The Cleveland Guardians? Yes, It's Official

[bigtrain]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

And you are not God. You don't get to decide which sins are forgiven and which are not, you ignorant jackass.

One guy is a murderer, one is not. What is so difficult to understand about that? Name calling that is devoid of logic does not win arguments

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bigtrain

One guy is a murderer, one is not. What is so difficult to understand about that? Name calling that is devoid of logic does not win arguments

What are the odds a thread about the new Cleveland nickname ends up as a discussion of Senator Robert Byrd and General Nathan Bedford Forrest (who, by the way, speaking strictly of him as a general, apparently was studied by the Germans in WWII)? Pretty long odds ex ante I would think.

Slightly more on topic, do all the forts in the South named after Confederate generals need to be renamed?

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Slightly more on topic, do all the forts in the South named after Confederate generals need to be renamed?

Yes. They should never have been named after traitors in the first place.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Yes. They should never have been named after traitors in the first place.

From the perspective of Great Britain, the Founding Fathers were traitors.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

From the perspective of Great Britain, the Founding Fathers were traitors.

+1

History is generally written by the victors.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

+1

History is generally written by the victors.

What's the saying, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What's the saying, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Something like that. There's really no black or white anymore, everything is shades of grey.



You can fool some of the people all of the time....

And all of the people some of the time....

But you can't fool Mom!

[egri]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What's the saying, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Peter, I wish you could’ve seen when my moms side of the family (Catholic) met my dad’s side (Protestant) started discussing Oliver Cromwell.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

+1

History is generally written by the victors.

There is nothing anyone could possibly say to defend slavery, but from my study the rift between North and South was more complex than slavery.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There is nothing anyone could possibly say to defend slavery, but from my study the rift between North and South was more complex than slavery.

+1

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There is nothing anyone could possibly say to defend slavery, but from my study the rift between North and South was more complex than slavery.

People would have to actually read and study though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There is nothing anyone could possibly say to defend slavery, but from my study the rift between North and South was more complex than slavery.

Absolutely agree. Truth is, there has been slavery going back thousands of years in the human race, and that involved people of all colors and nationalities. But today you don't really hear anyone still complaining about the Egyptians, Romans, Vikings, or any other dominant groups that had slavery as a given and accepted part of their culture in the past.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

From the perspective of Great Britain, the Founding Fathers were traitors.

Which is probably why there's no statues of George Washington in London.

"Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason."

When you win, it's not treason

[egri]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Which is probably why there's no statues of George Washington in London.

"Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason."

When you win, it's not treason

There is, along with a handful of other US presidents. The article below also has some interesting remarks from Washington’s British contemporaries about him. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mil...-soil.html/amp

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by egri

There is, along with a handful of other US presidents. The article below also has some interesting remarks from Washington’s British contemporaries about him. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mil...-soil.html/amp

And yet that statue isn't actually on British soil so the point stands.

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Slightly more on topic, do all the forts in the South named after Confederate generals need to be renamed?

May as well be. Honestly, I never even thought this was a controversy until people from both sides started arguing about it.

I’d actually be surprised if any every day person could even name three of the bases in question. People in the military (then and now) would know the names but likely no idea who the people even are.

Looking into it a bit, once these guys became Generals they weren’t even very good at the job. Never mind who they fought for, they just weren’t good and there are far better and more successful Generals out there that they could be named for.

If they do end up changing names, I suggest Audie Murphy (not a General) for one. If they change the name of Ft Bragg, I suggest MG Scoltes, the first CDR of JSOC, as Ft Bragg is the home of special operations forces.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BCauley

May as well be. Honestly, I never even thought this was a controversy until people from both sides started arguing about it.

I’d actually be surprised if any every day person could even name three of the bases in question. People in the military (then and now) would know the names but likely no idea who the people even are.

Looking into it a bit, once these guys became Generals they weren’t even very good at the job. Never mind who they fought for, they just weren’t good and there are far better and more successful Generals out there that they could be named for.

If they do end up changing names, I suggest Audie Murphy (not a General) for one. If they change the name of Ft Bragg, I suggest MG Scoltes, the first CDR of JSOC, as Ft Bragg is the home of special operations forces.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can we make those changes without an inquisition into THOSE people's lives? What if they made a racist remark somewhere along the way? Or was an abusive husband or father, that behavior is as bad as racism no?

