Indians no more

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

The issue with Native mascots might go back decades, but it didn't gain momentum until mainstream media picked up the story, and that happened fairly recently relative to 20+ years you referenced. Maybe the push for changing the ND logo is on a similar trajectory, maybe it isn't given the same social credence, maybe nobody cares and it'll never be an actual issue. Regardless, the level of public outcry shouldn't be the determining factor. Cleveland's name didn't become more derogatory over those decades. You and I may not enjoy how the issue with the ND logo is being used, but that doesn't invalidate the larger point. I do think there are some people weaponizing actual oppression, but I'm not particularly interested in sorting out ethnic backgrounds or trying to create a criteria to determine which feelings are valid. Again, that's a can of worms that's best left closed. 

Bolded: Your attentiveness to the issue does not dictate when it began. I first read about this happening in the late 90s, with references it had been happening before that point. We now live in an age when information is at our fingertips. If you can find the equivalent of people protesting the Notre Dame nickname, please do so and post the evidence. Until then, stop equivocating and what-abouting and rebut my actual statement, which is the harm actual human beings feel about the Native-based names in question.

My "criteria" is actual people who feel harm done to them by a name. What is *your* criteria?

 

In short, stop it with vague whataboutisms and generalizations about human culture, which is an impossible bar to reach because humanity is ugly, convoluted, and contradictory. There is no consistency to be found here, we just try to shuffle along while hurting one another the least we can. Don't talk in the abstract, it does none of us any good.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

ND quite literally appropriated the term Fighting Irish. I'll reference my previous post about it's place in Irish culture. 

Using slurs against your culture or race to empower your own people is not appropriation. History, particularly modern history, is littered with words (I will not type here) that cultures use within their own boundaries because they were once awful slurs hurled at them by outsiders (almost universally, white protestant American males). Those cultures turned those hurtful words and phrases into power. It has happened time and time and time again.

 

This post is just gross.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Bolded: Your attentiveness to the issue does not dictate when it began. I first read about this happening in the late 90s, with references it had been happening before that point. We now live in an age when information is at our fingertips. If you can find the equivalent of people protesting the Notre Dame nickname, please do so and post the evidence. Until then, stop equivocating and what-abouting and rebut my actual statement, which is the harm actual human beings feel about the Native-based names in question.

My "criteria" is actual people who feel harm done to them by a name. What is *your* criteria?

 

In short, stop it with vague whataboutisms and generalizations about human culture, which is an impossible bar to reach because humanity is ugly, convoluted, and contradictory. There is no consistency to be found here, we just try to shuffle along while hurting one another the least we can. Don't talk in the abstract, it does none of us any good.

Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote. The push to change the Cleveland nickname didn't become more valid in the last 5 years. It isn't more derisive today than it was in the 90s when you read about it, or the decades that preceded that publication. That applies to ND as well.

 

A quick Google search turned up a few op-eds, some change.org petitions, and a peer reviewed article, although I'm not familiar with the journal. If necessary I can link them. I'm not seeing the equivocation you're referring to, my thoughts haven't been hidden. As far as the whataboutisms go, I haven't made any counter accusations directed at Cleveland changing their nickname. My position has continued to be "this is wrong too," in reference to the ND mascot. 

[KirbyDome89]

 

Using slurs against your culture or race to empower your own people is not appropriation. History, particularly modern history, is littered with words (I will not type here) that cultures use within their own boundaries because they were once awful slurs hurled at them by outsiders (almost universally, white protestant American males). Those cultures turned those hurtful words and phrases into power. It has happened time and time and time again.

 

This post is just gross.

That entire paragraph is the definition of appropriation.

 

Spare me the unsubstantive commentary and I'll return the courtesy. 

[Squirrel]

Moderator warning:

 

Enough. 

 

First, this discussion has gone well off the road. This topic is about Cleveland. If you want to continue this discussion about Notre Dame and other team names, approriation or whatnot ... you can PM one another, or start a discussion regarding team names in the Sports Bar forum. But I expect respectful discourse and a certain amount of hearing one another.

 

Second, Brock is right about the 'whataboutisms.' Stop doing that. Whether or not anyone's intent, it's part of what has driven this off topic. And now we're not talking about Cleveland, and this thread is now being equated to 'What about them? huh? If this, then that.' That constitutes thread jacking. http://twinsdaily.com/topic/8228-twins-daily-comment-policy/?p=164092 

 

If you have nothing further to say about Cleveland ownership deciding to change their name, move along.

