User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.7214 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
edit: to be clear, that's topping a very low bar.
I am sure I have at least one set of baseball cards that uses that logo for the Braves players.
EDIT: 1989 Donruss it looks like.
Actually, I think this is an opportunity to examine deeper. What is it about the image that's offensive? That it depicts a person of a certain ethnic background? That it depicts them in a certain way? That the person pictured has their particular history as a part of this country?
I'm Irish, which of course is not a big deal, but I think we can make a worthy comparison. Notre Dame? Awesome. Celtics? Neutral. St. Patrick's Day drunks? Offensive. I don't think we need to automatically assume that this image is offensive. I don't think that any usage or depiction of a Native American is racist. I'd like to know what those affected by it think, rather than to conclusions.
I am sure I have at least one set of baseball cards that uses that logo for the Braves players.
EDIT: 1989 Donruss it looks like.
I was gonna say, I'm not as old as Andy, but I sure remember it. Might be an NL/AL thing, familiarity-wise.
Note: I never, ever, thought he was screaming, always laughing.
Actually, I think this is an opportunity to examine deeper. What is it about the image that's offensive? That it depicts a person of a certain ethnic background? That it depicts them in a certain way? That the person pictured has their particular history as a part of this country?
In the case of the Redskins, it's solely the name, and not the specific logo. The logo itself is dignified and unremarkable beyond its ethnic origin. The last time the Redskins ever used any sort of a cartoon Indian was on the cover of their 1954 programs, which were in the same style as they were in 1940. The next year the same artist switched gears and came up with covers like these, and AFAICR there's never been any reversion to the childlike cartoon version.
Annnnnnd this is exactly why the images are harmful. They help propogate ignorance.
FWIW -
The hockey Chicago Blackhawks are an interesting comparison -- now, the 'Blackhawks' are not a tribe, rather - Chief Black Hawk was a Sauk chieftan who battled earlier Illinois settlers. The origin of the team name was that an early team owner commanded an Illinois-based "Blackhawk" division in WWI or WWII (I forget).
Obviously, you can find a range of opinions from Native Americans on the appropriateness of the logo/name, however -- FWIW, there have been a ton of local stories asking for those opinions whenever the Hawks are in the news, or, whenever the issue of such other similarly textured team names make the news.
However -
- The organization itself says that they get "very few" complaints
- The fellow who led the charge to have the Illinois 'Fighting Illini' get rid of 'Chief Illiniwek' doesn't consider the 'Blackhawks' or the logo nearly as offensive (he'd prefer it change, but says it's done 'respectfully' and isn't interested in starting a similar movement based on it).
- You can find some NA heritage organizations who say it's fine; others who oppose it (but all of them generally consider it "least offensive")
Why?
- There is no 'mascot' associated with the Hawks... no one dances around in costume, etc... "Tommy Hawk" is a hawk with the signature four feathers
- There is no "tomahawk chop' or other associated fan actions based on the name or logo that it is basically a caricature of the NA culture
- The Hawks themselves are respectful about the logo -- the 'Black Hawk' logo is relatively based on the chief himself. In addition, there are certain traditions that are observed -- for example, the logo on the floor of the locker room is not stepped on by players, etc
Ultimately - I would expect the Blackhawk logo and name to go, too... but it's usually at the very tail end of all such debates because it's probably done as inoffensively/uncaricaturely as such a thing can be done.
Looks a hell of lot like Wes Studi in Last of the Mohicans, don't it?
FWIW, Paul Lukas did a survey of Native American readers to get their opinions. He only got 11 responses, and they vary from "I have no problem, whatsoever, with the use of Native American logos" to "I have never liked the use of Native American imagery in sports. I see it as disrespectful."
#1 "What is completely unacceptable is the use of iconography that reinforces the ‘Myth of the Redman,’ instead of the actual people of this land. ... it’s hard to see that representation as anything more noble than the black-faced performers they replaced in Vaudeville shows."
#2 "I am of Cherokee descent and by and large have no misgivings regarding the use of Native American namesakes or imagery in sports — with the exception of the Redskins... I like the Braves — it is a strong, honorable term, and the team’s tomahawk logo looks great, no different than a sword being used for a team called the Knights.
