Use of Native American Imagery in Sports

[AcGold]

They're called Indians and they're not even close to India. Degrading imagery? They don't even get a proper name let alone proper treatment. About the most oppressed culture in history right up there with the Pygmies.

[CroFlames]

The Blackhawks logo is OK?

[Poe969]

Some people are offended by the use of Native American imagery in sports, others aren't. The ones who own the teams using these logos have said that they're doing it more of a tribute and use those logos as a source of pride. People are going to be offended no matter what, there really is no line in the sand on what is offensive and what isn't. What if a large group of people start saying that they think Calgary should change the name of their hockey team because as a society (especially in Alberta) we shouldn't be happy about fire due to all the death and destruction that's been caused recently. Some of you are going to say that's absurd but I'm sure there will be some people out there who will be just as upset about this as others are about the use of Native American imagery.

Point is no matter what, people are going to be offended. Using these logos isn't illegal or disrespectful. People are going to continue to be offended by this and eventually they'll find something else to be offended about too. I'm honestly surprised that there hasn't been a group of people to come out and say that they'd be ok with the use of Native American imagery in sports providing they get some form of financial restitution.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

This is one of multiple instances in your post that you're kind of all over the place with the whole "group that is insulted" thing though. Pick one group and talk about them.

I only spoke about a crowd doing the "tomahawk chop" or whatever they call it and doing the chant at a seminoles game.

I'm a little unsure what you are getting at? So you don't like the Seminole Tribe?

Or they don't have the right to be offended because they are rich?



For example, no one is offended at our silly caricatures of the irish or vikings or the literally hundreds of other groups that are used for team names, images, chants etc in professional and amateur sports.

So question, if in the next 50 to 100 years we improved the treatment of NAs in Canada and the US and we were all happy campers and they were all healthy and lived great lives with no social issues or poverty, would they then fall into the who cares category like vikings and irish and the literally hundreds of other groups that are used for sports?


I fundamentally disagree that every single use of NA imagery, chants, names etc is inherently offensive. And until you can provide links and evidence as proof that each and everyone is offensive I won't be convinced.


See I think this is your real issue.


It just isn't made worse by Florida State using a well known Seminole tribe member on their helmets.


You must mean me here, no the bigger picture is not lost on me and I'm not sure how you even got that. Do I have to talk about ALL imagery when I respond to a specific post about a single use of imagery?

Furthermore the idea that you think that all images must be offfensive just because some are offensive doesn't make a lot of sense.

Again, it's more of the same argument. "they are treated bad so we can NEVER use NA images, chants etc in sports". Why don't we worry about actually helping NA people instead of fighting battles that may offend them?

I'm not sure if some helmet logo is having any negative effect on the treatment of NAs.


I'm pretty sure that is what I said about the Seminole chant.


See now you're doing it again. Taking comments I made about a singular incident and applying it to all use of NA imagery etc.


I think we all know NAs are oppressed and ignored. It is offensive that you would even suggest that people are saying they aren't.

Yeah I don't think those are flattering either...

Whose kids? What does that even mean? Aren't we all someones kids? Were you cloned?


And who is justifying it? Why don't you quote them and respond to their comments?

Posts like yours are really easy to make. Don't respond to any specific comments. When you do respond to specific comments, like mine on the Seminoles, pivot and ignore those comments and start talking about other examples that probably are offensive. Then bring up unarguable things like the mistreatment of NAs over the last 500 years that really don't explain why the original thing is offensive. Then make a bunch of broad strokes responses to boogeyman comments that you refer to but don't actually quote.


At the end of the day we agree on multiple things here. Mistreatment of NAs, the need to improve that, humans mistreating other humans based on race, creed, culture etc.

What we fundamentally disagree on is how the use of NA imagery, logos, chants etc in sports harms or doesn't harm their current situation.

First off nobody responded to you. Take a few deep breaths. I didnt quote you or mention you. No need to give me a complement sandwich here. Starting and ending with i agree with you and mixing in a bunch of BS i never said. I mentioned the seminoles.. Not you.


