Chief Wahoo Discussion

Cavatt said:

This is totally off base. Hitler used the genocide against native Americans as a template and inspiration for the Holocaust.

I can't believe how ignorant this thread is. Grow up.

Click to expand...

so all the historians who alleged genocide by the europeans aganst native americans are mature smart guys and all the historians who dispute this and demonstrate a lack of consistent intent are ignorant and need to grow up?

this absolutism is as puritanical as you can shielding itself behind racism instead of religion.

You did have you Vasquez balboa's and Williams Trents, and Jeffery Amherst. but over a 500 year history those guys are in the minority.

As far as Lewis Cass withholding smallpox from one tribe while administering it to many others. That certainly wouldn't fall under racism.

Guenter Lewry is far from ignorant and has done solid work disproving the notion of mass genocide against native americans outside of a few instances in California that was met with public outcry and action taken against the perpetuators.

Sand creek Massacre and once again the colonization of California were acts of genocide however these weren't products of racism. these were results of vicious acts by all parties

to compare those to the holocaust , the Armenian genocide where over 6 million people died in less than a decade is ridiculous.

Cratylus said:

Do you own Indians gear? If you do, and we use the logic of a lot of people in this thread, that makes you a racist.

So burn/destroy/throw away/get rid of your gear, or else your words are empty. Your actions speak louder. You're fine with personally owning items that helped to support an organization that uses racism to make a profit.

I get it. Libs always have to say "Do as I say, not as I do." Cuz their actions RARELY demonstrate an active adherence to their own claims.

Click to expand...

Cratylus, I owned Indians gear as a kid and even then found it odd and strange.. I stopped wearing Chief Wahoo as a very young teenager and no one in my household did either.

I would never, no matter what, buy Chief Wahoo gear at this stage in my life and that's been the case for several decades now.

I find the logo offensive... I'm not sure why you think people shouldn't get offended by things that you don't happen to be offended by, or why one would be offended by others who get offended... It's a strange reaction in my opinion.

Also.... why are you going after "libs" and "democrats" so often recently? Is this really a partisan issue? I mean there's quite a few liberals in this thread supporting the logo, right?

I think @The Oi noticed this too, but it's rather reactionary to call out "libs" in this case don't you think?

Cratylus said:

I'd like to know from all the outraged people here... IN THE INTERESTS OF BEING CONSISTENT...

Should we outlaw caricature artists at theme and amusement parks? I'm talking about the artists who draw caricature portraits of people for money. Should we prohibit them from doing their drawings, because I'm certain they've drawn caricatures of minorities. I mean, clearly, that makes them racists, right?

Click to expand...

You're on fire... "The human blow torch"

gourimoko said:

Cratylus, I owned Indians gear as a kid and even then found it odd and strange.. I stopped wearing Chief Wahoo as a very young teenager and no one in my household did either.

I would never, no matter what, buy Chief Wahoo gear at this stage in my life and that's been the case for several decades now.

I find the logo offensive... I'm not sure why you think people shouldn't get offended by things that you don't happen to be offended by, or why one would be offended by others who get offended... It's a strange reaction in my opinion.

Also.... why are you going after "libs" and "democrats" so often recently? Is this really a partisan issue? I mean there's quite a few liberals in this thread supporting the logo, right?

I think @The Oi noticed this too, but it's rather reactionary to call out "libs" in this case don't you think?

Click to expand...

if you actually read akronites' post that you have been actively defending he makes multiple references to political alignments. White power, Hillbilly and racist.

so its not reactionary. Akronite clearlymade it a partisan issue

Lee said:

I personally dont understand how anyone is this passionate about Chief Wahoo one way or the other unless you are a Native American who is offended.

I have been a die hard Indians fan for 40 years. My first great sports memory was my late Grandpa taking me to Indians games as a kid when i was 3 years old. It remained a tradition until I moved away from college. So I have a big emotional connection with the Chief and the Indians.

That said, I see how it can be considered offensive, and if some people are offended then we should change it. It is just a symbol, and I think Cleveland Spiders or what ever they change it too will be just fine.

Look last time the Indians won a world series the Cavs didnt even exist and look how passionate we are about them. It will be fine, the team isnt moving, just probably an old outdated symbol of a different time.

Click to expand...

I totally hear you.

But I just won't lay down to lose the Chief and the Indians. I'll sign whatever I can to keep it. And if it vanishes, I'll move on. But they should make a poll at least 3-4 of their best nicknames and have a fan vote.