#3 "The teams that have been given permission to use tribal names are fantastic, and keep the Native American culture alive. But the ones that are broad, out-dated stereotypes need to be erased."
#4 "For most pro teams, like the Indians and Braves, I don’t have an issue so much with their name as I do with their stereotypical mascots. Chief Noc-a-homa and Chief Wahoo both cross the line and are more of a caricature of Native Americans than a tribute."
That said, a stadium full of (mostly) white (mostly) southerners doing the tomahawk chop and associated chant strikes me as much more offensive on several levels. So, in that light, why bother worrying about Chief Noc-a-Homa?
Because if we don't, Frink's robot will kill Homer!
This makes a lot of sense to me, and is a big part of why I reacted negatively to the logo, as I do to the tomahawk chop. And DC calling it's team the "Redskins" is like if Notre Dame called their team the "Fighting Micks." Of course, this is the same city that called their NBA team the "Bullets" from 1974 until 1997.
Offensive?
The only black faces are on the bandstand.
Bullets don't discriminate.
By treaty, something like a third of the United States is occupied territory. Let's give it back.
Would it be less offensive had they stayed in Milwaukee or Boston?
Canal, I'll take the analogy even further and say, "Of course not! House of Pain and Vanilla Ice are white, you don't hear them complaining."
I'd never seen that before, and was ready to be impressed that Fallon had worked out a 10 minute routine...two five minute routines is pretty impressive though.
Everything is less offensive in Milwaukee. As for Boston, Scott Brown's campaign staff seem to have mastered the tomahawk chop already. Plus, the image of Bill Simmons doing the chop would allow me to consolidate two of my dislikes, which is nice.
I think there's a pretty big difference between taking personal offense and simply recognizing/attempting to understand or appreciate someone with a direct line to the purported offense, then supporting a change to remove that offense, if for no other reason than there are almost certainly things or situations to which I might genuinely take offense (which might be shared by a wholly different slice of people and considered silly by a different slice of others)... and I'd prefer to have the same done for me.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the latter...
House of Pain purport to be Irish, which hardly qualifies as white.
Obviously all these sports teams should get real native mascots as so not to promote offensive stereotypes. I know these gentlemen would leap at the chance.
I do think we should rename DC's team, the Macacas, to honor the fact that the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree.
#32, it is the ability of humans to empathize with other people that makes us our best. This is why Christianity followed in Judaism's footsteps by enshrining the golden rule as the pinnacle of understanding one's religious (and human) obligation. Trust me, just because you aren't hearing from Native Americans does not mean they are fine with being treated institutionally as caricatures.
When did the Redskins play in Milwaukee? :-)
From Wikipedia:
How about the Sausage Races? Who's thinking of the poor pigs we're disrespecting?!
Just curious/playing Devil's Advocate. Seems like there is room for discussion and recognizing that applying these concepts to EVERYTHING relevant might show that it isn't done in some disrespectful fashion.....it's just another way to sell tickets....a marketing gimmick.
What about being offended about being offended on behalf of other people?
Anyone who posts here telling someone to get a life seriously needs to look in the mirror.
It kind of breaks down in subjective fields like giving offense, though, as evidenced by the most awesome team mascot ever.
A lot of fun. Fallon impresses me, and I've always liked Timberlake, who from all reports is very down to earth. But it's the Roots make that tribute work.
Link?
So if somebody white casually uses the word N*gg*r to refer to black people, other white people are not allowed to be offended?
If somebody rails against the Kikes running hollywood, gentiles need not mind it?
If somebody says the problem is that the damn spics refuse to learn English, anglos can take the day off?
If somebody tells racist jokes, we are obliged to put up with it, because we are not the ones being denigrated?
That found it for me, thanks.
You're still wrong, but thanks.
Is this a serious comment? "I haven't seen it before, therefore it must be new." Because it's not a new logo. As I said before, they sold merchandise with this logo last year. This is only an issue because it is now on their batting practice hats.
Are you sure?
I pity the fool that doesn't like this logo.
Somehow, that look even worse. Probably the demonically reversed eye tones.
So if somebody white casually uses the word N*gg*r to refer to black people, other white people are not allowed to be offended?
