Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2020 23:34:47 GMT -6
It would appear that the social justice warriors will get to put a couple more notches in their belts as both the Washington football and Cleveland baseball professional sports franchises seem destined to make "name" changes:
"In the wake of the potential forthcoming name change of the NFL’s Washington Redskins, the Cleveland Indians appear to be approaching a reckoning of their own. The organization issued a statement on the matter, first disclosing it to Zack Meisel and Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic (subscription link) and then publishing it on Twitter.
While the “Indians” moniker hasn’t drawn quite as much ire as the Washington football club’s nickname, there has been pressure on the baseball club for quite some time. Much of the scorn focused on the team’s “Chief Wahoo” logo, which was finally sidelined for its offensive depiction of Native Americans.
No doubt the Cleveland organization saw the writing on the wall and recognized the merits of moving now. High-visibility corporate pressure finally forced the hand of the long-time D.C. NFL institution, but the obvious financial motivation left the club looking all the more craven.
The Indians attempted to walk a line in their official statement, hinting that the name change was already under consideration while also acknowledging that the immediate impetus was tied to “recent social unrest..."
I wonder if any of these offended and deeply moved, higher conscious morons have ever considered what transpires on a daily basis in "Planned Parenthood" clinics? Why not demand they be renamed as chop shops or butcher houses? Of course that's rhetorically foolish on my part as there's big money in liberally approved murder.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Jul 4, 2020 0:37:44 GMT -6
I find all of this dumb. George Floyd did not deserve to die. I think everyone agrees with that. What has happened since is just disgusting
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 4, 2020 1:40:55 GMT -6
This is something that predates George Floyd. I see no connection.
There is nowhere near the urgency in terms of social justice, nobody today is dying due to sports nicknames or mascots.
But Native Americans were killed in our history, racially purged. Treaties unfair, then broken.
This movement does little to right the wrong done in our history. Maybe dumb on that count. Inadequate. That history was cruel and these brands may mean no harm. They are racist though. Not as bad as if "The Darkies" played in Atlanta with a mascot of a nobly sculpted field hand I suppose.
Still, I see how the groups that want recognition of the history and harm are offended.
Is it really disgusting? I disagree.
|
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Jul 4, 2020 5:17:37 GMT -6
It would appear that the social justice warriors will get to put a couple more notches in their belts as both the Washington football and Cleveland baseball professional sports franchises seem destined to make "name" changes: "In the wake of the potential forthcoming name change of the NFL’s Washington Redskins, the Cleveland Indians appear to be approaching a reckoning of their own. The organization issued a statement on the matter, first disclosing it to Zack Meisel and Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic (subscription link) and then publishing it on Twitter.
While the “Indians” moniker hasn’t drawn quite as much ire as the Washington football club’s nickname, there has been pressure on the baseball club for quite some time. Much of the scorn focused on the team’s “Chief Wahoo” logo, which was finally sidelined for its offensive depiction of Native Americans.
No doubt the Cleveland organization saw the writing on the wall and recognized the merits of moving now. High-visibility corporate pressure finally forced the hand of the long-time D.C. NFL institution, but the obvious financial motivation left the club looking all the more craven.
The Indians attempted to walk a line in their official statement, hinting that the name change was already under consideration while also acknowledging that the immediate impetus was tied to “recent social unrest..."
I wonder if any of these offended and deeply moved, higher conscious morons have ever considered what transpires on a daily basis in "Planned Parenthood" clinics? Why not demand they be renamed as chop shops or butcher houses? Of course that's rhetorically foolish on my part as there's big money in liberally approved murder. What do you find disgusting? The offended people demanding change or the execs caving? Personally I’ve always wanted the execs to stand firm because political correctness pisses me off. But as long as it’s the execs caving and not the government mandating I also think that’s how things should work. Businesses in a free market* have to respond to changing societal norms and satisfy the demands of the customer. If the execs think changing the name is best for their business then so be it. I don't want to see them cave, but I also cant insist they damage their company to satisfy my whims or I’d be just as arbitrary as the sjws. If societal pressures are truly overwhelming to the point of hurting the bottom line then they’d breach their fiduciary duties by not taking action. *Nothing in this post is meant to suggest that we currently operate in a free market. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 4, 2020 6:55:49 GMT -6
Well reasoned Jackson.
Business schools now have come to realize they cannot so easily teach what is most profitable in isolation and just in terms that translate into purely individual economic self interest. They have to recognize social justice, and behavioral economics. Recognize human nature.
Law imposes costs if they ignore the law. They have to recognize ethical norms (or belief about ethics) if for no other reason ethical norms often become legal norms. Not only can ethics become legal mandate but they are part of what shapes demand even when they don't become law. People will boycott business that offends them.
Human beings are tribal creatures and usually live not as profit maximizing individuals but as socially conscious members of groups. The social justice warriors as they are called above have every right to ignore their own individual profit maximization for ideals and to preach to the rest of society. If they influence law and influence public perception of ethical business practice then a company ignores that at its own peril.
