#Athletics at #Indians: Weeks 2b, Crisp cf, Matsui dh, Willingham lf, Allen 1b, Jackson rf, Suzuki c, Pennington ss, Sizemore 3b
— Susan Slusser (@susanslusser) August 29, 2011
… and now there’s a game to play 130
130 thoughts on “… and now there’s a game to play”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I think for this series I’m going to align with DFA
Plus, it lets you rock the Chief Wahoo hat while choosing not to dwell on its racist hideousness.
As long as the Redskins exist they’re first in line for that stuff. After that we can move down the food chain to Indians.
I think Wahoo is worse than “Redskins,” but it’s a close race.
Also, Indians have apparently been doing a gradual, informal phaseout of Wahoo. Can’t exactly do that with a franchise name.
Sure they can. They have a “Let’s go Tribe” chant (or did 6 or 7 years ago) they can start phasing into changing the name from Indians to Tribe.
That would make things better for them about 0%.
I have 0% understanding what that link has to do with using a generically simple name like “Tribe” that doesn’t use any Native American associative imagery.
My point is that no matter how much you try to be respectful using any group of Indians as a mascot (and no one tries harder than the Seminoles) you’re going to continue to be called racist.
Generally I think this means all teams using minorities as mascots should be willing to switch if prompted (which I think exempts only ND) because it’s their identity not yours, but in the specific case of being “the Tribe” instead of “the Indians” I don’t think you’ve moved the ball very far.
…and the only reason ND’s isn’t offensive is because we’ve gotten over being racist (no, it’s not racist, is it? well, whatever it is to hate Irish) against the Irish.
Cue batgirl and her LSJUMB stories.
heh. The nun game was while I was a student.
Because I don’t think that Irish people dislike it.
Not currently, but they almost certainly did not appreciate it at the time.
To be honest, I guess most Irish don’t have a clue what ND is
I bet that’s not as true as you think. Supposedly Notre Dame football games draw big pub crowds in Ireland.
That’s because there are so many Americans over there. Real Irish are in the other pubs watching rugby or hurling
You think? Hasn’t it always been an Irish-Catholic school?
It’s always been Catholic, certainly. And through our lifetimes, the Irish-Americans venerate our lady, though that may very well be revisionist history.
That *cannot* be the criteria for determining if something is racist/offensive, starting with the obvious that all people of the same group don’t hold the same opinion.
lies… everyone knows all racial/political/national/comedic/baseball groups think alike.
“People are offended by it” can’t be the criteria for something being offensive. Wow.
I think “in poor taste”, “offensive”, & “racist” are the most poorly assigned and understood words there. Far too often things that are just in poor taste are pushed as offensive and/or racist when all they are is just that “in poor taste”. Most things that are deemed “racist” don’t even portray the group in a hateful nor superior way and are merely offensive at best. But oh boy, if you do something others don’t like, you’re a racist bastard.
I agree with this 100%
Thanks, and go As.
So your basically saying that if there were a team called the Negros with a mascot that threw a watermelon that wouldn’t be racist just in poor taste? Because that’s essentially what they are doing with these mascots.
Depends on the reason and intent behind naming it that and doing that. But I’d say that would be offensive, but not necessarily racist. Something doesn’t have to be racist (or offensive for that matter) for you not to do something. But assigning hatred and superiority to doing what you suggest isn’t accurate.
Well at least you are being consistent, even if its consistently being an ass. I have no idea how you wouldn’t consider that to be racist.
uh huh. I don’t see where you get that, but whatever. You understand that I’m in no way condoning it’s use, right? I’m just acknowledging that there’s a line between an attempt to be both hateful and lower one race in preference of another that needs to exist for something to be racist. Without it, you’re just being offensive and/or completely and utterly misguided. And in either case, someone should probably smack you upside the head, point out the error and have you change it.
I don’t see what work you think that’s doing. If you define racist as “demeaning people based on their identities” then it is. If you define it as “acting to injure people based on their identity” then it isn’t, but it’s no less wrong.
I think this conversation (** link) is what solidified my opinion.
