Jump to content

Indians to Remove Chief Wahoo effective 2019


MWil23

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said:

im of irish decent, whats your point. The majority of native americans dont find the redskins mascot offensive, however theres still outrage over it. The issue isnt what mascots will change or wont, its the idea of which ones of them should according to some. if youre strongly in favor of the indians or whoevers but not of notre dames then youre pretty clearly being hypocritical.

I'm not in favor of any changes but I'm not gonna argue against Native Americans if they are offended by those mascots or logos.

I just haven't heard of any Irish other than your sensitive *** ever giving a **** about the Fighting Irish. What I do know is alot of Irish are Notre Dame fans because of that name and logo and I know a few boys who have that logo tatted on them.

You seem impossible so this is as far as I go in this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To those offended, be sure to see the bigger picture. Somewhere we (you) decided that if some people are offended by something, it has to go. Someone already mentioned this, but how many people have to be offended before a team name has to go? A thousand? A hundred? Five?

The Braves are next. Then the New Jersey Devils. Then the Fighting Irish, New York Yankees, Dallas Cowboys, San Francisco and New York Giants (fat shaming), Nashville Predators (triggering), Chicago Blackhawks, and Vancouver Canucks. These sound ridiculous, but in a world where people sit around looking for things to be offended at, they just work their way down the list. If we decide the best option is to pacify everyone who twists themselves into a pretzel by being offended, every game will be between the Wildcats, Tigers, and Eagles.

I'm about 80% serious about the above with some embellishment for effect. I understand why the Redskins, Indians, and maybe even the Braves are offensive. Let's do away with the slurs, no problem, but there needs to be a hard and fast line where this ends or else it never will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, playmaker8267 said:

To those offended, be sure to see the bigger picture. Somewhere we (you) decided that if some people are offended by something, it has to go. Someone already mentioned this, but how many people have to be offended before a team name has to go? A thousand? A hundred? Five?

It's not just me. From the American Psychological Association:

http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/policy/indian-mascots.pdf

WHEREAS the American Psychological Association has recognized that racism and racial discrimination are attitudes and behavior that are learned and that threaten human development (American Psychological Association, June 2001);

WHEREAS the continued use of American Indian mascots, symbols, images, and personalities undermines the educational experiences of members of all communities-especially those who have had little or no contact with Indigenous peoples (Connolly, 2000; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2001; Society of Indian Psychologists, 1999; Webester, Loudbear, Corn, & Vigue, 1971);

WHEREAS the continued use of American Indian mascots, symbols, images, and personalities establishes an unwelcome and often times hostile learning environment for American Indian students that affirms negative images/stereotypes that are promoted in mainstream society (Clark & Witko, in press; Fryberg, 2003; Fryberg & Markus, 2003; Fryberg, 2004a; Munson, 2001; Society of Indian Psychologists, 1999; Staurowsky, 1999);

WHEREAS the continued use of American Indian mascots, symbols, images, and personalities by school systems appears to have a negative impact on the self-esteem of American Indian children (Chamberlin, 1999; Eagle and Condor Indigenous People’s Alliance, 2003; Fryberg, 2004b; Fryberg & Markus, 2003; Maryland Commission on Indian Affairs, 2001; Society of Indian Psychologists, 1999; The Inter-Tribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes, 2001; Vanderford, 1996);

WHEREAS the continued use of American Indian mascots, symbols, images, and personalities undermines the ability of American Indian Nations to portray accurate and respectful images of their culture, spirituality, and traditions (Clark & Witko, in press; Davis, 1993; Gone, 2002; Rodriquez, 1998; Witko, 2005);

 

But, if you want a number, we can try to find one. There aren't many polls that do this, and the majority of them rely on self-identification, which is a problem in particular with Native American populations since the numbers are so small.

http://cips.csusb.edu/docs/PressRelease.pdf

This study, which is the only one that I can find in the 5 minutes that I've looked, actually verified the ethnicity of the respondents. 67% of the Native American respondents found the term offensive. I'd say that qualifies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