What they do not have the right to do is to harm others, which is likely to violate law...Understandable, at times, but not without consequence.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Jul 4, 2020 8:44:28 GMT -6
I guess I should clarify my use of the word "disgusting". I am fine with the peaceful protests they were about Floyd and done by the people who really believe "Black lives Matter." I am fine with some sort of police reform. I am not ok with police de-funding that is dumb. I am not ok with the antagonists, autonomous zones, people just going around ripping down statues and the other bullshit we have seen unfold.. Those things are "disgusting" to me
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2020 9:40:22 GMT -6
The time is now for the Audubon Society to act; pressure needs to be applied to Ball State. Stop the deprecating abuse of cardinals. Why just look at how this bird is hideously portrayed by Charlie Cardinal. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you that this is allowed to happen. A new movement will be born out of this outrage if change doesn't occur immediately. I'm starting FLM (Feathered Lives Matter) right now, or maybe a little later in the day, flexibility can be a good thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Jul 4, 2020 10:34:17 GMT -6
Funny you mention Atlanta. They have a summer college baseball team called the Crackers.
I’m deeply offended. My Caucasity has been impugned!
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 4, 2020 13:07:23 GMT -6
The time is now for the Audubon Society to act; pressure needs to be applied to Ball State. Stop the deprecating abuse of cardinals. Why just look at how this bird is hideously portrayed by Charlie Cardinal. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you that this is allowed to happen. A new movement will be born out of this outrage if change doesn't occur immediately. I'm starting FLM (Feathered Lives Matter) right now, or maybe a little later in the day, flexibility can be a good thing. Very funny this whole native American history? Or so you seem to think, by making this joke I don't get that |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2020 17:22:33 GMT -6
The time is now for the Audubon Society to act; pressure needs to be applied to Ball State. Stop the deprecating abuse of cardinals. Why just look at how this bird is hideously portrayed by Charlie Cardinal. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you that this is allowed to happen. A new movement will be born out of this outrage if change doesn't occur immediately. I'm starting FLM (Feathered Lives Matter) right now, or maybe a little later in the day, flexibility can be a good thing. Very funny this whole native American history? Or so you seem to think, by making this joke I don't get that Well yes, I can see how you wouldn't get it. The answer is likely contained in the words of the ancient proverb that goes something like this: "He who knows not but knows not that he knows not is a fool, avoid him; he who knows not and knows that he knows not is a wise man, teach him." Regarding your Native American pejorative point, I currently live in the mountainous region of Northern Arizona, not far from the Grand Canyon. Of interest, if you travel from Flagstaff toward the north rim shortly before the road which leads to the canyon one encounters several "Native American" trinket stands along the highway. And you know the interesting thing is they refer to themselves as indians (i.e. signs on the stands such as finest indian jewelry in the state, etc.); however, one guy has a stand with a sign something like this "best souvenirs in the state-honest injun", his words, not mine. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 4, 2020 18:17:13 GMT -6
Very funny this whole native American history? Or so you seem to think, by making this joke I don't get that Well yes, I can see how you wouldn't get it.... Regarding your Native American pejorative point, I currently live in the mountainous region of Northern Arizona, not far from the Grand Canyon. Of interest, if you travel from Flagstaff toward the north rim shortly before the road which leads to the canyon one encounters several "Native American" trinket stands along the highway. And you know the interesting thing is they refer to themselves as indians (i.e. signs on the stands such as finest indian jewelry in the state, etc.); however, one guy has a stand with a sign something like this "best souvenirs in the state-honest injun", his words, not mine. Your response to a 400 year history is to observe the road to the Grand Canyon and comment on souvenir sales practices "selling trinkets" that you observed?
Maybe you can enlighten me better about what I don't know in that broader historical context of 400+ years dating to a time when there were many times the current population of Native Armerican tribes spread across North American. You can then explain how you can make light of their history by comparing the use of native American racial stereotypes you observed to harm done to birds.
You missed the part about the treaties made and broken and the real harm done all of the Indian nations. You missed the recognition in the US Constitution of the Indian Nations. Now reduced to "reservations" consisting of land to which many tribes were relocated forcibly.
If you think the history of Indiana nations is all about the tribal nations peddling souvenirs to white settlers, and playing on stereotypes the settlers held, and that this current sad state you observe justifies appropriating stereotype for marketing sports, you missed the part I was referring to about history. Our history is all about settlers invading and taking land, forming a nation and ceding land by treaty to the original inhabitants, and then regarding that treaty land we found US military refusing to honor promises to protect the land and eventually even taking Indian land granted, with tribes being relocated, treaties guaranteeing them new land, less desirable, being made but then ignored and regularly broken.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2020 23:33:59 GMT -6
Well yes, I can see how you wouldn't get it.... Regarding your Native American pejorative point, I currently live in the mountainous region of Northern Arizona, not far from the Grand Canyon. Of interest, if you travel from Flagstaff toward the north rim shortly before the road which leads to the canyon one encounters several "Native American" trinket stands along the highway. And you know the interesting thing is they refer to themselves as indians (i.e. signs on the stands such as finest indian jewelry in the state, etc.); however, one guy has a stand with a sign something like this "best souvenirs in the state-honest injun", his words, not mine. Your response to a 400 year history is to observe the road to the Grand Canyon and comment on souvenir sales practices "selling trinkets" that you observed?
Maybe you can enlighten me better about what I don't know in that broader historical context of 400+ years dating to a time when there were many times the current population of Native Armerican tribes spread across North American. You can then explain how you can make light of their history by comparing the use of native American racial stereotypes you observed to harm done to birds.
You missed the part about the treaties made and broken and the real harm done all of the Indian nations. You missed the recognition in the US Constitution of the Indian Nations. Now reduced to "reservations" consisting of land to which many tribes were relocated forcibly.
If you think the history of Indiana nations is all about the tribal nations peddling souvenirs to white settlers, and playing on stereotypes the settlers held, and that this current sad state you observe justifies appropriating stereotype for marketing sports, you missed the part I was referring to about history. Our history is all about settlers invading and taking land, forming a nation and ceding land by treaty to the original inhabitants, and then regarding that treaty land we found US military refusing to honor promises to protect the land and eventually even taking Indian land granted, with tribes being relocated, treaties guaranteeing them new land, less desirable, being made but then ignored and regularly broken.
Fair enough. I think you're an intelligent person, probably much moreso than I and that is not intended in a condescending way. But I have a question, and it's somewhat of a digression, but in all sincerity, to you personally, who is Jesus Christ? Is He just a figure from the past or is He a presence in your life? I'm not trying to set some sort of entrapment, but you seem like an angry person trying to right what you consider to be injustices. From the bottom of my heart I ask, have you ever accepted Jesus Christ into your life? |
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Jul 5, 2020 12:08:55 GMT -6
"Our history is all about settlers invading and taking land, forming a nation and ceding land by treaty to the original inhabitants, and then regarding that treaty land we found US military refusing to honor promises to protect the land and eventually even taking Indian land granted, with tribes being relocated, treaties guaranteeing them new land, less desirable, being made but then ignored and regularly broken."
Did you suppose maybe that the expansion and settling would stop somewhere, say the Mississippi River, and we would be today co-existing with a stone age culture controlling the rest of the current US?
Maybe you should have read something of the previous 3000 years of history.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 5, 2020 12:42:36 GMT -6
" Our history is all about settlers invading and taking land, forming a nation and ceding land by treaty to the original inhabitants, and then regarding that treaty land we found US military refusing to honor promises to protect the land and eventually even taking Indian land granted, with tribes being relocated, treaties guaranteeing them new land, less desirable, being made but then ignored and regularly broken." Did you suppose maybe that the expansion and settling would stop somewhere, say the Mississippi River, and we would be today co-existing with a stone age culture controlling the rest of the current US? Maybe you should have read something of the previous 3000 years of history. That is a ridiculous argument.
3000 years of history shows a lot of colonization and injustice by European settlers on native peoples world wide. That is true. But it certainly doesn't speak to establishment of a nation like ours which had a Constitution recognizing the Indian Nations and creating a new model of government. Our Constitution and our history would certainly have been different.
You assume these tribes would have stood still and ignored technology they had seen take their land. You assume they would learn nothing from their conquerors. If we had followed our own agreements we might have seen a powerful example of those nations have a choice other colonized peoples did not have. European powers in Africa and Latin America show a mix if influences that are political and cultural to create new cultures. NONE if those situations led to indigenous peoples staying in the stone age beyond actual oppression by occupying Western power. We had a treaty structure which might led to a different world. Who knows what it would have looked like. But almost certainly not the White Euros and stone age Native Americans facing off across the Mississipi.
3000 years of history is instructive. To assume we could not have advanced as a nation lawfully under those treaties and seen something very much like the US at present is speculation and a false dichotomy. The English isles were relatively primitive compared to Roman and Greek civilization 1500 years ago. They did not give up their culture and history to come into a literate age with the same technology as the Roman Empire. They retained language and culture and advanced. For you to assume the native indigenous peoples would not advance is silly.
But forget alternate history. Don't use that speculative absurd historical scenario to justify or deny we made lawful treaties and regularly broke that law in dealing with those Nations instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Jul 5, 2020 13:22:30 GMT -6
Your lack of perception and your self-righteousness are stumbling all over each other here.
I ask you if you imagine a certain hypothetical situation is plausible, with the obvious (to intelligent people) implication that the hypothetical situation is ridiculous.
Then you go on for multiple paragraphs as if I believe the implausible hypothetical situation is realistic.
It's really not possible to carry on a discussion with someone of such denseness. It's really boring to have to go back and explain simple points.
|
|
