I guess we will have to agree to disagree. If you think that entire paragraph came across as encouraging alternative viewpoints, I can only say that to me it came across differently.Right AFTER the part where you conveniently cut it off in your quote. " Just ignore the entire thread if you think I am not entitled, or others are not entitled, to their opinions.". Now did I specifically SAY other opinions are welcome? No. But if you use that logic, I never said they weren't either.
To reiterate, I don't find it offensive. I'm not sure I'm in the best position to explain why someone else would. Also, I didn't see anyone in this thread claiming that you, or Native Americans in general, should be offended. Perhaps we should stick to discussing positions that people have actually taken.Explain why someone who isn't Native American would be offended by this logo. Why? I have no issue with someone stating that they want the logo gone because it MAY be offensive. But I DO have an issue with people saying it IS offensive, or being offended on BEHALF of someone else, or saying that I should be offended . Why?? How does it affect you in ANY way??
Your post didn't offend or outrage me. (I'm also not the one using a bunch of caps to yell at other posters in my responses.) I was bothered by what was implied in a couple of things you've said. Not the same thing.But my post, that seemed to offend YOU so much, was directed at someone who asked why we are debating if it is offensive. NOT whether it should be gone.
I think there is a difference between saying something is offensive to a group of people vs saying it's offensive to me personally. I don't think an individual should be speaking on behalf of a large group of individuals unless they are acting in some official capacity to represent the group. Nor do I see anyone in this thread attempting to do this.Stating "it is offensive to Native Americans and should be removed" is OK with you? How do you know if it is or isn't unless Native Americans speak out? Stating it "MIGHT be offensive and should be removed" is different, isn't it? CONTEXT.
...isn't allowed to have a personal opinion or reaction to the logo according to you. The only possibility you consider is that they are offended "on behalf of someone else". This is what doesn't make sense to me.I really don't understand the outrage from people who AREN"T Native American over this logo. Nothing infuriates me more than someone being offended on behalf of someone else. It's ridiculous.
You have not yet explained why asking another poster whether they are Native American is relevant. Why does the identity of the poster matter?I have answered all your questions.
I don't think relying on motive as a "test" is wise.Now answer all mine. If someone deliberately drives onto the sidewalk and kills a child, and if a tire accidentally blows out and I go on the sidewalk and kill a child, we both should be charged EXACTLY the same? Doesn't the MOTIVE behind it make a big difference?
If you're asking me in general, and not specific to the topic of this thread, I would disagree with this. First, because I don't think motive behind the actions matters as much as the outcome of the actions. Second, because someone who is adversely impacted by a negative outcome is more likely to have a biased view and miss the larger picture.And when that motive or the context isn't immediately clear AND indisputable, the person or persons it is directed at should have the most voice on the matter. Or do you disagree with that?
Telling someone to ignore the thread if they don't think others are entitled to their opinions isn't saying it's ok to offer their opinion? Would make me a huge hypocrite if I chastised someone for doing something I agree with doesn't it?I guess we will have to agree to disagree. If you think that entire paragraph came across as encouraging alternative viewpoints, I can only say that to me it came across differently.
To reiterate, I don't find it offensive. I'm not sure I'm in the best position to explain why someone else would. Also, I didn't see anyone in this thread claiming that you, or Native Americans in general, should be offended. Perhaps we should stick to discussing positions that people have actually taken.
Your post didn't offend or outrage me. (I'm also not the one using a bunch of caps to yell at other posters in my responses.) I was bothered by what was implied in a couple of things you've said. Not the same thing.
I think there is a difference between saying something is offensive to a group of people vs saying it's offensive to me personally. I don't think an individual should be speaking on behalf of a large group of individuals unless they are acting in some official capacity to represent the group. Nor do I see anyone in this thread attempting to do this.
You've shared your opinion, as an individual, that you don't find this offensive. Why is it wrong for another individual to share their own opinion that they feel differently? I did not take your sentence as speaking on behalf of all Native Americans on the matter. It's your own personal view and I believe you are entitled to that (not because you are a Native America, but because you are a human being).
However, someone who is not Native American...
...isn't allowed to have a personal opinion or reaction to the logo according to you. The only possibility you consider is that they are offended "on behalf of someone else". This is what doesn't make sense to me.
