$9 Billion Lawsuit Planned Against Indians

[gourimoko]

Somehow, after our exchange in the Sin Tax thread, I'm not surprised that you would take the short-sighted, illogical stance on this issue while vehemently defending it with such matter-of-fact candor. Once again, perhaps its YOU that should do your homework before commenting:



Source: http://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/the-curse-of-chief-wahoo/Content?oid=2954423

The name and logo are offensive. Wahoo is essentially a red version of the old racist "Black Sambo" cartoon of the 30's. The idea that the name was intended to "honor" Sockalexis is pure bullshit and downright illogical. Why do people care SO much about keeping the logo if they know that it is perceived as demeaning and racist by others? Why does their love of a logo matter more than the dignity of a people who have been wronged in so many ways? Just fucking change it.

Great post... one that will surely be ignored by people who disagree.

 

[Soda]

Somehow, after our exchange in the Sin Tax thread, I'm not surprised that you would take the short-sighted, illogical stance on this issue while vehemently defending it with such matter-of-fact candor. Once again, perhaps its YOU that should do your homework before commenting:



Source: http://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/the-curse-of-chief-wahoo/Content?oid=2954423

The name and logo are offensive. Wahoo is essentially a red version of the old racist "Black Sambo" cartoon of the 30's. The idea that the name was intended to "honor" Sockalexis is pure bullshit and downright illogical. Why do people care SO much about keeping the logo if they know that it is perceived as demeaning and racist by others? Why does their love of a logo matter more than the dignity of a people who have been wronged in so many ways? Just fucking change it.

Short-sighted would be your view on my POV and what is contained within this thread. It's not a defense of the logo in itself, it's the hypocrisy of calling people who lived 60+ years ago a racist when you have no idea of the intent, nor did you live at the time it was created. It's not difficult to change the logo and, as I've said before, I think they should just do it. Calling the 17 year old who drew the logo a racist because the matter happens to be at the apex of social issues in 2014 is ignorant at best. And I'd like for you to cite where I mentioned Sockalexis.. Because I never did.

Good try, tho.

 

[Soda]

The amount of people in here who have pointed to marginally insensitive mascots and tried to portray them as having something to do with race is a laughable microcosm of everything that's wrong with this thread.

And obviously Tornicade dropping in removes all doubt in confirming that myself and Jigo are correct in pointing out the racial insensitivity of the Chief.


Although you never know, maybe if I hear one more story about how someone's cousin is 1/8 Navajo and wasn't even offended then it will change the dynamic a bit.

Well done. You're pretty good at only hearing only what you want.

One thing, though. You pretty much degrade a bunch of different cultures by saying their gripes don't have the merit of ones based off of cultures that have darker skin. I can't make that jump, nor will I tell any heritage that they can't be offended by something.

 

[polska2211]

People have been conquering lands inhabiting lesser lands since the beginning of time... Do you think the Romans cared about the Brits feelings when they conquered Britain?

 

[SalvadoranCavsfan]

People have been conquering lands inhabiting lesser lands since the beginning of time... Do you think the Romans cared about the Brits feelings when they conquered Britain?

So are you saying that we shouldn't care about the feelings of Native Americans because we conquered their land and murdered most of their ancestors?

 

[AZ_]

Well done. You're pretty good at only hearing only what you want.

One thing, though. You pretty much degrade a bunch of different cultures by saying their gripes don't have the merit of ones based off of cultures that have darker skin. I can't make that jump, nor will I tell any heritage that they can't be offended by something.

When those cultures organize and actually formulate gripes toward any perceived "insensitivity" towards their portrayal as a mascot, as the Native American organizations have done, then this might be a discussion.

But posting a cartoon Celtic or an Irishman isn't on it's face insensitive. Using Black Sambo as a logo is completely different, which should be painfully obvious.

That would be the equivalent of using that Celtic/Irish logo smashing a shot of whiskey and beating his wife. When the Celtics draw that up on center court, you'll have my attention.

 

[Soda]

When those cultures organize and actually formulate gripes toward any perceived "insensitivity" towards their portrayal as a mascot, as the Native American organizations have done, then this might be a discussion.

But posting a cartoon Celtic or an Irishman isn't on it's face insensitive. Using Black Sambo as a logo is completely different, which should be painfully obvious.

That would be the equivalent of using that Celtic/Irish logo smashing a shot of whiskey and beating his wife. When the Celtics draw that up on center court, you'll have my attention.

