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 0.5763 seconds
53 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.
1. Bruce Markusen Posted: January 03, 2013 at 09:52 PM (#4338493)And the Braves aren't the ones calling it a "screaming savage," are they?
This is true. That's why they have been selling merchandise with logo on it for years. It hasn't been revived, just put on a hat. But hey, now lets get outraged.
Was it called that before? Every google result is from the past week.
While surely the Cherokee have been more oppressed across the course of American history, pretending the Irish don't count as a historical discriminated against group is much more of a disservice to a reasonable discussion.
I have stated multiple times that the "screaming savage" image is a direct analog to the angry leprechaun. I have heard many times in response "it's not the same, because of the American genocide of the American Indian," to which I reply "tell that to Cromwell."
DA has a great point, in that this logo has been on apparel in the Braves store for years and years. It's just that they haven't worn it on an on-field uni in a while.
I don't think the logo is that bad, but a major difference is that a significant percentage of the people who go to Notre Dame are actually of Irish descent. Self-caricature is generally less offensive than caricature by an outside party.
Well you clearly don't.
Nope, not at all. This isn't progress folks, it's just white folks with not enough things on their plate.
I doubt that the current Braves intend any such thing, but ... why do it? I would like to think that someone stood up in a meeting and said, "You know, this is 2013. Why not do better?"
Absolutely. The correct rebuttal is that the Fighting Irish mascot has significant connections to the actual Irish community, like how the Seminole tribe actively participates in the Seminole football program. Saying "psshaw, like the Irish were ever seriously persecuted" is just ignorant.
I'll say, though, the Braves Indian Head logo is not a caricature. I don't get why people call it that. It's a fairly realistic drawing. If there is a significant portion of the Native American community that it offends*, then I will certainly defer to them on the level of offense, but it's not some ludicrous exaggeration of a historical Native American. Personally, I think it is bizarre that many people look at a fairly realistic drawing of a Native American laughing (or, at a minimum doing something joyful), and then think to themselves "this is an image of an angry/violent/war-mongering savage," but to each his own.
*Though, I don't get the impression this actually the case. I don't claim to have comprehensive knowledge of the topic, but the studies I'm aware of seem to show that a sizable majority of N.A.s don't give a hoot about this kind of stuff, so I find it pretty hard to get my own dander up about it.
I don't get this. I can understand if the image is just inherently offensive; i.e, I can understand if the very idea of appropriating the Native American identity is always offensive to someone. But I don't fully grasp how anything in this specific image is ridiculous or a mockery. It's a drawing of a joyful guy with a mohawk and a feather. This could be drawing of an extra from the Last of the Mohicans (maybe that was offensive, too?).
I also don't fully get the idea that a team would say "let's mock and demean this thing... and then choose it for our identity," but then again, this happened....
I don't think this is the right (or complete, at least) calculus, though. Many people identify pretty strongly with sports teams, and thus with the images that accompany them. These images become, in a very real sense, a part of their own identities. Clearly, this level of identity isn't the same as ethnic heritage, but all the same, when people are told that what they consider to be a positive part of their identity is actually a very bad thing, it can feel like a personal attack. Now, you may not find that to be an important (or relevant on a relative scale) element of the equation, but it is very real phenomenon, and to leave it out and say that there will be 0% offense is oversimplification.
This is so ####### obvious, it stuns me it's so often dragged out as an example. It's really easily summed as we vs. them. Some mascots/team names reflect the local area or its population in some ways, while others are about some unrelated entity. Notre Dame is the school Irish Catholics most strongly identify with (except for my dad, who never forgave Ara). There is no similar connection to the Braves or Redskins (but, as you note, there are some examples at the college and high school levels).
Don't forget the context too - naming teams after a group of people is just a dumb move unless the team can be seen to represent those people. How many Native American's have played for Atlanta or Cleveland? There are stories the team name for Cleveland came due to one player but that is very unlikely (he was hardly of Babe Ruth stature). If a team is composed of 90% of one group then it can make sense but even then I'd hesitate. National teams are one thing, as they clearly represent a nation but the 'Atlanta Braves' hardly represent Native Americans. Using animal mascots or generic names like 'Red Sox' works. Yankees is pushing it, but they are trying to be 'America's team' one could say.
