I knew there'd be a schadenfreude post today!
I wish they wouldn't use "scalped" in the headlines, even though I knew they would.Can you imagine saying a team "lynched" another team - or "mugged" - with the accompanying ethnic imagery?I hate cheering for the Racist Logos! But of course I am, just for this one week.
I had the same reaction to "scalped." I was surprised that in this day and age a paper would use that term in this context. Do you know that there is a case pending where Native Americans are challenging the registered trademark Redskins as being disparaging? I find this usage of scalped even more offensive.
It's ok L...I know it's politically incorrect, but like you said, we have to put that aside and unite against the MFY. Afterwards you can take the gloves off...
Colin, I don't care about so-called political correctness. I think it's just WRONG - and disgusting. Can you imagine any other ethnic group being used as a team mascot, complete with caricature? I was surprised that in this day and age a paper would use that term in this context.Were you? I expect it.Do you know that there is a case pending where Native Americans are challenging the registered trademark Redskins as being disparaging?Yes I do. You'll notice Allan never refers to the Braves or the Indians, only to Atlanta and Cleveland.
Yes, I guess I just always hold out hope that the media will lead the public in forming public opinion and will be more sensitive. Call me naive, but I just continue to be disappointed by their stupidity and insensitivity.I hadn't noticed that about Allan's avoidance of the Atlanta or Cleveland team names. I haven't minded the Indian name as it is an accepted usage even by Native Americans, and I have seen it as no more offensive than calling a team the Patriots or Steelers or Mariners or Celtics. But then again, other than Celtics, none of those are based on nationality or race. So let me rethink that one. What I find most offensive is the damn chant they do in Atlanta with the hatchets. That is enough to make me hate that team (as well as the '69 series with the Mets in my Mets fan days).
Some good resources on the issue:American Indian sports team mascotsColumn in the NY Daily news (This columnist also wrote an "enough already" column about the Yankees' GBA/military displays.)Native peoples of Northeast Ohio on the Cleveland team's name and logoAnd coming soon... my favourite cartoon on this topic.
Amy, you're right to be hopeful about those things. Certainly there's been a lot of progress - a glance at a newspaper articles from the 1850s and the 1950s will show that. I just knew that the papers would use "scalped". I feel naming a team "the Indians" or "the Braves" is as ridiculous as naming a team "the Jews". People are not mascots. I also find the logo incredibly offensive.The "chop" is beyond the pale! Still looking for that cartoon.
Reading those Cleveland articles from 1915 sure does make the modern media look highly evolved!Yeah, the more I think about it, even Indians (and I suppose Celtics) are inappropriate names. You are right---I would not react well to a team called the Jews, whether they were depicted with a favorable or unfavorable stereotype. Naming teams after clothing or animals is certainly less likely to offend. And that cartoon image Cleveland uses is truly obnoxious.I will await the cartoon.
Got it! Now I can post it when we open the ALCS against Cleveland. :)More Racist Logos
Reading those Cleveland articles from 1915 sure does make the modern media look highly evolved!Indeed! When Joe DiMaggio made his major league debut, many sports writers pointed out that he didn't smell like garlic. When Roberto Clemente broke in, many newspapers ran his quotes in phonetic "translation" - "Bazebol eez grreat."How far we've come... how far we have left to go.
Great cartoon. Interestingly, from the Globe. Go, Boston!Well, it is about 80 degrees outside, so it should be like a summer's game at Fenway tonight. Summer baseball in October---what could be better!
Interestingly, from the Globe.Yeah, I was surprised to see that!It used to hang on our fridge, along with all the dog cartoons. I had to dig it out of a box with stuff that didn't get re-hung when we moved. Allan will say, the scary part is that I knew where it was.
Always referring to the teams by their cities sometimes requires some twisty writing. The post names will be "Blue Jays at Red Sox" and "Cleveland at Red Sox". Never written on my scorecards either. I also try never to actually say the "nicknames" when talking about the teams.The "Jews" wouldn't be quite the same. Think of the "Kikes" or "Wetbacks" or "Nigs".Interesting that when Cleveland played in the Civil Rights exhibition game this past March, they wore caps with only a "C" on them. As I wrote at the time, that "could be seen as an admission that its regular cap might not be in keeping with the whole progressive, open-minded, anti-prejudice vibe MLB would like to project".
