Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 pretre wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
But again, proof is really only required when you get something special for being NA, which almost no other ethnicities have to worry about.

The problem is that it bleeds over into pretty much every other discussion of what it is to be Native. Even when financial benefit is not involved.

Fair enough, but I don't think you need to be a Native American to be offended by the Redskins or Cheif Wahoo. I don't think they have a monopoloy on the conversation.

But you're close to the central issue with Native American culture: more than any other race, many NAs try to maintain traditional culture, even in the US. The reason is simple, unlike all other Americans, they have no other home to return to live as they please. If I want to live like a Polish dirt farmer, I still can. A person that's Navajo only has the reservation. So there is this drive to keep their culture, religion, language, etc. all alive, while competing with the pull of assimilation.

So yes, they are profoundly different from other ethnic and racial groups.

 Polonius wrote:
Fair enough, but I don't think you need to be a Native American to be offended by the Redskins or Cheif Wahoo. I don't think they have a monopoloy on the conversation.

But you're close to the central issue with Native American culture: more than any other race, many NAs try to maintain traditional culture, even in the US. The reason is simple, unlike all other Americans, they have no other home to return to live as they please. If I want to live like a Polish dirt farmer, I still can. A person that's Navajo only has the reservation. So there is this drive to keep their culture, religion, language, etc. all alive, while competing with the pull of assimilation.

So yes, they are profoundly different from other ethnic and racial groups.

Definitely not. People should be offended by it regardless of origin.

As for assimilation versus tradition, I would agree that it is probably the primary issue for a lot of natives. Combine that with the difficulties associated with rez life and you have a big problem.

Maybe clarifying a point on

Actually, yes, the issue of who is and isn't a Native American (NA) is complicated. There are local tribal definiations, state definiations, and federal definitions, as well as plenty of people walking around talking about who they are 1/16 cherokee.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

I would totally root for a team called the Swoopy Little Blighters.

Wow, what was with the lawyer comment?

Hmm, quote is being weird.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Wow, what was with the lawyer comment?

Oh, just that something that's self evident to me might not be self evident to all readers of a news story. I'm sure plenty of people read that and think it's a bona fide case.

I think nearly all lawyers would realize that is a laughably weak case, almost entirely threatened just for the exposure.

Yeah, none of what I said implied that. Notice the use of "For all we know" and my wording which makes it look like I am unsure of what is actually going on. Then end my post by saying a lot of this is speculation.

I am sorry that I am still hazy on this case and I am looking in to different possibilities. I will, from now on, look to you for anything that could possibly be lawyer related. Since you seem to know all about what lawyers think and do.

Polonius isn't trying to come down on you, dude. Don't sweat it. He just happens to know how lawyers think since, iirc, he is one.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Yeah, none of what I said implied that. Notice the use of "For all we know" and my wording which makes it look like I am unsure of what is actually going on. Then end my post by saying a lot of this is speculation.

I am sorry that I am still hazy on this case and I am looking in to different possibilities. I will, from now on, look to you for anything that could possibly be lawyer related. Since you seem to know all about what lawyers think and do.

Yeah, I was saying that I agree with you, but I initally thought you were saying something obvious.

Then I realized nobody in the thread had actually made the point, and it's a good one.

Hm, apparently I read the post wrong. APOLOGIES!

Carry on.

 pretre wrote:
Polonius isn't trying to come down on you, dude. Don't sweat it. He just happens to know how lawyers think since, iirc, he is one.

Well, it's not so much how lawyers think, as how the system operates. Not every case is filed hoping to win.

 Polonius wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Polonius isn't trying to come down on you, dude. Don't sweat it. He just happens to know how lawyers think since, iirc, he is one.

Well, it's not so much how lawyers think, as how the system operates. Not every case is filed hoping to win.

Stop oppressing me, Polonius!

 pretre wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Polonius isn't trying to come down on you, dude. Don't sweat it. He just happens to know how lawyers think since, iirc, he is one.

Well, it's not so much how lawyers think, as how the system operates. Not every case is filed hoping to win.

Stop oppressing me, Polonius!

I'm just expressing pride in my European heritage

 Polonius wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Stop oppressing me, Polonius!

I'm just expressing pride in my European heritage

That explains quite a bit. Oppression is the racial pastime.

 pretre wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Actually, yes, the issue of who is and isn't a Native American (NA) is complicated. There are local tribal definiations, state definiations, and federal definitions, as well as plenty of people walking around talking about who they are 1/16 cherokee.

Which is pretty strange considering I don't know a lot of other ethnicities that have to prove they are part of it.

I would imagine some of the "Traditionally Black Colleges" have some form of "prove it" in their acceptance process.


Also, this seems a bit silly to me, as Cleveland HAS been removing and distancing itself from Chief Wahoo for a few years now. The last time this thing popped up, a couple years ago, some "offended group" (I honestly dont remember if it was a Native group, or some hipster white people with nothing better to do) went after Cleveland, Atlanta as well as the Redskins football team.