Am I allowed to be offended by Trump's comments about muslims and Mexicans? I'm neither muslim nor Mexican. So I guess I shouldn't say anything about it because I would then be offended "on behalf of someone else". Is that right? Is there no room for me to be offended, as a human being, by how someone treats other human beings?
You have not yet explained why asking another poster whether they are Native American is relevant. Why does the identity of the poster matter?
I don't think relying on motive as a "test" is wise.
Example: A third scenario added to the two above. The driver knowingly operated the vehicle in an intoxicated state and drove up on the curb, hitting and killing the child. Neither the driver in this scenario, and the blown tire scenario, had any motive or intention to hurt the child. However, wouldn't we treat these situations differently?
In addition, motive is messy and uncertain. We never really know what another person is thinking. Is the far right motivated by a desire to disenfranchise minorities or protect national security? We can all have our opinion on what their motives truly are, but intelligent people can disagree vehemently on this point. The truth is probably that there is a mix of motivations and a spectrum of individuals making up that group.
If you're asking me in general, and not specific to the topic of this thread, I would disagree with this. First, because I don't think motive behind the actions matters as much as the outcome of the actions. Second, because someone who is adversely impacted by a negative outcome is more likely to have a biased view and miss the larger picture.
Empathy.Right AFTER the part where you conveniently cut it off in your quote. " Just ignore the entire thread if you think I am not entitled, or others are not entitled, to their opinions.". Now did I specifically SAY other opinions are welcome? No. But if you use that logic, I never said they weren't either.
Explain why someone who isn't Native American would be offended by this logo. Why? I have no issue with someone stating that they want the logo gone because it MAY be offensive. But I DO have an issue with people saying it IS offensive, or being offended on BEHALF of someone else, or saying that I should be offended . Why?? How does it affect you in ANY way??
But my post, that seemed to offend YOU so much, was directed at someone who asked why we are debating if it is offensive. NOT whether it should be gone. Stating "it is offensive to Native Americans and should be removed" is OK with you? How do you know if it is or isn't unless Native Americans speak out? Stating it "MIGHT be offensive and should be removed" is different, isn't it? CONTEXT.
I have answered all your questions. Now answer all mine. If someone deliberately drives onto the sidewalk and kills a child, and if a tire accidentally blows out and I go on the sidewalk and kill a child, we both should be charged EXACTLY the same? Doesn't the MOTIVE behind it make a big difference? I stated VERY clearly, and again, something you conveniently ignored because of your "outrage" over my post, that the motive and/or context behind something is very important. And when that motive or the context isn't immediately clear AND indisputable, the person or persons it is directed at should have the most voice on the matter. Or do you disagree with that?
About 40 years ago there was a young Native American woman who frequented the pub in D.C. where I threw darts. She was fun to talk with but one time I said something in what I thought to be a joking manner that she took such offense to that after she finished pointing out my insensitivity, she never spoke to me again. Upon reflection I realized that what seemed a joke from my point of view, was racially charged from hers. I have never forgotten that. I didn't intend to insult but I did.Now I would agree that it probably just shouldn't be done at all. It's just a moral and responsible thing to do. But it doesn't automatically make one a racist if they do it, unless it is done SPECIFICALLY to insult or offend. And nobody knows anyone elses motives or thoughts.
How can anyone form an opinion on this without having any & all pertinent info available?About 40 years ago there was a young Native American woman who frequented the pub in D.C. where I threw darts. She was fun to talk with but one time I said something in what I thought to be a joking manner that she took such offense to that after she finished pointing out my insensitivity, she never spoke to me again. Upon reflection I realized that what seemed a joke from my point of view, was racially charged from hers. I have never forgotten that. I didn't intend to insult but I did.
Which is why you would find it offensive, not be offended. Again, two different things. Why would YOU be offended by something that the person or group it was aimed at might not be or isn't? Or do you think that person or group is just too stupid to realize they've been insulted? That's in effect what you're saying if you are "offended". "Thank GOD I have you here to tell me that the logo should have offended me. I would have never known otherwise."Empathy.
