Chief Wahoo in the Crosshairs

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

I don't believe it's racist, no.

Well apparently you don't get a vote. I assume you're not Native American, so your opinion must not count. But basically, you're just like...

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

But something that hasn't been a problem for YEARS, YEARS(!), and I don't see as a problem because I don't see anything offensive about it, I'm going to sit here and enjoy it. Is that ok with you, comrade?

For years nobody said anything, doesn't mean people weren't offended by it. But you basically just reiterated my point, YOU aren't offended so YOU don't see it as a problem. Super compassionate of you.

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Edit: And part of my belief system is, using common sense when applying this, majority rules. As I stated earlier, if 30-40% of Native Americans find it offensive, I will be ok with a change. Sorry if that logic is less than basic-human-compassionate to you.

Edited for your edit: Well first, 30-40% isn't a majority. So what you call common sense is really just arbitrary nonsense. So 29% of the people are offended, get over it. 30% though, well we need to do something about that! That's asinine.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by dgo71

Well apparently you don't get a vote. I assume you're not Native American, so your opinion must not count. But basically, you're just like...





For years nobody said anything, doesn't mean people weren't offended by it. But you basically just reiterated my point, YOU aren't offended so YOU don't see it as a problem. Super compassionate of you.

1. You're right. I don't get a vote. But according to the polls, 85-90% of Native Americans don't find it offensive. So I get to keep Chief Wahoo.

2. Totally different situation. Essentially an ENTIRE race found those Negro League mascots offensive. They didn't have a say because they were being JUDGED by their SKIN COLOR. I'm not judging the Native Americans by their skin color. Skin color doesn't matter to me - character does.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

1. You're right. I don't get a vote. But according to the polls, 85-90% of Native Americans don't find it offensive. So I get to keep Chief Wahoo.

2. Totally different situation. Essentially an ENTIRE race found those Negro League mascots offensive. They didn't have a say because they were being JUDGED by their SKIN COLOR. I'm not judging the Native Americans by their skin color. Skin color doesn't matter to me - character does.

But it's not different at all. Both of those bobblehead caricatures are stereotypical representations of a race that do not portray that race in a positive light. The only difference is you grew up with one and the other was considered to be in bad taste years before. Bigotry is bigotry, and trying to find a difference is beyond splitting hairs.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by dgo71

But it's not different at all. Both of those bobblehead caricatures are stereotypical representations of a race that do not portray that race in a positive light. The only difference is you grew up with one and the other was considered to be in bad taste years before. Bigotry is bigotry, and trying to find a difference is beyond splitting hairs.

How are they portraying in a negative light? Both seem pretty happy, the guy on the left looks like he's dressed up for a nice outing maybe in the 20's when that style was "in" and the guy on the right is getting ready for a game.

If they were photoshopped to remove the color would there be any problem?

There are a LOT more things that are far more worth getting all worked up over.

Steve B

[packs]

That is an image of a person in black face. It is the same image that Al Jolson emulates in The Jazz Singer. Black face is not something I think African Americans think of positively.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by steve B

How are they portraying in a negative light?
Steve B

You really can't be serious, right?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by dgo71

You really can't be serious, right?

If you see people as people....... both are just happy guys doing their thing.*

If you see people as part of a certain group with whatever attaches to that.....well, I suppose they are stereotypes.

Until "we" can see people as people, we'll always have problems.

* Part of it is also that that as shown, there's also no historical context. In his time Al Jolson was ok. As were minstrel shows. It's only after that stuff became unpopular that it became negative. Who are the biggest collectors of most offensive stuff? Yep, usually someone from the group offended. Quite a puzzle there eh?

Steve B

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by steve B

If you see people as people....... both are just happy guys doing their thing.*

If you see people as part of a certain group with whatever attaches to that.....well, I suppose they are stereotypes.

Until "we" can see people as people, we'll always have problems.

* Part of it is also that that as shown, there's also no historical context. In his time Al Jolson was ok. As were minstrel shows. It's only after that stuff became unpopular that it became negative. Who are the biggest collectors of most offensive stuff? Yep, usually someone from the group offended. Quite a puzzle there eh?

Steve B

Empty platitudes aside, there is no denying the intent behind portraying these people in the way they are depicted. And it wasn't hey, let's portray just a couple of happy dudes doing their thing. That's laughably naive. Why does historical context matter? We're not having this discussion in 1922. Obviously it was "ok at the time." That doesn't mean that image shouldn't be viewed as offensive TODAY. Which is the major point of contention here; one of those images is still in use today. If a team had a mascot in blackface I'm sure everyone would agree it would be inappropriate. So why is Chief Wahoo given a pass? Why is one ok and the other not?

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by dgo71

Well apparently you don't get a vote. I assume you're not Native American, so your opinion must not count. But basically, you're just like...





For years nobody said anything, doesn't mean people weren't offended by it. But you basically just reiterated my point, YOU aren't offended so YOU don't see it as a problem. Super compassionate of you.



Edited for your edit: Well first, 30-40% isn't a majority. So what you call common sense is really just arbitrary nonsense. So 29% of the people are offended, get over it. 30% though, well we need to do something about that! That's asinine.

This is where common sense would apply. Someone with common sense would realize that.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

This is where common sense would apply. Someone with common sense would realize that.

Sorry, I must not have common sense because apparently your magic line for what constitutes racism is a moving target.

[packs]

You guys keep citing a poll about the Redskins to discuss whether or not Native Americans support the Chief Wahoo logo. That poll has nothing to do with Chief Wahoo. Also, as I pointed out, that poll only surveyed 500 Native Americans out of 5.2 million living in the US, or less than 1 percent of all Native Americans. A poll of less than 1 percent of a population could not possibly speak for any majority of that population.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by packs

You guys keep citing a poll about the Redskins to discuss whether or not Native Americans support the Chief Wahoo logo. That poll has nothing to do with Chief Wahoo. Also, as I pointed out, that poll only surveyed 500 Native Americans out of 5.2 million living in the US, or less than 1 percent of all Native Americans. A poll of less than 1 percent of a population could not possibly speak for any majority of that population.

Yep, because I think most would find "Redskins" to be way more offensive than Chief Wahoo. I'm borderline on the name "Redskins" but if Native Americans don't find it offensive, then I have no problem with it.

Right, as evident by last year's election. So here's a suggestion. Instead of having some social crusade to purge the world of "offensive" things that don't even effect you, why not go to the Indian Reserves and ask millions of other Indians about their opinion? Let them vote. Let them have a say. If they vote to get rid of it, then by all means, do away with Chief Wahoo. But if they overwhelmingly vote to keep it, or don't find it offensive, etc., then Chief Wahoo should stay.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Yep, because I think most would find "Redskins" to be way more offensive than Chief Wahoo. I'm borderline on the name "Redskins" but if Native Americans don't find it offensive, then I have no problem with it.

Right, as evident by last year's election. So here's a suggestion. Instead of having some social crusade to purge the world of "offensive" things that don't even effect you, why not go to the Indian Reserves and ask millions of other Indians about their opinion? Let them vote. Let them have a say. If they vote to get rid of it, then by all means, do away with Chief Wahoo. But if they overwhelmingly vote to keep it, or don't find it offensive, etc., then Chief Wahoo should stay.

So the many images of Native Americans protesting the logo, that can be found by a simple Google search, aren't enough? The indigenous people who have already voiced their concerns don't count because they haven't met your arbitrary minimum requirement for offensiveness? You're just content with a poll that represents less than one quarter of one percent of the effected group of people? Cool, cool...