I dont have to pick one group and talk about them. Look at the title of this thread..

I dont dislike the seminoles...
Rich people do have a right to be offended..

That is a stupid point. Dont insult peoples intelligence here. Dont compare the irish and nordic logos to this. I wont even say anymore than that. Its stupid. Dont be stupid.

WHO ON EARTH SAID EVERY SINGLE USE OF THEIR NAMES IS OFFENSIVE?

You should change your username to cecil strawman. Maybe cecil crybaby.

Also I dont mean you when I say the bigger picture is lost on some posters here. I mean some posters here. If I meant you I would have said cecil.

You sound like you are suffering from serious butthurt. You think my whole entire post was about you you you.

I started posting in here after reading most of the 39 pages. I'm responding to a lot of it.


Yes i mentioned the seminoles. Yes you posted the video. That doesnt mean when I say something about the seminoles im hurling a veiled insult at you. This thread isnt about you, convincing you, posting the way you want, sticking to one topic, quoting people, etc. Dont tell people how to post. You are lucky im spacing paragraphs.

The fact you took my whole post as some sort of attack on your views is hilarious.

Some peoples kids... means some peoples kids. Sometimes some peoples children. It doesnt mean I was cloned.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you are ridiculous dude. Dont assume everything is secretly an insult intended for you. You read like a sensitive narcissist hastily building strawmen to disprove something i never said.

Literally everything I bolded is cringeworthy or laughworthy. I love how say 'posts like yours are really easy to make'
then make a post nitpicking everything i said and assuming it is about you, or even demanding that I quote other users and speak on one topic at a time. Posts like yours are really easy to make and really funny to read. Thanks for making my afternoon.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

The Blackhawks logo is OK?

Best logo in professional sports IMO.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Poe969

Some people are offended by the use of Native American imagery in sports, others aren't. The ones who own the teams using these logos have said that they're doing it more of a tribute and use those logos as a source of pride. People are going to be offended no matter what, there really is no line in the sand on what is offensive and what isn't. What if a large group of people start saying that they think Calgary should change the name of their hockey team because as a society (especially in Alberta) we shouldn't be happy about fire due to all the death and destruction that's been caused recently. Some of you are going to say that's absurd but I'm sure there will be some people out there who will be just as upset about this as others are about the use of Native American imagery.

Point is no matter what, people are going to be offended. Using these logos isn't illegal or disrespectful. People are going to continue to be offended by this and eventually they'll find something else to be offended about too. I'm honestly surprised that there hasn't been a group of people to come out and say that they'd be ok with the use of Native American imagery in sports providing they get some form of financial restitution.

Yes, this is absurd. One group has historically been absolutely crapped upon, and it continues to this day. The other group has no such history. This is such an integral difference, not sure why you cannot see that.

[Poe969]

Originally Posted by the2bears

Yes, this is absurd. One group has historically been absolutely crapped upon, and it continues to this day. The other group has no such history. This is such an integral difference, not sure why you cannot see that.

I didn't say that I agreed with it but I'm willing to bet there will be a group out there who will agree with it. I mean that there will always be a group of people who are offended over something.

And as for the use of the Native American imagery, they're not being used in an insulting way, they're not mocking any hardships that the Native Americans have endured, they're doing the opposite. Those images are being used as a sense of pride.

If the logo was a white guy taking away a Native Americans land, I'd say that's offensive. The logos are just an image of a Native American and I honestly find it funny that people are so offended by it. I think the Notre Dame "Fighting Irish" is more offensive than any other logos as it's essentially saying that all Irishmen are violent...

[scotty2hotty]

^

Not just violent ... but drunk, fighting, leprechauns.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt

First off nobody responded to you. Take a few deep breaths. I didnt quote you or mention you. No need to give me a complement sandwich here. Starting and ending with i agree with you and mixing in a bunch of BS i never said. I mentioned the seminoles.. Not you.


