Xameil Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Seeing as tho this has to do with one of the major protesters.... http://www.syracuse.com/business-news/index.ssf/2015/10/oneidas_target_lago_in_new_ad_campaign.html SUCK IT HALBRITTER!!! YOU HYPOCRITICAL SON OF A ****!! that is all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 I guess racism carries more weight to me than random offensiveness. But you're right, people can be offended by anything. Some things just count for more. Amd I'm not about to argue that people who consider themselves pirates and are offended by the Pirates or Buccaneers are equal in their complaints to a historically marginalized indigenous people. Sorry, that dog dont hunt. They aint all the same. I figure the logo can be viewed outside the name in terms of whether it on it's own is offensive or not. I certainly don't see the logo as racist in any way. if it had exaggerations, ie the Idians logo, then yeah,, but it hasn't got any of that. Let's imagine we were named the Braves or the Pottowomack. Would the logo be racist? ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justice98 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 I figure the logo can be viewed outside the name in terms of whether it on it's own is offensive or not. I certainly don't see the logo as racist in any way. if it had exaggerations, ie the Idians logo, then yeah,, but it hasn't got any of that. Let's imagine we were named the Braves or the Pottowomack. Would the logo be racist? ~Bang If I had to say, the logo, in and of itself is probably not racist. I'll let slide the purposeful deep red coloration of the skin to go with the name, cuz that seems like an exaggeration. I almost talked myself into it just then, but let's continue. lolSo if it were used in some other context, it might not be considered offensive. I can dig that. But when used in conjuction with the name, "braves on the warpath" type stuff, and all the rest that goes with the team's use of it, it's racist by extension. The whole misappropriation of culture by people not of the culture doesn't sit right with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Maybe his skin is that color because some native people actually have skin that is dark brown? ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 If I had to say, the logo, in and of itself is probably not racist. I'll let slide the purposeful deep red coloration of the skin to go with the name, cuz that seems like an exaggeration. I almost talked myself into it just then, but let's continue. lol So if it were used in some other context, it might not be considered offensive. I can dig that. But when used in conjuction with the name, "braves on the warpath" type stuff, and all the rest that goes with the team's use of it, it's racist by extension. The whole misappropriation of culture by people not of the culture doesn't sit right with me. I can understand the cultural misappropriation argument, but, as for skin tone, a prominent a native American designed the logo. My wife is Chilean, btw. Her skins probably as dark as our logo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 If I had to say, the logo, in and of itself is probably not racist. I'll let slide the purposeful deep red coloration of the skin to go with the name, cuz that seems like an exaggeration. I almost talked myself into it just then, but let's continue. lol So if it were used in some other context, it might not be considered offensive. I can dig that. But when used in conjuction with the name, "braves on the warpath" type stuff, and all the rest that goes with the team's use of it, it's racist by extension. The whole misappropriation of culture by people not of the culture doesn't sit right with me. I have always defended cultural misappropriation argument, which Redskins are no more guilty of than any other team with NA imagery. Yet you are flippant when it comes to the mascots for the 'Fighting' Irish and Celtics, which are about as cartoonish as it gets. Seems legit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justice98 Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 I have always defended cultural misappropriation argument, which Redskins are no more guilty of than any other team with NA imagery. Yet you are flippant when it comes to the mascots for the 'Fighting' Irish and Celtics, which are about as cartoonish as it gets. Seems legit... They're leprechauns, not actually representing real people, or humans for that matter, hence being cartoonish is within bounds. That's a tough sell to suggest otherwise, but have at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 It is only a leprechaun if you say it is. If a person looked at those mascots without knowing they were supposed to be a 'leprechaun", they would see a person. especially the Celtics. You say leprechaun, i see a man. Isn't that the entire argument you guys are making? It doesn't MATTER what the intention is, the presentation is what matters and, as it was put to me way long ago in this thread,, if ONE person is offended, that's enough to warrant looking at it. So in regards to that, it does not matter a single bit that you say it's a leprechaun. It doesn't matter if a million people and the team itself swear up and down it's a leprechaun.I see a man. Just like in regards to the Redskins, reams of dcumentation explaining why it is not intended to be offensive are brushed aside like they mean nothing,, often with the caveat that it doesn't matter what those documentations are, being offended is a personal thing, and then the same folks who do such broad brushing don't give this logo a second thought because they've been told it's not a man, even though it looks EXACTLY like one.. Notre dame isn't called the "Fightin' Leprechauns", and the logo above is not for the Boston Leprechauns, which would be mythical creatures that do not exist, and thus, can't offend anyone. But Irish are not mythical, nor are Celts. the ol' double standard flying high on the pole. i guess the main reason it's not in the forefront is because no one is actually offended by these names, because they tend to accept them for what they are,, which are meaningless iconography. However, if a tiny pocket of people DID get offended and then used media to push an extreme minority agenda this hard,, i wonder how it would go? ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 They're leprechauns, not actually representing real people, or humans for that matter, hence being cartoonish is within bounds. That's a tough sell to suggest otherwise, but have at it. Both were intended to represent the Irish- HOW IS THAT A TOUGH SELL???? The original owner of the Celtics notoriously stated he wanted to do this to try and endear the many Boston Irish to the team. The Notre Dame example is blatant, the team name is Irish, I don't know how you can discredit the logo by simply stating 'its a leperchaun'. The fact is, I've stated in this thread before the effect that imagery has on Irish American's who aren't even ND fans. If you go to parts of Boston and see people with the ND 'logo' tattoed on them, like I said, they may or may not be fans. And the message is not necessarily positive. Notre dame isn't called the "Fightin' Leprechauns", and the logo above is not for the Boston Leprechauns, which would be mythical creatures that do not exist, and thus, can't offend anyone. But Irish are not mythical, nor are Celts. the ol' double standard flying high on the pole. i guess the main reason it's not in the forefront is because no one is actually offended by these names, because they tend to accept them for what they are,, which are meaningless iconography. However, if a tiny pocket of people DID get offended and then used media to push an extreme minority agenda this hard,, i wonder how it would go? ~Bang I've also stated in this thread, that while the 'Fighting Irish' name and logo may not offend many in this country, in other countries it could be very offensive. In fact, it is not encouraged to wear the ND apparel in certain parts of Northern Ireland, where I've visited. So, the idea that those images are not offended to some aren't entirely true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salistala Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 I figure the logo can be viewed outside the name in terms of whether it on it's own is offensive or not. I certainly don't see the logo as racist in any way. if it had exaggerations, ie the Idians logo, then yeah,, but it hasn't got any of that. Let's imagine we were named the Braves or the Pottowomack. Would the logo be racist? ~Bang The logo is fine if you are looking for a representation of the Black Foot tribe, of which Wetzel is a member of. This is Crowfoot, a Black Foot Chief of great renown: And this is Wetzel's logo: If you were looking for a representation of a Patawomeck you might look at this: or this: When you're trying to create an image to represent the people of an entire continent you're bound to fail, if you're picky and insist the image represents NAs from the US it still fails because it only truly represents a small percentage of Native Americans. When the team resurrected the Native head image in the late sixties and early seventies it had already been in Patawomeck territory for decades. Why didn't they use a Patawomeck image instead of the stereotypical "Wild West Indian" ? Even if Wetzel pushed the image on the Redskin executive it's still disrespectful to the Patawomeck in whose territory the team was making hundreds of millions and eventually billions of dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 I think many of you are feigning compassion for NA's. Disrespectful ? Not even close. If anything the logo was to represent a recognizable logo. This was clearly not a problem for anyone when we decided to start making $50 gold coins with a very similar image in the mid- 2000's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salistala Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 I think many of you are feigning compassion for NA's. Disrespectful ? Not even close. If anything the logo was to represent a recognizable logo. This was clearly not a problem for anyone when we decided to start making $50 gold coins with a very similar image in the mid- 2000's. It's an image that represents less than 1% of the NA population in the States. He's not Lakota He's not Pawnee: He's not Chippewa: he's not Heiltsuk: Apologize for the nudity, it's the hyper-sexualized romantic fantasy of a European artist that believed we did everything the full monty, including navigating 60ft+ war canoes through the turbulent Pacific He's not a Seminole: He's not Mohawk: He's not Apache: But I guess when any ol' Indian will do, let's throw the Indian Head nickel Indian up there since people are comfortable and recognize that image as being a genuine Redskin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Again, the only thing probably 99% of America is referring to is the football team. For you or any of your counterparts to deny that is simply being intentionally obtuse. Why post all of those pictures ? Those are not the pictures we are talking about. We are talking about the logo of The Washington Redskins. So silly. Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveakl Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Salistala, I think you post a lot of eye opening stuff, but this line of the logo not being an accurate and inclusive description of all native Americans is kind of out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Salistala, our logo was designed by a Native American. They asked him to design the logo for the Washington Redskins. He did, nothing more, nothing less and we used it. I don't recall reading/hearing anywhere that we are representing a specific tribe. Not sure why you bothered posting pictures of various tribes and trying to compare it to our logo. If we were the Washington Seminoles, then yeah, you would have a point about the logo design. But we aren't, so exactly what is your point? Is it shocking that a member of the Blackfeet Nation (not Black Foot tribe) created the logo in his tribes image? I would imagine that if they asked another tribe to design the logo, it would resemble their tribe instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveakl Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Oh snap, I'm agreeing with the Guy from Charlotte. Put this debate to rest! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Do you chastise anyone who wears their hair like the Mohawks do? Wouldn't that be insulting to them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskins Posted October 26, 2015 Author Share Posted October 26, 2015 We've totally come around from the name argument. Can't everyone agree that the logo is not offensive? If anything, the above threads show that it was not a characture etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Do you chastise anyone who wears their hair like the Mohawks do? Wouldn't that be insulting to them? Mohawks...similar logo, same idea. Hmmm. I like it, I just don't think some folks would go for it. I imagine all of the crowd with their faux hawks. That should be the name if they change it. Even keep the fight song. Only thing is, would people pretend to be more insulted by the same logo with a pink (breast cancer) hairstyle ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salistala Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Salistala, our logo was designed by a Native American. They asked him to design the logo for the Washington Redskins. He did, nothing more, nothing less and we used it. I don't recall reading/hearing anywhere that we are representing a specific tribe. Not sure why you bothered posting pictures of various tribes and trying to compare it to our logo. If we were the Washington Seminoles, then yeah, you would have a point about the logo design. But we aren't, so exactly what is your point? Is it shocking that a member of the Blackfeet Nation (not Black Foot tribe) created the logo in his tribes image? I would imagine that if they asked another tribe to design the logo, it would resemble their tribe instead. My point is the Blackfoot/Blackfeet Nation/Tribe/Confederacy (all have been used to describe them, but their name for themselves is Niitsitapi) are in Montana and your team is on the eastern seaboard 2000 miles away. All accounts I've read point to Wetzel himself asking the team to use his design, not the other way around, if you have evidence to the contrary I'd appreciate seeing it. I've said before that the team has Native American allies right in its own backyard in the Patawomeck, but instead of pursuing that endorsement they accept an unsolicited request from a politically connected Chief 2000 miles away. In the protocols of my region, that is indescribably rude. Why did I post all those pictures? daveakl answered that question for me: Salistala, I think you post a lot of eye opening stuff, but this line of the logo not being an accurate and inclusive description of all native Americans is kind of out there. Is this line of reasoning in any way similar to, "they all look the same to me"? Fact is, we are all different, and to attempt to develop an accurate and inclusive description of all native americans in one image is impossible. We all wear our hair, apply cosmetic marks, and wear adornments in different ways. Those differences are important to me, as is the practice of working with the group closest to the region you find yourself operating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveakl Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 No, not at all. But thanks for thinking that. I have a clearer view of where you are coming from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
velocet Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 https://twitter.com/SageRosenfels18 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Well, heck. If Sage Rosenfels doesn't like the name, then what does the opinion of 90% of Native Americans matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justice98 Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 I think many of you are feigning compassion for NA's. Disrespectful ? Not even close. If anything the logo was to represent a recognizable logo. This was clearly not a problem for anyone when we decided to start making $50 gold coins with a very similar image in the mid- 2000's. You say that like people were even aware there were $50 gold coins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 You say that like people were even aware there were $50 gold coins. People are aware of the Nickels. I don't know about you, but I am aware of any changes to currency. Check them out pretty cool. www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/buffalo24k/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.