OT Cleveland Indians vs. Chicago Cubs series thread..

Pirates aren't a race of people. Neither are Buccaneers. And if you want to claim that the NAME Viking is offensive, go ahead. But we're talking about the logo.

The ONLY thing you've complained about the Vikings logo is that it has the horns, which for some reason was a created characteristic that was (wrongly) associated with the Vikings.

And somehow I think that horns on a drawing aren't as dehumanizing as a logo drawn to emphasize non white difference in them.

 

Where did I say you don't get to have an opinion on the matter? You're just going with the typical white guy responses to any time anyone says that the Redskins name or Indians logo is maybe offensive or insensitive.

"What about whites? Vikings don't have horns, that's racist!"

"not all patriots were white, that's insensitive!"

If Native Americans (or whatever term you want to call them) find the logo offensive, guess what? It's offensive.


If people of Viking (or Scandinavian descent) found the logo of the Vikings offensive or insensitive, then guess what? They can do something about it.

If Irish people felt that the Celtics logo or Notre Dame's logo was the same, they can do something about it.

Oddly enough, you're not going to find many people of Irish or Scandinavian descent that find those logos or team names offensive. And oddly enough the people who don't find Indians or Redskins offensive tend to be white people, of which neither logo or name is about or in reference to.

 

Yes, minnesota probably didn't pick the best image for their team when they picked the Vikings as a name. Yes,those logos are caricatures. But, that or pirates, or even buccaneers is quite different. Here is the difference. Scandinavian people haven't been trying for decades to get the Vikings to change there names, neither I am sure do pirates and bucanneers have issue with their personas being used. Native Americans have been fighting for years to get the name And logo changed because they as a people feel it is racist and demeaning, therefore it is racist and demeaning. When the Scandinavians start an outcry we can talk about minnesota.

 

You're telling me that the Vikings logo was done for comedic effect, and to emphasize a negative stereotype? And that it wasn't chosen by the owners, of which some if not all, had Scandinavian heritage? All this time it was a ruse to get people to think negatively about the Vikings?

Or that the fighting Irish, which is reference to people who are strong willed and determined, NOT that they get in fights a lot. @Jesus Christ Son of God man...

You guys are you're just making this even worse.

Was the guy who designed the Indians logo in the 40's (different from their earlier logos, which are similar to the Redskins and Blackhawks) a Native American? And the owners of the Indians at the time were themselves of Native American decent and chose the design because they felt it was honorable to have that as their design?

The original design of Chief Wahoo was obvious inspired by cartoons of the era, which still glorified whites as the saviors and indians as the savages.

 

what in the hell?

 

@SlyPokerDog did I not call it??

 

because thats how Natives were represented by white people in the time it was written.

Same reason why you don't hear a lot about Speedy Gonzolas and Slow Poke Rodriguez. Times change.

 

who said anything about violent?

Again, if people of Irish descent and Scandinavian descent find it offensive, they can do something about it. Until that point, you're just whining because you don't find something offensive, that many native americans do.

If many Irish people found it offensive (or Scans) I wouldn't care if they changed the names/logo. Thats the difference here. You seem hell bent on keeping something the same that you don't find offensive, whereas I would be fine with it.

Although I know that will just bring out a bunch of red herrings here..so I'll say this.


Go Cubs.

 

No, you're trying to change my point to that because you think it's how you argue.

It had nothing to do with being white = human, it has to do with how the majority of the country at the time was white, and "white" has been historically what those in power/control considered the template, and any difference between whites and non whites, is exaggerated for emphasis, especially in these kinds of things.

You know that, I know that. In fact, you KNOW that's not what I said or meant, and it's disingenuous for you to act otherwise. Unless you dont know the history behind caricatures and propaganda, and what role of dehumanizing has to do with it, and what part the majority race at the time has in it...

 

You know what annoys me about debating an issue with a "conservative"? Bat shit logic like the following

Never said any of that, never implied it and don't feel that to be the case. But feel free to think that I said it, implied it and feel it, if it makes you feel as though you are the winner in this debate.