I dont have to pick one group and talk about them. Look at the title of this thread..

I dont dislike the seminoles...
Rich people do have a right to be offended..

That is a stupid point. Dont insult peoples intelligence here. Dont compare the irish and nordic logos to this. I wont even say anymore than that. Its stupid. Dont be stupid.

WHO ON EARTH SAID EVERY SINGLE USE OF THEIR NAMES IS OFFENSIVE?

You should change your username to cecil strawman. Maybe cecil crybaby.

Also I dont mean you when I say the bigger picture is lost on some posters here. I mean some posters here. If I meant you I would have said cecil.

You sound like you are suffering from serious butthurt. You think my whole entire post was about you you you.

I started posting in here after reading most of the 39 pages. I'm responding to a lot of it.


Yes i mentioned the seminoles. Yes you posted the video. That doesnt mean when I say something about the seminoles im hurling a veiled insult at you. This thread isnt about you, convincing you, posting the way you want, sticking to one topic, quoting people, etc. Dont tell people how to post. You are lucky im spacing paragraphs.

The fact you took my whole post as some sort of attack on your views is hilarious.

Some peoples kids... means some peoples kids. Sometimes some peoples children. It doesnt mean I was cloned.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you are ridiculous dude. Dont assume everything is secretly an insult intended for you. You read like a sensitive narcissist hastily building strawmen to disprove something i never said.

Literally everything I bolded is cringeworthy or laughworthy. I love how say 'posts like yours are really easy to make'
then make a post nitpicking everything i said and assuming it is about you, or even demanding that I quote other users and speak on one topic at a time. Posts like yours are really easy to make and really funny to read. Thanks for making my afternoon.

You seem like you're really upset...I guess you're living up to your username? I guess it is easier to write out 500 words of hilarious rage than it is to actually discuss the topic in a civilized manner.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

You seem like you're really upset...I guess you're living up to your username? I guess it is easier to write out 500 words of hilarious rage than it is to actually discuss the topic in a civilized manner.

Says the guy who wrote out hundreds of words of whiney straw man baby logic.

Im not upset at all.. But you are a butthurt strawman specialist. Your post was hilariously stupid and doesnt deserve an intellectual response. I chose my username. I dont come online to make fwends.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt

Says the guy who wrote out hundreds of words of whiney straw man baby logic.

Im not upset at all.. But you are a butthurt strawman specialist. Your post was hilariously stupid and doesnt deserve an intellectual response. I chose my username. I dont come online to make fwends.

I just don't see the point of making these massive impassioned posts willed with anger and vitriol then resorting to grade 5 level name calling when someone responds.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I just don't see the point of making these massive impassioned posts willed with anger and vitriol then resorting to grade 5 level name calling when someone responds.

You think my first post was all about you and my second post was an impassioned posted willed with anger and vitrol.


Hahahahahahahaha. You are such a sensationalist crybaby. Get off the internet.


Aww


Well i dont see the point of your taking everything personally and feeling attacked when nobody ever mentioned you at all. Telling people how to post.. Also completely twisting someones words and making up a bunch of bs i never said.. Like every symbol and name being offensive.. Like not liking the seminoles or not thinking rich people should be offended. You are just pathetic dude. Go have a nap. Or better yet go get butthurt by something that isnt intended for you and build some strawmen. You are very good at twisting what people say. I will give you that.

[nik-]

oh hey, Crumpy Gunt is at it again.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt

The fact that the holocaust happened...is offensive to me.
The slave trade is offensive to me.
The inquisition is offensive to me.

I am not jewish or african american or christian/'heretic'.

To clarify, since you quoted me, I was specifically referring to a privileged white person being offended for the Seminole Tribe, when they themselves are not offended. I'm sorry, these are not logical equivalents. They aren't close.

