Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Perry: Braves pass on ‘screaming Indian’ hat logo

The reality is that in 2013 this is what is known as “a smart business decision.”

Quelle surprise.

spike Posted: February 12, 2013 at 11:14 AM | 222 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: braves

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.

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 
   1. Depressoteric feels Royally blue these days Posted: February 12, 2013 at 11:42 AM (#4367738)
I still don't know what was so offensive about it. The guy was LAUGHING (gloating, perhaps), not screaming.

It wasn't even a caricature, like Cleveland's logo. It was/is an accurate portrait of what an indian brave that had just kicked your ass might well look like.
   2. Chris Needham Posted: February 12, 2013 at 11:46 AM (#4367742)
I still don't know what was so offensive about it. It was/is an accurate statue of what a black jockey holding a lantern might well look like.
   3.  Hey Gurl Posted: February 12, 2013 at 11:48 AM (#4367744)
Well, we're off to a pretty good start here.
   4. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 12, 2013 at 11:49 AM (#4367745)
The thing that I always come back to on this is that the entire controversy is so...shallow.

The Braves have sold merchandise with that logo on it since the 1960s.

If you go into the Braves' stores at Turner Field or CNN Center, you can buy hats, shirts and jackets with that image on them today, just as you could last year, and the years before that.

The only thing the Braves were going to do was to have the players wear the cap with the logo/image on it, during BP.

Now they're not going to wear them during BP.

That is all.
   5. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: February 12, 2013 at 11:50 AM (#4367748)
Even aside from the image being offensive, which I'm not qualified to say, it's just a hideous thing to look at.

I had no idea the Braves had used it on anything in the past 30 years. I guess the fans who buy that merchandise don't travel much.
   6. McCoy Posted: February 12, 2013 at 11:51 AM (#4367749)
Well, thousands of Indians will rest easy knowing that.
   7. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: February 12, 2013 at 11:55 AM (#4367754)
The Braves have sold merchandise with that logo on it since the 1960s.


I think there are valid reasons to not be offended by it (Eso is right that it's not particularly caricature-esque IMO) but just because they've been doing it for a long time isn't proof that it's right. I think the Washington football name should be changed and the fact that they've had it for 75 years or whatever doesn't make that right in my opinion.
   8. spike Posted: February 12, 2013 at 11:56 AM (#4367755)
It was/is an accurate portrait of what an indian brave that had just kicked your ass might well look like.

In the minds of the culture that had just waged a successful ethnic cleansing/mostly successful genocide against them anyway.

//and I say this as as Braves fan who cherishes the history of the image - but to say that one doesn't understand what's offensive about it at this stage? Really.
   9. McCoy Posted: February 12, 2013 at 11:57 AM (#4367758)
To the victor go the hats.
   10. Joey B. has reignited his October #Natitude Posted: February 12, 2013 at 11:57 AM (#4367761)
A much more appropriate logo would be a hayseed doing the dumb-ass "tomahawk chop" while throwing his beer bottle out onto the field.
   11. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 12, 2013 at 11:58 AM (#4367764)
Well, thousands of Indians will rest easy knowing that.


Hundreds of thousands of them have been resting in peace for centuries now.
   12. JJ1986 Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:00 PM (#4367768)
Someone somewhere on the internet decided that this image was called the "Screaming Savage" (or "Screaming Indian") which is obviously offensive, and somehow that name stuck to the image. It's insanely weird to me that people decided to run with that like it was the official moniker since I can't find reference to the name before 2012.
   13. McCoy Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:01 PM (#4367770)
Hundreds of thousands of them have been resting in peace for centuries now.

So have the people who put them there.
   14. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:03 PM (#4367773)
In the minds of the culture that had just waged a successful ethnic cleansing/mostly successful genocide against them anyway.

Genocide is an inappropriate term here. The vast bulk of the loss of NA Indian population occurred well before colonization started in earnest, and was caused by disease.

Up to 80-90% of the NA Indian population died in the late-16th, early 17th centuries. The European colonists arrived into a largely depopulated landscape.

Was there ethnic cleansing? Definitely. Genocide? No.
   15. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:07 PM (#4367783)
This thread is not going well. Let's address my aesthetic concerns again. This is the ugliest logo of any sort in baseball, since the Blue Jays got rid of their roided-up bird-man-monster. Get it off the hats because it makes you look like a ridiculous organization.
   16. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:07 PM (#4367784)
Well, thousands of Indians will rest easy knowing that.


In their wigwams, snuggled comfortably with squaw and pappose, a plume of picturesque smoke twisting from It's apex.

Hundreds of thousands of them have been resting in peace for centuries now.


Well yeah, them and everyone else.

[A long-hidden Crystal Pepsi to McCoy]
   17. spike Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:11 PM (#4367791)
I can't find reference to the name before 2012.

When the topic came up at Braves Journal, many earlier references were found, including Furman Bisher writing in 1991 during Atlanta's WS run. It's been in use for some time.
   18. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:16 PM (#4367799)
PC-ism exists because people are too stupid for nuance.
   19. I Fought Vance Law and Vance Law Won Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:30 PM (#4367821)
Change the team name to the Bravos, earn some goodwill, and clean up on new merchandise sales for a few years.
   20. RMc is a fine piece of cheese Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:33 PM (#4367825)
This just in: people continue to be offended by utter nonsense, because contemplating important stuff is just too hard. Film at eleven.
   21. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:35 PM (#4367829)
I still don't know what was so offensive about it. The guy was LAUGHING (gloating, perhaps), not screaming.

It wasn't even a caricature, like Cleveland's logo. It was/is an accurate portrait of what an indian brave that had just kicked your ass might well look like.


I don't see what Indians have to do with Barves. What is a Barve anyway?
   22. Transmission Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:39 PM (#4367837)
18 - PCism exists because people have a right to exert some control over their identity.

