Cleveland phasing out their mascot

[Ultima Ratio]

It isn't clear what world history you are reading.

 

Yeah "hate America" is all this has been about? What?

 

Sorry, I meant to respond to one post in particular which was going the route of: it's wrong to have these names and logos ESPECIALLY because the owners of these teams are white and descendents of slave owners. As if that's A) true, and a relevancy.

 

I'm going out on a limb here suggesting that the vast majority of fans and people okay with both the Cleveland Indians and Washington Redskins names and logos do not hate or have some person prejudicial animus.

 

That's what needed to be curtailed.

[Riverbrian]

Since I'm from Grand Forks and a staunch supporter of the University of North Dakota...

 

This discussion is a familiar one. I've heard the passionate side of both arguments and I don't disagree with the points made by both sides.

 

My response to both sides is simple.

 

Remove the headache... Change the name and move on.

 

The bottom line... A name change is only an issue for today and it will only hurt today... Once you change the name and move on... 70 years from now... No one will care.

 

70 years from now... No one will care anymore. That's a real important point... Any change of anything should be considered for its future worth primarily.

 

It only hurts and keeps hurting when you stubbornly cling to some notion that the nickname matters more than the team and you keep the discussion alive... Front and center.

 

I love the Fighting Sioux nickname... I'm a PA announcer for the University... I yelled it out into the microphone with pride. I never had a derogatory thought while doing so... It's gone now and I still have my University Pride intact.

 

Change it... Be done with it and time will make it alright. It is so much better than sustaining the discussion for year after year.

 

70 years from now... No one will care. Just change the name and watch it all get better as time goes on.

[Ultima Ratio]

I'm not sure why you think you get to have an opinion about what offends the minority classes. It's not for any of us to say what offends them.

 

You're not sure why I get to have an opinion? Come on. Why do you?

 

Again, as mentioned in the ESPN article on the Redskins, most American Indians (is that term okay?) don't care and many of the reservation schools have adopted the trademarks for their own. So you're saying it's okay from them to do so, but not for an NFL, MLB team, even when those who are supposed to offended are not?

 

As I said in that other thread: I find that reasoning bigoted. If you're not saying that American Indians should be offended when in fact they are not, what are you saying?

[Shane Wahl]

No I don't think that those fans are racists. They are ignorant, however. Our society ignores racism against Native Americans since it has NOT been pushed to the forefront. One wouldn't get away with the Seattle Yellowskins, the San Antonio Brownskins, the Minnesota Whiteskins, or the Chicago Blackskins, would one?

[Shane Wahl]

Growing up in Bemidji (for you non-northerners, this means between Red Lake, Leech Lake/Cass Lake, and White Earth) the racism was readily apparent to me and after I eluded my own ignorance and also moved to Indiana, it became quite clear how ignored the problem of racism and our own American history towards Native Americans was indeed. It's so flabbergasting to me that a name like "Redskins" is still allowed given every other legit and illegit PC stuff is going on in America.

[drivlikejehu]

But why is it you who gets to decide which things are stupid. Native American's have been protesting these names for years. Should their efforts be in vain simply because the rest of the public was painfully slow to catch on to their cause?

 

If you read my post, you would note that I didn't say the Native American mascot issue was stupid (though it is in some cases, such as what William & Mary did with their logo).

 

We're not talking about some obscure thing here... the big pro sports teams have been known to basically everyone. So it's not really true that the public was "painfully slow" to catch on to 'the cause.' It's more accurate to say that no one (outside some Native Americans) cared until they had an opportunity to promote their own self-interest. That's what the current media & political push is all about.

 

Chief Wahoo probably deserves to go, but the holier-than-thou act is just transparent garbage from 99.9% of the people pushing for change.

[nicksaviking]

You're not sure why I get to have an opinion? Come on. Why do you?

 

Again, as mentioned in the ESPN article on the Redskins, most American Indians (is that term okay?) don't care and many of the reservation schools have adopted the trademarks for their own. So you're saying it's okay from them to do so, but not for an NFL, MLB team, even when those who are supposed to offended are not?

 

As I said in that other thread: I find that reasoning bigoted. If you're not saying that American Indians should be offended when in fact they are not, what are you saying?

 

I don't get to have an opinion on what offends others, that's the point. If one person is offended it's not an opinion, it's a straight up fact. It's not up to you to decide what offends others. It's not up to me either.

 

Even if some Native Americans support a nickname or mascot, plenty don't. Why do those that support it get to speak for all others? You clearly are in the minority in this thread, therefore your ideas are no longer valid by your logic, I get to speak for you and will do so thusly:

 

All Twins Daily posters vigorously protest the offensive nature of the Cleveland baseball and Washington football team names.

[Ultima Ratio]

Growing up in Bemidji (for you non-northerners, this means between Red Lake, Leech Lake/Cass Lake, and White Earth) the racism was readily apparent to me and after I eluded my own ignorance and also moved to Indiana, it became quite clear how ignored the problem of racism and our own American history towards Native Americans was indeed. It's so flabbergasting to me that a name like "Redskins" is still allowed given every other legit and illegit PC stuff is going on in America.

 

But A) Redskins refers to the red paint the natives wore when going into battle, having nothing to do with the color/race of native, and even if one sees it as referring to skin color today because (yes it's been a word use as a slur by some), it's also been used by natives in the form of red man, white man et cetera. All these discussions are wildly anachronistic.

 

The meaning of words can change over time, but intent if the most important element to look at when gauging harassment and offense. We have no reason to believe the word Indian or Redskin with respect to the teams, was ever drawn up with the intent to offend or marginalize. Why doesn't this matter to you?

 

I'll take a shot, and this is the reason why these issues are only getting the push they are now -- it's because we're changing the laws and ethos with respect to when offense and harassment happen.

 

Now "intent" is irrelevant. Only outcome of feelings are relevant.

 

So when, you look at a women's shirt because it has a funny picture on it, it doesn't matter if you were ogling her or not, harassment has occurred if she feels uncomfortable.

 

Likewise, offense of words are apparently reached solely on the grounds that someone is…uncomfortable/offended.

 

If that is the metric or calculus we've arrived at in society then what else needs reforming? How many people and what kind of people must be offended for something to be offensive enough to change it?

 

At what point will we being doing more harm than good? How will we know it?

[Ultima Ratio]

I don't get to have an opinion on what offends others, that's the point. If one person is offended it's not an opinion, it's a straight up fact. It's not up to you to decide what offends others. It's not up to me either.

 

Even if some Native Americans support a nickname or mascot, plenty don't. Why do those that support it get to speak for all others? You clearly are in the minority in this thread, therefore your ideas are no longer valid by your logic, I get to speak for you and will do so thusly:

 

All Twins Daily posters vigorously protest the offensive nature of the Cleveland baseball and Washington football team names.

 

 

Okay, so some native do support it and some don't -- since you and I aren't natives so we don't get to vote right?

 

And, so what then?

 

Yes, I can't tell you what offends you, and I haven't BTW. But look at the poll from that ESPN article. Those who are relevantly impacted by the word overwhelmingly are not offended. You are.

 

Okay, so we should change the name on those grounds? Where is the inference?

[Ultima Ratio]

Comics enjoy the freedom and right to draw and otherwise lampoon religious figures held sacred by many. Quite a few posters here love to ridicule religion full stop, but largely just Christianity.

 

No doubt comics that work for newspapers who lampoon Jesus, Moses, Buddha or whatever; they offend many. Should they be forced to stop the presses?

 

We've already seen that comics won't dare to lampoon "Allah" in their strips and those brave enough to do so have been killed or are living in hiding. Surely these comics are offensive to the point were those offended are super-duper offended that the offense merits death -- so the newspapers (private business ventures all of them) like any private business in the NFL and MLB should be silenced or change their comics/names/logs to more appetizing and benign objects.

 

I think I have that right.

