Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi
Bottom line:
This argument boils down to two sides.
Side A) Sports caricatures and team names can often invoke racist histories and historical methods of subjugation and power, because we disagree with treating people that way we should stop using those symbols and names.
Side B) This is the way we have historically called and represented the team therefore we should continue to do so because we have always done so.
Side B is implicitly racist because the appeal to history has no fundamental moral value.
|
Side C) It's not at all clear cut where the line should be drawn and putting words into other peoples mouths is d-baggery even if you don't like their views.
It seems that this has been the scale in this discussion:
Chiefs-Blackhawks-Indians-Redskins.
(feel free to insert more teams into that scale if you like)
If I'm not mistaken, the consensus seems to be that Chiefs is fine, Redskins is not. I put the line between Indians and Blackhawks.
So what's the difference between
a) Chiefs and Blackhawks?
b) Chiefs and Indians?
Or am I wrong and do people think that they should all go?
Is there really a difference between Indians and Chiefs? I'm not sure. Not disagreeing, but I can't explain that difference to myself.