2021 Stanley Cup Finals : Montreal Canadiens vs Tampa Bay Lightning (TBL Win 4-1)

[radoran]

I mean...

 

Washington Red Ink

 

You're welcome.

[WordsOfWisdom]

On 7/12/2021 at 3:58 PM, SaucyJack said:

Suppose the Washington NFL franchise soon starts finding success in gridiron foosball not seen since 1991.  Then will you agree that the Toronto NHL franchise should abandon their moniker for maybe a year of no-name until they get rechristened as Maple Spinners or Bay Leaves or Senior Marlies or whatever the accursed ⛸  franchise’s fans vote for?

 

 

 

I think the Leafs need to go the route of the Boston Red Sox.  For a loooooooooooooooong time, the Red Sox hadn't won anything. Then, they ended the drought and started winning. Now they're one of baseball's most successful modern franchises. I'd like to see the Leafs follow in the footsteps of the Red Sox and become the NHL's most successful modern franchise. A team that wins all the time.   

 

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

18 hours ago, radoran said:

I mean...

 

Washington Red Ink

 

You're welcome.

 

Why can't they call them the Washington Redskins?  

 

Is that not analogous to calling a team the Black Panthers or the White Knights?  

[OccamsRazor]

5 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

Why can't they call them the Washington Redskins? 

 

It offends Native Americans...seems you know that. Right??

[WordsOfWisdom]

20 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

It offends Native Americans...seems you know that. Right??

 

I don't put much stock in what "offends" people because everything offends someone.

 

I analyzed each of the big four sports teams named after indians and here's what I found:

 

• Washington Redskins (analogous to calling white people "white", black people "black", and asian people "yellow", hard to see the racism here)
• Atlanta Braves (the name is not racist, and the tomahawk chop is accurate)
• Cleveland Indians (the term "indian" is the proper term, therefore not racist)
• Chicago Blackhawks (named after a famous indian, also not racist)

 

Who am I missing?  

 

All in all, I flip the question and ask:  If a team was named the Washington Whiteskins, would any white people object?  (Keeping in mind that all of these sports team HONOR the people represented in the logo. So if you took a picture of a white soldier bravely going into combat and called it the Whiteskins I'd be perfectly fine with that.)

 

For something to be racist, it has to be done in a defamatory way. If you're doing it merely to label a group of people for the purposes of identification, it's not racism. If your team is a tribute to a group of people, it's not racism. 

Edited July 13, 2021 by WordsOfWisdom

[WordsOfWisdom]

15 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

Native Americans

 

And technically, that term offends people like me. 

 

I am native to Canada because I was born here. So was my mom, my grandparents, my great grandparents, etc. 

 

A native (by definition) is anyone BORN in the country in which they reside.  The opposite of a native is an immigrant, and I am not an immigrant.

 

The timeline for "immigrant status" begins and ends with the person in question and their lifetime, not their ancestors.

 

But I digress....  trying to avoid politics. 

 

Edited July 13, 2021 by WordsOfWisdom

[Math]

I suggest the Washington Bullets, that moniker is free again. But I don't know why, there's a possibility that this name would eventually not be considered...

 

Anyway in the next days/weeks/months, please cheer for the Cleveland Baseball Club. 

[WordsOfWisdom]

Always curious why people dodge discussion when they hear a different point of view.

 

The definition of the word racism is:

• To insult, belittle, demean, devalue, or disadvantage an individual or a group of individuals based on their ethnicity/race.
• To apply a different standard of treatment to an individual or a group of individuals based solely on their ethnicity/race.

 

The Cleveland Indians are not a racist baseball team.  The only thing that a person could ever object to is the cartoonish depiction of an indian in the logo, and even that is a stretch since the logo isn't intended to be realistic. It is indeed meant to be cartoony and as such, the features of the indian in the logo are exaggerated. Remember that baseball appeals to KIDS first and foremost. 

 

Also, the name "indian" is the correct term. If you don't believe me, view your government's website and it'll back up my claim. We recently had a Census in Canada and one of the questions asks:  "Are you a Status Indian or a Treaty Indian?"  

 

That's on the Canada Census and if it's good enough for the Government of Canada it's good enough for me.  

 

People need to stop IMAGINING racism. It's not that it doesn't exist..... it's that nobody knows what it is any more. 