It's not just me. From the American Psychological Association:

http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/policy/indian-mascots.pdf

WHEREAS the American Psychological Association has recognized that racism and racial discrimination are attitudes and behavior that are learned and that threaten human development (American Psychological Association, June 2001);

WHEREAS the continued use of American Indian mascots, symbols, images, and personalities undermines the educational experiences of members of all communities-especially those who have had little or no contact with Indigenous peoples (Connolly, 2000; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2001; Society of Indian Psychologists, 1999; Webester, Loudbear, Corn, & Vigue, 1971);

WHEREAS the continued use of American Indian mascots, symbols, images, and personalities establishes an unwelcome and often times hostile learning environment for American Indian students that affirms negative images/stereotypes that are promoted in mainstream society (Clark & Witko, in press; Fryberg, 2003; Fryberg & Markus, 2003; Fryberg, 2004a; Munson, 2001; Society of Indian Psychologists, 1999; Staurowsky, 1999);

WHEREAS the continued use of American Indian mascots, symbols, images, and personalities by school systems appears to have a negative impact on the self-esteem of American Indian children (Chamberlin, 1999; Eagle and Condor Indigenous People’s Alliance, 2003; Fryberg, 2004b; Fryberg & Markus, 2003; Maryland Commission on Indian Affairs, 2001; Society of Indian Psychologists, 1999; The Inter-Tribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes, 2001; Vanderford, 1996);

WHEREAS the continued use of American Indian mascots, symbols, images, and personalities undermines the ability of American Indian Nations to portray accurate and respectful images of their culture, spirituality, and traditions (Clark & Witko, in press; Davis, 1993; Gone, 2002; Rodriquez, 1998; Witko, 2005);

 

But, if you want a number, we can try to find one. There aren't many polls that do this, and the majority of them rely on self-identification, which is a problem in particular with Native American populations since the numbers are so small.

http://cips.csusb.edu/docs/PressRelease.pdf

This study, which is the only one that I can find in the 5 minutes that I've looked, actually verified the ethnicity of the respondents. 67% of the Native American respondents found the term offensive. I'd say that qualifies.

the washington post had a poll that said 9 out of 10 are not offended. however, well ignore that, just so happy you came up with a #. to be clear, you think its 67% that need to be offended to dictate change. now, lets see if we can get you to drill down further, is there an actual number of people that need to be offended, or just 67% of even 10 people asked will do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Society picking and choosing is how culture works dude, and not just for what's offensive. That's why we have some religious holidays off of work and not others. 

I totally understand that and that society is/will continue to change.

I mean, when I was in school, we said things like policeman, fireman, mailman, sitting Indian Style, etc.

Today, it's police officer, fire-fighter, mail carrier, criss cross applesauce, etc.

I'm not completely anti-change, but I'm more or less trying to figure out why certain things are/will continue to be acceptable, like the Fighting Irish, although apparently I really started some type of crap-storm there, which wasn't my intent.

The reality is, if the Indians were named today, they'd NEVER be the Indians. So, here we are, in a 2018 paradox where you have a team named FAR from politically correct (Indians) and yet how do you give them a legitimate brand that people want to buy? The Reds already have the C, the script Indians will soon be next in all likelihood, etc. People will never buy into the name change due to their team's "history", etc. That's really about the only point I was trying to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said:

the washington post had a poll that said 9 out of 10 are not offended. however, well ignore that

11 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

But, if you want a number, we can try to find one. There aren't many polls that do this, and the majority of them rely on self-identification, which is a problem in particular with Native American populations since the numbers are so small.

Bolded for reading comprehension problems. The WaPo poll used self-identification.

3 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said:

just so happy you came up with a #. to be clear, you think its 67% that need to be offended to dictate change. now, lets see if we can get you to drill down further, is there an actual number of people that need to be offended, or just 67% of even 10 people asked will do?

