Nobody worries about Southerners being offended by a team called the Yankees.

The hats and gear makes future targeting simpler and easier.

Re-posting for the flip for being dead on.

100. JuanGone..except1game Posted: February 13, 2013 at 12:01 PM (#4368692)

Well they need a joke and the only safe target is a white male.

This is so silly that it shouldn't even require a response. You moan about a couple instances of white males getting targeted as a joke, while dismissing the millions of images of white males as the good father, or the businessman, or the leader of the meeting, and so on and so forth. There have been billions (probably trillions) of dollars in advertising over the years with white men as every positive stereotype and your so concerned with playing the victim that you can't even recognize that. Who saves the damsel in distress in tv/movies? Who plays the financial advisor? Who plays the good father on the sitcom? This is the equivalent of Derek Jeter complaining about the one time they made a negative story about his gift baskets and his giant house.

Who plays the good father on the sitcom?

Phil Dunphy is the best dad in TV history.

I'm a 40 year old white male. The idea that I'm mistreated in some way by the media or society as a whole is laughable.

The idea that naming your basketball team "Bullets" is going to cause one more round of even a cap pistol to be fired somewhere in Landover or Columbia Heights is just so ridiculous it's almost beyond parody.

This is nothing close to what Yearrgh or I said, however, or why we don't think the renaming is similarly ridiculous.

You wrote "It's more of a constant reminder people were getting their asses shot and killed on a regular basis in the area...". Admittedly that's not the same thing as claiming a cause-and-effect link between the name and the tragedies, but if there's no such link, then you have to wonder why Pollen made such a big public show of the switch.

Yearrgh called it "a matter of taste and class", but that sort of aesthetic judgment, besides being well, judgmental, also fails to establish any connection between the longstanding nickname and the tragedies it's apparently being connected to. You can assert a purely symbolic connection as a reason for the change, but IMO it amounted to (pardon the expression) overkill on a comical level. It wasn't as if the Bullets were staging mock gunfights during halftime, but from the solemnity of Pollen's statement, one might have thought that something like that was at issue.

#25 Yeah, the Trail of Tears is particularly difficult to categorize. At best it was an irresponsible (in the sense of not caring about the cost in lives) ethnic cleansing. Basically what the Turks claim happened with the Armenians.

The numbers were of course larger in the Armenian genocide, but the casualty rate seem comparable. I'm comfortable calling the Armenian event "genocide". Not totally clear about the Trail of Tears.

Nobody worries about Southerners being offended by a team called the Yankees.

I always sort of assumed that the term was derisive and was then adopted by the "Yankees" as a point of semi-perverse pride so I am not sure why southerners should be offended (other than perhaps as a reminder they are losers who lost the War of Northern Aggression, and if they don't watch themselves we might just aggress again - "The North Shall Agress Again" is a cry I have heard many times).

I'm a white male, age 18 to 49. Everyone listens to me -- no matter how dumb my suggestions are.

I'm a white male, age 18 to 49. Everyone listens to me -- no matter how dumb my suggestions are.

We have been meaning to talk to you about that. Honestly we are not really listening, just sort of nodding our head.

I'm a 40 year old white male. The idea that I'm mistreated in some way by the media or society as a whole is laughable.

Whether you feel mistreated or not is not the issue, since nobody cares, since you're a white male.

The point is that (straight) white males are a safe target. And they are. Nobody worries about whether something will be offensive to the straight white male. Do you dispute this?

In contrast, many people worry about offending minorities, or women, or homosexuals.

I'm with Louis CK... I'm a white male, you can't even hurt my feelings.

Honky? Come on.

#84 About the way I see it. I'm aware that only a tiny fraction of the group being stereotyped found it offensive. I'd just generally prefer not to offend them.

The point is that (straight) white males are a safe target. And they are. Nobody worries about whether something will be offensive to the straight white male.