You have a right to expect me to address you as Drew, not Dror or D-mac or Druid, and a right to expect some input before I decide to launch a marketing campaign based on your name or heritage.

I've never understood what's to get worked up about with what seems to me to be little more than an effort to encode the rules of common courtesy I was taught in elementary school. We ask people how they want to be identified, and if we're using a peoples' likeness in a multi-billion dollar business, we make some effort to do due diligence that those people find the representation respectful.
   23. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:41 PM (#4367839)
This just in: people continue to be offended by utter nonsense, because contemplating important stuff is just too hard. Film at eleven.

What important things shall we discuss? Clearly you have some deep messages to relate.

I don't see what Indians have to do with Barves. What is a Barve anyway?

.jpg]I think this is a barve.
   24. Mayor Blomberg Posted: February 12, 2013 at 01:05 PM (#4367883)
This just in: people continue to be offended by utter nonsense,

as we see in response to the weekly Murray Chass blog.
   25. spike Posted: February 12, 2013 at 01:09 PM (#4367889)
Was there ethnic cleansing? Definitely. Genocide? No.

Not to derail, but there are any number of scholarly resources that disagree with you. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but it is far from a universally held one.
   26. DA Baracus Posted: February 12, 2013 at 01:16 PM (#4367899)
just because they've been doing it for a long time isn't proof that it's right.


It's not that it's "right." It's that it is stupid. This wasn't an issue until it was on a BP cap and now it's no longer an issue because it's not going to be on a BP cap even though the Braves have sold and will continue to sell merchandise with this logo on it, and nobody in the media cares or realizes this. The logo didn't go away, it just went out of the spotlight.
   27. Dingbat_Charlie Posted: February 12, 2013 at 01:19 PM (#4367903)
To the victor go the hats.

I laughed.
   28. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: February 12, 2013 at 01:22 PM (#4367908)
The logo didn't go away, it just went out of the spotlight.

That's right. It shouldn't be in the spotlight. Braves fans with a knowledge of Braves history understand whatever "nuance" there is in this hideous and seemingly offensive logo. Don't make it part of the official uniform, even the most minor part of the official uniform, because tons of other people become aware of it and it will be misinterpreted. End of story.
   29. tfbg9 Posted: February 12, 2013 at 01:32 PM (#4367924)
from the link in #25:




In 2003, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez urged Latin Americans to not celebrate the Columbus Day holiday. Chavez blamed Christopher Columbus for leading the way in the mass genocide of the Native Americans by the Spanish.[38]




In his book American Holocaust, David Stannard argues that the destruction of the aboriginal peoples of the Americas, in a "string of genocide campaigns" by Europeans and their descendants, was the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world.[22] Stannard's argument has been supported by Ward Churchill, who has said "it was precisely malice, not nature, that did the deed."[36] Stannard's claim of 100 million deaths has been challenged because he does not cite any demographic evidence to support this number, and because he makes no distinction between death from violence and death from disease. Noble David Cook, Latin Americanist and history professor at Florida International University, considers books such as Stannard's–a number of which were released around the year 1992 to coincide with the 500th anniversary of the Columbus voyage to America–to be an unproductive return to Black Legend-type explanations for depopulation. According to Noble David Cook, "There were too few Spaniards to have killed the millions who were reported to have died in the first century after Old and New World contact."[37]

   30. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: February 12, 2013 at 01:45 PM (#4367941)
It's not that it's "right." It's that it is stupid. This wasn't an issue until it was on a BP cap and now it's no longer an issue because it's not going to be on a BP cap even though the Braves have sold and will continue to sell merchandise with this logo on it, and nobody in the media cares or realizes this. The logo didn't go away, it just went out of the spotlight.

That seems like a good outcome to me. In fact, I'd love to see the Redskins do the same thing.
   31. Dave Spiwak Posted: February 12, 2013 at 01:46 PM (#4367943)
It's an ugly hat but I'm sure people would wear it since it looks kind of like a retro Hanna Barbera cartoon drawing.

I don't think there's anything inherently offensive about the name "Braves," but the tomahawk chop seems a bit much.

What I really don't get is why it's ok for the Indians to have a Native American Sambo on their caps.
   32. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: February 12, 2013 at 01:46 PM (#4367944)
Isn't there some evidence that many tribes were wiped out by disease before the Europeans had a chance to enlsave/conquer/kill them? My point of reference on this is the book 1491 and I don't know how that book is looked upon in the circles of serious historicism.
   33. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 01:48 PM (#4367951)
Not to derail, but there are any number of scholarly resources that disagree with you. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but it is far from a universally held one.

It really is beyond dispute that the vast majority of American Indians died from disease, not violence.

That disease was coming even if it was only 1000 Peace Corps volunteers that actually came to the Americas. Many NA tribes suffered the mass die-off from disease before they even contacted Europeans, as it spread through inter-Indian trade.

In his book American Holocaust, David Stannard argues that the destruction of the aboriginal peoples of the Americas, in a "string of genocide campaigns" by Europeans and their descendants, was the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world.[22] Stannard's argument has been supported by Ward Churchill, who has said "it was precisely malice, not nature, that did the deed."[36] Stannard's claim of 100 million deaths has been challenged because he does not cite any demographic evidence to support this number, and because he makes no distinction between death from violence and death from disease. Noble David Cook, Latin Americanist and history professor at Florida International University, considers books such as Stannard's–a number of which were released around the year 1992 to coincide with the 500th anniversary of the Columbus voyage to America–to be an unproductive return to Black Legend-type explanations for depopulation. According to Noble David Cook, "There were too few Spaniards to have killed the millions who were reported to have died in the first century after Old and New World contact."[37]

Thanks for the quote.

Yes, the Spanish actually wanted the Meso-American Indians alive to work for them. The last thing they wanted to do was exterminate the labor source for their Haciendas.

