Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wisconsin school district bans American Indian team logos

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    Sal,

    I tried looking up the parent company and they won't take my debit card. I tried. It is not as if my card does not have money in it. I may try calling them Monday to see if they take phone orders.

    Pruitt
    Call your bank, it may be on their end. I've run into sites I couldn't use my card on due to security reasons. EA's Origin site was one of them.
    ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

    BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

    BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Salinator View Post
      I have to admit that was pretty funny. I wan't offended.

      If I was a German I don't think Nazi symbolism would offend me either. All the tragedy associated with any ethnic origin is only a reflection of the universal nature of mans inhumanity to man. It's the idea that my tribe or group is special somehow that has been at the heart of that inhumanity in many cases.

      In general I reject the idea of cultural diversity being a positive thing. Every culture has positive and negative aspects and we should rational and freely incorporate the positive.

      It is entirely possible that the symbolism of Native Americans being used in sports is a reflection of spirit of self determination and the fight to preserve it. If we preserve that spirit we should be just as free to rationally reject other aspects of Native American culture that are not as positive. Minority culture must be as open to critique as any other or we lose our independence to be rational and become slaves to popular culture and it's pitfalls.
      We hunt the hunters

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
        In general I reject the idea of cultural diversity being a positive thing. Every culture has positive and negative aspects and we should rational and freely incorporate the positive.
        Diversity is good; divisiveness is bad.

        It's the old melting pot vs salad bowl argument. A nation like the United States does immigration well because we integrate people fairly well - people who come here tend to want to become Americans and, because we're blessed to not possess an ethnic identity tied into our national identity, being 'American' is more about broadly shared ideals than specific cultural elements.

        When one starts to put up barriers, then it becomes a problem. My father used to do speech pathology work in the 70s and a recurring problem he saw amongst some Hispanic children who had "learning difficulties" was that, at home, the parents didn't speak English and didn't encourage its usage, thus the children were viewed as mentally retarded due to their slow progress on language skills.

        One of the reasons given for this determination not to use English was a desire to hold onto ethnic and cultural ties back to the homeland. They were slowing integration to the cost of their children and the school out of their desire to protect their culture.

        So while diversity is great - having different views, opinions, and ways of looking at things can be beneficial - the problem comes from refusing to compromise or create bridges to lead to eventual integration.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
          Actually, bringing up the fighting Irish is on topic. This is a discussion about racial team logos. And this brings up a valid point: varying degrees of sensitivity.

          If you are a particularly sensitive individual, you could make an argument that the absolute most racist thing we do in this country is celebrate St. Patrick's Day. Green beer? Leprechaun outfits? Eating corned beef? Imagine if we had a holiday where we drank grape soda, ate fried chicken, and called it Aunt Jemima day? That would pretty much be on par with St. Patrick's if we were to decide that St. Pat's is offensive.

          What this whole controversy boils down to is differing sensibilities. Certain subgroups of America don't mind being caricatured. And those that don't mind being caricatured themselves don't see what the fuss is about when caricaturing others. To reference DoD's hat post, there are Jews who totally laugh along with Jewish caricatures - and there are those who find them offensive.

          Now I'm not saying those offended by such symbols don't have a legitimate argument, I'm simply diagnosing what is going on. And when it comes to reconciling both views, neither side should be minimized. But what I will say is that when it comes to determining offensive sports symbols, my approach would be to poll what Native Americans actually think. Because if there's one thing America has no shortage of, it's outrage by proxy. A lot of people screaming about the Redskins and other such logos are people that are about as Native American as Hu Jintao. Lots of people like to get outraged on behalf of Native Americans. I'd be more interested on what the Native Americans themselves think. If THEY like it, keep it. If THEY call to remove it, remove it.
          I guess no one cares when its a white person...

          “Come and take it!"

          Comment


          • #95
            White people been oppressed a lot in the US?

            Let Irish groups protest Notre Dame and maybe someone will care.
            Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

            Comment


            • #96
              Wisconsin will need to change its name. IIRC, "Wisconsin" is an Chippewa Indian term. Not properly PC at all.

              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by R. Evans View Post
                White people been oppressed a lot in the US?

                Let Irish groups protest Notre Dame and maybe someone will care.
                Very few people who are still alive have actually been "oppressed" in the US. Individual rights to do and say what you want will always trump any abstract whining about something that happened to somebody else who you never met long before you were born.

                All this sort of whining and complaining does anymore is make me want to support things the social justice warriors consider offensive just to **** them off and support free speech. For example I've never felt so much sympathy for the Washinton Redskins and I've been a Dallas Cowboys fan my whole life.
                "Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl." - Frederick the Great

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
                  Very few people who are still alive have actually been "oppressed" in the US. Individual rights to do and say what you want will always trump any abstract whining about something that happened to somebody else who you never met long before you were born.