I think they’re more or less one and the same. But I still stand by what I said. I have no problem with someone getting up and arms about the misappropriation of a cultural identity. (I personally think people are generally way too sensitive when it comes to these things, but I understand it). But to call anything that represents an image of yourself that you don’t like to be racist is far from accurate. And the same is true for “things we can say about ourselves but others can’t” bullshit.
Now, that does NOT mean it’s okay to do. By no means. If something is in poor taste, that doesn’t mean “hey, we can do it.” If something is offensive, that doesn’t mean you should do it. In fact, if it’s in poor taste or offensive, it stands to reason that you probably shouldn’t do it, particularly while trying to represent a team like the Indians/Braves, etc.
Nor does it mean that if you’re part of the group that’s being offended or poorly represented that you shouldn’t speak up and try to change things. If it means that much to you, you absolutely have that right. You absolutely should speak up. And in some cases you should be load and vocal. But that does not mean that just because you’re being misrepresented that it’s racist.
Fair enough, I guess. My semantic-argument sensors are tingling, though, because I don’t particularly care whether you call it racist or offensive or tasteless.
Nor should you. What it is is something that needs to be changed. There are easy routes for a team like the Indians to change their name. Less easy for others and while those changes don’t need to happen over night, they should change. I’m in full agreement with those argument. The semantic argument I was making was in no way an attempt to justify it’s continued use, there is no argument for that. Chief Wahoo, whether racist, offensive or just tasteless, needs to go.
I either forgot about that one or never read it in the first place. I love how some characters reappear in their brightest colors. Shippee33 dude is just such an idiot and I loved 74mk’s answer:
It’s sad that he never did report on his findings.
No, he never did. But he reappeared many times, trying to convince the people over there he just fought with, that they should vote for him in the upcoming election nevertheless
Dude will forever be the undisputed king of numbered lists. Too bad he didn’t stay active here.
OK, re-reading it that was a pretty dumb thing to say. You can strike “offensive” and retain the rest of the statement.
Obviously people don’t all agree (see, e.g., the Seminoles). But I think if there’s meaningful opposition on something like this you change your effing mascot.
The Redskins certainly face that. The Indians and the Braves too, I think. As far as I know, ND does not.
Boom. Workable standard.
But where do you draw the line between meaningful and not?
I’m seriously asking, because I don’t get offended (unless you disrespect the A’s), so it’s not clear to me at all how you get a workable standard.
I think the workable standard is if a meaningful opposition from that group to something’s use exists asking you to make a change and you don’t find a meaningful support from that same group to that use, then you should fucking change it. If you find a balance between support and opposition, you should kind of probably make should sort of change or tweak. If you find a vocal minority (of the group) bitching while getting much greater support from the group, tell that vocal minority to shut the fuck up. (That is in no way supporting the notion that if a group is too small, like the Native American community as a whole in comparison to the rest of the country, that you could tell them to STFU if they’re majoritally telling you to stop).
Basically this. If it’s the guy trying to get me to sue Obama on life-mission #23415 then you ignore him. If it’s the NAACP, you get in line. If you’re Florida State, it’s much trickier.
I can’t wait for the Rockies to finally open up about it’s displeasure about a team trying to misrepresent them like those Colorado people.
If “the Tribe” is racist then I don’t think people have any real understanding of what racism actually is and we have bigger issues then a team name. “Tribe” can connect to any race including non-home-sapiens. As long as they avoid native american imagery, there’s a whole world of connections that could be made with such a generic name. Hell, they could use cave men for “Tribe” and if people get up in arms about it, fuck them.
Help me out here, everyone.
What is it that makes the name “Indians” racist? (Please note that I am not arguing that it’s not, just trying to understand better).
1. Is the word “Indians” insulting in itself? (apart from being an obvious geographic misnomer). Is it something that is used in a derogative manner? If so, would Cleveland Native Americans be OK?
2. Is it because of the way they were treated? So, is it in bad taste to more less wipe out a certain population and then use their name?