In South America, the Conquistadors largely married noble Incan women, and created a hybrid culture. Again, no organized attempts to kill the natives, as can be seen by looking at the racial composition of South America today.
   34. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 01:52 PM (#4367957)
Isn't there some evidence that many tribes were wiped out by disease before the Europeans had a chance to enlsave/conquer/kill them? My point of reference on this is the book 1491 and I don't know how that book is looked upon in the circles of serious historicism.

Yes.

The best scholarship I've seen is that 70-80% of North American Indians had died before the Pilgrims landed.

Plymouth itself was an abandoned Indian village where everyone had died. The whole coastal region was largely depopulated. That's why tiny bands of settler had such an easy time claiming huge tracts of land.
   35. spike Posted: February 12, 2013 at 01:59 PM (#4367972)
Conflating how they died with whether or not there was an attempt to kill them off is hardly an argument in and of itself.
   36. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 12, 2013 at 02:07 PM (#4367983)
I'm pretty sure Snapper's right. The major pre-Columbian civilizations were well into a downswing prior to the European colonization of the Americas. That's not to say colonization was all rosy and just moving in and renovating an abandoned neighborhood, but it's not the "Europeans wiped out 100 million native Americans" genocide that some folks want to sell either.
   37. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 02:16 PM (#4367988)
What I really don't get is why it's ok for the Indians to have a Native American Sambo on their caps.


I'd rather see more Sambos as mascots. Make it fun. Leering leprechauns, joyful Jews with yarmulkes and pais, Angelfood McSpade in a baseball cap, go nuts, have fun with it. Ethnic identity doesn't have to be shameful, it can be joyous and ebullient.
   38. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 02:16 PM (#4367989)
Conflating how they died with whether or not there was an attempt to kill them off is hardly an argument in and of itself.

In N America, most of them died before anyone who could attempt to kill them even arrived.
   39. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: February 12, 2013 at 02:18 PM (#4367990)
Right! The policies of organized genocide weren't in the 16th and 17th centuries, they were throughout the 19th century with the Trail of Tears, Wounded Knee, Dawes Act, etc.
   40. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: February 12, 2013 at 02:22 PM (#4367993)
In N America, most of them died before anyone who could attempt to kill them even arrived.

This is a separate issue, though. It doesn't make what happened to the peoples who survived the plagues any less horrifying because there were fewer of them to be conquered, nor does it make the conquerors less culpable. In fact, the mass die offs from disease is probably what made the conquest of America by Europe possible.
   41. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: February 12, 2013 at 02:22 PM (#4367994)
I wonder how many people are even aware of the depopulation. My impression is most people tend to view pre-columbian north america as a sparsely populated eden because that's just the way things were, and have no idea that massive numbers of native americans lived there only a few years before Columbus's arrival.
   42. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 02:23 PM (#4367995)
18 - PCism exists because people have a right to exert some control over their identity.


OK, but the PC-ism of today is OMG YOU SAID "BLACK" INCORRECTLY THIS IS WAR BLOOD WE WANT YOUR BLOOD AND YOUR MONEY. It's several orders of magnitude beyond "exerting some control".
   43. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 02:28 PM (#4368001)
Right! The policies of organized genocide weren't in the 16th and 17th centuries, they were throughout the 19th century with the Trail of Tears, Wounded Knee, Dawes Act, etc.

Like I said, ethnic cleansing, not genocide.
   44. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 02:32 PM (#4368003)
This is a separate issue, though. It doesn't make what happened to the peoples who survived the plagues any less horrifying because there were fewer of them to be conquered, nor does it make the conquerors less culpable. In fact, the mass die offs from disease is probably what made the conquest of America by Europe possible.

Right, but no one tried to exterminate the people who were left. They mixed trade with pushing them off their lands. There were massacres and dispossessions, but there was never any systematic effort to eliminate populations.

In Latin America, where the Europeans gained rapid control over large populations, the desire was exactly the opposite of genocide. There were very, very few European colonists. The Conquistadors and their descendants had zero interest in eliminating the natives; they wanted them as a labor force.

Again, not saying they didn't mistreat the Indians, but there was no attempt at, nor desire for, extermination.
   45. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: February 12, 2013 at 03:05 PM (#4368040)
There were genocidal moments in early American history. The Pequot War was pretty clearly a genocidal war. King Philip’s War turned into a genocidal war, but that's understandable as it started with the Indians attempting to exterminate the white settlers. The one well-documented "smallpox blankets" incident was during Pontiac's War, and that's a pretty clear attempt at a local genocide. There may have been another effort in the 1830s. If true, that's another shot at genocidal germ warfare

Most Indian wars weren't genocidal. Early on the Spaniards had some genocidal impulses, but they were generally restrained by the Jesuits (this is an oversimplification, but it works here). In America, Indian wars were generally land grabs, with massacres intended as a show of terrorism. Not nice, but not genocidal, with some local exceptions.

FWIW, the logo is clearly a stereotype. The only Indians who regularly wore mohawks were the Pawnee who lived in Kansas and Nebraska. I'm not going to make a ruling on whether it is offensive or not, but, unless the artist thought he was depicting a Pawnee, the image is by definition a stereotype.
   46. Swoboda is freedom Posted: February 12, 2013 at 03:11 PM (#4368048)
To the victor go the hats.


To the losers, the small pox infected blankets.

Change the team name to the Bravos,

You could have Pavarotti be the mascot.
   47. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: February 12, 2013 at 03:22 PM (#4368063)
Most Indian wars weren't genocidal. Early on the Spaniards had some genocidal impulses, but they were generally restrained by the Jesuits (this is an oversimplification, but it works here). In America, Indian wars were generally land grabs, with massacres intended as a show of terrorism. Not nice, but not genocidal, with some local exceptions.

