Attention Edmonton Eskimos: Inuit are not mascots

[TOMapleLaughs]

1 minute ago, falcon45ca said:

Not that I disagree, but the burden of proof is on you. You don't have to prove a negative.

I remember when common sense and common knowledge trumped this burden.  This doesn't require proof imho, since it's incredibly obvious, but anyone is free to google about it for their own proof.

 

Frack it, here's some links, because i'm bored.

http://www.sportingnews.com/nhl-news/4646868-chicago-blackhawks-name-logo-redskins-controversy-stanley-cup-final-native-american-mascots

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/02/native-sports-team-mascot-logo_n_8451938.html

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/06/17/why-chicago-blackhawks-logo-okay-washington-redskins-racist-149937

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/06/blackhawks-redskins-name/396356/

 

The backstory to defend the indian head logo is quite fascinating, really.  You see, their excuse is that it 'honours' indians, or a particular indian, so it's a pass.  However, using that excuse, any racist logo and name also gets a pass.  However, if my eyes don't deceive me, that's a freakin' generic painted indian head used to sell sporting goods.  Honouring them or not, that's racist. Esp. considering the fate of the original Black Hawk, anti-american 'noble savage' who was captured and paraded around like a mascot.  And esp. considering all the drunk fat white men wearing feathered headdresses at hawks games on a nightly basis.  

'How is it racist?' he asks.  Please.

So anyway, just how PC are we going to go here people?

[GLASSJAW]

30 minutes ago, TOMapleLaughs said:

The backstory to defend the indian head logo is quite fascinating, really.  You see, their excuse is that it 'honours' indians, or a particular indian, so it's a pass.  However, using that excuse, any racist logo and name also gets a pass.  However, if my eyes don't deceive me, that's a freakin' generic painted indian head used to sell sporting goods.  Honouring them or not, that's racist.

No, using that excuse does not give any racist logo or name a pass. What an unbelievable stretch -- one that is very clearly addressed in the articles YOU posted. "Redskin" is interpreted as a pejorative. The Cleveland Indians logo is a caricature of that pejorative and culture. And Indians are not Indians. Those are the issues with those logos and names.

The Blackhawks logo is NOT a caricature, its creation does not rely on a pejorative. That is the difference.That's the point - it's even mentioned in the articles you linked. You keep bringing up "back story" and vague allusions to appropriation, but I don't get why? I never commented on appropriation, I never commented on history -- you said the IMAGE is racist, and that's what I am questioning you about.

But the impression I'm getting is that the image itself isn't racist at all, but concept appropriation becomes racist when paired with a bunch of other interpretations about culture (i.e. the violence of sport paired with the violence of imperialism = insensitive?). But again, this isn't the image - this is cultural interpretation and the inability for an individual to cope with the conclusion. That SportingNews article where the man says he is "triggered" by crowds of Blackhawk fans because he reads the scene as a "sea of floating dead Indian heads" is not about the image itself - it's about his interpretation of a scene as he understands it in relation to history and who Black Hawk was. Again, this is cultural appropriation tied to the name, the region, and history--not the image itself. Had you said that, I probably wouldn't be talking to you -- trust me, I have very little interest in your views on literally anything. You didn't say that, though. You said THE IMAGE is racist. And it could only be understood as racist by following a Labyrinth of sensitivities that The Atlantic falls to its knees for simply because they exist (ironic, given how this summer The Atlantic also published a series about the "coddling of the American mind" and how culturally damaging it is to bow before The Triggered).

Anyway, you say the image itself is racist, I guess, because the logo is not an accurate portrait of Black Hawk himself? Because it's a "generic painted Indian"? So any depiction of a Native American who is not clearly identified as a specific individual is a racist depiction? Any generic depiction of any individual is racist if somebody simply says it is? These are rhetorical questions, I really do not care about your response or views on the matter. To me, this is verging on censorship and cultural fascism -- or Islam. In the 80s, bands like Reagan Youth, Joy Division, etc. were allowed to exist because people were able to understand the implications of the band name -- and if they couldn't and cried Triggered, anti-fascists would be quick to put them in their place. But now leftism IS fascist.

What a shame.

 

 

[TOMapleLaughs]

1 minute ago, GLASSJAW said:

No, using that excuse does not give any racist logo or name a pass. What an unbelievable stretch -- one that is very clearly addressed in the articles YOU posted. "Redskin" is interpreted as a pejorative. The Cleveland Indians logo is a caricature of that pejorative and culture. And Indians are not Indians. Those are the issues with those logos and names.

The Blackhawks logo is NOT a caricature, its creation does not rely on a pejorative. That is the difference.That's the point - it's even mentioned in the articles you linked. You keep bringing up "back story" and vague allusions to appropriation, but I don't get why? I never commented on appropriation, I never commented on history -- you said the IMAGE is racist, and that's what I am questioning you about.

But the impression I'm getting is that the image itself isn't racist at all, but concept appropriation becomes racist when paired with a bunch of other interpretations about culture (i.e. the violence of sport paired with the violence of imperialism = insensitive?). But again, this isn't the image - this is cultural interpretation and the inability for an individual to cope with the conclusion. That SportingNews article where the man says he is "triggered" by crowds of Blackhawk fans because he reads the scene as a "sea of floating dead Indian heads" is not about the image itself - it's about his interpretation of a scene as he understands it in relation to history and who Black Hawk was. Again, this is cultural appropriation tied to the name, the region, and history--not the image itself. Had you said that, I probably wouldn't be talking to you -- trust me, I have very little interest in your views on literally anything. You didn't say that, though. You said THE IMAGE is racist. And it could only be understood as racist by following a Labyrinth of sensitivities that The Atlantic falls to its knees for simply because they exist (ironic, given how this summer The Atlantic also published a series about the "coddling of the American mind" and how culturally damaging it is to bow before The Triggered).

Anyway, you say the image itself is racist, I guess, because the logo is not an accurate portrait of Black Hawk himself? Because it's a "generic painted Indian"? So any depiction of a Native American who is not clearly identified as a specific individual is a racist depiction? Any generic depiction of any individual is racist if somebody simply says it is? These are rhetorical questions, I really do not care about your response or views on the matter. To me, this is verging on censorship and cultural fascism -- or Islam. In the 80s, bands like Reagan Youth, Joy Division, etc. were allowed to exist because people were able to understand the implications of the band name -- and if they couldn't and cried Triggered, anti-fascists would be quick to put them in their place. But now leftism IS fascist.

What a shame.

 

 

One of the articles went on to say that the original Black Hawk was indeed turned into a caricature and paraded around like a mascot.  In that light, celebrating that is even more racist than the term redskin or indian as the racism in question is very specific, was put into effect, and is not generalized.

Frankly, people can defend this logo/name and burn the next.  There isn't a consensus on what's actually the PC norm at this point.  But clearly there is an ongoing debate, and it's stems from personal preference, usually.

I don't really care what you think about it either.  And here we are.

[GLASSJAW]

3 minutes ago, TOMapleLaughs said:

One of the articles went on to say that the original Black Hawk was indeed turned into a caricature and paraded around like a mascot.  In that light, celebrating that is even more racist than the term redskin or indian as the racism in question is very specific, was put into effect, and is not generalized.

what does this have to do with literally anything I have said or took exception to in your saying?

I give up.

[TOMapleLaughs]

Just now, GLASSJAW said:

what does this have to do with literally anything I have said or took exception to in your saying?

I give up.

I took it that you missed it as a valid point, so it was emphasized.  But if you don't think it's racist, there's an argument for it.  I believe it clearly is, and there's an argument for that.  Looks like we're not changing the other's mind here.  Who cares.  Cheers.