If somebody rails against the Kikes running hollywood, gentiles need not mind it?
If somebody says the problem is that the damn spics refuse to learn English, anglos can take the day off?
If somebody tells racist jokes, we are obliged to put up with it, because we are not the ones being denigrated?
If you like. They're just words spoken by ignorant people, we all know it's not cool. If you want to chase down everyone who dares speak and un-PC word, go for it. I've got stuff to do, we've gotten past the point in this society where stuff like that actually makes any real difference. Whether or not we hold Michael Richards or that kid the Jays traded to the Mets or whomever's feet to the fire makes no real difference in anyone's life. It's just folks with too much time on their hands getting to feel self righteous.
Hilarious.
Likewise, and it struck me as odd. I can see a mascot being fierce, or stern, or concentrating like the Dickens, or looking tough and superior, but, laughing his head off? What was that about?
I agree. This has to be the most easily offended generation that ever walked the Earth.
The amount of thought I gave to Richards and the Jays kid was nil. The amount of thought I give to a national baseball franchise is, shockingly, not nil. Your comparison makes no sense.
BTW, the idea that people are "offended" oh lord, and fanning themselves is silly. It irritates me, and strikes me as stupid and making lives more difficult. The idea that trying to curtail that is worthy of animus because... well, I don't know the because. Because it forces you to think even remotely of others? Whatever.
We take a few seconds out of our day to say, "hey Noah Syndergaard, don't be a jackass", or "hey Washington Football Club, don't be jackasses". (The effect works more quickly on individuals than corporations.) People like Robert get far more worked up about these issues than anyone else.
Oddly enough, the 'Yo Is This Racist' podcast (summary: eh) was playing in the background as I saw this and the guest made a point that I think gets at Robert's/Ty's concern. Paraphrasing and tweaking: As soon as you signal yourself as someone who's thoughtful / willing to talk about / etc... these issues, you can then be pegged as someone who has to think about these things in a very specific way and be vigilant about it - which is odd, as it's not thoughtfulness that's the core problem, it's ignorance and/or a lack of basic human consideration.
I mean, just personally, if the worst direct side effect of people en masse recognizing the damages of tacit and overt institutional racism is that people get a little upset when they see a caricature of Native Americans whose name is a joke at the expense of how "weird" American Indian names are....well--that seems like the thing that's not particularly worth getting upset about. Not the quote/unquote attack on a vestige of the days when it was both okay to make jokes at the expense of others and also not hire others or let them date your daughter.
From sportscyclopedia.com:
Lone Star Dietz(half German, half Sioux) was a teammate of Jim Thorpe at Carlisle. Wikipaedia indicates that the name Redskins was chosen by George Preston Marshall to magnify the PR of the hire of Dietz, thought of as a star coach.
The Redksins won a law suit against them claiming that their trademarked name was an offensive word. I think they should keep the respectful logo and change their name to the Potomacs or some similar local Native American term.
Really? I would guess that in past generations actual violence and wars were started by verbal offenses and perceived slights between groups. And even now in other countries, wasn't there recently actual violence because of that movie making fun of Mohammed?
But you think a few people trying peacefully to get a logo changed is the most easily offended group of all time? Get a grip
Count me as a vote in favor. I might even watch a football game if the Rednecks were playing.
I think you know that nobody is saying that. I believe that it is just a question of a) what kind of characterizations are being made (e.g. nobody really knows what this Indian is supposed to depict) and b) what you think of your own place in society (e.g. whether you feel like it is your responsibility to be vigilant on behalf of/along side of those who may be being discriminated against).
Oh, and as for the Braves' batting practice cap, how about using the Indian head profile worn on the sleeve during their final few years in Boston and first few years in Milwaukee? Far less offensive.
They last played in Milwaukee in 1988 at County Stadium.
The Redskins have played the Packers in Milwaukee a handful of times over the years, some at State Fair Park.
Teaching people how to behave presumes that the "teacher" knows how to behave and has some higher morality. It has not been my experience that people who criticize non-politically correct speech are any less bigoted or know how to behave any better than people who either do not criticize such speech or even those who engage in such speech. All these "teachers" are doing is "teaching" other people to be more like themselves.....and that's usually not any better.