Although not large scale or particularly organized there were also a large number of attempts at local exterminations in California in the early/mid 1800's.
   48. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 03:41 PM (#4368096)
Although not large scale or particularly organized there were also a large number of attempts at local exterminations in California in the early/mid 1800's.

Sure. But local massacres were a feature of war from time immemorial. Go read up on Timurlane if you want to see some massacring.

Genocide is a fairly unique, largely 20th century, phenomenon.
   49. Shredder Posted: February 12, 2013 at 03:47 PM (#4368108)
Well, thousands of Indians will rest easy knowing that.
I won't pretend to know what's in the mind of people who find things like that image offensive, but that's not really up to me. 15 years ago I probably would said "screw those thin skinned people who find this offensive". But the reality is if you're faced with a decision between something that offends 1% of the population and something that offends zero percent of the population, it's a pretty easy decision.
   50. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 03:54 PM (#4368116)
But the reality is if you're faced with a decision between something that offends 1% of the population and something that offends zero percent of the population, it's a pretty easy decision.


Sure -- you shouldn't settle for anything less than 3 percent at the very minimum, surely.
   51. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: February 12, 2013 at 04:04 PM (#4368125)
Score one for the politically correct douchbags. As always, saying that a group is so pathetic that they need to be protected from something this harmless is much more racist/offensive than the actual hats.
   52. Nasty Nate Posted: February 12, 2013 at 04:06 PM (#4368127)
saying that a group is so pathetic that they need to be protected from something this harmless


no one anywhere said this
   53. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: February 12, 2013 at 04:07 PM (#4368128)
Sure. But local massacres were a feature of war from time immemorial. Go read up on Timurlane if you want to see some massacring.

Genocide is a fairly unique, largely 20th century, phenomenon.


I think that there are different definitions of "genocide" operating here. My mention of the Pequot War and Pops' references to local exterminations point to the wiping out of smaller tribes, which we're defining as genocide. The tribal groups were small enough (low thousands, generally) that you could call it a "local massacre" if you wanted to. If you define genocide as meaning the deliberate destruction of a cultural and often linguistic group then there were genocides in American history. If you require a larger body count then there weren't.
   54. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: February 12, 2013 at 04:11 PM (#4368137)
That's the implication.

Millions of commercials air every day portraying white males as incompetent half-wits. No protests because they can take it. Try that with another group and you'll have white PC douchbags at your door. Because, of course, those others groups are weak and need protection.

Edit: Of course I should say that they are not weak. Our society has spawned an industry of people who get offended on behalf of everyone. Somehow we have seen fit to give these people power to censor anything and everything. Someday it will not be so.
   55. Randy Jones Posted: February 12, 2013 at 04:18 PM (#4368146)
Sure. But local massacres were a feature of war from time immemorial. Go read up on Timurlane if you want to see some massacring.

Genocide is a fairly unique, largely 20th century, phenomenon.



I think that there are different definitions of "genocide" operating here. My mention of the Pequot War and Pops' references to local exterminations point to the wiping out of smaller tribes, which we're defining as genocide. The tribal groups were small enough (low thousands, generally) that you could call it a "local massacre" if you wanted to. If you define genocide as meaning the deliberate destruction of a cultural and often linguistic group then there were genocides in American history. If you require a larger body count then there weren't.


You have to understand where snapper is coming from. He's done this in other threads. He is trying to narrow the definition of genocide so that it only applies to the Holocaust and Russia under Stalin. He will then blame those two events on lack of religion leading to a lack of morals.
   56. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 04:33 PM (#4368160)
You have to understand where snapper is coming from. He's done this in other threads. He is trying to narrow the definition of genocide so that it only applies to the Holocaust and Russia under Stalin. He will then blame those two events on lack of religion leading to a lack of morals.


Attempts to deny the existence of Cannibal Holocaust & Zombie Holocaust are futile.
   57. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 12, 2013 at 04:33 PM (#4368162)
Genocide is a fairly unique, largely 20th century, phenomenon.


Tell that to the people of Jericho.
   58. Lassus Posted: February 12, 2013 at 04:46 PM (#4368181)

www.White(andor)Man'sBurdenThinkFactory.com
   59. phredbird Posted: February 12, 2013 at 05:04 PM (#4368204)
Millions of commercials air every day portraying white males as incompetent half-wits. No protests because they can take it. Try that with another group and you'll have white PC douchbags at your door.


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.

btw, have you seen any of golden corral's campaign? the black family where the young kid basically cons his impressionable father into going to the restaurant? i think i've seen that a thousand times. just going there because the popular image of the father as the last one to get it isn't restricted to white males.
   60. Charlie O Posted: February 12, 2013 at 05:07 PM (#4368210)
Millions of commercials air every day portraying white males as incompetent half-wits. No protests because they can take it. Try that with another group and you'll have white PC douchbags at your door. Because, of course, those others groups are weak and need protection.


Men and women of just about any type are depicted as incompetent half-wits in American TV commercials. Just as we have the commercials with men who will plot like Wile E. Coyote for a bottle of beer they could easily buy at the corner store for a few bucks, we have women who will do the same for a spoonful of low-fat yogurt or chocolate pudding. I don't see that white men are being singled out. Perhaps white men are the butt of the joke more often because white men are present on TV more than anyone else.
   61. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 05:13 PM (#4368219)
You have to understand where snapper is coming from. He's done this in other threads. He is trying to narrow the definition of genocide so that it only applies to the Holocaust and Russia under Stalin. He will then blame those two events on lack of religion leading to a lack of morals.

Way to put words in my mouth that I never said.

The Armenians count as a genocide. The Chinese in Indonesia count as a genocide. The Rwandan Hutu massacre of Tutsi's counts as a genocide. Cambodia under Pol Pot counts as a genocide. The Nazis had 3 or more genocides (Jews, Gypsys, Homosexuals). The Soviets multiple also (de-kulakization, the terror famines against the Ukrainians and various Central Asian people).

