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 0.6415 seconds
50 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.
The hats and gear makes future targeting simpler and easier.
Phil Dunphy is the best dad in TV history.
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.
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.
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).
We have been meaning to talk to you about that. Honestly we are not really listening, just sort of nodding our head.
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.
Honky? Come on.
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.
Dammit you beat me to it! I can at least provide the video
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.
"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.
Then I guess you might not favor my longstanding suggestion to change the Redskins name to the Rednecks.
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.
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.
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.
Would renaming a high school team in Newtown, CT from the "Bushmasters" (i.e. the snake) to the "Wizards" be overkill?
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.
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.
I'm all for a team of Rednecks, but I wouldn't waste that opportunity in Washington DC of all places.
Find me an actual example like that and I'll agree with the point you're straining to make.
Stanford.
Are you kidding? Hell, they wouldn't even have to change the cadence of their glorious marching song.
Would have been better than the "Titans."
Stanford.
We were talking about bullets, not Indians, but since you insist....
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".
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.
Wizards are going to kill a bunch of people 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.
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.
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.
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.
"from something that killed a lot of people"
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.
Definitely not on ents.
Shaft?
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.
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.
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."
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?
I'd guess that in the long term, it is pretty close to zero. I suspect the vast majority of the "I won't ever root for (new name) again" are mostly full of ####.
Edit: Fixed.
Yeah, somehow this has become a winning argument. It has led to a small group of people who are offended by everything to be able to demand, and most times get, anything and everything changed. This is not actually a desirable outcome.
Except that isn't true. White people want to change the hat because of the attention they're paying to themselves, and the attention they want paid to themselves. Moreover, if they were actually paying attention to the real sentiments of real Native Americans, they'd realize, as all the polls show, that Native Americans don't particularly care about these symbols. As always, modern liberals tend to bond more closely with what their imagination tells them about minority groups than with the actual people who comprise those groups.
The most "offensive" of any of these symbols (by far, really) is the aforementioned "Seminole" on white stallion. It's still around because the Seminoles didn't care that it's still around. When that goes away, the conversation might start to make a little more sense.
Oh, and my gold standard will always be Carl Winslow. And sure, his youngest ended up doing porn but, hey, nobody's perfect.
The most "offensive" of any of these symbols (by far, really) is the aforementioned "Seminole" on white stallion.
This kills me. Of course my alma matter, USC, also has a guy on a horse come and stab the field. The idea that a Trojan, you know if they still existed, would be offended by this is bewildering. What is the offense? The statement is essentially "We used to kick some ass in our day". This is a message that is holding back their kids?
Or what SoSH said.
Fans of teams support teams they're emotionally attached to. If the Braves changed their names (which would be pretty silly, considering that 'Braves' isn't offensive, though the screaming/laughing Indian head image might be) the fans would follow along. If they don't, the fans will tell fans of other teams to #### off when they lecture us about propriety and concern for others. It's hard to take seriously lectures of that type from fans of northeastern teams who until very recently required armed police presences in their bleacher sections.
Now if they could convince fans to stop doing that bloody 'chop' then they would a let better positioned to defend the team name.
Nothing could defend Cleveland.
(And ABSOLUTELY nothing could defend the Washington Redskins)
And nobody would be harmed if he'd kept the Bullets name, either. If you'd taken a poll of Bullets fans at the time, they likely would've voted overwhelmingly against the change, which was widely mocked.
Look, it was Pollin's team and he had a perfect right to his own interpretation of "good taste." Most Bullets fans would have found this particular example of "good taste" a strange thing to have concentrated his imagination on.
And suggesting "You know 'x' is kind of offensive" <> 'want the "scorge" stomped out' and says nothing about anyone being riddled with guilt. Some of us think "Redskins" and so on is offensive based on how we percieve the terms, history, and so on. I have not exactly lost any sleep over it or anything, but I am pretty sure I am allowed to express those feelings.
For the most part I don't and neither does anyone else. But I'll say it again. If changing names show you are thinking about others what does that say about people who want it changed. Doesn't that show they aren't thinking about the people who don't want it changed.