The sample size on the study was 400 people, which has a margin of error of about 5%. Therefore, we are >99% confident using these results that more than half of verified (again, bolded for reading comprehension) Native Americans are offended by the term. 

That, especially when combined with the other observed negative effects documented above, is plenty.

Any hypothetical cutoff would vary, based on the impact that the change would have on society (in this case or in the case of your dumb team's chop which is the only reason you're in this thread: zero), the current negative impact on the stereotyped population (documented above: not zero), and a bunch of other factors. This isn't as simple as X% of the population says it's offensive, so we can't do that anymore.

3 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said:

just 67% of even 10 people asked will do?

How, exactly, would 7/10th's of a person be offended? Are they offended up to their chest or something? Do they have a pesky, racist limb? Does the racist limb have to be a leg since legs have more body weight than arms and we're only at 0.7 of an offended person and not 0.75? So many hard hitting questions here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Bolded for reading comprehension problems. The WaPo poll used self-identification.

The sample size on the study was 400 people, which has a margin of error of about 5%. Therefore, we are >99% confident using these results that more than half of verified (again, bolded for reading comprehension) Native Americans are offended by the term. 

That, especially when combined with the other observed negative effects documented above, is plenty.

Any hypothetical cutoff would vary, based on the impact that the change would have on society (in this case or in the case of your dumb team's chop which is the only reason you're in this thread: zero), the current negative impact on the stereotyped population (documented above: not zero), and a bunch of other factors. This isn't as simple as X% of the population says it's offensive, so we can't do that anymore.

How, exactly, would 7/10th's of a person be offended? Are they offended up to their chest or something? Do they have a pesky, racist limb? Does the racist limb have to be a leg since legs have more body weight than arms and we're only at 0.7 of an offended person and not 0.75? So many hard hitting questions here. 

lots of assuming going on gere, not surprisingly,  its wrong. 

i dont care one bit about the chop, of i go to a braves game, well usually just hang out in the chop house and drink. i also saw the part of the poll where they self identified as native american. i just dont really care that you want to ignore other results because it doesnt fit your argument. im gonna round me up a bunch of irish guys that like to drink and fight and we're gonna blame it on notre dame, maybe get a little guy to full that 7 tenths of a % (yes, did that intentionally to start). create some outrage and maybe that logo will change, afyer that im moving on to tbe cowboys. youll join, right?  you agree all mascots that could be considered offensive should change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said:

lots of assuming going on gere, not surprisingly,  its wrong. 

i dont care one bit about the chop, of i go to a braves game, well usually just hang out in the chop house and drink. i also saw the part of the poll where they self identified as native american. i just dont really care that you want to ignore other results because it doesnt fit your argument. im gonna round me up a bunch of irish guys that like to drink and fight and we're gonna blame it on notre dame, maybe get a little guy to full that 7 tenths of a % (yes, did that intentionally to start). create some outrage and maybe that logo will change, afyer that im moving on to tbe cowboys. youll join, right?  you agree all mascots that could be considered offensive should change.

Stop the slippery slope BS, Chief Wahoo is outrageously terrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

I totally understand that and that society is/will continue to change.

I mean, when I was in school, we said things like policeman, fireman, mailman, sitting Indian Style, etc.

Today, it's police officer, fire-fighter, mail carrier, criss cross applesauce, etc.

Yeah I know what you mean. I got the "criss cross applesauce" surprise when my friend's kids started saying it. Did a double take because I grew up with Indian style too. Since "Native American style" doesn't exactly roll of the tongue, it makes sense that they changed it to something, even if criss cross applesauce sounds stupid.

48 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

I'm not completely anti-change, but I'm more or less trying to figure out why certain things are/will continue to be acceptable, like the Fighting Irish, although apparently I really started some type of crap-storm there, which wasn't my intent.

It's a legitimate question to ask naively, but people who bring it up are generally not doing that. The goal is to justify something racist that they just don't want to change, so they argue something ridiculous they don't believe in, then try a false equivalence where somehow if we don't make getting rid of the Fighting Irish our number 1 priority, every other racist thing we have has to stay too.