[PDX Twin]

 

The issue with Native mascots might go back decades, but it didn't gain momentum until mainstream media picked up the story, and that happened fairly recently relative to 20+ years you referenced. 

 

It goes back more than 20 years. Stanford replaced the Indians about 50 years ago. While I was a graduate student there in the 1970s there was a great controversy about the replacement. At one point, there were 5 nicknames in circulation. The students voted for Robber Barons; the athletic department (which, of course, won) the Cardinal; the infamous marching band (which carried a lot of weight after managing to spell out OH S--T on national TV at the Rose Bowl) wanted the Tree; some other constituency favored the Sequoias; and (of course) the alumni wanted to keep the Indians. 

[biggentleben]

 

The issue with Native mascots might go back decades, but it didn't gain momentum until mainstream media picked up the story, and that happened fairly recently relative to 20+ years you referenced. Maybe the push for changing the ND logo is on a similar trajectory, maybe it isn't given the same social credence, maybe nobody cares and it'll never be an actual issue. Regardless, the level of public outcry shouldn't be the determining factor. Cleveland's name didn't become more derogatory over those decades. You and I may not enjoy how the issue with the ND logo is being used, but that doesn't invalidate the larger point. I do think there are some people weaponizing actual oppression, but I'm not particularly interested in sorting out ethnic backgrounds or trying to create a criteria to determine which feelings are valid. Again, that's a can of worms that's best left closed. 

The Braves' Chief Knockahoma was pushed out in the late 80s/early 90s. They had a logo changed due to it being an offensive representation in the 1970s. The issue goes back further than 20 years.

[biggentleben]

As far as the Braves are concerned, I've been a fan for a long time of doing a very minor adjustment to the present logo and renaming the team the Hammers in honor of its greatest player, "hammering" Hank Aaron.

[Nine of twelve]

 

As far as the Braves are concerned, I've been a fan for a long time of doing a very minor adjustment to the present logo and renaming the team the Hammers in honor of its greatest player, "hammering" Hank Aaron.

I also like the Hammers. And by the way, look at the current logo in your avatar. It's easy for me to understand how the inclusion of the tomahawk and the ethnic stereotype it implies would be considered offensive to many people.

[KirbyDome89]

 

It goes back more than 20 years. Stanford replaced the Indians about 50 years ago. While I was a graduate student there in the 1970s there was a great controversy about the replacement. At one point, there were 5 nicknames in circulation. The students voted for Robber Barons; the athletic department (which, of course, won) the Cardinal; the infamous marching band (which carried a lot of weight after managing to spell out OH S--T on national TV at the Rose Bowl) wanted the Tree; some other constituency favored the Sequoias; and (of course) the alumni wanted to keep the Indians. 

 

The Braves' Chief Knockahoma was pushed out in the late 80s/early 90s. They had a logo changed due to it being an offensive representation in the 1970s. The issue goes back further than 20 years.

 I'm not sure why this needs clarification. The 70s, 90s, 20+ years, ect would all be periods of time considered "decades," (my phrase) removed from the present. You're arguing semantics.

 

The larger point, which I already clarified, was that these logos, mascots, ect didn't suddenly become derogatory within the last few years, so the argument, that current outcry determines the level of disrespect, doesn't hold up.

[Nine of twelve]

 

 

The larger point, which I already clarified, was that these logos, mascots, ect didn't suddenly become derogatory within the last few years, so the argument, that current outcry determines the level of disrespect, doesn't hold up.

I certainly never used this argument. I think the level of disrespect, which is high enough to justify getting rid of these logos, mascots, etc, was always just as high as it is now. What has gradually become more widespread is the awareness of how disrespectful they are.

[Cap'n Piranha]

All of this hand-wringing misses one point that I would imagine to be salient.  From everything I've heard, most Indians not only don't have a problem with the term Indian, they actually prefer it to Native American.  As someone who was born in this country, as were both of my parents, as were all 4 of my grandparents, I am by any logical definition a Native American.  As an individual of largely Scandinavian and English descent, a term that is logically just as applicable to me as to the Indians completely erases the vastly different historical experiences of our ancestries. 

 

As such, this whole debate seems quite similar to the recent insistence by leftists (who are almost always white), that Latinos now be called Latinx, despite polling showing 97% of Latinos don't use the term, and almost 80% of that group has never even heard the term.  It seems to me that decreeing how other groups term themselves is the height of arrogance and privilege, and appears to emanate in large degree from the "progressive" left.

 

https://www.nativetimes.com/index.php/life/commentary/11389-native-american-vs-american-indian-political-correctness-dishonors-traditional-chiefs-of-old

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_name_controversy

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in-four-u-s-hispanics-have-heard-of-latinx-but-just-3-use-it/

[KirbyDome89]

 

I certainly never used this argument. I think the level of disrespect, which is high enough to justify getting rid of these logos, mascots, etc, was always just as high as it is now. What has gradually become more widespread is the awareness of how disrespectful they are.

I'm aware. What you quoted was my response to Brock. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

All of this hand-wringing misses one point that I would imagine to be salient.  From everything I've heard, most Indians not only don't have a problem with the term Indian, they actually prefer it to Native American.  As someone who was born in this country, as were both of my parents, as were all 4 of my grandparents, I am by any logical definition a Native American.  As an individual of largely Scandinavian and English descent, a term that is logically just as applicable to me as to the Indians completely erases the vastly different historical experiences of our ancestries. 

 

As such, this whole debate seems quite similar to the recent insistence by leftists (who are almost always white), that Latinos now be called Latinx, despite polling showing 97% of Latinos don't use the term, and almost 80% of that group has never even heard the term.  It seems to me that decreeing how other groups term themselves is the height of arrogance and privilege, and appears to emanate in large degree from the "progressive" left.

 

https://www.nativetimes.com/index.php/life/commentary/11389-native-american-vs-american-indian-political-correctness-dishonors-traditional-chiefs-of-old

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_name_controversy

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in-four-u-s-hispanics-have-heard-of-latinx-but-just-3-use-it/

Congratulations, you've realized that cultures that number in the millions of people are not monolithic in their opinion.

 

https://indiancountrytoday.com/archive/blackhorse-do-you-prefer-native-american-or-american-indian-kHWRPJqIGU6X3FTVdMi9EQ

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

Congratulations, you've realized that cultures that number in the millions of people are not monolithic in their opinion.

 

https://indiancountrytoday.com/archive/blackhorse-do-you-prefer-native-american-or-american-indian-kHWRPJqIGU6X3FTVdMi9EQ

 

Thank you?

 

It seems you've realized that with an issue this complex with no clear mandate from those affected, declaring people who aren't sure why the term Indian needs to be eliminated as head-in-the-sand living-in-the-past borderline bigots is ridiculous.

[Nine of twelve]

 

Thank you?

 

It seems you've realized that with an issue this complex with no clear mandate from those affected, declaring people who aren't sure why the term Indian needs to be eliminated as head-in-the-sand living-in-the-past borderline bigots is ridiculous.

I don't think there needs to be a "clear mandate" in order to make it right to change the Cleveland mascot. Even if only 10% of First Americans find it offensive that's more than enough, IMHO.

[h2oface]

Good thing animals can't talk, eh? But then, some might be honored and see it that way. And speaking of Cleveland, what is a "Brown" anyway? Maybe the Indians should be the Cleveland Shirts. After all, they can't be the Skins. 

[h2oface]

 

I don't think there needs to be a "clear mandate" in order to make it right to change the Cleveland mascot. Even if only 10% of First Americans find it offensive that's more than enough, IMHO.

 

I know that "First Americans" is meant as respectful, but that just goes to show how tenuous this discussion is. I would bet they would find that even more offensive.... to steal their homeland and call them that. They aren't Pilgrims et al. After all, the land we stole from them was not America to them. Cleveland First Americans would certainly not fly.

[Squirrel]

I know that "First Americans" is meant as respectful, but that just goes to show how tenuous this discussion is. I would bet they would find that even more offensive.... to steal their homeland and call them that. They aren't Pilgrims et al. After all, the land we stole from them was not America to them. Cleveland First Americans would certainly not fly.

I’m sure he wasn’t suggesting Cleveland name themselves that. And yes, given this discussion and its nature, I think Cleveland finally made the correct decision. The name was obviously causing plenty of divisiveness among the fans and indigenous peoples, who I think largely prefer to be identified according to their tribe, but I still read a lot of indecision there, too. The bottom line for me is that it’s the Cleveland ownerships decision to make no matter what I think of it. I happen to agree with and applaud the decision, but eh, whatever I think on it matters not as it’s a done decision and I’m not in their fan base. I do look forward to seeing what they come up with and hope it’s better than the Mussels or the Wind Surge.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Thank you?