And the history of the US regarding Native Americans and that of the US regarding Trojans (non-condom division) is so similar that your analogy is spot on.
That would be sarcasm, by the way.
Hell, the Nashville NHL team is named after a freaking military drone! It's like double-plus bullets squared.
That said, I was at Illinois when this was reaching its apex, and I recall listening to the testimony of people on both sides of the argument, and I do think both sides went a bit overboard. I recall a Native American student saying that she felt very uncomfortable the entire time on campus, which struck me as a bit over-dramatic. It's not as if students were walking around wearing headdresses. But ultimately, getting rid of the Chief was a pretty small gesture to have to make.
Why would this person attend the University of Illinois then?
Sorry to disappoint you, but changing the name of the Washington Redskins isn't going to change that history one iota. What's done is done and Whitey's guilt at what's done isn't payback for what Whitey did. It's, frankly, embarrassing to see people think that it is.
What I want isn't here or there - I'm surprised these images of "savages" are still used (or worse, the cartoon Cleveland uses), but as a Caucasian I can't really be "offended". I can choose to patronize their business or not (because if a business doesn't care about some of their customers, why would I think they care about me?), but that's about the extent of it.
But if even one Native American is offended, it's in the business interest of the Braves to address the logo somehow. They have chosen how, and that should be the end of it.
And this is why liberals don't mind if straight white males are dumped upon.
What? That is not what I was saying at all. What I was saying is that the term in question needs to be evaluated in the context of history.
Redskins and Trojan should both be evaluated in the terms of the US and its history towards them. This is why nearly no one in the known universe cares about Trojans as a mascot and why the Native American terms get more scrutiny from all sides.
Who said anything even sort of like change the name will make anyone feel better about or change history?
In-state tuition rates at the best state college in Illinois. Not everybody can afford to have the parents send them to Harvard.
No it isn't. It's absurd to think that a huge corporation selling products to millions of people have to address a lone offended person.
So you make a choice. Which is what we all do in life. It isn't like the U of I snuck their mascot into campus life one day.
Well colleges can do that. I think it is a terrible analogy for many many reasons, but colleges can change their nickname, mascot, or cafeteria menu, sure. And I get to have an opinion (and so do you) about it.
As always Ray looks into the soul of the Liberal. Quite the seer our Ray. It is spooky how well he can so completely and accurately capture the essense of an argument, and then throw it away to post some random thought that bubbled up from some fever swamp somewhere.
And their choice was to go, feel uncomfortable, and then mention that in a hearing. Or are you suggesting that once they decide to go they don't get to feel uncomfortable or to speak out about it? I guess you think choice only goes so far.
Seriously!! She made a choice. She complained about some of the things that came with that choice. How is this different than every other being on this planet. Hell, this whole board (including myself) is made up of fans of teams (CLE) that mostly ##### about their teams that they CHOOSE. You can not like that she's complaining about the mascot or that it makes her uncomfortable, but if your objecting to her voicing that complaint, that just makes no sense.
Edit: Coke to Bitter Mouse for saying it in fewer words.
And their choice was to go, feel uncomfortable, and then mention that in a hearing. Or are you suggesting that once they decide to go they don't get to feel uncomfortable or to speak out about it? I guess you think choice only goes so far.
Speak out about it? Sure. Change it? Only if the majority want it so. Alas, that does not happen nowadays. A handful of people make noise and a carrot is throw at them to appease them.
Customer service is a company's division that basically tells the customer to go eff themselves. Sometimes in a polite way and sometimes in a not so polite way. If you truly think that some company cares about what some lone nutjob thinks about their product then I've got some cancer free cigarettes to sell to you.
Small companies don't become huge corporations because they address one lone offended person.
You should explain this to Senate and House Republicans.
The Braves made a decision to protect their Brand from negative press in the marketplace. That is all.
But the mere presence of killed animal product is enough to offend some people. They aren't refusing to eat animal product because they don't like the taste of meat. They are offended by animal products because they don't like the fact that we're killing billions of animals. So giving them vegan options isn't the answer to the problem. Clearly colleges need to ban animal products entirely from their campuses.
But no one is asking universities to ban athletics because certain schools have racially offensive mascots. People that advocate for getting rid racist mascots aren't asking for "my way or the highway". They're asking that schools find a mutually agreeable and feasible compromise. At Illinois, it was getting ridding of the Chief as a mascot/symbol. Presumably she didn't think the culture of "the Chief" would be as pervasive as she found it. Personally, I didn't find it very pervasive at all, especially if you didn't go to football or basketball games, which is why I think she was being a little over-dramatic. But of course, I probably wasn't as sensitive to that aspect as someone of Native American culture would be.
"The past isn't dead. It isn't even past."
Liberals pretend to be clueless about who they are. Story at 11.
The University of Illinois is all over the place when it comes to symbols and names. They maintain the nickname "Fighting Illini", and their licensing board approves certain images but not others. For example, this one is allowed, but not this one.
Of course once you get outside the realm of ethnic images, the reasoning becomes even more bizarre. Here are two images that have been repeatedly turned down for commercial reproduction by one of the two schools depicted on the cover, and I'll bet not a single person here can tell me which school turned us down, and the reason that was given to us, at least not on the first try.
1946 Yale vs Princeton (scroll down for the image)
1947 Cotton Bowl Penn State vs Texas
So that is the level we much reach? How about your example of a student who was simply "uncomfortable" with the Chief? Your conflating veganism with people who don't want animals killed for human benefit. While they aren't mutually exclusive they are still seperate issues.
But of course, I probably wasn't as sensitive to that aspect as someone of Native American culture would be.
Which you can probably say the same thing about your view on meat offenders.
They're asking that schools find a mutually agreeable and feasible compromise. At Illinois, it was getting ridding of the Chief as a mascot/symbol.
That was the compromise? Geez, what were they asking for originally to have that be the compromise? Hand over the entire school to a local Indian reservation?
What is this then?
I'm trolling because you confused veganism with animal cruelty? And again, how was getting what you wanted while the other side gave up what they wanted to keep a compromise?
You're free to research it yourself. It's no use discussing this with you anymore.
Yes. Because clearly someone as respected and as world renowned as Shredder declaring it a compromise means we should all take his word for it and ask no more further questions.
maybe its because its a good argument. in the case of a name change, it really isn't going to do anybody any harm. i find that pretty convincing as a recommendation.
and i meant to say about the braves and redskins i'm not that crazy about the PART of the fan base that gets overly defensive about this. i bet most people don't really have any problem with a name change. they used to happen all the time, btw. the yanks were the hilltoppers, the dodgers were the robins, superbas, whatever. i'm really not that emotionally invested in it, but i do think that if the braves, indians and redskins changed their names they'd be doing a good thing. i think that's plain as day.
QFT
Not to mention that the name of the state itself is Algonquin for "tribe of superior men." In what should be a surprise to no one, naming sports teams after Native Americana springs from precisely the same impulse that caused us to name hundreds of states, rivers, landmarks, and the like in the same way.
Should the state of Illinois change its name, too? How about Massachusetts or Kansas? And what should we call the Mississippi (*) River? So Whitey basically named land he took from the Indians after the Indians. That's far more indicative and resonant of condescending cultural imperialism than "Washington Redskins" or "Atlanta Braves" -- neither of which were taken from the Indians.
All of which is to further cement the notion that this issue reduces to a small faction of guilty whites solipsistically trying to implement some entirely empty gestures in a way that will change nothing and solve nothing, but will make them feel better.
(*) Derived from an Indian name meaning "Father of Waters."
Big Chief come from reservation. Say him want many buffalo, heap big wampum, many beads for squaw.
What a pity that this is too long, really, to be a team name.
I would assume they'd be a big fight between Illinois, Indiana, Nebraska and Kansas over who got the rights to "The University of Flat Boring Flyover Land."
Or, the version used on Fraiser:
sherry-swelling, opera-loving, Armani-wearing elitist
The full exchange, since I know everyone is interested. Frasier is afraid to be honest with a colleague because she's black:
----------------------
ok andy, i looked and looked and looked and have not the FAINTEST idea bout the cotton bowl one - the first one - maybe because it's about Dogs fornicating with cats? or something???
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main