Genocide is a fairly unique phenomenon where a racial or religious group or class is singled out for extermination, usually as a scapegoat for some failure of the regime or broader society.

Wiping out a village b/c you want their land or their gold is evil, but it's not genocide. No one talks about the Roman genocide of the Sabines, or Timurlane's genocide in Damascus.

I think that there are different definitions of "genocide" operating here. My mention of the Pequot War and Pops' references to local exterminations point to the wiping out of smaller tribes, which we're defining as genocide. The tribal groups were small enough (low thousands, generally) that you could call it a "local massacre" if you wanted to. If you define genocide as meaning the deliberate destruction of a cultural and often linguistic group then there were genocides in American history. If you require a larger body count then there weren't.

Correct. Local massacres of thousands or tens of thousands of people are so common in history as to defy counting. The Mongols and their successors states slaughtered conquered cities by the hundreds of thousands and millions. But, they never tried to wipe out an ethnic, religious or class group.

To define every massacre as a genocide denudes the word of meaning, and robs us of a term to describe a very specific 20th century phenomenon.

   62. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: February 12, 2013 at 05:44 PM (#4368255)
To define every massacre as a genocide denudes the word of meaning, and robs us of a term to describe a very specific 20th century phenomenon.

So the attempted extermination of Amalekites (for example) doesn't count?
   63. jack the seal clubber (on the sidelines of life) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 05:47 PM (#4368259)
Millions of commercials air every day portraying white males as incompetent half-wits. No protests because they can take it. Try that with another group and you'll have white PC douchbags at your door. Because, of course, those others groups are weak and need protection


This is absolutely true, but even worse is the way the potential customers of the product Madison Ave wants to sell are portrayed..beer commercials are probably the worst, but for some reason most advertisers think that their buyers like to think of themselves as idiots.
   64. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 05:50 PM (#4368265)
So the attempted extermination of Amalekites (for example) doesn't count?

It might have been I guess, or it might have been a simple massacre or tribal war. OT history is not in fact history in the sense we think of it.

The Amalekites might have been a real people that the Israelites exterminated, or they may have just been a band under a guy named Amalek who lost a turf war.

We simply can't know.
   65. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: February 12, 2013 at 06:00 PM (#4368274)
Yes, the historical record is spotty (though there are many sources outside the OT which record the existence of the Amalekites) but certainly the OT passage shows the sentiment of genocide was a conception that existed at the time the OT was written. I think it's far far more likely that a multitude if genocides have taken place outside the historical record. To say it's restricted to a 20th/21st century phenomenon goes too far.
   66. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: February 12, 2013 at 06:02 PM (#4368277)
Correct. Local massacres of thousands or tens of thousands of people are so common in history as to defy counting. The Mongols and their successors states slaughtered conquered cities by the hundreds of thousands and millions. But, they never tried to wipe out an ethnic, religious or class group.


But the Pequot were a nation and language group who were all but wiped out. By the OED definition ("The deliberate and systematic extermination of an ethnic or national group") it absolutely is genocide. There weren't many of them, but they were a definable and separate group and they were eliminated. If we only think of nations and peoples and languages in modern terms (i.e., with numbers usually counted in the millions) then a group like the Pequot seem piddling, but they were a recognizable and separate cultural and linguistic group. Does wiping them out not count as genocide?

In modern terms, if the people of New Zealand were to systematically murder the entire nation of Nauru (pop. ~10,000), is that genocide? If not, it would only be because you can only commit genocide against a group of over $large_number people. Which would seem to be an argument that the dictionary definition of genocide is incorrect, or at least incomplete.
   67. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: February 12, 2013 at 07:14 PM (#4368332)
This is absolutely true, but even worse is the way the potential customers of the product Madison Ave wants to sell are portrayed..beer commercials are probably the worst, but for some reason most advertisers think that their buyers like to think of themselves as idiots.

Well they need a joke and the only safe target is a white male. There's a commercial out now where the white guy is playing catch with his son and the son throws like a - have the PC police on standby - girl. But then in the reveal, it turns out the Dad also throws like a girl. Madison Avenue Magic. Now imagine if they had accidentally implied the Dad was gay. Blood flowing through the streets, everyone is fired. Again, because somehow this is a weak group that needs protection. Which of course they don't but this is the society we have created.

The Braves logo is a cartoon. Nobody really believes that Indians look or act this way, just as no one thinks that sponges on the ocean floor wear square pants, it's just something silly to try to move some merch. 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.

   68. zonk Posted: February 12, 2013 at 07:37 PM (#4368348)

Well they need a joke and the only safe target is a white male. There's a commercial out now where the white guy is playing catch with his son and the son throws like a - have the PC police on standby - girl. But then in the reveal, it turns out the Dad also throws like a girl. Madison Avenue Magic. Now imagine if they had accidentally implied the Dad was gay. Blood flowing through the streets, everyone is fired. Again, because somehow this is a weak group that needs protection. Which of course they don't but this is the society we have created.

The Braves logo is a cartoon. Nobody really believes that Indians look or act this way, just as no one thinks that sponges on the ocean floor wear square pants, it's just something silly to try to move some merch. 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.


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.

Why is the idea that if the group targeted being cartoonized/logoized/whatever considers it offensive, we ought to respect such a difficult concept?

If a friggin troupe of bears tonight learns the ability to speak and paint signs, then marches on Daley Plaza demanding that the Cubs and Bears change their logo and rename the teams -- the ####### bears have a better idea of what it means to be a bear than I do, so fine... I'll buy new gear and adapt to the seeing the Chicago Cheap Beer Guzzling Trixies playing at Wrigley Field or the Chicago Heart Attacks in Waiting playing on Sundays.