Does it make sense to be offended along with another group that is experiencing some sort of offence? Of course. Does it make sense to be offended by the term "Redskins" as a white person? Sure. In regards to one of your points, Redskins is extremely similar to Cracker, both are incredibly offensive. Meaningless now, but historically negative. The only reason you don't see logical white people throwing their arms up whenever someone else refers to them as slavers, is because of their awareness of their own white privilege.

Again, in regards to the Seminole Tribe, there are reasons these things shouldn't be considered offensive and should be treated as a unique example. The university works in close conjunction with the tribe, seeking approval for all changes and any elements that take inspiration from the tribe. There are electives offered that have a very good enrolment rate which teach the history and modern struggles of the Seminole tribe.

The difference being, one school is doing its best to honour a tribe and educate it's students. It's a unique circumstance that should be treated as such and not carelessly lumped into the Redskins/Chief Wahoo/Indians conversation.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Funny how the person who my original post was quoting isnt bothered at all and didnt take it to heart.. Good post pepsi.. Way to understand that nobody is attacking you. But i disagree. Im with vulcan. You can be white and privileged and still be offended by something that happens to an oppressed minority.

Also yes nik- im back at it again... Ruffling the feathers of crybabies who take everything personally and dont know how to internet.

[nik-]

Like you take a ton of offences that have nothing to do with you personally?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

To clarify, since you quoted me, I was specifically referring to a privileged white person being offended for the Seminole Tribe, when they themselves are not offended. I'm sorry, these are not logical equivalents. They aren't close.

Does it make sense to be offended along with another group that is experiencing some sort of offence? Of course. Does it make sense to be offended by the term "Redskins" as a white person? Sure. In regards to one of your points, Redskins is extremely similar to Cracker, both are incredibly offensive. Meaningless now, but historically negative. The only reason you don't see logical white people throwing their arms up whenever someone else refers to them as slavers, is because of their awareness of their own white privilege.

Again, in regards to the Seminole Tribe, there are reasons these things shouldn't be considered offensive and should be treated as a unique example. The university works in close conjunction with the tribe, seeking approval for all changes and any elements that take inspiration from the tribe. There are electives offered that have a very good enrolment rate which teach the history and modern struggles of the Seminole tribe.

The difference being, one school is doing its best to honour a tribe and educate it's students. It's a unique circumstance that should be treated as such and not carelessly lumped into the Redskins/Chief Wahoo/Indians conversation.

Hey we stole your land and your children but we're not happy with that, we're going to steal your cultural and spiritual assets as well. We'll be nice about it though and wrap it all up with a pretty bow, as honouring you for a football game.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Originally Posted by nik-

Like you take a ton of offences that have nothing to do with you personally?

Taking something that wasnt intended for you on a forum personally isnt the same thing as being offended by genocide, slavery etc.

Cecil needs a waambulance because he thinks my whole post was a veiled insult at him.

I am hurt by things like the Holocaust. As most humans should be.

Cecil is hurt because he thinks anyone talking about the seminoles in this thresd is referring to him because he brough them up.

Only a cretin would equate being offended by mass crimes against humanity to taking crumpy gunts posts personally.



Good effort. Your IQ is showing..

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's actually a tougher question than it seems at first simply because the instant that victimhood gains social currency, everyone wants some. We then devolve into a farcical oppression olympics now seen played out in some circles. Really, the answer has to be some sort of a cost-benefit analysis.

Yep. We live in a society where the moral high ground is always held by whoever is regarded as suffering the most. Cost-benefit analysis requires people to think rationally and recognize differences in degrees, instead of clinging to the comfort of binary thinking. Us-Them. Weak-Strong. Good-Bad.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Hey we stole your land and your children but we're not happy with that, we're going to steal your cultural and spiritual assets as well. We'll be nice about it though and wrap it all up with a pretty bow, as honouring you for a football game.

And then we'll steal your right to decide if you're ok with it or not!

"It doesn't matter if they're offended, I'M offended, and that is more important!"

That's A+ white male swagger right there. Like white people who get offended by the amount of N-word in some rap.

We did it guys, we won, we even took over their feelings.