If by higher morality you mean don't be disrespectful of other people, take their feelings into account, don't be a jackass regarding racial stereotypes and such then yeah in this instance the teacher does have moral high ground over the "Washington Football Team" and others.
The first game in "modern" (division era) NFL history was the Boston Redskins at Green Bay in 1933, which was also the first game in Redskins history. And as you correctly say, they also played in Milwaukee several times over the years.
Can you provide an example? (not a gotcha -- I'm genuinely curious)
No, it just means that you have to recognize when somebody is doing something wrong. It doesn't take any 'higher morality' to do that (fortunately).
The use of "non politically-correct" here is a dead giveaway because it's never applied to socially-disapproved-of language that conservatives don't like.
What the hell does this even mean? Say, "chink"? If I criticize or try and correct my teenage niece if I hear this, I'm some kind of... what?
Scout's Alley has been renamed Trail of Tears. (They're greasy tears.)
Like former Washington NFL Team coach Earl "Greasy" Neale? See how I brought that full circle?
Too bad that Neale coached Washington & Jefferson college and the Philadelphia Eagles, but not the Washington Redskins. But it's close enough for BTF horseshoes.
Maybe "whiny" is a better word for it. No harm in being offended about, you know, really important stuff. For people to contend this hat is prima facie an act of horrible racism on the part of the Atlanta Braves organization is rather ridiculous.
I don't think this generation is the most easily offended because of the Braves cap, so you can go grip yourself. It's a much broader statement I'm making, obviously. But this isn't a bad example of people getting their panties in a wad over something relatively trivial - even if it were offensive, which is certainly debatable.
As a spokesperson for the AGPA (American Gray People Association) I demand an immediate apology. Your blatant racism and anti-gray comments have no place in a civilized society. You are history's greatest monster. There are many other posters here who also need to make public apologies and go through a mandatory six month sensitivity training course for their vicious and disempowering comments, particularly Sam and his insensitive although funny Smallpox Blanket Giveaway comment.
You just erroneously told an Eagles fan that Greasy Neale coached a rival team. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
I'm excited to see the "How Fast Can You Pitch" boot under the grandstands turned into the new "Scalpin' Station." That should be fun for all the kids.
A friend of my gf's did that. He neglected to tell them he had recently been drafted. He threw 93.
Thank you....I was wondering when our voice would be heard!
Not sure how we're measuring, and it's restricting it to a class, but 17th century French nobility seemed pretty easily offended judging by how many duels they fought.
OK I'll put this even more bluntly so you can understand. If I do not respect your opinion on what is or is not "disrespectful of other people" or being a "jackass regarding racial stereotypes", then you look like a dense hypocrite to me when you pretend that you actually know anything about that topic, and I do not care to be "taught" anything by you, and I also find it irritating when you try to "teach" in a public forum. Basically, unless you have some track record of fighting for an unpopular cause in the realm of "respecting other people", you have no credibility to teach anyone anything on this topic. Anything you say is just some guy on the street voicing an opinion which should be ignored as a default response.
It means that you presume to know what is right or wrong, and that other people should care about your opinion. Nobody who doesn't already respect you has any reason to care about your opinion on this matter.
I have no idea what this refers to, but what I meant by "non-politically correct" is words and images that were not disapproved of at one time and then subsequently became disapproved of. The meaning of the words and images has not changed, rather only how popular it makes the purveyor of the words and images has changed. I have no idea what you mean by "conservatives", and at this point, don't particularly care.
So you are saying there is no such thing as right or wrong, it's all just opinion and relative?
And yet you seem to care about people's opinions here quite a lot.
The meaning of words and images changes all the time. Look at the swastika. But in fact what has changed in a lot of these disputes is not the meaning of words and images (there was no time in the past when 'redskins' was not an offensive term), but the social and political power of those whom the words and images were directed against. In the past, insulting other groups was so de rigeur people often did it without thinking about it, now we are much more aware of the effects on other people, and respectful of their feelings on the matter.
I guess I get what the "this is a horrible racist name" people are saying, but I have yet to meet an American Indian who actually cares.
To busy making a spicy curry, I suppose.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main