I mean, if in doubt - ask the group being depicted... if the majority of them are offended, then what's the big deal about respecting their ability to determine whether they're offended and acting appropriately?
   69. bobm Posted: February 12, 2013 at 08:04 PM (#4368362)
btw, have you seen any of golden corral's campaign? the black family where the young kid basically cons his impressionable father into going to the restaurant? i think i've seen that a thousand times. just going there because the popular image of the father as the last one to get it isn't restricted to white males.

The Parent Whisperer - Math
By goldencorral

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neg_LI8-Ljo&sns=em
   70. RMc is a fine piece of cheese Posted: February 12, 2013 at 08:14 PM (#4368370)
What's worse: wearing a stupid logo or quoting Ward Churchill? You decide.
   71. Everybody Loves Tyrus Raymond Posted: February 12, 2013 at 08:34 PM (#4368381)
Millions of commercials air every day portraying white males as incompetent half-wits. No protests because they can take it. Try that with another group and you'll have white PC douchbags at your door. Because, of course, those others groups are weak and need protection.

Edit: Of course I should say that they are not weak. Our society has spawned an industry of people who get offended on behalf of everyone. Somehow we have seen fit to give these people power to censor anything and everything. Someday it will not be so.


This.

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.


Nobody consulted this white male. Even if 90% of the commercials are created by white men doesn't mean 90% of white men are okay with being portrayed as stereotypical dumbasses. If Dan Snyder was Native-American would that nullify the concerns about his team's name?

   72. Everybody Loves Tyrus Raymond Posted: February 12, 2013 at 08:50 PM (#4368389)
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.

Why is the idea that if the group targeted being cartoonized/logoized/whatever considers it offensive, we ought to respect such a difficult concept?

...

I mean, if in doubt - ask the group being depicted... if the majority of them are offended, then what's the big deal about respecting their ability to determine whether they're offended and acting appropriately?



Do you just take it on faith that's true? Because empirical data suggests you are wrong. Not just a little wrong, either:

In 2004, the Annenberg Public Policy Center published a survey of nearly 800 people of Native American ancestry and only 9% of them took issue with the name "Redskins". Nine percent. That's not a misprint.

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/NewsDetails.aspx?myId=89

In 2002, Sports Illustrated found 75% of Native Americans don't feel team nicknames such as these contribute to discrimination. Only 23% objected to the Braves' "tomahawk chop" - while 28% said they liked it - the rest didn't care one way or the other.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1025046/index.htm

The PC police has decided what's offensive on behalf of those they've defined as (as Robert in Manhattan Beach aptly said) "weak and in need of protection." Except most of the members of the supposedly deeply offended group aren't actually offended.

   73. Dr. Vaux Posted: February 12, 2013 at 09:14 PM (#4368399)
Are you only allowed to be offended if you're a member of the group in question? Can't you be embarrassed that the majority group of which you're a member still engages in this kind of behavior?
   74. McCoy Posted: February 12, 2013 at 09:16 PM (#4368401)
Yes, only the majority group engage in this kind of behavior. All the helpless minorities are as pure as the driven snow.
   75. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 12, 2013 at 09:31 PM (#4368411)
(Eso is right that it's not particularly caricature-esque IMO)

You're just playing with us now, right?

Yes, only the majority group engage in this kind of behavior. All the helpless minorities are as pure as the driven snow.


I've become persuaded, thanks to THAT other thread, for the first time ever that the liberal smear machine actually exists. Nice to see you extending it an open invitation.

A friend of mine was babbling on at a liberal fundraiser about how x and y 'looked back' to Native American practices and took their 'authenticity' and harmony from them. Without giving the matter much thought I said something like 'you know, not all Native Americans were angels. Some of their early practices were pretty barbaric. Maybe it's the practice itself more than the source that we should be looking at'. You could have heard Chris Matthews' testicle drop.
   76. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 12, 2013 at 11:15 PM (#4368452)
You have to understand where snapper is coming from. He's done this in other threads. He is trying to narrow the definition of genocide so that it only applies to the Holocaust and Russia under Stalin. He will then blame those two events on lack of religion leading to a lack of morals.

Way to put words in my mouth that I never said.


Which hindered you not at all in ascribing the most disgusting motives to people you disagreed with in the Schilling thread.

Look in the mirror, pal.


Genocide is a fairly unique, largely 20th century, phenomenon.


Genocide takes a lot of machinery, of the kind that wasn't possible to come by during most of the pre-20th century.

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.
   77. Greg Pope thinks the Cubs are reeking havoc Posted: February 12, 2013 at 11:19 PM (#4368454)
Change the team name to the Bravos

Yeah, but how are you going to have a Faceless Man as a mascot? Every hat would have to have a different logo on it.
   78. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 12, 2013 at 11:25 PM (#4368458)
Are you only allowed to be offended if you're a member of the group in question? Can't you be embarrassed that the majority group of which you're a member still engages in this kind of behavior?


No, you can be offended if you like obviously. But me, personally, if I were really going to try and engage the questions and issues haunting the American Indian populations, I'd probably try to find some American Indians and ask them, "hey, what are your real, life impacting issues?" And if they responded "rampant unemployment, alcoholism and substance abuse and economic and social depression across the communities of our people" I probably wouldn't respond to that by picketing the Redskins because of their logo or team name.

YMMV, of course.
   79. Walt Davis Posted: February 13, 2013 at 12:04 AM (#4368474)
"You know, that Indians logo is offensive."

"You PC #######, how dare you? If you were really concerned about Native Americans, you'd be out there protesting against systematic social issues like unemployment and drug abuse. You're a fascist."

"Really? That's where you're going? Look we all know this is not a major social problem but it would take 5 seconds to change it and nobody would be worse off. Now, can I expect you to join me in tomorrow's march asking for more jobs programs?"

"Why would I want to join you in a fruitless demonstration against a systematic social issue like unemployment? What a waste of time!"

"Too bad. You going to the game Sunday?"
   80. Jay Z Posted: February 13, 2013 at 02:35 AM (#4368509)
Well they need a joke and the only safe target is a white male. There's a commercial out now where the white guy is playing catch with his son and the son throws like a - have the PC police on standby - girl. But then in the reveal, it turns out the Dad also throws like a girl. Madison Avenue Magic. Now imagine if they had accidentally implied the Dad was gay. Blood flowing through the streets, everyone is fired. Again, because somehow this is a weak group that needs protection. Which of course they don't but this is the society we have created.


I thought the gist of that spot was that the dad had bought the sponsor's new car, and to protect the car he was teaching the kid to throw weakly so as to not hit the car. My wife didn't see it that way, so apparently the ad was unclear or too subtle for its own good.
   81. Dr. Vaux Posted: February 13, 2013 at 03:46 AM (#4368516)
Everyone has things to be embarrassed for. I'm sorry if I implied otherwise. If I was a member of a minority group that engaged in embarrassing behavior, I'd be embarrassed about that, too (actually, I'm sure I'm a member, as everyone is, of several minority groups: people who like serial music; recovering anorexics; people who didn't get driver's licenses until they were 32, people who haven't given up and gotten little rectangular glasses, etc. No doubt all of those groups and more have members who engage in embarrassing behavior, possibly even myself).

I know about the polls in which large majorities of native Americans questioned replied that they didn't mind the Braves, Redskins, or Indians names and logos. If the poll results were reversed, that would be an additional reason for my opposition to those names and logos, but my opposition really comes from feeling that it's not very kind or thoughtful to name a sports team after an ethnic group and have its players prance around with not only the group's name, but a stereotyped depiction of one of its member individuals, emblazoned on their clothing. It doesn't matter to me whether that hurts their feelings or not.
   82. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 13, 2013 at 08:46 AM (#4368543)
I know about the polls in which large majorities of native Americans questioned replied that they didn't mind the Braves, Redskins, or Indians names and logos. If the poll results were reversed, that would be an additional reason for my opposition to those names and logos, but my opposition really comes from feeling that it's not very kind or thoughtful to name a sports team after an ethnic group and have its players prance around with not only the group's name, but a stereotyped depiction of one of its member individuals, emblazoned on their clothing. It doesn't matter to me whether that hurts their feelings or not.

I guess I'm more inclined to respect the results of those polls, although on an aesthetic level, I make a distinction between (say) the tomahawk chop/the late Chief Noc-a-homa and the so-called "screaming savage" who doesn't look the slightest bit savage to me.

If you want to talk about an example of PC that ascends to the Mt. Everest level of self-parody, I'd nominate the change of the Washington basketball team's name from "Bullets" to "Wizards" on the grounds that the former nickname fomented "a climate of violence". I'm not in favor of changing the Braves/Indians/Redskins names, but at least I can see the point of those who want to do so.


   83. Lassus Posted: February 13, 2013 at 09:01 AM (#4368547)
There's a commercial out now where the white guy is playing catch with his son and the son throws like a - have the PC police on standby - girl

No girl on earth throws like that. Your reading of that ad is the only one like that I've seen.


I'd nominate the change of the Washington basketball team's name from "Bullets" to "Wizards" on the grounds that the former nickname fomented "a climate of violence".

Did they say "fomented"? It's more of a constant reminder people were getting their asses shot and killed on a regular basis in the area, seemed like an ok idea to me.
   84. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: February 13, 2013 at 09:56 AM (#4368572)
Abe Pollin thought "Bullets" was in bad taste given what was going on the DC in the late 80's and early 90's. And he was right.

And that's what these issues mostly come down to: taste and class.
   85. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 13, 2013 at 10:45 AM (#4368600)
Did they say "fomented"? It's more of a constant reminder people were getting their asses shot and killed on a regular basis in the area, seemed like an ok idea to me.

Seriously, how many basketball fans do you think really saw the name "Bullets" on a jersey and thought, "Wow, that reminds me, there was a drive-by shooting on Benning Road last night"?

The Baltimore Bullets moved to the DC area in 1973, and changed their name from "Capital Bullets" to "Washington Bullets" in 1975. If at that point they'd decided to go with the more alliterative "Washington Wizards", it would have been one thing. But Abe Pollen's sincerity doesn't make up for the heavyhandedness and total irrelevancy of the switch in the 90's. I guess I just find the whole idea of playing politics with sports nicknames more than a bit silly.

------------------------------------------

Abe Pollin thought "Bullets" was in bad taste given what was going on the DC in the late 80's and early 90's. And he was right.

And that's what these issues mostly come down to: taste and class.


I'd say it mostly comes down to a comically misplaced idea of when and where you have to draw the lines about such matters. 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. And I say this as a strong supporter of gun control laws.

   86. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 13, 2013 at 10:58 AM (#4368611)
I thought the gist of that spot was that the dad had bought the sponsor's new car, and to protect the car he was teaching the kid to throw weakly so as to not hit the car. My wife didn't see it that way, so apparently the ad was unclear or too subtle for its own good.


None of you are paying the least bit of attention to that spot, then, apparently. The kick line of the bit is "buy this car, so you can hand him down something he truly appreciates" or something close to that. The entire set up is that the father is athletically lacking and physically untalented, a trait he has handed down genetically and otherwise to his son, so he has bought this fantastic car that he will be able to hand down to his son later, when he comes of age to drive, which will make up for some of the genetic failure.

It's not subtle. It's not about "throwing like a girl" or being too PC to call throwing like a girl by that name. It's about telling people that the car in question is an heirloom quality product which might, one day, make your athletically ungifted son a little happier with you if you give it to him as a 16th birthday present.