 

 

[mojo1917]

20 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

The only thing that a person could ever object to is the cartoonish depiction of an indian in the logo, and even that is a stretch since the logo isn't intended to be realistic. It is indeed meant to be cartoony and as such, the features of the indian in the logo are exaggerated. Remember that baseball appeals to KIDS first and foremost.

 

So a caricature, which is an exaggeration of a features, of a native American isn't racist but is actually meant for kids ?

 

This is a difficult discussion to have with you because of you're inability to empathize with a non-white person's perspective.

Your refusal to even consider that your opinion is; at best, based upon your life being a descendant of the dominant culture of your homeland, at it's worst, is aggressively stupid and racist. I choose not to believe you are the later of these descriptors. Had you not  been lucky enough to come from a white ****** I cannot imagine you would hold this tone deaf opinion so closely. 

 

Needless to say, I heartily disagree with you on this topic.

That logo (The Indians) is a blatant exaggeration of a stereotype.

The name Washington Redskins is akin to calling Native Americans, Chinks or Kikes if they were Chinese or Jewish. Maybe that's doesn't fit your narrow definition of racist.

It surely isn't kind nor does it promote human decency. 

 

 

 

 

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

On 7/16/2021 at 3:28 PM, mojo1917 said:

So a caricature, which is an exaggeration of a features, of a native American isn't racist but is actually meant for kids ?

 

So how do you make the distinction between the Cleveland Indians logo and the Chicago Blackhawks logo then?

 

Both logos show indians in traditional garb. The difference however, is that the Indians logo is childish and cartoony whereas the indian pictured in the Blackhawks logo looks mature, respectable, and distinguished. That's the only difference.  I don't think anyone would object to the Cleveland Indians if the logo were restyled. 

 

On 7/16/2021 at 3:28 PM, mojo1917 said:

This is a difficult discussion to have with you because of you're inability to empathize with a non-white person's perspective.

 

I think people have a hard time recognizing what racism really is. People want to see racism everywhere, but racism (today) exists everywhere where people aren't looking for it. For example: Universities offering scholarships only to black people. That's racist. It's in plain sight, but nobody is talking about it. People can't see true racism, only "fake" racism. A guess that's a failing of mankind.

 

The first time you go to an indian pow-wow (as I've done several times) and you see them all dressed up in traditional indian garb with the feathers, you'll see that the portrayal is accurate. It's not an exaggeration at all. Each indian team logo in sports is based on what indians consider to be their unique style. It wasn't imprinted on them by white people. It's not how we see them. It's how they see themselves. 

 

 

Do you realize that as a child, my favourite logos in baseball were:

• Indians  (loved the bright red color and the picture)
• Pirates (loved the badass looking pirate)
• Jays (obviously)

There is no malice in honoring the tradition of a particular race of people.

 

 

On 7/16/2021 at 3:28 PM, mojo1917 said:

The name Washington Redskins is akin to calling Native Americans, Chinks or Kikes if they were Chinese or Jewish. Maybe that's doesn't fit your narrow definition of racist.

 

I disagree 100%.  It's no more racist than calling a white person white or a black person black.  For some reason it has become culturally acceptable to call caucasian people "white" and not get called a racist. Similarly, we're allowed to call African-American people "black" and not get labelled as racist. What makes indians (and quite frankly asians as well) superior to the rest of us that they're too good to be assigned a skin color as a label? The term "chink" and "****" is a deragatory name similar to "cracker" or using the "N-word". It's not the same thing as calling someone by a color.

 

Do you not see the inconsistency here:

• White
• Black
• Asian
• Indian

(Two of the above are not colors.)

 

How about if I drew a map and labelled it:

• Europe
• Africa
• Yellow land
• Red land

So once again, why do Asian people and Indian people manage to escape being assigned a skin COLOR as a label in our society? Why is it racist to "colorize" one group and not another? Why is it okay for indians to refer to us as "the white man"? Again, that's the real racism that exists in the world today. Applying a different standard of treatment to different groups of people. In this case, white people and black people apparently have less rights. We're just colors. Everyone else is something more than a color. Everyone else has a unique name or place of origin tied into their ethnic label.

 

Would you object to the name if the team was called the Washington Reds?  

 

Edited July 18, 2021 by WordsOfWisdom

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

Thread has run its course and has gotten seriously derailed.
We are done here.

[pilldoc]

3 minutes ago, TropicalFruitGirl26 said:

Thread has run its course and has gotten seriously derailed.
We are done here.

 

Beat me too it ... thanks.