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Can we make those changes without an inquisition into THOSE people's lives? What if they made a racist remark somewhere along the way?

I’m assuming by “those” you’re talking about the people who the bases are named after?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BCauley

I’m assuming by “those” you’re talking about the people who the bases are named after?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No I mean the ones you would change the names to. No point removing a name if the new one did something inappropriate too.

Guess what, we aren't terribly likely to find anyone free of sin. So maybe we shouldn't name anything after anyone. Be like New York, PS 129. Fort 33. Oak City. Tear down EVERY statue except horses.

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

No I mean the ones you would change the names to. No point removing a name if the new one did something inappropriate too.

Guess what, we aren't terribly likely to find anyone free of sin. So maybe we shouldn't name anything after anyone. Be like New York, PS 129. Fort 33. Oak City. Tear down EVERY statue except horses.

So which is it? People that said something or someone that did something?

They (currently names Generals) rebelled against their country. Why should they have an entire base named after them?

Do you even know anything about the two people I mentioned and how it might make sense? Do you even know anything about the people who the bases are currently named after?

I’ll wait while you Google who they are and respond.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by bigtrain

One guy is a murderer, one is not. What is so difficult to understand about that? Name calling that is devoid of logic does not win arguments

The only thing that will stop the cancel culture from continuing to mow down traditions in this country will be their hypocrisy, when they give certain people who have done reprehensible things a pass because of political affiliations. Although in the case of Forrest and Byrd, both were of the same party.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

The only thing that will stop the cancel culture from continuing to mow down traditions in this country will be their hypocrisy, when they give certain people who have done reprehensible things a pass because of political affiliations. Although in the case of Forrest and Byrd, both were of the same party.

I remember first year of law school when minority students were objecting to the tradition of calling on and grilling students as racist and calling for a "no hassle pass."

And now, decades later, we have trainers telling us that people like me are inherently racist because we grew up in a mostly white suburb. Really?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And now, decades later, we have trainers telling us that people like me are inherently racist because we grew up in a mostly white suburb. Really?

Exactly. It is insidious and needs to be confronted. If someone generalized a negative attribute to all people of a particular minority race, we would all agree that is reprehensible, and the very definition of racism. Yet people can look at your skin color, and nothing else, and ascribe all sorts of negativity on you because you happen to be white.

It's the same exact concept, and it is a rotten thing on principle. The way to end racism in this country is to treat everyone with equal respect, until they, as individual people, through their own actions, prove otherwise. But you don't end racism my turning that evil cannon around and firing it at white people, thinking it is somehow evening the score.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Exactly. It is insidious and needs to be confronted. If someone generalized a negative attribute to all people of a particular minority race, we would all agree that is reprehensible, and the very definition of racism. Yet people can look at your skin color, and nothing else, and ascribe all sorts of negativity on you because you happen to be white.

It's the same exact concept, and it is a rotten thing on principle. The way to end racism in this country is to treat everyone with equal respect, until they, as individual people, through their own actions, prove otherwise. But you don't end racism my turning that evil cannon around and firing it at white people, thinking it is somehow evening the score.

It's ridiculous. The one Black kid in our neighborhood was a close and ultimately lifelong friend of my brother, and was a fixture in our house. Nobody could have cared less about his skin color. I say that not in self-congratulation but as illustration.

I live in an extremely liberal town. Our Mayor is always ranting and raving about institutional racism. Ironically, her predecessor, who would have easily been reelected had he run, was Black.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by Mark17

The only thing that will stop the cancel culture from continuing to mow down traditions in this country will be their hypocrisy, when they give certain people who have done reprehensible things a pass because of political affiliations.

It is far worse than you think. Not only will cancel culture mow down traditions, it will also lead to dancing among our children.

[sdimag]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

It is far worse than you think. Not only will cancel culture mow down traditions, it will also lead to dancing among our children.

“Dancing”? Is that what the cancel culture is calling rioting,looting,and burning now?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by sdimag

“Dancing”? Is that what the cancel culture is calling rioting,looting,and burning now?

You would be thinking of CNN's "mostly peaceful protest"

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

You would be thinking of CNN's "mostly peaceful protest"

You must be thinking of the “normal tourist visit” in January 6th that “cancel culture” doesn’t talk about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by BCauley

You must be thinking of the “normal tourist visit” in January 6th that “cancel culture” doesn’t talk about.

