Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm Posts: 20537 Location: The City Of Trees
<sarcasm>
Well, let's just try to shoot down every mascot in the NFL:
PETA has already been mad at the Packers (1) for glorifying an industry that participates in the murder of animals. But why stop there? I'm sure that any animal is mis-represented by a group of macho men.
So, there goes the Bills, Dolphins, Ravens, Bengals, Colts, Jaguars, Broncos, Eagles, Lions, Bears, Falcons, Panthers, Rams, Cardinals and Seahawks. (16)
The Redskins (17) and Chiefs (18 ) have already been mentioned.
Clearly the Vikings (19) glorify a group of quite murderous individuals. But there are plenty of other violent groups glorified as well: the Cowboys (20), the Patriots (21), and if you count the Crusades, the Saints (22). Of course, the most bloodthirsty of them all are the Buccaneers (23) and Raiders (24).
The Raiders are also bad to glorify because of their gang affiliation. But let's not forget the Jets (25), made famous as a gang from West Side Story.
We also have those groups that rape the environment: the Steelers (26), the 49ers (27), and in the old days, the Oilers. Hell, even the Chargers (28 ) encourage a waste of electricity.
I'm sure those who were born abnormally large are offended by the Titans (29) and Giants (30) making light of their condition.
Finally, aren't the Texans (31) just plain offensive to begin with, first electing Dubya and all?
So, should we all be Cleveland Browns fans? Or is naming a team after one human being still demeaning to him?
_________________ cirlces they grow and they swallow people whole half their lives they say goodnight to wives they'll never know got a mind full of questions and a teacher in my soul and so it goes
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
genxgirl wrote:
The Boston Massachusettsians
How do you pronounce that?
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
Green Habit wrote:
So, should we all be Cleveland Browns fans? Or is naming a team after one human being still demeaning to him?
Jim Brown should be offended b/c of their performance.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
and I thought "massachusetts" was a hard word to say...
you should hear Boston's mayor try to say it...we call him "mumbles menino"...
_________________ cirlces they grow and they swallow people whole half their lives they say goodnight to wives they'll never know got a mind full of questions and a teacher in my soul and so it goes
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:50 pm Posts: 3955 Location: Leaving Here
just_b wrote:
cltaylor12 wrote:
I fail to understand why ANY of these is offensive to anyone at all, its a mascot. Its intended as a term of endearment, not an insult, to name yourself after something. A mascot name is intended to be symbolic of qualities such as strength, pride, unity, etc. I've always failed to understand "the big deal". Its not like anyone is calling themselves "The San Andreas Nazis" or "The Mohave Fudge Packers" or "The Crystal Springs Communists" or something. People really need to get a grip and keep the word in perspective sometimes. "Redmen" I can see as being borderline, or "Yellow Men" or things like that, but even so, any school or organization can choose to change the name of any mascot at any time. All the schools I ever attended had mascots that were animals, except my high school which were the "Dons" (Spanish "gentlemen"), which blew as a mascot because you were "just a guy" in a spanish style outfit. Not much fun really, being "the Dons".
Braves, Redskins, Indians, Chiefs ... these names were chosen because Native Americans are seen as might warriors, savage killers, and relentless fighters. Most Native Americans don't see themselves as that. They see themselves as a peaceful people, in tune with the Earth, and makers of a harmonious society. They're seen as warriors because Americans wanted to justify the slaughter of their people. They needed to be seen as savages or animals so that we were not bad people for killing them and pushing them off of their land. So these mascots were chosen for a stereotype that was purposefully laid onto Native Americans for the purpose of candy coating their genocide. And it was done, for little other reason than for our entertainment during sporting events.
I think it was more simple than that, I suspect they were choses as symbols of "strength". Nevertheless, if I were Native American, I would not only not be offended, but I would find something more constructive to do with my time than give a shit what the NFL does with theres. I don't think anyone with an ounce of common sense believe Native Americans to be inherently brutal, nor do I believe that any fan of football or baseball or any other sport makes a derogitory association with the mascot of their team and a class or race of people. Perhaps I'm mistaken. I'm 100% Sicilian, should I be complaining about the stereotypes shows on The Sopranos for entertainment purposes? I think not. I have better things to do with my time and I know who I am as a person, and that's good enough for me. Its what we teach our children that is important, how to have common sense and recognize the difference between actual hostility and what to do about that, and how to be tolerant. Nit picking about mascots is a rat-hole, in my humble opinion. As long as these teams keep selling tickets and clothing and hats, etc., the names aren't going to change. If people stop buying, and say why, then perhaps something will change. Anyone here who sits and watches the NHL, NBA, NFL, Baseball, or anything else, but in the same breath has issue with a mascot, is a hypocrite. No, I didn't just call you one, I'm expressing an opinion only. I could be wrong.
Last edited by cltaylor12 on Thu Feb 10, 2005 1:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:50 pm Posts: 3955 Location: Leaving Here
jimmac24 wrote:
If there is a team out there somewhere called the "Niggers" I would say that is the most offensive.
I think most reasonable people would agree with that, recognizing that socially the term is still considered derogatory and/or insulting. So here is the question, that I'm surprised no one who likes to play devil's advocate for the sake of argument posted this, but here goes (and in advance, no, of course I know this is a stupid question):
"HYPOTHETICALLY, What if a team owned by all black owners, containing all black players, all of whom agreed to use this term, got approval from the governing body of a professional league, or even a little league, and decided to do so? Would that still be offensive?"
I think the obvious answer is "yes". But, perhaps someone here has a different view..... slippery slope? (rhetorical)
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:50 pm Posts: 3955 Location: Leaving Here
just_b wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
So, should we all be Cleveland Browns fans? Or is naming a team after one human being still demeaning to him?
Jim Brown should be offended b/c of their performance.
Snoop Dogg offends me more than any mascot, representatively. I'm not even sure how to explain what that means, he just insults what tiny little intelligence I actually have.
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 3:26 am Posts: 7994 Location: Philadelphia
cltaylor12 wrote:
jimmac24 wrote:
If there is a team out there somewhere called the "Niggers" I would say that is the most offensive.
I think most reasonable people would agree with that, recognizing that socially the term is still considered derogatory and/or insulting. So here is the question, that I'm surprised no one who likes to play devil's advocate for the sake of argument posted this, but here goes (and in advance, no, of course I know this is a stupid question):
"HYPOTHETICALLY, What if a team owned by all black owners, containing all black players, all of whom agreed to use this term, got approval from the governing body of a professional league, or even a little league, and decided to do so? Would that still be offensive?"
I think the obvious answer is "yes". But, perhaps someone here has a different view..... slippery slope? (rhetorical)
c-
I think it would be better if it were all black owners with all white players
_________________ Something tells me that the first mousetrap wasn't designed to catch mice at all, but to protect little cheese "gems" from burglars.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
cltaylor12 wrote:
I think it was more simple than that, I suspect they were choses as symbols of "strength".
Symbol of Strength
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