3. Is any mention of race in the name considered to be racist? Would “Albuquerque Hispanics” sound equally racist?
4. Is it the fact that the race used in the name has nothing to do with the race of people who founded the team?
5. How about nations? Is there a parallel that using nations in sports names is nationalist? Are “Fighting Irish” an example of that?
A mascot is a caricature, pretty much by definition, exaggerating stereotypes to appeal to a common denominator. Whether those stereotypes are positive (strong warrior, noble tribal identity, etc.) or negative (Chief Wahoo, Redskins) is really only a matter of degree…either way, the mascot has currency only because it plays to an audience’s preconceptions of an entire ethnic group. That pretty much none of the audience are members of that group reduces it to a paternalist (at best) or racist (at worst) caricature, bestowed upon a genocidally devastated minority by its conquerors.
I get the mascot part, I was wondering about the name itself. What if the mascot had nothing to do with the name, would the name itself still be considered racist?
What things are called is what they are; I use “mascots” to mean the team name, because that is what team names are…Cubs, Giants, Indians, Athletics. Well, maybe not Athletics.
Some argue that the use of language is in fact one of the most insidious forms of oppression that there is, precisely because language is pernicious, and so easy to just laugh off as “just a name.” I’ll now put away the Liberal Correctness 101 textbook for the night.
Personally I don’t really think any of it is really racist at all. Inappropriate, absolutely, but not racist. It’s hard to call something you name and cheer on racist when it’s not an attempt to demean or show hatred towards that group so much as celebrate it. You sure as hell wouldn’t name it after something you disliked or hated. That being said, how they (and fans) go about cheering that team on can be quite distasteful and inappropriate which means you should be careful about the choice of name and how (as the franchise) you encourage your fans to cheer for it. Keeping Chief Wahoo around, for instance, is a pretty bad idea. Using an accurate Native American motif, less so. Using a generic, non-connective to Native Americans or their geographic/cultural misnomers as a motif, not a problem at all.
On a side note, it would be incredibly funny (in a potentially bad way) if the Indians came up with an new mascot based on India’s heritage.
In a corollary to elcroata’s question, I’ve never quite understood why we refer to “Indian Gaming” rather than “Native American Gaming”. It suggests to me the term “Indian” must not be that inherently offensive. I could just be tone-deaf, though.
Because Good Liberals are likelier to be degenerate sports book gamblers than they are to be degenerate card/slots gamblers.
Also, because if they’re getting most/all of the action, the Tribal Councils don’t care what you call ’em.
The term Indian is how most Native Americans refer to themselves. TSo I’d agree it’s not inherently wrong per se, but the use of the name for sports teams probably is.
I think it’s pretty simple: if you want to use a group of people as your mascot you need them on board.
If it’s a dramatically underprivileged minority who actively objects to your usage, you pick a new mascot.
So “Bitches” would be ok?
As long as a large sample of talking dogs agree, then yes.
Bark once for yes…
Alternatively you can kill them all off then use their name as an honorarium.
But then nevermoor would name a baseball team “The Republicans.”
And you would name a baseball team “The Asses” and I think we’d all be okay with that. :)
If I ran a team with that name I would definitely let FUUUUUUUUUU be the closer.
Picking a mascot: so easy, a caveman could do it /geico.
I, for one, have no issue with the Girl Scouts calling their younger-age program Brownies.
…but we do have a problem with you illegally transporting Caucasian babies.
What’s blue and comes in brownies?
psylocibin mushrooms, of course!
cub scouts?
I was gonna say smurfs. Yours makes more sense.
I remember this from 5th grade…How did the cub scout become a boy scout? He ate a Brownie.
LET’S GO CRACKERS! *CLAP CLAP CLAPCLAPCLAP*
It’s sad that people don’t want to root for the white guy. So sad…
WHO LIKES WHITE PEOPLE?
borderline racist really :-P
No, “wetback” is borderline racist.
thats terribly well played.
did you like when Atlanta did Negro leagues throw backs and chose to wear the road uniforms at home that said “Atlanta” instead of the Home uniforms that said “Crackers”
dude that would have been so awesome.
it would have been, but the- ahem – braves were too afraid of looking like racists.
