miktoxic Posted July 19, 2015 Report Share Posted July 19, 2015 I'm not prejudice - I hate everyone. wow. we just made a connection there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wargograw Posted July 19, 2015 Report Share Posted July 19, 2015 I thought maybe the "Braves" would be acceptable but some find offense to that: Brave This is a word that has been used to refer to Indian men. Used in millions of books, and as a name for many sports teams, people are often surprized to find that it offends Indian people. But it does! It plays on the 'noble courageous savage' ideal that was pinned on Indian men long ago by early europeans. It also dehumanizes and equates the Indian male to something less than human. Adult Indian males are men, NOT 'braves'.... Then I checked into Chiefs or Chieftain and that too was found to be offensive: Chief This is a word that is commonly given as a nickname which incorrectly labels Indian men. The cultural equivelant would be to nickname all white men 'Prez' or 'King'. The term 'chief' itself is incorrect. Indian leaders were never 'chiefs', but headmen, or clan mothers, and so on. Not 'chiefs'. Native leaders were highly disrespected by the USA. So calling someone 'Chief', is just a way to continue that disrespect... The university of Marquette used to be the Warriors but that is offensive as well: Marquette University changed their team name from the Warriors to the Golden Eagles in 1994. The schools president stated:"We live in a different era than when the Warriors nickname was selected in 1954. The perspective of time has shown us that our actions, intended or not, can offend others. We must not knowingly act in a way that others will believe, based on their experience, to be an attack on their dignity as fellow human beings." Maybe Ghandi is the answer but he is kind of skinny (weight challenged). Exactly. People think "oh let's just give up on the Redskins thing then everything will be hunky dory." Uh no, then you'll just get the push to change something else. Just because people aren't offended by something now doesn't mean they won't be later. I can't wait til they come after Wahoo and everyone on this thread is like "but....but...I supported you on the Redskins thing!! I thought we were friends!!" Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 19, 2015 Report Share Posted July 19, 2015 No as you should have been able to tell there is already a Golden State Warriors Kansas City Chiefs and Atlanta fucking Braves. That's why those names are stupid names. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 19, 2015 Report Share Posted July 19, 2015 And I guaran-fucking-tee you guys that if they beat the Washington team into the ground enforcing name change they will not be happy. And I'm assuming the Cleveland Indians be the next target. These idiots are addicted to outrage. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wargograw Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 No as you should have been able to tell there is already a Golden State Warriors Kansas City Chiefs and Atlanta fucking Braves. That's why those names are stupid names. WSS I have no idea what this means or who it's directed at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 I have no idea what this means or who it's directed at.Well don't worry it wasn't directed at you. Think about it. Somebody suggested three alternative names for the Washington Redskins. I said those were stupid names. Somebody else defended them. Then I said that's why they were stupid names because they already exist in professional sports. Got it? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted July 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 I thought maybe the "Braves" would be acceptable but some find offense to that: Brave This is a word that has been used to refer to Indian men. Used in millions of books, and as a name for many sports teams, people are often surprized to find that it offends Indian people. But it does! It plays on the 'noble courageous savage' ideal that was pinned on Indian men long ago by early europeans. It also dehumanizes and equates the Indian male to something less than human. Adult Indian males are men, NOT 'braves'.... Then I checked into Chiefs or Chieftain and that too was found to be offensive: Chief This is a word that is commonly given as a nickname which incorrectly labels Indian men. The cultural equivelant would be to nickname all white men 'Prez' or 'King'. The term 'chief' itself is incorrect. Indian leaders were never 'chiefs', but headmen, or clan mothers, and so on. Not 'chiefs'. Native leaders were highly disrespected by the USA. So calling someone 'Chief', is just a way to continue that disrespect... I basically disagree with this as it applies to the generic term itself. A "Chief" can be any one in a Position of Authority. Jimmy Olsen called Perry White "Chief". As noted, Israeli Tribes had Chiefs....as did African Tribes. And what song is played when the President of the United States comes into the Room? Hail to the Chief. He is the Commander in Chief. I guess if you call a Native American a Chief....or use that term to apply to Native Americans (the Kansas City Chiefs do)...then perhaps it is demeaning....but, generically...no. The university of Marquette used to be the Warriors but that is offensive as well: Marquette University changed their team name from the Warriors to the Golden Eagles in 1994. The school’s president stated:"We live in a different era than when the Warriors nickname was selected in 1954. The perspective of time has shown us that our actions, intended or not, can offend others. We must not knowingly act in a way that others will believe, based on their experience, to be an attack on their dignity as fellow human beings." What if they wore the uniforms of the Roman Legion.....who were Warriors? Maybe Ghandi is the answer but he is kind of skinny (weight challenged). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted July 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 Well don't worry it wasn't directed at you. Think about it. Somebody suggested three alternative names for the Washington Redskins. I said those were stupid names. Somebody else defended them. Then I said that's why they were stupid names because they already exist in professional sports. Got it? WSS Understand....though I said that two of them could certainly have different applications (not that they do in the case of the actual teams involved). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 Understand....though I said that two of them could certainly have different applications (not that they do in the case of the actual teams involved). Well you're my attorney and I want to open up a string of hamburger joints and call them Mack Donalds, are we cool? I'm going to put mayonnaise and chutney on mine. Different application? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.