Not true. Lassus is, as best I can ascertain, a straight white male, and you can't piss on pregnant immigrant lesbian while you're forcing her into an abortion clinic without offending that guy.

I'm a white male, age 18 to 49. Everyone listens to me -- no matter how dumb my suggestions are.

Dammit you beat me to it! I can at least provide the video

It does annoy me that one of the only groups it's OK to make fun of is the poor white Southerner. Instead of trying to educate and help, the intelligentsia would rather jump on those redneck stereotypes.

Be that as it may, I'm glad the Braves decided to ditch this idea. As a long-time Braves fan, there was a time I didn't get the uproar over the mascot/logo/Chief Nocahoma (I remember the protests outside the stadium in 1991). But I've since read some articles/studies on the negative influence of stereotypes on Native American youth, and that was enough to sway me to the other side. Might as well err on the side of caution, and though the mascot is a part of history, it can stay retired.

And offensive or not, the tomahawk chop has overstayed its welcome. At the least, save it for the playoffs.

I always sort of assumed that the term was derisive and was then adopted by the "Yankees" as a point of semi-perverse pride so I am not sure why southerners should be offended (other than perhaps as a reminder they are losers who lost the War of Northern Aggression, and if they don't watch themselves we might just aggress again - "The North Shall Agress Again" is a cry I have heard many times).

"Yankees" first referred to the pre-revolutionary war epithet used by the Brits, that was directed against the colonists, primarily the northern ones. Sometime around 1913 or 1914 the baseball team began being called "Yankees" in the press simply because it was easier to fit "Yankees" (or "Yanks") rather than "Highlanders" into a newspaper headline. The name was created by the Highlanders' traveling secretary and a writer for the New York Journal, and its origin had nothing to do with the Civil War.

It does annoy me that one of the only groups it's OK to make fun of is the poor white Southerner. Instead of trying to educate and help, the intelligentsia would rather jump on those redneck stereotypes.

Then I guess you might not favor my longstanding suggestion to change the Redskins name to the Rednecks.

Not true. Lassus is, as best I can ascertain, a straight white male, and you can't piss on pregnant immigrant lesbian while you're forcing her into an abortion clinic without offending that guy.

You're quite the delicate flower if you think you can detect anywhere where I was recently offended. Irritated, judgmental, and dismissive is something different.

It does annoy me that one of the only groups it's OK to make fun of is the poor white Southerner.

Because it's primarily done by and for poor white Southerners - Foxworthy, Grizzard, Cable Guy et al perpetuate the stereotypes to the group itself, and are handsomely paid by them to do so. The group itself goes out of their way to hew to the images and take great pride of ownership of them.

The name was created by the Highlanders' traveling secretary and a writer for the New York Journal, and its origin had nothing to do with the Civil War.

Isn't that what most offensive nicknames and traditions generally say? Hey, we did it because of X not Y. see the Cleveland Indians for proof of this.

Yearrgh called it "a matter of taste and class", but that sort of aesthetic judgment, besides being well, judgmental, also fails to establish any connection between the longstanding nickname and the tragedies it's apparently being connected to. You can assert a purely symbolic connection as a reason for the change, but IMO it amounted to (pardon the expression) overkill on a comical level.

Would renaming a high school team in Newtown, CT from the "Bushmasters" (i.e. the snake) to the "Wizards" be overkill?

It does annoy me that one of the only groups it's OK to make fun of is the poor white Southerner. Instead of trying to educate and help, the intelligentsia would rather jump on those redneck stereotypes.

The funny but not really part is that people seem to conflate poor white trash with "privileged white men" as if the two classes have ever intermingled.

Yes.

The name was created by the Highlanders' traveling secretary and a writer for the New York Journal, and its origin had nothing to do with the Civil War.

Isn't that what most offensive nicknames and traditions generally say? Hey, we did it because of X not Y. see the Cleveland Indians for proof of this.

Well, Mr. John Wilkes Booth VIII, if you choose to be offended by something as patriotically symbolic as this, be my guest.