Which headline does not belong?A) Kikes Shortchange OriolesB) Cubs Lynch NiggersC) Indians Scalp YankeesD) Wetbacks Too Sick For Astros
B) is not like the others.The Cubs can't beat anybody.
I just got back from a lovely walk through the woods to the pond near our cottage on the Cape. Reading those "fake" headlines, Allan, just about ruined my nice calm mood! But the point is a good one. I will try never to refer to Cleveland again by their team name.Trying to avoid using the team names in your writing must be a struggle. I know how hard it is to avoid gender specific pronouns in non-gender specific contexts in writing (or speech) without sounding incredibly awkward. (This also, on a lighter note, reminded me of our family debate this summer over whether you use Red Sock to refer to a single player on the Red Sox or whether you must say "a member of the Red Sox." Though I had never used Red Sock before, I realized how hard it was to use a multi-word substitute.)
I'd say E.) All of the above
That NY POST headline....hard to expect anything better from Rupert Murdoch Inc.
Colin's answer is more correct.
Have to disagree about the names of the Atl and Cle teams. Until very recently Native Americans were referred to by nearly everyone without any disrespect as Indians. Certainly when I was younger that was the case. A Native American warrior is a Brave. The Redskins - that's a different story and I don't want to touch that one. I mentioned the name only because I think Cle's logo (isn't it referred to as Chief Wahoo?) is highly offensive, and Atl's chant and the chop are as well.
Actually, I am looking for a more complete story, but back in the 80?s there was a team that tried to show what would happen if there was a team calledFighting Whities. The link seems to have a good time line of various changes.Personally, being 1/4 Apache there are some things that are overboard, the chief Wahoo logo being one of them. Braves, no problem, Indians, no problem. The ncaa has made an issue of this and a couple of teams are fighting the sanctions / denial of championship sites, mainly the fighting Seminoles of FSU and fighting Siuox of North Dakota. Since the tribes that those are associated with do not have a problem and actually aid and abet those universities I'm not sure that the NCAA is in the right in those cases. What about the USC Trojans? The Volunteer of Tennessee? West Va. mountaineers? Personally I am more offended by the Old Rebel at Ole Miss.
Heh, I like Allan's fake headlines, and Colin's, GK's and Allen's responses.Anyone who thinks the name "Indians" for a baseball team is not offensive should look at the logo!Btw, "braves" is not a name for a Native American warrior. It's a term made up by white people in the 1800s. Native Americans - who of course were hundreds of different nations - did not call themselves braves."Squaw" - supposedly a Native American woman - was like calling a woman a whore or a cunt.
mainly the fighting Seminoles of FSU and fighting Siuox of North Dakota. Since the tribes that those are associated with do not have a problem and actually aid and abet those universities I'm not sure that the NCAA is in the right in those cases.So people who like it can speak for all, but not people who are offended. A few people of Seminole descent "aid and abet" - profit off - Florida's depiction, so it's ok. But the thousands of Native Americans who have spoken out against the team names Indians and Braves? They're just being overly sensitive.What about the USC Trojans? The Volunteer of Tennessee? West Va. mountaineers? And Mariners, Rangers, Oilers, Patriots, Pirates, Pilots, Brewers, and so forth. Those are groups of people associated with an geographic area - a way of life or a job or a designation. They are not an ethnic group. It's pretty easy to see the difference between a Pirate, Ranger, Brewer, Mountaineer or Mariner and an Indian, Mexican, Jew, or Hungarian. ONLY the Indian is made into a mascot.