 

Tolerance is a two-way street. Don't try to offend someone especially with malice, but if you find yourself offended, try to be tolerant also. Keep free speech alive. Or being principled and go after every single freaky offense and completely paralyze expression.

[gunnarthor]

I will take the under on that. Shark jumped already. Wow.

 

"Wow" is right. My God, it's like Michael Scott in Diversity Day.

[ericchri]

Since I'm from Grand Forks and a staunch supporter of the University of North Dakota...

 

...

 

70 years from now... No one will care. Just change the name and watch it all get better as time goes on.

 

Aside from being from the rival University an hour south, I couldn't agree more with your post (shortened the quote due to its length). Watching the fight to save the Fighting Sioux nickname became a case of bewilderment for me. My high school nickname when I went to school was the Indians, now it's the Huskies. They changed it a couple years after I graduated, and after an initial bit of disappointment that lasted about 10 minutes I moved on and accepted that it was probably for the best and it had absolutely no bearing on my support/love for my old school. They were still "my team", regardless of nickname.

[Shane Wahl]

Another point is if the Fighting Sioux have to change one would think the REDSKINS would too.

[nicksaviking]

Okay, so some native do support it and some don't -- since you and I aren't natives so we don't get to vote right?

 

And, so what then?

 

Yes, I can't tell you what offends you, and I haven't BTW. But look at the poll from that ESPN article. Those who are relevantly impacted by the word overwhelmingly are not offended. You are.

 

Okay, so we should change the name on those grounds? Where is the inference?

 

The poll Rick Reilly referred to was over a decade old and Reilly has been getting panned for skewing many things in his article particularly the quotes he incorrectly attributed to his father-in-law.

 

But that is beside the point. No, we don't get to vote on what is offensive. Additionally, no the Native Americans don't get to vote on what is offensive to themselves unless you think it is appropriate to stereotype them and believe that they all have to have the same ideas and values. We clearly don't share the same values, why do minorities have to share theirs?

 

What you can have an opinion on is whether you think it is OK to use offensive and abusive language or mascots. They are offensive to people, that is indisputable. If you think it is OK to offend those that are, well I guess that is an opinion you can have, though I don't know why one would want to be associated with such a stance.

[Brad Swanson]

For me, the question is what are we clinging to? Why do we (as a society or fan base or whatever) need to keep Chief Wahoo, the Redskins or the Tomahawk Chop? I'll admit that those things are part of that specific fan base and their experience and I am not a member of that group. However, teams and organizations change things all the time and it doesn't change the overall, long-term fan experience. The Twins won two World Series titles in the Metrodome and we all happily migrated down to Target Field when it was built. Is popularity more important than morality?

 

If we're clinging to free speech, then I could start to understand. Of course, offensive speech isn't protected under free speech, so that doesn't really work.

 

Intent shouldn't be important. If I go out and drive my car recklessly and crash into someone's garage, I can't just say that I didn't mean to do that. It should be the same with words and emotion. If I throw around a word that doesn't offend me, but offends someone else, it's not ok. Emotional wellness is just as important as physical wellness, but we rarely equate the two. If what I say recklessly is hurtful to another person, I should be willing to change my behavior because it will make another person feel better.

 

If a mascot or an action or a nickname offends people emotionally, we should be willing to change those behaviors and labels for the better of society. If something is inoffensive to you, think of something that does offend you. How does that make you feel? That is how another human feels about the thing that you are indifferent about. Personally, I care a lot more about the person who feels offended than the person who doesn't really care one way or another.

[Tecmo]

How crazy is it that the Washington Bullets changed their name because of negative connotations regarding bullets and violence while Redskins still remains?

[D. Hocking]

Minnie and Paul are both pasty white, googly-eyed dopes.

 

I have heard Mauer and Morneau got pretty offended everytime they had to look across at this. Although there is a difference, while Minny and Paul are white, I don't think the designer of the logo was making a comment of the white race, whereas with the Native American logs etc, their race and heritage is what is being represented and in a way commented upon. I recently read an interesting comment that said even the more noble representations of the Native Americans could be considered offensive, because they are parts of their heritage being used as another group (usually white) and basically being minimized as a mascot (I am paraphrasing this badly, it was well written).