As for throwing like a girl, studies have been done. If you throw with the ball interior to the elbow hinge, you throw like a girl.
   87. McCoy Posted: February 13, 2013 at 11:01 AM (#4368613)
Also, in what world has a wizard not been horribly and destructively violent?
   88. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 13, 2013 at 11:08 AM (#4368621)
The key to the Robert/McCoy/Eso argumen is to pretend that this is a humongously big deal that required thousands of hours of work, or a humongously big deal that will save thousands of lives or whatever. It isn't.

It's a small change made in a simple and reasonable manner, all toward no end more complicated than the simple Bill and Ted model. Be excellent to each other. There are no losers here, just people treating each other with a touch more simple respect.
   89. McCoy Posted: February 13, 2013 at 11:15 AM (#4368628)
My argument?

My argument would be that it is a really really small issue in which very very few people actually are offended and I don't feel inclined to ingore the many for 10 overly sensitive and/or with an agenda people. It isn't your business, it isn't your district, it isn't your state so I don't give a fig about what you want because you like everyone else can simply choose not to buy the product or vote for people who will change the name.
   90. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: February 13, 2013 at 11:18 AM (#4368634)
There are no losers here, just people treating each other with a touch more simple respect.


But treating people nicely is such a drag! It's much more fun to make snarky comments and pretend like the world is ending.
   91. McCoy Posted: February 13, 2013 at 11:19 AM (#4368636)
Apparently the majority is not allowed to be treated with respect since their wishes get ignored.
   92. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 13, 2013 at 11:26 AM (#4368646)
I thought the commercial was in kind of poor taste. Call me crazy, but I think tangible things (like businesses) should be held to a higer standard than random commercials, but whatever.

In any event I think it is OK to be offended at things one finds offensive. And also OK to ignore people being offended and going about your business. I do find it funny that the vitriol towards those who are "PC" is at least as strong as those who are "first order offended", but whatever. Eventually as a society we will find a balance where the worst offenders (looking at you Washington football team and you Cleveland Indians mascot) will go away and various groups will be less sensitive and not worry about the odd commercial (like most white males, who may find the stream of white dude is dork stuff annoying but not worth getting uptight over).

But most importantly I am proud and happy to be part of the ever strong "Liberal Smear Machine" - High Five!
   93. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 13, 2013 at 11:34 AM (#4368658)
Between this thread and the one that's centered on child support, we need a BTF Kremlinologist to sort out the alliances. Which is nice, because it makes rigidly constructed generalizations about the political beliefs of Primates a lot harder to maintain with a straight face.
   94. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: February 13, 2013 at 11:37 AM (#4368659)
I do find it funny that the vitriol towards those who are "PC" is at least as strong as those who are "first order offended", but whatever.

This and the point mentioned in #88 are what I find bizarre. You have a few people saying that the Braves' hat is a little tasteless and maybe the team shouldn't wear it, and suddenly it's a CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS!
   95. TDF, situational idiot Posted: February 13, 2013 at 11:40 AM (#4368664)
Ya know what I like? I like that it's somehow bad to care what other people think and then act accordingly.

Changing the hat is a small, simple gesture that (1) doesn't hurt anyone but (2) shows you're actually paying attention to someone other than yourself.

I have no right to decide what offends you. If that makes me PC, then I so be it.
   96. McCoy Posted: February 13, 2013 at 11:45 AM (#4368675)
It is? BTF snark now qualifies as CRISI ON INFINITIE EARTHS!?
   97. McCoy Posted: February 13, 2013 at 11:46 AM (#4368676)
Changing the hat is a small, simple gesture that (1) doesn't hurt anyone but (2) shows you're actually paying attention to someone other than yourself.

I have no right to decide what offends you. If that makes me PC, then I so be it.


Yet the people crying for it to be changed don't have pay attention anyone other than themselves? How about everybody just worry about themselves and those close to them? Don't like the hat then don't buy it or watch the Braves. Problem solved.
   98. Lassus Posted: February 13, 2013 at 11:53 AM (#4368683)
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.
   99. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 13, 2013 at 12:00 PM (#4368690)
Nobody worries about Southerners being offended by a team called the Yankees. So much for sensitivity, hippies.
   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.
Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
robneyer
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogFan Returns Home Run Ball to Ishikawa; Receives World Series tickets
(25 - 8:45pm, Oct 20)
Last: The Id of SugarBear Blanks

NewsblogBrisbee: The 5 worst commercials of the MLB postseason
(125 - 8:41pm, Oct 20)
Last: Merton Muffley

NewsblogPitch from Zito helped sell Hudson on Giants | MLB.com
(5 - 8:37pm, Oct 20)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(2758 - 8:35pm, Oct 20)
Last: Joe Kehoskie

NewsblogSielski: A friend fights for ex-Phillie Dick Allen's Hall of Fame induction
(64 - 8:35pm, Oct 20)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogCould the Yankees ever be Royals? Young and athletic K.C. is everything that Bombers are not - NY Daily News
(26 - 8:32pm, Oct 20)
Last: JE (Jason)

NewsblogAngell: Gigantic
(38 - 8:22pm, Oct 20)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogWhy Royals great Frank White no longer associates with the team whose stadium he built - Yahoo Sports
(18 - 8:12pm, Oct 20)
Last: Cargo Cultist

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(9 - 7:53pm, Oct 20)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogCalcaterra: So, if you’re not a fan of the Royals or Giants, who ya got?
(76 - 7:34pm, Oct 20)
Last: Baldrick

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(272 - 7:27pm, Oct 20)
Last: andrewberg

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8361 - 6:42pm, Oct 20)
Last: Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee

NewsblogMorosi: Could Cain’s story make baseball king of sports world again?
(97 - 6:24pm, Oct 20)
Last: BDC

NewsblogESPN: Brian Roberts retires
(22 - 6:19pm, Oct 20)
Last: Captain Supporter

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(841 - 6:13pm, Oct 20)
Last: DJS and the Infinite Sadness

Page rendered in 0.6238 seconds
52 querie(s) executed