I guess this is where I disagree. Who says it isn't? You? Me? With what right? Why does an Irishman need to be drinking; why not a beer gut/smoking pipe instead? Or a fancy mustached Mario/Luigi looking guy? I know plenty of people from these heritages who'd rather not have these caricatures prevalent.. That's not on the level of a Black Sambo face or an "Indian" cartoon drawing? Well, why? What if, in 50 years, this is considered derogatory? Do those people call you a racist for not treating it with equal respect, like the Wahoo?

Don't get me wrong, I understand why Native Americans would dislike the logo and if it's that offensive, there's not a legitimate reason to keep it. The history and all of the stuff that makes me feel good when I see the logo are not legitimate reasons, in this case.

 

[The Oi]

The reality here is that people arguing against this are oftentimes, but not always, intelligent enough to know that their opinions are disingenuous. It's easy to tell from the poor analogies, unworkable comparisons and an insistence not to see the world from the point of view of a group they are not a part of. That's a very difficult thing to do and it comes with experience interacting with or learning about other cultures/classes/races, accepting that your own worldviews may be incorrect and most of all a DESIRE to develop and change your mind until you reach the most correct opinions or beliefs that you can come up with using the information you have at hand. I have found that the large majority of people do not have the capability or interest in seeing the world from the eyes of others. And yes...I say all this to put some of you down while raising myself up because I recognize that I've intentionally developed this ability and I do look down on those who don't want to. This board has been a TREMENDOUS influence on that and I can credit the people who I initially DISagreed with at times rather than the people I immediately agreed with. I say what I've just said in hope that some of you can learn to do the same but acknowledgment that most of you likely won't. People take pride in ignorance and stubborn-ness because it makes life easier on them and it's a MASSIVE weakness and it's a problem.

So these disingenuous arguments generally come from people that you see making sometimes rational arguments about other topics on the board. It's hard for me to believe that someone can construct or recognize a rational argument about one topic, and then turn around and make a completely irrational and disingenuous argument on another topic.

There are a LOT of stupid people in the United States, and across the world, that aren't able to recognize that their opinions are self-centered and based on a refusal to accept alternative viewpoints. Why? Because most people CAN'T STAND admitting they're wrong and thus refuse to change their mentalities even if they know that what they're saying doesn't make sense. Believing that the chief wahoo logo or the redskins isn't offensive or ignorant in the eyes of a specific group(not ok) OR not having had it occur to you at any point (totally ok) and then being told your viewpoint is incorrect means you have to admit you were wrong. There's a massive contingent of the world that can't handle accepting that they're wrong about something, so they'll push irrational arguments even when they're presented with an irrational one. Or they'll bail on the conversation. Or they'll resort to ad hominem attacks. I'm credible here because I'VE DONE ALL THAT SHIT MYSELF.

So when I say that people disagreeing with those on my side, ALL of which have yet to step up and make a direct dispute of MY arguments, don't believe what they're saying...I mean it 100%.

I truly don't believe people when they say they believe it's rational for them to determine whether another group should be offended by a topic or not, denies that the groups are offended by it or makes unworkable analogies or comparisons.

The difference between chief wahoo and the Celtics logo has everything to do with context, and that has already been addressed by other posters. The largest point being that there is NO contingent of Irish people that claim to be offended by it en masse, whereas there is a large amount of Native Americans who claim to be offended by some of the Indian related logos and team names in American sports. The issue as to whether these individuals are right to be offended and have reason to want logos or names abandon have nothing to do with YOU, the individual who disagrees with them. It has to do with the group that you disagree with and their justifications for feeling the way they do.

And honestly, I'm not going to address any arguments disagreeing with the paragraph directly above this sentence because (1) it's been addressed a million times and (2) arguments against it are patently false.

If you can't accept what I've said above, you either need to learn to do so or accept that there's a fatal flaw in your worldview. There's also the alternative of keeping your head buried in the sand and sticking with your viewpoint, which is a poor decision but which will certainly not prevent YOU from having a happy life. It's not impossible to disagree with me and live a contented life. But it is wrong and it is not conducive to those whom you affect being able to relate to you and to have satisfying lives of their own.

I say all of what I've said as someone who has seen the world from the point of view of the people I'm criticizing above.

 

[pr26]

People have been conquering lands inhabiting lesser lands since the beginning of time... Do you think the Romans cared about the Brits feelings when they conquered Britain?

Please elaborate on the point you're making here, because if you're making the point that I think you are than you deserve a verbal beatdown from Gouri.

 

[The Oi]

I also forgot to criticize the argument that because the name/picture wasn't offensive (to white people) when it was created, it makes it acceptable now.

First things first...it not being offensive to white people (or anyone not part of the group) then or now is irrelevant to whether Native Americans are or should be offended or not.

But the argument that it should remain acceptable now as if it's just been grandfathered in is asinine. Try applying that same concept to other terms that offend others now and see if it still works. Then apply it to espousing other beliefs that have been proven erroneous over time and see if that same argument works.


Hint: it doesn't!

 

[Deezus]

Short-sighted would be your view on my POV and what is contained within this thread. It's not a defense of the logo in itself, it's the hypocrisy of calling people who lived 60+ years ago a racist when you have no idea of the intent, nor did you live at the time it was created. It's not difficult to change the logo and, as I've said before, I think they should just do it. Calling the 17 year old who drew the logo a racist because the matter happens to be at the apex of social issues in 2014 is ignorant at best.

In what kind of flawed logical thought process does the intent of someone who creates an image always correlate to whether or not the image is perceived as racist by those whom it depicts? Also, for the record, I can't recall anyone saying the kid who drew the original logo was a racist. (I may be wrong, but I'm too lazy to re-read the whole thread). Regardless, I never said it, and my point is that the kid's intent is irrelevant.

And I'd like for you to cite where I mentioned Sockalexis.. Because I never did.

...And I'd like for you to cite where I said you mentioned Sockalexis. I included the historical, logical explanation for the team to be named "Indians" because that context is important when viewing/judging Chief Wahoo. In addition to the the negative connotations associated with the logo's exaggerated features and skin color, the team name directly correlates to the way Wahoo is perceived. On its own, the logo is mildly offensive. Combined with the back story regarding the way Native Americans have been treated historically, the origin of the Indians name, and the bullshit Sockalexis story created by the Indians PR team, the logo becomes incredibly racist. I included the Sockalexis back-story because its extremely relevant to this discussion.

 

[TJ Detweiler]

[video=youtube;TbFViTJPAqw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbFViTJPAqw[/video]

 

[Tornicade]

When those cultures organize and actually formulate gripes toward any perceived "insensitivity" towards their portrayal as a mascot, as the Native American organizations have done, then this might be a discussion.

But posting a cartoon Celtic or an Irishman isn't on it's face insensitive. Using Black Sambo as a logo is completely different, which should be painfully obvious.

That would be the equivalent of using that Celtic/Irish logo smashing a shot of whiskey and beating his wife. When the Celtics draw that up on center court, you'll have my attention.

What does chief wahoo do exactly that is offensive?

what if these groups found dressing up as an indian on halloween offensive.

what if they decided alll tomohawks are offensive and wanted to ban them or not allow people to call them tomahawks

If they are so offensive why do Certain tribes approve college sport teams and endorse their representation..

Why do these same tribes suing football and baseball teams use these same logos and names for their own organized sports.

there multiple questions to ask here.. do the logos inspire hatred prejudice or harm toNative american indians.

This is America where capitalism is key. if these people do not like the logo or any other apsect of the team they have a choice not to purchase that companies product.

 

[Gimme Some Mo]

I don't know the history of Chief Wahoo or if this has ever really been said... Is Chief Wahoo actually supposed to be portraying a Native American or is just a random made up character, kind of like Slider?

I always looked at Chief Wahoo as another goofy looking mascot that really isn't anything specific. Kind of like Slider, it's just a made up creature/thing that appeals to kids. It doesn't look realistic unlike the Redskins and Blackhawks logos.

I love Chief Wahoo because I have always looked at it that way. I never looked at Chief Wahoo and thought, wow that is a stupid looking Native American because it doesn't even look human to me. I think it is a cool looking logo. I would be sad to see it go.... But even with that said, I think the Tribe should get rid of it. It isn't worth the constant pressure and bullshit they have to deal with and I completely understand how Native Americans are offended by it.

However, if the Tribe are for some reason insisting that they won't get rid of Wahoo, then they should come out and say what I said to try to take some heat off of them.... Say that Wahoo isn't meant to portray a Native American or actual person. It is meant to be an imaginary cartoon like character, similar to Slider. It is just a mascot that has no relation to being an actual real Native American "chief."

 

[Soda]

If the Indians would like to keep the "spirit" of a Chief Wahoo type presence, could they just utilize a feather? Like the photo below..? I mean, it does not help insulate the organization from further persecution from Native Americans as there is a loose connection of the term "Indians" to a Native American-ish symbol. Do they even bother? Do they even keep Indians as the name if they do rid the team of Wahoo?