 

All and all an interesting discussion that has a lot of elements to it.

 

However, regardless of all the elements and complexities of the discussion, the Cleveland Logo is about as subtle as Sambo or a 1930's Aunt Jemina and I am amazed it was not jettisoned years ago.

[scottz]

How crazy is it that the Washington Bullets changed their name because of negative connotations regarding bullets and violence while Redskins still remains?

 

Hadn't thought of that, but it is pretty strange. Although, I would guess they changed the name without too much opposition because the Bullets had pretty much always sucked. The Redskins have had success and people emotionally view that success as their own.

[jokin]

Of course, offensive speech isn't protected under free speech, so that doesn't really work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uhh....What?

 

No less a noble, Constitution-affirming body than the ACLU would take serious issue with your assertion https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/protecting-outrageous-offensive-speech :

 

"But even truly offensive speech is protected by the First Amendment. That the very point of the First Amendment is in protecting the right of free expression to someone even as vile as Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Chuch...and whether Phelps could be held liable, encourages the suppression of unpopular speech, and is clearly at odds with the First Amendment..."

[Ultima Ratio]

The poll Rick Reilly referred to was over a decade old and Reilly has been getting panned for skewing many things in his article particularly the quotes he incorrectly attributed to his father-in-law.

 

But that is beside the point. No, we don't get to vote on what is offensive. Additionally, no the Native Americans don't get to vote on what is offensive to themselves unless you think it is appropriate to stereotype them and believe that they all have to have the same ideas and values. We clearly don't share the same values, why do minorities have to share theirs?

 

What you can have an opinion on is whether you think it is OK to use offensive and abusive language or mascots. They are offensive to people, that is indisputable. If you think it is OK to offend those that are, well I guess that is an opinion you can have, though I don't know why one would want to be associated with such a stance.

 

Look up fallacy of complex question and then poisoning the well for the end there.

 

Uh, where did you ever get the idea that my view is all minorities must think alike. Quite Orwellian. Quite the absolute opposite. Citing a poll (yes there are problems with every poll) and showing that a majority of those who you'd think would be the ones offended, but are not, don't mean I think they all should believe this. What it shows is that those you'd' think are closest and most deeply hurt (if hurt at all) would be those making the loudest noise.

 

Empirically we know this to be false. The loudest noise come from the selectively and anachronistically outraged do-gooders, stamping out every last vestige of possible offense and racial stereotype no matter the cost.

 

Again, if this is really an important issue for you, you'll be speaking out against all perceived offenses. There are many to choose from, so I wonder what the next target will be?

 

No thought about the consistency of using one's voice to change perceived offensive in sports but not going after newspapers?

 

Bigger and final point. What are we achieving by this if the names/logos are changed? Will this really help to finally once and for all end racial stereotypes/bigotry? Will it have an impact at all.

 

How will we know and agree that the new names and logos are not offense to somebody somewhere? Will it matter?

 

I suppose it's just the right thing to do…. until it isn't, and then we can change it again.

[jokin]

All and all an interesting discussion that has a lot of elements to it.

 

I recently read an interesting comment that said even the more noble representations of the Native Americans could be considered offensive, because they are parts of their heritage being used as another group (usually white) and basically being minimized as a mascot (I am paraphrasing this badly, it was well written).

 

 

However, regardless of all the elements and complexities of the discussion, the Cleveland Logo is about as subtle as Sambo or a 1930's Aunt Jemina and I am amazed it was not jettisoned years ago.

 

Maybe they were referring to the US Government "Keep American Beautiful" PSA of the "Crying Indian" commercial from the 70s? A lot of (not-so) subtle stereotypes packed into a 60-second message:

 

[Ultima Ratio]

Intent shouldn't be important. If I go out and drive my car recklessly and crash into someone's garage, I can't just say that I didn't mean to do that. It should be the same with words and emotion. If I throw around a word that doesn't offend me, but offends someone else, it's not ok.