 

It seems you've realized that with an issue this complex with no clear mandate from those affected, declaring people who aren't sure why the term Indian needs to be eliminated as head-in-the-sand living-in-the-past borderline bigots is ridiculous.

First, I never came close to implying anyone is a bigot and second, naming a baseball team the Indians and eliminating the word altogether are wildly different conversations. This thread is about the former and I haven’t commented about the latter *at all* so you’re just guessing at my opinion on that.

[h2oface]

 

I’m sure he wasn’t suggesting Cleveland name themselves that.

 

Me too (no hashtag). I am sure he uses the term with intention of showing respect. Did I say that origininally? - yes, upon re-reading, I did. Just demonstrating how offensive calling the indigenous tribes "First Americans" is.

[Nine of twelve]

 

I do look forward to seeing what they come up with and hope it’s better than the Mussels or the Wind Surge.

That's a pretty low bar to clear.

[Nine of twelve]

 

And speaking of Cleveland, what is a "Brown" anyway?

A color. Just like the Cincinnati Reds, the St. Louis Browns, the Stanford Cardinal, etc. I think most people understand this concept so this explanation is for those who don't.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Fun fact:

 

The Cleveland Browns were named for Paul Brown, their first coach. Later, Brown left the Browns and started up the Cincinnati Bengals, naming them the Bengals.

 

 

https://www.profootballhof.com/news/franchise-nicknames/

[ashbury]

Fun fact:

 

The Cleveland Browns were named for Paul Brown, their first coach.

Is this a good time to mention the Brooklyn Robins?

 

[Craig Arko]

 

Is this a good time to mention the Brooklyn Robins?
 

Or the Gotham Batmen?

[h2oface]

 

A color. Just like the Cincinnati Reds, the St. Louis Browns, the Stanford Cardinal, etc. I think most people understand this concept so this explanation is for those who don't.

 

It is actually a Paul "Brown" the famous coach being honored....... look it up...... but certainly it is also a color. And the Reds is short for, and evolved from "Red Stockings" (The team became known as the Cincinnati Red Stockings due to its wearing knickers rather than the traditional trousers, with red knee socks- a costume condemned as "immoral" by the more prudish. It became baseball's first openly all-professional team when it became fully professional in 1869). The Cardinal IS however, referring to the color and not the bird, hence the singular. Words and their meaning can elvove with time and cultures it seems. Thanks for your help though, about color being one of, and the original meaning of the word. But upon further exploration..... does brown even exist? It exists because of context, and not wavelength.... but I digress.....

[IndianaTwin]

 

Is this a good time to mention the Brooklyn Robins?
 

 

Who were only 1/31st as good as the Baskin-Robbins. 

[ashbury]

 

This seems to be the exact opposite of democratic/republican ideals.  There are a large number of things currently allowed/existing today that I'm sure at least 10% of people find offensive/would like to see eliminated.  If 33 million Americans came to believe the internet is destructive to society, should it be shut down?  If somehow the KKK managed to cobble together 10% of the electorate (God forbid), would you be ok with the elimination of interracial marriage?  If 10% of men came to believe women in the workplace was a dire threat to stability, are laws forbidding employment of women now good?

All the examples you give are of cases where someone could easily demonstrate the perceived harm from their side of the equation. I don't see how losing a problematic team mascot remotely parallels these.

 

 

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

First, I never came close to implying anyone is a bigot and second, naming a baseball team the Indians and eliminating the word altogether are wildly different conversations. This thread is about the former and I haven’t commented about the latter *at all* so you’re just guessing at my opinion on that.

 

My response was aimed not so much at you, but at other posters on this thread who have equated the Indians nickname with segregation or other forms of outright bigotry.  The response came to you, rather than them, as you had posted about the disparity of thought amongst groups of people, which buttressed my original point; this change is not being made because the outcry of united Indian voices has become too loud to ignore; such a united voice does not, and has never existed.  This change is being made because a group of people certain they are not just on the right side of history, but indeed the very cutting edge of progress, has grown bold enough that they are comfortable making demands.  Those demands are then quickly capitulated to by image-conscious members of society, worried about financial hardship or perhaps their own historical legacy.

 

Perhaps we will look back in ten, twenty, or fifty years, and know that this first group of people was right.  Or perhaps we will not.