The people the bases are named after rebelled against the US. That's what they DID. Why should that be celebrated? Do you celebrate the people who stormed the Capitol on January 6th?

You still haven't answered any of my questions though. Specifically, and now I can't see my comment so it's not word for word, wht should they name a base after them? What did they do to accomplish such an honor since they rebelled against the country? Additionally, should those on the 6th of January be celebrated as well?

"Cancel culture" is the people who stormed the Capitol on January 6th right? To void an election in service to one person who doesn't care about them one way or the other? Just want to make sure I understand what "cancel culture" is on here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Anybody have a guess on the over/under for the duration of this thread?

[sdimag]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

You would be thinking of CNN's "mostly peaceful protest"

That’s the one! A summer of “dancing” in the streets!

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by sdimag

“Dancing”? Is that what the cancel culture is calling rioting,looting,and burning now?

That was a joke, champ, and I figured most people had enough neurons bouncing around inside their melon to catch the implication. Obviously, I was wrong. So, even though it doesn't really belong in this section, I'll try to explain. There are two premises here, but I will only address the one that is actually relevant (IMO) to the name change from Indians to Guardians. Also, these are my general observations. It isn't meant to be one size fits all. I am sure many of you do not fit neatly into the narrative:

1. Cancel culture is just the latest biennial moral panic conjured up by political operatives who needed something new to gin up outrage now that the previous panics have lost their impact.
2. The name change in Cleveland has nothing to do with "cancel culture." It is an artifact of the usual inter-generational changes that cause the olds to get their backs up and the youngs to roll their eyes at grumpy old Papaw.C

I was born in 1965 and I am part of the first Gen X cohort. I spent the first part of my professional career working with Baby Boomers and the second part with Millennials and (now) Gen Z. It's my observation that the younger generations are more comfortable with differences along ethnic, cultural, faith, and sexual orientation lines. With this comfort level comes a desire to use language that acknowledges the difference without resorting to potentially offensive tropes. It is nothing more than matter of being considerate of other people. And, I think we can all agree that being considerate is a good thing.

This isn't to say that Boomers (and my generation) are inherently racist. But we were able to move through our formative years without being confronted with the increasingly multi-cultural nature of America. Having one minority family in your neighborhood or, in my case, your graduating class doesn't mean that you are the living embodiment of MLK Jr "I have a dream" speech. It does mean that you grew up in an environment where you didn't need to think about how to deal with such issues. It also means being more intentional now in how we deal with those issues.

The Cleveland Indians were under no serious threat of going out of business by retaining the Indians name. However, we all also know that baseball is facing a demographic cliff with a rapidly aging fan base that is not being replaced by younger people. As younger generations become more accepting of differences, it is not surprising that various institutions (be they corporate or public sector) change to reflect the zeitgeist. It isn't a matter of caving to the "woke crowd." It is a matter of following the money and creating brand loyalty. Let's just face up to the hard truth: the only industries that consider our market demographic highly desirable are reverse mortgages and catheters-by-mail. So, if you really must be upset about this, you would do better to criticize Cleveland's ownership from engaging in such a obvious, cynical marketing ploy.

And, since every thread needs a card

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

That was a joke, champ, and I figured most people had enough neurons bouncing around inside their melon to catch the implication. Obviously, I was wrong.

I read your comment and thought of the movie Footloose.

Please don’t ruin it for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by BCauley

I read your comment and thought of the movie Footloose.

Please don’t ruin it for me.

Don't read any further then. There be dragons.

[sdimag]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

That was a joke, champ, and I figured most people had enough neurons bouncing around inside their melon to catch the implication. Obviously, I was wrong. So, even though it doesn't really belong in this section, I'll try to explain. There are two premises here, but I will only address the one that is actually relevant (IMO) to the name change from Indians to Guardians. Also, these are my general observations. It isn't meant to be one size fits all. I am sure many of you do not fit neatly into the narrative:

1. Cancel culture is just the latest biennial moral panic conjured up by political operatives who needed something new to gin up outrage now that the previous panics have lost their impact.
2. The name change in Cleveland has nothing to do with "cancel culture." It is an artifact of the usual inter-generational changes that cause the olds to get their backs up and the youngs to roll their eyes at grumpy old Papaw.C

I was born in 1965 and I am part of the first Gen X cohort. I spent the first part of my professional career working with Baby Boomers and the second part with Millennials and (now) Gen Z. It's my observation that the younger generations are more comfortable with differences along ethnic, cultural, faith, and sexual orientation lines. With this comfort level comes a desire to use language that acknowledges the difference without resorting to potentially offensive tropes. It is nothing more than matter of being considerate of other people. And, I think we can all agree that being considerate is a good thing.