It does annoy me that one of the only groups it's OK to make fun of is the poor white Southerner. Instead of trying to educate and help, the intelligentsia would rather jump on those redneck stereotypes.

Then I guess you might not favor my longstanding suggestion to change the Redskins name to the Rednecks.

I'm all for a team of Rednecks, but I wouldn't waste that opportunity in Washington DC of all places.

Would renaming a high school team in Newtown, CT from the "Bushmasters" (i.e. the snake) to the "Wizards" be overkill?

Find me an actual example like that and I'll agree with the point you're straining to make.

Find me an actual example like that and I'll agree with the point you're straining to make.

Stanford.

I'm all for a team of Rednecks, but I wouldn't waste that opportunity in Washington DC of all places.

Are you kidding? Hell, they wouldn't even have to change the cadence of their glorious marching song.

I'm all for a team of Rednecks, but I wouldn't waste that opportunity in Washington DC of all places.

Would have been better than the "Titans."

Find me an actual example like that and I'll agree with the point you're straining to make.

Stanford.

We were talking about bullets, not Indians, but since you insist....

We were talking about bullets, not Indians

Sorry, I thought the general conversation was about institutions that changed their mascot/name from something that killed a lot of people to something that didn't.

You can't have a team of Rednecks and not have "Dixie" as the official song.

Sorry, I thought the general conversation was about institutions that changed their mascot/name from something that killed a lot of people to something that didn't.

In the case of the Bullets, I'd go with "is currently" and "will tomorrow".

Yearrgh called it "a matter of taste and class", but that sort of aesthetic judgment, besides being well, judgmental, also fails to establish any connection between the longstanding nickname and the tragedies it's apparently being connected to. You can assert a purely symbolic connection as a reason for the change, but IMO it amounted to (pardon the expression) overkill on a comical level.

What a dumb comment. No one is claiming any real "connection" between the name and the shootings and it's hardly a gotcha to point out that the connection is "purely symbolic." Thanks captain obvious. But Abe Pollin and many others thought the name was in bad taste and that absolutely no one would be harmed by changing it.

In the case of the Bullets, I'd go with "is currently" and "will tomorrow".

Wizards are going to kill a bunch of people tomorrow?

In the case of the Bullets, I'd go with "is currently" and "will tomorrow"

You're more likely to die tomorrow by tree attack, or because of the color red, than you are by wizard attack. I'm pretty sure of that.

To act as if this is a real scourge that needs to be stomped out to protect the fragile Native American community...far more racist.

The reason (mostly liberal) people want the "scorge" stomped out isn't to protect the fragile Native American community, it's to protect the fragile, riddled with guilt psyche of (mostly liberal) Whitey.

Except that I'm not aware of a single NA group -- made up of, you know, people who actually are of that ancestry -- that are anything but opposed to logos like this.

How about the Seminole tribe, which signed off on Florida State University using the name, as well as the white guy dressed in red face and feathers who rides in on a white stallion and plants a fiery arrow at midfield before every game?

We've been through this with the NCAA names. If Whitey's bribes were big enough, they could obtain tribal sign-off. In several cases, delivered.

Since this seems to be 1) a Braves related thread and 2) a thread where we can randomly throw out potentially offensive thoughts for our amusement, I'll note that yesterday the AJC posted a photo stream from the first day of spring training, wherein they mixed up the captioning and called BJ Justin, and Justin BJ. They did get Jason Heyward correctly identified, though, so it was a total "they all look the same to me" situation, I suppose.

How about the Seminole tribe, which signed off on Florida State University using the name, as well as the white guy dressed in red face and feathers who rides in on a white stallion and plants a fiery arrow at midfield before every game?

I'm pretty sure that for a long time in the 1990s, the foam tomahawks passed out at Braves games were manufactured by the Cherokee Nation in NC.

You're more likely to die tomorrow by tree attack, or because of the color red, than you are by wizard attack. I'm pretty sure of that.

"from something that killed a lot of people"

"they all look the same to me"

I think it's fair to give them a complete pass on this suspicion when the people in question are literally brothers.

I think it's fair to give them a complete pass on this suspicion when the people in question are literally brothers.

Except they look *nothing* alike.

You're more likely to die tomorrow by tree attack, or because of the color red, than you are by wizard attack. I'm pretty sure of that.

You're probably right, but just in case, I try to 'BEHOLD!' as often as possible. May only work on bearded wizards though.

You're probably right, but just in case, I try to 'BEHOLD!' as often as possible. May only work on bearded wizards though.

Definitely not on ents.

Who saves the damsel in distress in tv/movies?

Shaft?

This is so silly that it shouldn't even require a response. You moan about a couple instances of white males getting targeted as a joke, while dismissing the millions of images of white males as the good father, or the businessman, or the leader of the meeting, and so on and so forth.

Well, no. Sadly you missed the point. Make fun of white males all you want. I don't care, we'll be fine.


The reason (mostly liberal) people want the "scorge" stomped out isn't to protect the fragile Native American community, it's to protect the fragile, riddled with guilt psyche of (mostly liberal) Whitey.

Sort of. The Native American largely don't give a #### and aren't affected one way or the other. It's pretty much just Whitey who thinks they need to be protected. Whether that's because of guilt or that Whitey thinks they need to protect an 'oppressed' community varies by the individual.

I'll note that yesterday the AJC posted a photo stream from the first day of spring training, wherein they mixed up the captioning and called BJ Justin, and Justin BJ

This is probably going to happen a lot. There was one season of USC basketball where they had three set of twins on the team. One of George Raveling main recruiting strategies in those days was to get a player who might normally be above USC's level by also offering his twin. For the media and the announcers it was pretty much a nightmare scenario.

But Abe Pollin and many others thought the name was in bad taste and that absolutely no one would be harmed by changing it.

And he was wrong. People have a strong affinity with the symbols and names of their favorite sports club(s). It's bizarre that a bunch of sports fans would value the harm in radically changing those symbols and names at "zero."

In point of fact it isn't zero (or anything close), and no one in this conversation truly believes it's zero.

This is probably going to happen a lot. There was one season of USC basketball where they had three set of twins on the team. One of George Raveling main recruiting strategies in those days was to get a player who might normally be above USC's level by also offering his twin. For the media and the announcers it was pretty much a nightmare scenario.

I am personally rooting for an elimination of all of the OFs names, so that Joe Simpson has to say things like "and the play is made in shallow right center by one of the Outfielders of Color."

so?

the commercials depicting white males as incompetent halfwits are easily 90% plus created, written and filmed by white males. they are in control of their cultural stereotypes.


Yeah. That's why I blame slavery in the US largely on the black Africans who sold their own into slavery.

not the same thing and you know it.

the point i'm making is that the 'dumb white male' stereotype, or 'dumb dad' if you will, is not being put forward by african americans or asians in a paternalistic situation. the roots of the offensive mascot problem are in a time when those ethnic identities were appropriated with impunity by white males. personally, i find that embarassing and if i had my way i would certainly not want to call a football team 'redskins' if i was in charge of naming it -- don't care what the native americans think from some poll. polls aren't where i get my moral bearings. i support changing those names. am i going to charge up a hill and die to do it? naw, there are more important things to worry about. but i don't root for washington or atlanta, and part of my distaste for those teams is the unrecondite, overly defensive attitude of the fans who have no real reason to oppose a name change. it's a simple thing to do and won't cause the universe to collapse or time to run backwards. stanford did it, and AFAICT it hasn't hurt the institution. but you know, those brie-eating chardonnay-sucking cali sissies aren't really red blooded sports fans are they?

by the way, who did the africans sell the slaves to? was it ... white males who could have maybe found other ways to get labor for their farms if they had the guts or foresight or whatever it takes to do the right thing?