The day Cleveland and Atlanta rename their teams and get rid of their old logos (outside of historical exhibits) is going to be a good day for baseball.
This... well, I don't think you read what I wrote very closely. People very plainly have personal associations with sports teams, and the visual imagery associated with them are a part of those associations. I don't see how this is debatable. I did not say:
"loyalty to a particular sports franchise is tied to the use of a particular image"
That has nothing to do with what I said. I'm not claiming the Braves will lose fans if they change their logo. I am saying people who identity with the image feel personally attacked when the image is attacked.
This part: "There are a few teams in MLB with histories tied to fairly distinct images. The Braves are not one of them."
is just wrong. This was the primary logo for decades, pre-dating the move to Atlanta, and it is much beloved by many (though certainly not all) fans.
Again, the Braves have an opportunity to do something that offends no one, or do something that certainly offends some segment of the population, regardless of how small that percentage may be. The decision should be fairly simple. This is simply a complete misread of my point. If the Yankees changed their logo, there would be an outcry. If the Cardinals changed their logo, there would be an outcry. The Angels, Brewers, Mariners, Padres, etc. have changed their primary logo numerous times with no particular issues. The Braves have not put this logo on any player apparel for decades, and it is in no way representative of their "golden" years.
This is very helpful, thank you for the insight.
The Boston Redskins (which became the Washington Redskins) were originally named that in honor of their coach at the time, who was Native American.
Of course this is only partially true, because they were named the Braves previously, and the name change was also to distinguish them from the baseball team and to mark the move from Braves Field to Fenway Park.
But there was a connection to an actual Native American when that name was chosen.
Well, to be holistic, it's not as if "Redskin" wasn't a particularly popular mascot/logo/name prior to that, and long afterwards. While I don't doubt it was sincerely to recognize the coach, I do doubt that was at all the sole consideration.
The Atlanta Crackers and the Washington Rednecks. I couldn't think of a pair of more lovable team names.
-------------------------------------------
Well, to be holistic, it's not as if "Redskin" wasn't a particularly popular mascot/logo/name prior to that, and long afterwards. While I don't doubt it was sincerely to recognize the coach, I do doubt that was at all the sole consideration.
The only "sincere" things about George Preston Marshall were his racism, his love of money, and his love of Broadway night life and Hollywood actresses. Hiring Lone Star Dietz was nothing but a marketing gimmick, and Marshall fired him after two years of second place finishes.
I've always been very disappointed that someone like Louise Brooks, who is one of my very favorite actresses, had a long-term relationship with the man. It seems like a major character flaw on her part that she'd stay with him despite his nature, and in a relationship that she described as abusive. She comes across as such an intelligent woman in her writings, and I can't conceive that she didn't see his flaws...
I've always been very disappointed that someone like Louise Brooks, who is one of my very favorite actresses, had a long-term relationship with the man. It seems like a major character flaw on her part that she'd stay with him despite his nature, and in a relationship that she described as abusive. She comes across as such an intelligent woman in her writings, and I can't conceive that she didn't see his flaws...
I only learned about Brooks's relationship with "George" about a year or so ago when I read her "Lulu In Hollywood" book, in which she has some references to Marshall in one or two of the chapters. The only explanation I can think of was that they were both party loving hedonists, and at the time they were together she was often broke. AFAICT their affair was pretty much over by the time that Marshall got involved in the NFL, and it's likely that the whole race issue never had much chance to be explored between them.
The Braves have friendly relations with the Cherokee nation, actually. And if the Arapahoe or Navajo want to provide Atlanta with a LF with power, we'd gladly take them. The distinction you're drawing is between colleges, which are affiliated with communities other than their fanbases, and professional teams.
Oh, yeah. I'm sure a team from the deep south adopting a name descended from an epithet slaves used for plantation foremen in charge of distributing punishment lashes - "whip-crackers" - would go over very, very well.
Really? Even with the horrific Chop?
I can't imagine a team called (I dunno) the Ming Dynasty (to take something not offensive) and singing something like this music as a rally cry (and that's not as bad as the chop) being embraced by the respective community, but I suppose it's possible.