48 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

The reality is, if the Indians were named today, they'd NEVER be the Indians. So, here we are, in a 2018 paradox where you have a team named FAR from politically correct (Indians) and yet how do you give them a legitimate brand that people want to buy? The Reds already have the C, the script Indians will soon be next in all likelihood, etc. People will never buy into the name change due to their team's "history", etc. That's really about the only point I was trying to make.

It just takes time. I lived in Milwaukee during the Marquette Warriors -> (Marquette Gold ->) Marquette Golden Eagles controversy, and was close to alot of Marquette people that were legitimately upset by it. They aren't any more, and they're still fans. If you asked them what name they liked better today, they'll say Warriors, but there's not really the same level of passion in it that they're used to be. Hopefully Cleveland's marketing team handles the transition better than Marquette did, but long term it's been better for Marquette to just put that behind them and I think you'd say the same about Cleveland 10 years from now.

(As a side note, and this isn't about you, I find it really weird that the outrage about Cleveland removing a mascot is bigger than the outrage about Tampa Bay going from the Devil Rays to the Rays. Like somehow getting rid of this racist mascot is the end of our civilization and culture but the reaction to the Rays was "Why, that's dumb" without any real follow-up.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Yeah I know what you mean. I got the "criss cross applesauce" surprise when my friend's kids started saying it. Did a double take because I grew up with Indian style too. Since "Native American style" doesn't exactly roll of the tongue, it makes sense that they changed it to something, even if criss cross applesauce sounds stupid.

Agreed. My wife is an elementary teacher, so a few weeks ago when she was talking to our 3 year old and used it, I did a double take and we had this conversation. It makes sense though. On the flip side, I've had to have a few conversations with my mom about "Indian Giver" being politically incorrect (my one year old faking her out trying to give her food, eating it, and then laughing), and she's felt embarrassed because she genuinely hasn't known. She's the last person in the world to be malicious about something, so I know if she did that publicly she'd be mortified.

The same held for my late father, who once used the Q-word that many in the homosexual community find offensive, and he used it in the sense of "that's weird".

11 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

It's a legitimate question to ask naively, but people who bring it up are generally not doing that. The goal is to justify something racist that they just don't want to change, so they argue something ridiculous they don't believe in, then try a false equivalence where somehow if we don't make getting rid of the Fighting Irish our number 1 priority, every other racist thing we have has to stay too.

That's become apparent in the last 20 hours. It's made me laugh at least.

11 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

It just takes time. I lived in Milwaukee during the Marquette Warriors -> (Marquette Gold ->) Marquette Golden Eagles controversy, and was close to alot of Marquette people that were legitimately upset by it. They aren't any more, and they're still fans. If you asked them what name they liked better today, they'll say Warriors, but there's not really the same level of passion in it that they're used to be. Hopefully Cleveland's marketing team handles the transition better than Marquette did, but long term it's been better for Marquette to just put that behind them and I think you'd say the same about Cleveland 10 years from now.

Right, but I would argue the differences are also a university level vs. privately owned multi million dollar corporations is tricky. See, the Washington Native American Slurs. Even Notre Dame as a private institution is an enigma, although perhaps Marquette is as well, so who knows. Plenty of schools around here have changed their names, like Miami of Ohio (Redhawks instead of Redskins), and even Wright State University, while still being the Raiders, changed their mascot from a viking to a wolf.

11 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

(As a side note, and this isn't about you, I find it really weird that the outrage about Cleveland removing a mascot is bigger than the outrage about Tampa Bay going from the Devil Rays to the Rays. Like somehow getting rid of this racist mascot is the end of our civilization and culture but the reaction to the Rays was "Why, that's dumb" without any real follow-up.)

I would argue that Tampa Bay as an expansion team doing it after 10 years in the league and a pretty horrific fan-base in terms of sheer following numbers/history (not that their fans are bad by any means) is a little bit of an explanation, for right or for wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...