I find their unwillingness to use “Crackers” incredibly racist and demeaning to white people. It’s saying “Fuck you. You people aren’t good enough to be on our jersey.”
I still think the Brooklyn Cyclones’ “Zyklon B” uniforms for Jewish Heritage Night set the standard.
You know who else liked uniforms and sporting events?
Mr. Hilter?
Worse yet was the tagline for the evening: “Bring the whole family – it’ll be a gas!”
And you have to question their strategy of simultaneously promoting their Taiwanese and Korean pitchers by asking the crowd to “Cheer for your yellow stars.”
sponsored by e-bay
Agreed, “Redskins” is so grotesquely beyond the pale (ahem) that it’s worse than Chief Wahoo. But even though Sarah Palin is less crazy than Michele Bachmann, I’m not tomahawk chopping for either one of ’em.
Chief Noc-A-Homa and his tepee disappeared but were replaced by the “Tomahawk Chop” which is many times more obnoxious.
I knew noc a homa was racist when I was 8. I think chief wahoo took me longer because he is a cartoon
As far as names go, though, Noc a Homa is quite good.
its true
….and painfully racist [hangs head in shame]
It sounds like something Crisp would say
it does, kind of.
It does not sound like something Crisp would do, however.
pop up a bunta
Something Koko Kissinger would do: prop up a junta
For a more peaceful union?
And because if the Indians somehow made the WS we’d be going.
I think the people who made the ad for the Cal FSU game confused “historic” and “old and run down”.
Ah, memories of the battle the “preservationists” in Oakland fought to save the Montgomery Ward building near the Fruitvale BART station.
A classic example of four walls and a roof construction…
you just don’t see that anymore
poor Montgomery Wards. No love from any corner.
The MW where I grew up shut down, lay abandoned for years, and is now a Kohl’s.
that’s okay. I just wonder what happened where I grew up. I envision a lot of old, abandoned empty buildings in the greater South Bend metropolitan area…
John King has been diligently demolishing the arguments in favor of saving the North Beach Library building. Those North Beachers are an especially noxious breed.
I know the A’s are short on outfielders for 2012, but they wouldn’t consider offering Conor Jackson arbitration. Or would they?
I wasn’t surprised that they did last year, but would be very surprised if they did so again.
Indians announcers cracking me up. Talking about how the ball doesn’t carry at the Coliseum, and how they saw it first-hand when they were in Oakland earlier in the season.
A: “We had a night game and then a day game, and the difference was…. well, can you say it was night and day?”
B: “Well, you COULD say that..”
A: “I guess, but that’d be ridiculous. Let’s just say there was a big difference.”
Yeah, I probably would have been fined for that one too.
At least with the Indians it doesn’t take effing 4 hours to lose a game.
thank Buddha.
If we were playing the Buddhists rather than the Indians, it would be more like a test match than a baseball game.
We’d be in about the nineteenth inning of yesterday’s game right now, after all the chanting breaks and all…
The A’s offer a nightly solution to the one-hand-clapping koan.
ddvd
oaklandanism
No,
No,
Better.
Isn’t this the 2nd time Huff has pitched lights out against the A’s?
He lost a 2-1 game (6IP, 7H, 2BB, 3K, 2ER) in 2009, but that’s the only other time he’s faced the A’s.
do you have some sort of DB (not based on this answer alone, but I seem to remember you analyzing various streaks, too)
I have a baseball reference subscription, which allows some of the more complex queries, but this one was from yahoo, where they list a pitcher’s career record against the opponent.
Grover must be thinking about the time Aubrey Huff, making an emergency start after Lincecum was deemed to high to pitch, took a no-hitter into the eighth against us.
When Braden broke it up with the IPHR
Too high to pitch? No veteran stoner like Lincecum would ever have that problem.
/Dock Ellis
IIRC, when Dock Ellis was too fucked up to pitch, it was from painkillers or heroin or the aftermath of a coke binge, not merely one too many bong rips.
I mean, if ACID wasn’t enough to make him too fucked up to pitch, I just don’t see anything less than maybe spending an hour smoking an eighth to his dome incapacitating him.
I know. I’m supporting your point.