If the Indians had been named the Niggers in "honor" of beloved ex-star Nig Cuppy, would that make it OK?
I thought that etymology was a myth?
Oh, yeah. I'm sure a team from the deep south adopting a name descended from an epithet slaves used for plantation foremen in charge of distributing punishment lashes - "whip-crackers" - would go over very, very well.
Funny how in the 65 year existence of the Atlanta Crackers minor league team, nobody ever complained about the insult. But maybe the poor ignorant fools thought the name just referred to Saltines or Uneeda Biscuits.
I thought that etymology was a myth?
It's whatever you want it to be, but the guy who wrote a book on early Atlanta baseball never could determine the true origin with any certainty. OTOH by mid-century "Crackers" was a ubiquitous epithet directed by blacks (and some white northerners) against the entire class of poor southern whites in general, and especially the rural version.
There was not a concerted push back about the racial undertones of the nickname of the Atlanta minor league baseball team that existed from 1901-1965?
Shocking.
I'm more than open to hearing evidence to this argument.
Shocking.
Except that the fan base of that team was largely made up of the element that was supposedly being insulted. If they'd actually been offended by the name and made it known, you can bet that it would have been changed, but the fact that they didn't complain makes it pretty clear that they took the name with a combination of humor and pride.
Not that they'd look upon such a name with equal equanimity today, but that's because whereas "Crackers" used to be on the top of the racial equation**, they now seem to think that they're on the bottom. People who are sure of their relative position in society are much less likely to care about things like nicknames.
**Not that they weren't usually dirt poor, but they wielded considerable electoral power on the state and local levels, and they always knew that there was one caste below them.
3 out of 4 ain't bad.
I'm Irish-american and don't care for the little guy with his dukes up on the Celtics logo, or the old "Irish Spring" soap commercials. My opinion is just one data point, but I think team names like Braves, Chiefs and Seminoles have positive connotations and are good. "Indians" is neutral and Redskins is bad.
3 out of 4 ain't bad.
I'm Irish-american and don't care for the little guy with his dukes up on the Celtics logo, or the old "Irish Spring" soap commercials. My opinion is just one data point, but I think team names like Braves, Chiefs and Seminoles have positive connotations and are good. "Indians" is neutral and Redskins is bad.
In this case I was referring to Marshall's racism in keeping his team lily white until he was forced (at gunpoint!) to integrate in 1962. I wasn't referring to his choice of a nickname for his team.
Just so we're clear, who do you think I think would be offended by a change from "Braves" to "Crackers?"
Like the Shenandoah Hungarian Rioters, for example.
edit - and what's really weird is that some columnists/supporters claim to not understand how any offense is taken - you can argue that the offense taken is misguided or trivial or thin-skinned I suppose, but to claim that you don't "understand" how someone could see this as jacked up is just obtuse at this point.
On the reservation where I work, we have an 80% unemployment rate. There are people who don't have running water and telephone access. There are a shocking number of sex offenders who live there and we have high rates of crime. Many Native American's don't care about Native American mascots because they're trying to survive day to day. I'm assuming that you've never been to a reservation.
The problem with Native American mascots is that they completely overlook all of what I mentioned above. Instead people think of all Natives as "brave warriors" instead of people living in 3rd world type condition.
You seemed to answer that question yourself back in #34.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Like the Shenandoah Hungarian Rioters, for example.
Yeah, that's a great example, but Baseball America's Encyclopedia of Minor League Baseball has hundreds of names that are almost as strange as that one. And for a year or two before World War I, the Cleveland Indians were often referred to in the press as the "Molly Maguires", which was a violent labor organization that flourished in the coal regions of Pennsylvania in the 1870's.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Well I'm pretty certain that the Seminole Nation sure as hell is. You do understand that they're fully on-board, and in fact make money off of licensing and whatnot?
Definitely true, but I'd also hope that a few Indians out there somewhere were getting a little kickback from all those giant foam tomahawks being sold by the Braves.
As a white guy, I'd actually LOVE this.
I think you misread me. The pushback wouldn't be from Caucasians. The pushback would be from the African-American community.
I wouldn't call myself a "Braves fan," I call myself a guy who likes baseball and happens to live in Atlanta so that is the team I go see. If they changed their name to the "Crackers" I would be all in. I'd be a die hard.