The offending "caricature" from the Braves was a spring training cap, that to me portrayed exactly what the Braves organization described: a warrior emitting his war cry... not at all a caricature of anything.

Chief Wahoo on the other hand, is definitely something that I think people *can* be offended over, but I think from a "getting kids to watch baseball" point of view, the Chief works on a childish level. Of course, this puts the onus on parents to inform kids that "not all Indians look like that" which is simply too much for some people today.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Would that mean they would have to redigitized the "Major league" movies?

If they have to edit those movies, they'll have to edit far more than just Chief Wahoo

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I would imagine some of the "Traditionally Black Colleges" have some form of "prove it" in their acceptance process.

Nope. Traditionally non-blacks didn't want to go to those schools so there wasn't a need, and even today anyone can apply. There are more than just black people at those schools, they are just the majority like white people are on other campuses; there is no "black test" to get in. Some of them, while still considered historically black colleges, are like every other college in that most of the student body is non-black, such as Bluefield State College, which is around 75% non-black these days.

 pretre wrote:

Obligatory:

I'm always a little wary of these kind of analogies. It looks very racist in that context, but alongside names like Vikings and Spartans it would look less so, and also much more at home.

Well, Spartans and Vikings (other than Vikings don't wear horns on their helmets) aren't usually depicted as racial stereotypes unlike the Cleveland Indians so that idea doesn't really make sense to me.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Well, Spartans and Vikings (other than Vikings don't wear horns on their helmets) aren't usually depicted as racial stereotypes unlike the Cleveland Indians so that idea doesn't really make sense to me.

Vikings were a race (who still have many descendants), and their depiction in sport is pretty stereotypical, and also historically inaccurate. The difference is that is easy, within the English language, to distinguish between historic Viking raiders and modern Scandinavians. The same is true for historic Spartans and modern Greeks. It is more difficult however to reference historic American Indian raiders without causing confusion with modern Native Americans.

I would imagine the reference is historic and pertaining to the wild west genre Indians, in the same way that Vikings pertains to historic raiders. No one would call their team 'The native Americans' for the same reason no one would name a team 'Mexicans' (apart from maybe Mexicans): it's just not very cool. There is a Cowboy team however, would you say that is racist?

 Cheesecat wrote:
Well, Spartans and Vikings (other than Vikings don't wear horns on their helmets) aren't usually depicted as racial stereotypes unlike the Cleveland Indians so that idea doesn't really make sense to me.

Hey, I'm offended my the Vikings! It reflects a negative image of my Scandinavian heritage!
I really don't mind being a viking, they were European, cold-weather pirates.

Cowboy is a job, not a race.

The Minnesota Vikings were chosen but the people of Minnesota, which is mostly made of people of Scandinavian decent. I don't think the Cleveland Indians logo or name were selected by indigenous people of the state. People choosing to rep their own history is ok, choosing others without their consent is problematic.

Especially if they decided to depict that nationality as a little red sambo - i mean, there are seriously people who don't see an issue with that? Bizarre.

 Smacks wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Well, Spartans and Vikings (other than Vikings don't wear horns on their helmets) aren't usually depicted as racial stereotypes unlike the Cleveland Indians so that idea doesn't really make sense to me.

Vikings were a race (who still have many descendants), and their depiction in sport is pretty stereotypical, and also historically inaccurate. The difference is that is easy, within the English language, to distinguish between historic Viking raiders and modern Scandinavians. The same is true for historic Spartans and modern Greeks. It is more difficult however to reference historic American Indian raiders without causing confusion with modern Native Americans.

Yeah, that's a better argument unlike Native people Vikings and Spartans don't exist anymore so it's much harder to know if they're being horribly stereotyped as we only have historical remains to go by when depicting Vikings and Spartans.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pretre wrote:
Cowboy is a job, not a race.

That is correct.

Can Mary Kate and Ashley sue the Minnesota Twins? Could the descendants of Sam Mason sue the Pittsburgh Pirates? Can people with somatomegaly sue the Giants?

Kidding, of course. (Unless that's a 'yes' for the Pirates, in which case I'm cashing in!)

Sue to change the logo? Absolutely. Sue to change the name? I'm not really seeing it. Sue for 9 billion dollars? Ludicrous.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Well, Spartans and Vikings (other than Vikings don't wear horns on their helmets) aren't usually depicted as racial stereotypes unlike the Cleveland Indians so that idea doesn't really make sense to me.

Hey, I'm offended my the Vikings! It reflects a negative image of my Scandinavian heritage!
I really don't mind being a viking, they were European, cold-weather pirates.

Vikings haven't existed since like the 12th century, so unless you're about 900 years old then you can't be a viking and I think the oldest person is 122 years old so I'm calling bs on that.

Release from stasis. For Good Behavior

 pretre wrote:
Cowboy is a job, not a race.

not if you talk to tourists. All Americans all cowboys

Well, if they really want to keep the name but change the logo to something a little more accurate..

feeder wrote:
Well, if they really want to keep the name but change the logo to something a little more accurate..

Lol.