Cratylus said:

I'd like to know from all the outraged people here... IN THE INTERESTS OF BEING CONSISTENT...

Should we outlaw caricature artists at theme and amusement parks? I'm talking about the artists who draw caricature portraits of people for money. Should we prohibit them from doing their drawings, because I'm certain they've drawn caricatures of minorities. I mean, clearly, that makes them racists, right?

Click to expand...

these are fine as long as the artist only makes them of people of their own racial makeup

Tornicade said:

these are fine as long as the artist only makes them of people of their own racial makeup

Click to expand...

Ah, I see. So, "separate but equal." Got it.

gourimoko said:

Cratylus, I owned Indians gear as a kid and even then found it odd and strange.. I stopped wearing Chief Wahoo as a very young teenager and no one in my household did either.

I would never, no matter what, buy Chief Wahoo gear at this stage in my life and that's been the case for several decades now.

I find the logo offensive... I'm not sure why you think people shouldn't get offended by things that you don't happen to be offended by, or why one would be offended by others who get offended... It's a strange reaction in my opinion.

Also.... why are you going after "libs" and "democrats" so often recently? Is this really a partisan issue? I mean there's quite a few liberals in this thread supporting the logo, right?

I think @The Oi noticed this too, but it's rather reactionary to call out "libs" in this case don't you think?

Click to expand...

Do you own ANY Indians gear?

Cratylus said:

Do you own ANY Indians gear?

Click to expand...

No. I mentioned this upthread.

Cratylus said:

Ah, I see. So, "separate but equal." Got it.

Click to expand...

Wait what? How'd this turn into a conversation about segregation?

gourimoko said:

No. I mentioned this upthread.

Click to expand...

OK, in your response to me today I saw you mentioned not owning gear with Chief Wahoo on it, but you didn't mention Indians gear in general in it.

Thank you for being consistent.

gourimoko said:

Wait what? How'd this turn into a conversation about segregation?

Click to expand...

Tornicade mentioned that the only people allowed to do caricatures are people who share the same race as the subject being drawn. So, I was just clarifying that point. Keep caricature artists of different races separate but make sure they remain with equal opportunities.

Cratylus said:

I'd like to know from all the outraged people here... IN THE INTERESTS OF BEING CONSISTENT...

Should we outlaw caricature artists at theme and amusement parks?

Click to expand...

Who is talking about passing unconstitutional laws restricting speech?

Why would we ban forms of expression and why is that necessary to be consistent with one's own views as to what is or is not moral?

Cratylus said:

I'm talking about the artists who draw caricature portraits of people for money.

Click to expand...

Right, should we pass laws banning forms of speech and expression.

Cratylus said:

Should we prohibit them from doing their drawings, because I'm certain they've drawn caricatures of minorities. I mean, clearly, that makes them racists, right?

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone here is saying that people should be banned from doing anything.

Why are we jumping off this logical cliff? This line of reasoning makes no sense.

One can simultaneously believe in free speech and expression and also be offended by the results of a person acting on that expression. We can celebrate the Cleveland Indians' right to express themselves without celebrating how they choose to use that right. Surely you can see that, no?

Cratylus said:

OK, in your response to me today I saw you mentioned not owning gear with Chief Wahoo on it, but you didn't mention Indians gear in general in it.

Thank you for being consistent.

Click to expand...

I suppose, but I don't think that boundary condition makes much sense.

A person can support a thing without embracing all aspects of it.

I support the Cleveland Indians organization while recognizing what they're doing with the logo is wrong.

Again, as I've said in the past, my own brother was a racist for years; we did everything we could to convince him what he believed was wrong. That didn't mean we stopped loving him or helping him or supporting him.

I think if we accept this concept that one can do both of these things without being irrationally inconsistent, then we surely recognize that this kind of consistency check is more of a weak form of an appeal to hypocrisy rather than a valid logical test for a self-consistent argument. Agreed?

Cratylus said:

Tornicade mentioned that the only people allowed to do caricatures are people who share the same race as the subject being drawn. So, I was just clarifying that point. Keep caricature artists of different races separate but make sure they remain with equal opportunities.

Click to expand...

and I was referencing prior post stating hat a white owned business with white artist marketing to white conservative people shouldn't be able to draw people of other ethnicities. of course Gourimoko always has a blind eye to the content provided by those he is "defending"