You mean it wouldn't be from 'crackers'.
No, it would be from folks who would be offended by glorifying "whipcrackers" by naming the city's baseball team after them.
(While the term may or may not be definitively descended from "whipcrackers" it's a well established assumption and would generate a lot of noise. As much as the "screaming savage" image, certainly. And it would create a lot of anger and offense in a community that supports Atlanta and supports the Braves, not from a community academically concerned with the presentation of AmerIndian images in the nation at large.
I think you misread me. The pushback wouldn't be from Caucasians. The pushback would be from the African-American community.
Only among the academic element. The main pushback would be from people of all races who are satisfied with the name as it is, and from people who get the irony of the "Crackers" name but think that institutionalizing it would be kind of belaboring the point.
--------------------------------------------
No, it would be from folks who would be offended by glorifying "whipcrackers" by naming the city's baseball team after them.
Talk about an academic reaction. As if "Crackers" isn't understood to mean "poor southern whites in general" a thousand times more often than "whip-crackers" whenever the word is used. Hell, I've heard "old soda crackers" or "Saltines" used to refer to whites by black people more often than I've ever heard "whip-crackers". What you're saying is like imagining that at this point "Honky" still refers to a certain segment of Central Europeans, rather than to whites in general.
But in Gone with the Wind, which is a pretty accurate reflection of common white attitudes of the early 20th century, "Cracker" is not an insult. The character Will Benteen in that novel is a "Cracker," and portrayed as poor, respectable, a kind of upright, resourceful yeoman farmer. He marries Scarlett O'Hara's sister. Though not from a "good" family, he couldn't be further from the "white trash" of the novel (the Slatterys). "Cracker" is a highly positive term for poor-but-honest, hard-working whites in GWTW. As a sports nickname it was much closer to "Steelers" or "Packers," in the day, than it sounds to us now.
Exactly, though I'm not sure you can read that much into GWTW, since Selznick was trying to show the ante-bellum South in a positive light (marketing, my man), and there would've been little point in depicting any class divisions within the dominant caste that didn't advance the main theme or the main romantic plot. I think that the evolution of "Cracker" into a universally understood insult to southern whites came at the time that whites realized that the term was used by blacks almost as a synonym for all white people in general---which by the 1950's and 60's came to be the case. (Meaning when an insult was intended.)
And then of course there's the more obvious tit -for-tat reasoning that says "If I can't call you 'nigger' then you can't call me 'cracker'." Which is kind of understandable.
I've always just thought of them as the "Ramblers" or the "Catholics", and Merry Christmas to you.
I believe the term actually derived from poor farmers who "cracked" their own corn/grain (as in "Jimmy crack corn..."), rather the being able to afford to take it to a mill.
I was thinking of the novel, though, where "Cracker" is used prominently. Not sure if it appears at all in the movie (where Selznick, admirably enough, decided to omit "n#####," one of Mitchell's favorite words, as well …)
I was thinking of the novel, though, where "Cracker" is used prominently. Not sure if it appears at all in the movie (where Selznick, admirably enough, decided to omit "n#####," one of Mitchell's favorite words, as well …)
Never read the novel, though I had a black GF at Duke who said she'd read it three or four times and that it was her favorite book. (True story)
No, it's the word that gets him punched in the nose in Five Easy Pieces.
Honest question - What should be the primary point(s) of focus as a society so that these conditions start to improve?
With zero local knowledge, it sure sounds like "get the people some damn jobs" is the obvious answer.
Or Uggla jerseys.
Interestingly enough, the term "redskin" appears to have gained status as a racial slur fairly recently. See the article "I am a Redskin: the adoption of a Native American expression" by Ives Goddard in the journal "Native American Studies" vol. 19(2), p. 1-20 (2005). Uses of the term historically seem not to have been pejorative at least well into the 19th century and likely beyond -- Native Americans apparently referred to themselves as such on occasion during the 19th century and before. The one example sometimes cited as an early negative use of the word (a purported 1699 letter by one Samuel Smith) appears to be spurious.
You know what they say about assuming. They were pretty hard to avoid when I lived in New Mexico.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main