                  All this sort of whining and complaining does anymore is make me want to support things the social justice warriors consider offensive just to **** them off and support free speech. For example I've never felt so much sympathy for the Washinton Redskins and I've been a Dallas Cowboys fan my whole life.
                  There it is.

                  Speaking as a Native American, there are a lot of NA tribes who were not sufficiently oppressed back in the day.
                  Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
                    Very few people who are still alive have actually been "oppressed" in the US. Individual rights to do and say what you want will always trump any abstract whining about something that happened to somebody else who you never met long before you were born.

                    All this sort of whining and complaining does anymore is make me want to support things the social justice warriors consider offensive just to **** them off and support free speech. For example I've never felt so much sympathy for the Washinton Redskins and I've been a Dallas Cowboys fan my whole life.
                    Cowboys fan? Jeeze, why couldn't you have been something more respectable, like a Neo-Nazi or a serial molester?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                      Cowboys fan? Jeeze, why couldn't you have been something more respectable, like a Neo-Nazi or a serial molester?
                      Well I tried but apparently I either wasn't blonde or bald enough. Had to settle for what I could get.
                      "Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl." - Frederick the Great

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                        Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                        I found it pretty funny too. This one is great as well:



                        Classic caricature!
                        Apples and Oranges. The former may be tasteless, but they do not depict their subjects' character as insidious -- though maybe the buck-tooth thing is really dated. If the Cleveland Indians' logo depicted Chief Wahoo drinking, or scalping, or running a casino, then the insult would be plain. I've asked before: what is it specifically about the Chief Wahoo logo that is offensive?

                        Now, who should be offended by this:



                        Since the very word originated as an insult to Dutchmen, then became a Dutch insult of Englishmen, who should claim offense?

                        Apart from those other MLB clubs possessed of traditions of mediocrity, that is.
                        I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                          Apples and Oranges. The former may be tasteless, but they do not depict their subjects' character as insidious -- though maybe the buck-tooth thing is really dated. If the Cleveland Indians' logo depicted Chief Wahoo drinking, or scalping, or running a casino, then the insult would be plain. I've asked before: what is it specifically about the Chief Wahoo logo that is offensive?

                          Now, who should be offended by this:



                          Since the very word originated as an insult to Dutchmen, then became a Dutch insult of Englishmen, who should claim offense?

                          Apart from those other MLB clubs possessed of traditions of mediocrity, that is.
                          The key element to all of this is that offensiveness is not objective fact. It is highly subjective, with a hundred different variables thrown in with their social considerations.

                          A man saying "screw you" could cause a fight, or it could just be a joke amongst friends - the phrase itself isn't insulting in absolute terms. A Nazi flag in a text-book is different from a Nazi flag being marched outside a synagogue.

                          That is why the debate over whether such logos or depictions are offensive is part of the decision making process. People's views differ over time, new arguments come to light or fade away, social attitude's change...

                          If you're asking me if the Indian's logo actually offends me, most certainly not. I can understand how others could be offended, but personally, I don't get upset whenever someone wears an Indian's cap (well, beyond the normal disdain for an Indian's fan, of course ).

                          The issue itself is pretty complex. Again, there are large Indian groups who protest the logo or the Redskins name... yet at the same time there are Indian schools with their own Redskins teams.

                          Whether this is offensive or not will boil down to which side more people believe in and are willing to speak up about. The people will decide for themselves, in the end.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                            The people will decide for themselves, in the end.
                            The people "decide" nothing. They're merely swayed by the sweetest-sounding voice is all. The reason behind his arguments is never heard. He could have been reading out of a phone book for all the intrinsic value of the argument itself.

                            Please, don't elevate this noise to a worthy intellectual exercise. No more thought goes into this nonsense than in choosing the winner of American Idol.
                            I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by slick_miester;

                              Now, who should be offended by this:

                              [img
                              http://www.bleachernation.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/new-york-yankees-logo.jpg[/img]

                              Since the very word originated as an insult to Dutchmen, then became a Dutch insult of Englishmen, who should claim offense?

                              Apart from those other MLB clubs possessed of traditions of mediocrity, that is.
                              Good point about the term "Yankees". Must be why NY went with "Knickerbockers" for their Basket Ball Team.
                              My Avatar: Ivan W. Henderson Gunner/navigator B-25-26. 117 combat missions. Both Theaters. 11 confirmed kills. DSC.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                                The people "decide" nothing. They're merely swayed by the sweetest-sounding voice is all. The reason behind his arguments is never heard. He could have been reading out of a phone book for all the intrinsic value of the argument itself.

                                Please, don't elevate this noise to a worthy intellectual exercise. No more thought goes into this nonsense than in choosing the winner of American Idol.
                                And yet what you describe is democracy in action. The people who win are those that can convince the most other people that they are right, not the ones with the best arguments. The logic is vapid and the reasoning dependent upon emotions, but it is still how these things progress.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X