names) and there lots of Natives that will be offended by the names being changed.

I guess I don't believe my opinion matters on changing the names, unless of course the majority of Natives decided a name should be changed but isn't then I would speak up, but I don't think so highly of myself to decide which side of the Native Americans should be on.

 

I am confused how this response was brought from my comment. I quite literally stated that Natives should have a say, but that the solution that you proposed would exclude indigenous people who happen not to live in that particular region, which to me excludes those who should have a voice on a name. I don't believe my voice is imperative, but the voices of those who have directly felt the impact of what has been done to Native persons in this country absolutely deserve a voice, whether they are next door or across the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the record, I heard that Property Brothers Drew and Jonathan Scott are none too pleased with the way Minnie and Paul characterize twins as egg-shaped persons with exaggerated torsos and spindly little legs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It could catch on...
The Atlanta Hammers
The New York Babies (or Sultans)
The St Louis Men
The San Francisco Kids
The Baltimore Robinsons
The Cincinnati Hustlers
The Detroit Peaches
The Seattle Juniors (or Units, or Kings)
The Washington Big Trains
The Boston Splinters (or Big Daddies)
The Minnesota Killers

Never mind.

Boston Big Daddies would be hilarious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I wonder if the Celtics are getting pressured.

 

"Today, the term Celtic generally refers to the languages and respective cultures of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, the Isle of Man, and Brittany, also known as the Celtic nations. These are the regions where four Celtic languages are still spoken to some extent as mother tongues."

Celtic culture is ancient.  Again, not applicable.  I'm little disappointed that's your response to my poast, truth be told.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Celtic culture is ancient.  Again, not applicable.  I'm little disappointed that's your response to my poast, truth be told.  

 

No it isn't just the past. Still celebrated. Still used. Language still spoken. Still claimed. As the quote informs. Look it up. But nevermind. You be right. The examples weren't to put a line in the sand. Rhetorical. You are missing other nuances of my contributions to the discussion and missing my point and making it personal.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it isn't just the past. Still celebrated. Still used. Language still spoken. Still claimed. As the quote informs. Look it up. But nevermind. You be right. The examples weren't to put a line in the sand. Rhetorical. You are missing other nuances of my contributions to the discussion and missing my point and making it personal.

mod note: you too. Quit the bickering
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Atlanta Hammers

The New York Babies (or Sultans)

The St Louis Men

The San Francisco Kids

The Baltimore Robinsons

The Cincinnati Hustlers

The Detroit Peaches

The Seattle Juniors (or Units, or Kings)

The Washington Big Trains

The Boston Splinters (or Big Daddies)

The Minnesota Killers

 

Brooklyn Dodgers

New York Yankees

Boston Braves

Kansas City Cowboys

Green Bay Packers

Louisville Colonels

Duluth Kelleys

 

... all are early NFL football teams.

 

It’s intereting. I don’t know what it tells us, other than times change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So your point is we shouldn't let the Native Americans decide what they are offended by?  (There should be some way to do it)

My guess is there are lots of Natives that are offended by the names (maybe some names more than other names) and there lots of Natives that will be offended by the names being changed.

I guess I don't believe my opinion matters on changing the names, unless of course the majority of Natives decided a name should be changed but isn't then I would speak up, but I don't think so highly of myself to decide which side of the Native Americans should be on.

 

We also have to take into consideration that there is a real tendency, particularly with men, to say something doesn't bother them when it actually does. Lots of people feel that acknowledging a personal feeling of slight or displeasure is a sign of weakness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

We also have to take into consideration that there is a real tendency, particularly with men, to say something doesn't bother them when it actually does. Lots of people feel that acknowledging a personal feeling of slight or displeasure is a sign of weakness.

So we shouldn't take what people say about their feeling as their word, and we should assume what they mean and project what we think they mean? Yup, don't see any issues with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

See, it's this kind of strawman argument, even meant humorously, that sets people's teeth on edge. It amounts to trivializing actual offense.
 

I was serious on both counts, I wasn`t trying to make any argument. Like I said, I know many Native Americans that are not offended by sports team Indian names but if the real Native Americans are indeed offended then the clubs should change their names. I am also honestly offended by the Twins & Twinkies name for reasons I stated. I love the players throughout the years & will continue to support the team even if they don`t change their name. I just thought it`d be nice to have their name changed, my opinion only

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So we shouldn't take what people say about their feeling as their word, and we should assume what they mean and project what we think they mean? Yup, don't see any issues with that.

 

Or you don't have to put those historically oppressed people on the spot and just do the right thing anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Though I`m a very diehard Twin fan, I`d like to see our baseball team change their name. Twins name came from Cal Griffin & "Twinkies"  to me is offensive. I`d prefer the name "Lumberjacks" or "Bombers" 

 

I'm fine with the Twins. I call the Twin Cities home, even though I don't live there currently (but I will again when I retire.) But I do detest 'Twinkies.' I think that is used more by opposing fans than anyone else, kind of like us referring to the Yankees as something else that rhymes with Yankees. But no matter what we would change it to, opposing fans will find some nickname we don't like. But if they would ever change their name, I like the idea of the Lumberjacks ... we could get Thome back to do some Paul Bunyan commercials for us! ;) But Bombers? As in the Bronx Bombers? No thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Or you don't have to put those historically oppressed people on the spot and just do the right thing anyway.

What if you are wrong and it isn't the right thing? Imagine if you were in charge of the naming of Florida State? I guess I don't think I am superior to the Native Americans so I would never feel I have the right to speak for them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What if you are wrong and it isn't the right thing? Imagine if you were in charge of the naming of Florida State? I guess I don't think I am superior to the Native Americans so I would never feel I have the right to speak for them.

 

Native American groups have been asking for change for decades. We've known the right thing to do for years, some people are just still trying to justify not doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Native American groups have been asking for change for decades. We've known the right thing to do for years, some people are just still trying to justify not doing it.

Just got off the phone with my buddy (mentioned in a previous post) I asked him if they sent out a questionnaire to everybody that is 50% native or above how they would answer a question(s) is the name Redskins offensive, is the Braves name offensive, and the same for the Chiefs, Braves, Black Hawks.

He answer was 50% wouldn't respond because they don't trust the white man, 50% would say all are offensive so they could complain about the white man taking another Indian tribute away,10-20% would say the names are offensive because they thought they were, 50% would say the names that aren't their favorite team are offensive. He said he knew his math didn't add up but generally speaking that is how he believes it would come out.

So you are right, change all the names and deal with the complaining that comes along with it, if people don't know what is good for them we need tell them what is.

(He is a Chiefs fan and said he would never remove the license plate cover he has had for 30 years)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

The Twins Daily Caretaker Fund
The Twins Daily Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premiere Twins community on the internet.

×
×
  • Create New...