Btw, "braves" is not a name for a Native American warrior. It's a term made up by white people in the 1800s. Native Americans - who of course were hundreds of different nations - did not call themselves braves.Well, I know my grandmother, my uncles, my mother, her uncles, and everybody else on the freaking reservation could have cared less about braves / brave or were the name came from. Played with many Indians, against many Indians and we did not care. So people who like it can speak for all, but not people who are offended. A few people of Seminole descent "aid and abet" - profit off - Florida's depiction, so it's ok. But the thousands of Native Americans who have spoken out against the team names Indians and Braves? They're just being overly sensitive.I didn't say that they were overly sensitive. I can only speak about what I have seen, or heard. I do know that the Seminole Tribe does not have a problem. See here, and here.As for the Fighting Sioux of North Dakota, I am not for sure what the final outcome of the NCAA actions are, since this appears to be the latest on their lawsuit. I do no that the "Tribes" urged the ncaa to reconsider as stated in this story.
"Squaw" - supposedly a Native American woman - was like calling a woman a whore or a cunt.Real pleased I let the 12 yo read this. Thanks for that. How proud you must be.
I didn't say that they were overly sensitive. I can only speak about what I have seen, or heard.Fair enough. Just because some people don't mind being labelled that way doesn't make it right, however.
Real pleased I let the 12 yo read this. Thanks for that. How proud you must be.What's your point?It sounds like you are saying that pointing out racism -- learning which words have a racist and sexist connotation -- is a bad thing.I guess I should repost that my salty language will give you the vapors.P.S. Do you really think your 12-year-old has not heard the word "whore" before?
Real pleased I let the 12 yo read this. Thanks for that. How proud you must be.Are you joking???? Apparently not.What your 12-year-old reads online is not my business or my problem.There isn't anything family-friendly about this blog! Have you looked it a game thread lately??Personally, I think your 12-year-old is better served knowing there's racism in the world, and that certain words are offensive, than by being sheltered from the words cunt or whore! (As if s/he didn't know those words yet.)But that's just my opinion. Your kid and your parenting is yours.
What's my point?Have absolutely no problem with salty language - in fact since he's the oldest of 4 boys, we realize there is no way to avoid it. We try to teach them that there are appropriate times and places for it - but more importantly that there are lines which you do not cross. A c-bomb in my mind is over that line. It's a word (among many others) that is so disrespectful that there is no reason to use it. He surfs this site since it's one of the very few places he can get a true, intelligent sense of the "pulse" of the RSN. We discuss racism and salty language and sex and all kinds of other stuff with all of them, but like I said there are lines which I prefer not to have crossed. When it comes right down to it, it's your blog and there is nothing I can do about it.We may never agree on this, so maybe it's best to just move on.That's my point.
For your information, family friendly is not what I would expect one would be after when checking out this blog. He (we) are after something entirely different. I will only address the "sheltered" comment by saying - um no. Not a one of them is sheltered. They are all in public school and ride the bus. The 12 yo plays sports on competitive teams with 12 and 13 yo's. He is here because he's interested in learning about baseball on a more cerebral level. Again, salty language - not even a blip on the radar screen. There are higher (lower?) levels though. That's all.Parenting being a continuous learning experience, I do appreciate the insightful tips and input - I'll take them under advisement.
He is here because he's interested in learning about baseball on a more cerebral level.Thanks. That's nice to hear.A c-bomb in my mind is over that line. It's a word (among many others) that is so disrespectful that there is no reason to use it.Much of me agrees with you. The rest of me thinks that it's simply a word and, while inappropriate for most public conversations, can do no actual harm.Also, using phrases like the "n-word" and the "c-word" is silly and smacks of the US's Puritan streak most often seen when it comes to sex. Plus, using those phrases still puts the actual word in the listener's head, because it's the first thing he or she thinks of when hearing the "x-word".The history of the word is amazing. The earliest citation is 1230!
The reason I wrote "cunt" is because that's what "squaw" means - it's a highly derogative term for female genitalia. "Squaw" is not a Native term for vagina. It's the equivalent of calling a woman a cunt. That's what it means, so that's what I wrote. It's a word. It has a meaning. Get over it.
Another thing that seems wrong about this picture: there's a difference between teaching a child not to use a certain word and trying to prevent him/her from seeing or hearing that word. One is about respect and behaving properly in the world. The other, in my opinion, is about puritanism.
Post a Comment