 

 

malice aforethought is meaningless, huh?

 

We ought to get rid of the distinction of 1st degree murder and manslaughter? Oh boy.

Manslaughter

If a murder does not qualify by statute for first-degree murder, it is charged as second-degree murder.

A second-degree murder may be downgraded to Manslaughter if mitigating factors were involved in the killing, such as adequate provocation by the victim, or the absence of intent or recklessness on the part of the defendant.

First degree murder:

A killing which is deliberate and premeditated (planned, after lying in wait, by poison or as part of a scheme), in conjunction with felonies such as rape, burglary, arson, involving multiple deaths, the killing of certain types of people (such as a child, a police officer, a prison guard, a fellow prisoner), or with certain weapons, particularly a gun. The specific criteria for first degree murder are established by statute in each state and by the United States Code in federal prosecutions. It is distinguished from second degree murder in which premeditation is usually absent, and from manslaughter which lacks premeditation and suggests that at most there was intent to harm rather than to kill

[Brad Swanson]

malice aforethought is meaningless, huh?

 

We ought to get rid of the distinction of 1st degree murder and manslaughter? Oh boy.

Manslaughter

If a murder does not qualify by statute for first-degree murder, it is charged as second-degree murder.

A second-degree murder may be downgraded to Manslaughter if mitigating factors were involved in the killing, such as adequate provocation by the victim, or the absence of intent or recklessness on the part of the defendant.

First degree murder:

A killing which is deliberate and premeditated (planned, after lying in wait, by poison or as part of a scheme), in conjunction with felonies such as rape, burglary, arson, involving multiple deaths, the killing of certain types of people (such as a child, a police officer, a prison guard, a fellow prisoner), or with certain weapons, particularly a gun. The specific criteria for first degree murder are established by statute in each state and by the United States Code in federal prosecutions. It is distinguished from second degree murder in which premeditation is usually absent, and from manslaughter which lacks premeditation and suggests that at most there was intent to harm rather than to kill

 

You're absolutely right, intent should be considered in the case of determining between murder and manslaughter. By the way, you can talk down to me all you want, it's not going to make me agree with you and it won't validate your point.

[nicksaviking]

Uh, where did you ever get the idea that my view is all minorities must think alike .

 

When you suggested that Native Americans should get to vote on what is offensive.

 

Yes, I can't tell you what offends you, and I haven't BTW. But look at the poll from that ESPN article. Those who are relevantly impacted by the word overwhelmingly are not offended. You are.

 

Okay, so we should change the name on those grounds? Where is the inference?

 

Again, they can vote on if they want to keep the nickname. They cannot vote on what can or cannot offend their neighbors.

 

Empirically we know this to be false. The loudest noise come from the selectively and anachronistically outraged do-gooders, stamping out every last vestige of possible offense and racial stereotype no matter the cost.

 

That's only because the Native Americans who have been protesting this for decades do not have a loud voice, as most minorities do not. They had to wait until the public finally took the time to realize how stupid it was to defend an offensive nickname. Why is it their fault that the rest of us took so long to see reason?

[LimestoneBaggy]

Other than River outing himself for me to throw popcorn at during hockey games. Doesn't this simply boil down to we can be better as human being than using names like Redskins, Indians, or whatever (be they caricatures or otherwise) if offends people. If we can't just be better to each other, let's think fiscally. The changes will come with a huge upswing in merchandising. We in the high northern area of Grand Forks can attest to the large demand for the old merchandise, and you better believe I'm buying a new ND polo with whatever logo we decide on. It's just a logo/mascot.

[Ultima Ratio]

You're absolutely right, intent should be considered in the case of determining between murder and manslaughter. By the way, you can talk down to me all you want, it's not going to make me agree with you and it won't validate your point.

 

Not talking down to you at all, just showing you your error. I'm wrong about a lot of things, and I try not to get embarrassed or mad when I'm shown I'm wrong. It's okay to disagree, but I want to make sure the disagreement is only after we are clear about the content. Intent does matter, and that needed to be made clear before would can now continue to disagree that these logos (intend?) to harm people. Maybe it still doesn't matter to you. I guess I don't see why intent shouldn't matter.

[nicksaviking]

Since I'm from Grand Forks and a staunch supporter of the University of North Dakota...

 

This discussion is a familiar one. I've heard the passionate side of both arguments and I don't disagree with the points made by both sides.

 

My response to both sides is simple.

 

Remove the headache... Change the name and move on.

 

The bottom line... A name change is only an issue for today and it will only hurt today... Once you change the name and move on... 70 years from now... No one will care.

 

70 years from now... No one will care anymore. That's a real important point... Any change of anything should be considered for its future worth primarily.

 

It only hurts and keeps hurting when you stubbornly cling to some notion that the nickname matters more than the team and you keep the discussion alive... Front and center.

 

I love the Fighting Sioux nickname... I'm a PA announcer for the University... I yelled it out into the microphone with pride. I never had a derogatory thought while doing so... It's gone now and I still have my University Pride intact.

 

Change it... Be done with it and time will make it alright. It is so much better than sustaining the discussion for year after year.

 

70 years from now... No one will care. Just change the name and watch it all get better as time goes on.

 

I WILL quote your whole post because each line is terrific. Except about being a PA announcer for that awful school!

 

It seems obvious that a nickname change is something that we as human beings can get over with relative ease, but you can probably speak to it better than most. When the nickname was up against the wall and everyone was fighting for every inch they could, I'm sure it seemed much more integral to your idenity than it does now that it's gone. After all, you're a fan of the school and the team and the players much, much more than you are of the cartoon on the front of the uniform.

[Brad Swanson]

Not talking down to you at all, just showing you your error. I'm wrong about a lot of things, and I try not to get embarrassed or mad when I'm shown I'm wrong. It's okay to disagree, but I want to make sure the disagreement is only after we are clear about the content. Intent does matter, and that needed to be made clear before would can now continue to disagree that these logos (intend?) to harm people. Maybe it still doesn't matter to you. I guess I don't see why intent shouldn't matter.

 

I agree with you about intent when it comes to murder and manslaughter. Intent matters during marriage proposals too. What does that have to do with offending people with a mascot or a nickname?

 

My point is that intent is not important in the specific case of offensive speech, logos, mascots, whatever. If something is offensive to someone, it does not matter to me if the offensive action was intentional. That is how I feel. I'm not embarrassed, mad or wrong.

[Bark's Lounge]

Gee willikers - get rid of the damn names for goodness sakes.

 

When I see the Chief Wahoo and Redskins logo, it makes me think of genocide. Who the hell wants those thoughts going through their heads? I certainly don't.

 

The Cleveland Indians should become the Cleveland Spiders in honor of the National League Cleveland ball club that existed in the late 1800's. I am sure there is some cool things you could do with that name.

 

I am not sure what you would rename the Washington Redskins, but I came up with a logo.

 

Ideas anyone???

 

[nicksaviking]

Gee willikers - get rid of the damn names for goodness sakes.

 

When I see the Chief Wahoo and Redskins logo' date=' it makes me think of genocide. Who the hell wants those thoughts going through their heads? I certainly don't.

 

The Cleveland Indians should become the Cleveland Spiders in honor of the National League Cleveland ball club that existed in the late 1800's. I am sure there is some cool things you could do with that name.

 

I am not sure what you would rename the Washington Redskins, but I came up with a logo.

 

Ideas anyone???

[ATTACH=CONFIG']5926[/ATTACH]

 

How about the Cleveland Naps? They were known as that once too. The papers would probably have an easy time coming up with headlines after a particularly boring 3 1/2 hour game.

 

Strange that over 100 years ago the team knew the best way to bestow "honor" on someone was by using an actual indivudual's name. For some reason now we show "honor" by using cartoons, racist names and derogatory stereotypes. Ah what an enlightened time was 1903.