Well that's a fine line to draw, honestly, and people often conflate the two terms and meanings.Which is why you would find it offensive, not be offended.
You probably can't but it was so long ago that I don't remember what I said other than it being something I just thought was a humorous aside. The point (at least to me) is that I was perceived as racist, even though I am not. Frankly, I think the woman over-reacted. But there may have been something in her life that caused it; something about which I had no way of knowing. The fact that I angered her still bothers me. Prior to that I had been widely traveled...five years in Europe, through the Middle-East as far out as India, North Africa. I was accustomed to different cultures, races, languages, making it a point to try and fit in. And then in my own country...?How can anyone form an opinion on this without having any & all pertinent info available?
What did you say?
An improvement over:They probably should, but many people forget (or don't even know!) that the Golden State Warriors used to be a Native American mascot team. The rebrand of the iconography can really change how it's received.
Now, their name is more neutral than "Braves" or "Indians" or certainly the crude nickname sported by the Washington, D.C. football organization. Getting rid of the icon is a big step, though, towards.
I think its over-semanticising the idea, but YMMV. The criminal/non-criminal aspect is pure BS, however.Well that's a fine line to draw, honestly, and people often conflate the two terms and meanings.
I find Chief Wahoo offensive. I find the DC football team's name offensive. I'm not personally offended, I guess, because I'm not part of the cultural heritage those two things are based upon. I can still find them both detestable though.
You say you are a Native American and find this not offensive, because — while it's a caricature — you don't think it's meant to demean. That's fine. Indeed, I understand that perspective, even if I don't share it. But I have known other people, Native Americans and others, who don't share your view of Chief Wahoo. When I was in college in Ohio, I lived in a dorm with a dude who felt strongly enough about it that he used to go protest Opening Day at the Jake every year.How can anyone form an opinion on this without having any & all pertinent info available?
What did you say?
Which is why you would find it offensive, not be offended. Again, two different things. Why would YOU be offended by something that the person or group it was aimed at might not be or isn't? Or do you think that person or group is just too stupid to realize they've been insulted? That's in effect what you're saying if you are "offended". "Thank GOD I have you here to tell me that the logo should have offended me. I would have never known otherwise."
Weren`t the lawn jockeys used in the Underground Railway for escaping slaves?So let's say that I have a friend, a black woman, who keeps such a figurine in her eclectically-decorated home because — I'm speculating a bit as to her motives, but I do actually know this person, who is real and not just a hypothetical person invented for the sake of argument — she enjoys it as a kind of provocation and conversation piece. Now, I wouldn't lecture her about this, of course: I'm white, she's black, obviously this was a choice she made deliberately. But if she asked me, I'd say that I thought it was in poor taste, because even if you're doing something, even ironically, you're still doing it. Indeed, I would wonder if it could be a healthy thing for her to keep around her home. And I would remind her that statements exceed your intentions: that the interpretations others might have of the things you say or present are not under your control, which makes such incendiary iconography dangerous even if you mean well.
Probably not. That story isn’t documented until the 1980s (when Charles Blockson published The Underground Railroad: First Person Narratives of Escapes to Freedom in the North), and a lot of the supposed precursors to it—e.g. the Jocko Graves myth—are clearly false.Weren`t the lawn jockeys used in the Underground Railway for escaping slaves?
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said other Native Americans aren't or shouldn't be offended by it. I never said it was harmless. All I said was that I personally didn't find it offensive. I certainly understand why some Native Americans would.You say you are a Native American and find this not offensive, because — while it's a caricature — you don't think it's meant to demean. That's fine. Indeed, I understand that perspective, even if I don't share it. But I have known other people, Native Americans and others, who don't share your view of Chief Wahoo. When I was in college in Ohio, I lived in a dorm with a dude who felt strongly enough about it that he used to go protest Opening Day at the Jake every year.
But even if we were to somehow do a survey of or solicit votes from Native Americans and they said it was okay, I'm not sure how persuasive that would really be. Because even if we allow your contention that Wahoo is harmless, many of these kinds of racial depictions are more malicious. Not only that, these patterns of representation have a troubling tendency to intersect with broader campaigns of dehumanization or expropriation. (A guy named Edward Said wrote a book about this idea, if you're curious...). It's hard to argue that, say, early 20c lawn figurines of black lawn jockeys are altogether innocent of the broader campaign to deny black people equal rights in other spheres. Such demeaning cultural artifacts are part and parcel with an entire cultural politics that also denied that black people had the moral/intellectual capacity to, say, vote..
Right. Because we are all just a bunch of drunken liars, right?But even if we were to somehow do a survey of or solicit votes from Native Americans and they said it was okay, I'm not sure how persuasive that would really be.
Right, I shouldn't put words in your mouth.Right. Because we are all just a bunch of drunken liars, right?
That's just the thing - they probably thought they were. 1915, you said? Birth of a Nation, etc. Who wants to be called the Cleveland Naps, anyway? I mean, I love naps, everyone should love naps, but it's not the kind of emotion you want to evoke with your team nickname...Just name your team after an animal or piece of clothing.
Also find it hysterical that nobody bitches about how the biggest video game character of all time is an Italian plumber with a stereotypical accent, look and job.
You don't see me throwing hissy fits over it
But hey, as long as it's fun ,right?
fyi, Mario is no longer officially a plumper because someone threw a fit over it.
Wait, what? I could see the Italian stereotypes being offensive, but plumber’s just a job. Not even his first job, either: he was a carpenter in Donkey Kong.fyi, Mario is no longer officially a plumper because someone threw a fit over it.
edit: plumber even. Although he is a plumper.
It's a common stereotype. Italian men are either plumbers or mafia.Wait, what? I could see the Italian stereotypes being offensive, but plumber’s just a job. Not even his first job, either: he was a carpenter in Donkey Kong.
What is offensive about being a plumber?It's a common stereotype. Italian men are either plumbers or mafia.
Nothing. It's just wrong to assume that all Italian men are plumbers. There is nothing wrong with working at 7/11 either but it's wrong to assume all 7/11 employees are Indian men. They are stereotypes. All Asians are smart. What is offensive about being smart?What is offensive about being a plumber?
Can Italians be auto mechanics too?Nothing. It's just wrong to assume that all Italian men are plumbers. There is nothing wrong with working at 7/11 either but it's wrong to assume all 7/11 employees are Indian men. They are stereotypes. All Asians are smart. What is offensive about being smart?
Yeah, that's another one.Can Italians be auto mechanics too?
Don't need 'em. Ferraris, Mazeratis, Lamborghinis, Alfa Romeos, Fiats never break down.Can Italians be auto mechanics too?
I’m too old for that piece of shit cartoon that nobody should have watched, but I recall it.*Yeah, that's another one.
I'm not sure how old you are, but when I was growing up, the Super Mario cartoon was a pretty big thing. They are always talking about spaghetti and meatballs, saying Mama Mia and all the other things you would associate with Italian stereotypes. They've toned done Mario's "Italianess" a lot over the years.
If you're a plumber in England, you're probably Polish.
But that’s just silly—then the raccoon suit makes no sense.If you're a plumber in England, you're probably Polish.
I knew somebody was gonna fucking say that, I just couldn’t be bothered to look it up.That's a tanooki suit you heathen.
Well, some people from this site didn't think what Yuli Gurriel did during the world series was a big deal...so no surprise here.Pretty awful look.
Not inclined to think Boston fans would be so much better in the same situation.
That's a rational and mature response.As an Indians fan, that video embarrasses me, but if anyone does think their team's fan base would be above such behavior they're fooling themselves. I've been a die hard fan for 30+ years, and I admit that the nostalgic kid in me will miss Chief Wahoo. Some version of the logo has been a large part of the team's identity during the entire lives of over 90% of the fan base. I have a couple bobbleheads of the chief and still wear an old T-shirt of him around the house. However, I'm evolved enough to know it's the right thing to do. By and large though, sports fans have never been known for rationality or logic.
*
I know this is an old post, but I don't believe it had anything to do with any kind of outcry over stereotyping. Nintendo just made a joke about it in a 2016 bio on their website about how he "used to work as a plumber". They've also reversed course already and his current bio references that as his profession.fyi, Mario is no longer officially a plumper because someone threw a fit over it.
edit: plumber even. Although he is a plumper.