This isn't to say that Boomers (and my generation) are inherently racist. But we were able to move through our formative years without being confronted with the increasingly multi-cultural nature of America. Having one minority family in your neighborhood or, in my case, your graduating class doesn't mean that you are the living embodiment of MLK Jr "I have a dream" speech. It does mean that you grew up in an environment where you didn't need to think about how to deal with such issues. It also means being more intentional now in how we deal with those issues.

The Cleveland Indians were under no serious threat of going out of business by retaining the Indians name. However, we all also know that baseball is facing a demographic cliff with a rapidly aging fan base that is not being replaced by younger people. As younger generations become more accepting of differences, it is not surprising that various institutions (be they corporate or public sector) change to reflect the zeitgeist. It isn't a matter of caving to the "woke crowd." It is a matter of following the money and creating brand loyalty. Let's just face up to the hard truth: the only industries that consider our market demographic highly desirable are reverse mortgages and catheters-by-mail. So, if you really must be upset about this, you would do better to criticize Cleveland's ownership from engaging in such a obvious, cynical marketing ploy.

And, since every thread needs a card

I think your neurons are overactive,champ! I don’t think my prior reply to you was an attack on you.But I’ll “play” if you want!

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by sdimag

I think your neurons are overactive,champ! I don’t think my prior reply to you was an attack on you.

I didn't think it was an attack either. I just figured you didn't understand the point I was making and I took the opportunity to develop the idea in a bit more detail.

But I’ll “play” if you want!

Deleted

[gawaintheknight]

+1

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

That was a joke, champ, and I figured most people had enough neurons bouncing around inside their melon to catch the implication. Obviously, I was wrong. So, even though it doesn't really belong in this section, I'll try to explain. There are two premises here, but I will only address the one that is actually relevant (IMO) to the name change from Indians to Guardians. Also, these are my general observations. It isn't meant to be one size fits all. I am sure many of you do not fit neatly into the narrative:

1. Cancel culture is just the latest biennial moral panic conjured up by political operatives who needed something new to gin up outrage now that the previous panics have lost their impact.
2. The name change in Cleveland has nothing to do with "cancel culture." It is an artifact of the usual inter-generational changes that cause the olds to get their backs up and the youngs to roll their eyes at grumpy old Papaw.C

I was born in 1965 and I am part of the first Gen X cohort. I spent the first part of my professional career working with Baby Boomers and the second part with Millennials and (now) Gen Z. It's my observation that the younger generations are more comfortable with differences along ethnic, cultural, faith, and sexual orientation lines. With this comfort level comes a desire to use language that acknowledges the difference without resorting to potentially offensive tropes. It is nothing more than matter of being considerate of other people. And, I think we can all agree that being considerate is a good thing.

This isn't to say that Boomers (and my generation) are inherently racist. But we were able to move through our formative years without being confronted with the increasingly multi-cultural nature of America. Having one minority family in your neighborhood or, in my case, your graduating class doesn't mean that you are the living embodiment of MLK Jr "I have a dream" speech. It does mean that you grew up in an environment where you didn't need to think about how to deal with such issues. It also means being more intentional now in how we deal with those issues.

The Cleveland Indians were under no serious threat of going out of business by retaining the Indians name. However, we all also know that baseball is facing a demographic cliff with a rapidly aging fan base that is not being replaced by younger people. As younger generations become more accepting of differences, it is not surprising that various institutions (be they corporate or public sector) change to reflect the zeitgeist. It isn't a matter of caving to the "woke crowd." It is a matter of following the money and creating brand loyalty. Let's just face up to the hard truth: the only industries that consider our market demographic highly desirable are reverse mortgages and catheters-by-mail. So, if you really must be upset about this, you would do better to criticize Cleveland's ownership from engaging in such a obvious, cynical marketing ploy.

And, since every thread needs a card

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by bigtrain

Name calling that is devoid of logic does not win arguments

Starting your first post to me with, "I am sure that you know that your post is disingenuous BS" does not win arguments either.

[Shoeless Moe]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzGVlMGhKaE