MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: wadesworld on October 24, 2016, 11:10:53 AM
-
No kidding. You asked about the logo though. The nickname is fine.
The logo depicts the nickname. So I guess I don't see where the difference between the Indian's Chief Wahoo and the Fighting Irish's leprechaun is. Both are inaccurate depictions of a group of people.
This:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-r6dKet5g-b4/T7q3slH-tVI/AAAAAAAAAVQ/SDmHl-LZz_c/s1600/logo-notre-dame.gif)
to depict an Irish person is just as inaccurate of a representation as this:
(http://www.logodesignlove.com/images/sports/chief-wahoo-logo-02.jpg)
is to depict an Indian person.
If Notre Dame was the "Fighting Leprechauns" then sure, accurate representation of some mythical being. But their nickname is the Fighting Irish.
I'm not even trying to argue just to argue. I genuinely don't see the difference between what Notre Dame does with their "Irish" logo and what Cleveland does with their "Indians" logo. Both use caricatures that inaccurately depict a large group of human beings. If one is racist, why is the other not?
-
The ND logo is a drawing of a leprechaun. It isn't meant to be a depiction of an actual human being who is Irish but something mythical.
The Cleveland logo is meant to be a depiction of an actual Native American. And because of that, it is insulting. And the Indians even acknowledged that earlier this year.
http://www.upi.com/Sports_News/2016/04/03/Cleveland-Indians-move-away-from-Chief-Wahoo-logo/8481459657070/
However they haven't eliminated it. And that really is a shame.
Furthermore, Irish Americans don't seem to have a problem with the ND logo. Native Americans have a problem with Chief Wahoo. That alone should indicate that one is a problem, and the other isn't.
-
Well, we can start with the fact Irish isn't a race.
Then we can go the fact that Notre Dame's mascot is not, and never was, intended to depict a person of Irish descent, but rather a fictional character of Irish lore.
And finally, we can conclude with the fact caricatures of native peoples were historically used in this country to justify and encourage something arguably close to genocide. And while there was a brief period of time where Irish immigrants faced discrimination in the U.S., it's hardly comparable. Unless I missed out on the mass murders and forced relocations of my Irish ancestors.
-
They're not even from India!
-
Well, we can start with the fact Irish isn't a race.
Then we can go the fact that Notre Dame's mascot is not, and never was, intended to depict a person of Irish descent, but rather a fictional character of Irish lore.
And finally, we can conclude with the fact caricatures of native peoples were historically used in this country to justify and encourage something arguably close to genocide. And while there was a brief period of time where Irish immigrants faced discrimination in the U.S., it's hardly comparable. Unless I missed out on the mass murders and forced relocations of my Irish ancestors.
So if something offensive or derogatory is coming from a group of people that have been oppressed then it's not racist? If an African-American person calls a Caucasian a "Cracker" (or whatever derogatory term you want to choose) it's not a racist remark because of the history of slavery in this country? I don't buy that, but some may I guess.
-
So if something offensive or derogatory is coming from a group of people that have been oppressed then it's not racist? If an African-American person calls a Caucasian a "Cracker" (or whatever derogatory term you want to choose) it's not a racist remark because of the history of slavery in this country? I don't buy that, but some may I guess.
He didn't say that.
-
So if something offensive or derogatory is coming from a group of people that have been oppressed then it's not racist? If an African-American person calls a Caucasian a "Cracker" (or whatever derogatory term you want to choose) it's not a racist remark because of the history of slavery in this country? I don't buy that, but some may I guess.
Uhhh, no, that's nowhere close to what I wrote.
-
The inaccurate and unflattering portrayals of leprechauns must stop immediately!!!
-
He didn't say that.
Uhhh, no, that's nowhere close to what I wrote.
Then why include, "And while there was a brief period of time where Irish immigrants faced discrimination in the U.S., it's hardly comparable. Unless I missed out on the mass murders and forced relocations of my Irish ancestors?" If the oppression of one group of people over another has nothing to do with whether or not something can be racist against the less oppressed group of people, why even include it in the discussion?
-
The inaccurate and unflattering portrayals of leprechauns must stop immediately!!!
I must be confused. Notre Dame changed their nickname to the Fighting Leprechauns now? Huh, must've been all the uproar over the inaccurate caricature drawing of the Irish that forced this change. Good for them. No need to be so racist with the logo.
-
Well, we can start with the fact Irish isn't a race.
Then we can go the fact that Notre Dame's mascot is not, and never was, intended to depict a person of Irish descent, but rather a fictional character of Irish lore.
And finally, we can conclude with the fact caricatures of native peoples were historically used in this country to justify and encourage something arguably close to genocide. And while there was a brief period of time where Irish immigrants faced discrimination in the U.S., it's hardly comparable. Unless I missed out on the mass murders and forced relocations of my Irish ancestors.
In America or in general? Because if you're unaware of mass murders and forced relocations of irish ancestors then yes you do need to brush up on your Irish history.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CVk28nTXIAASpx4.png)
-
I must be confused. Notre Dame changed their nickname to the Fighting Leprechauns now? Huh, must've been all the uproar over the inaccurate caricature drawing of the Irish that forced this change. Good for them. No need to be so racist with the logo.
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/30/30550314f044d524962bfa95df8d92716d1b0fe65ee74f20c49e3cc5d086b972.jpg)
-
Then why include, "And while there was a brief period of time where Irish immigrants faced discrimination in the U.S., it's hardly comparable. Unless I missed out on the mass murders and forced relocations of my Irish ancestors?" If the oppression of one group of people over another has nothing to do with whether or not something can be racist against the less oppressed group of people, why even include it in the discussion?
Because in pointing out the way such caricatures were used to justify the oppression of native people, I was anticipating the argument about discrimination against Irish immigrants, and preemptively pointing out how the circumstances were not comparable.
In your haste, you somehow took that to mean I was suggesting racism by some groups is acceptable. You were very wrong.
-
In America or in general? Because if you're unaware of mass murders and forced relocations of irish ancestors then yes you do need to brush up on your Irish history.
Read the full paragraph, maybe.
-
Hate that stupid mascot, dislike the copious amounts of 4th 5th or 6th plus generation Irish americans who worship ND just because they're the fighting Irish. They're about as Irish as we were native american when we were the warriors.
-
Read the full paragraph, maybe.
Touche'
-
I must be confused. Notre Dame changed their nickname to the Fighting Leprechauns now? Huh, must've been all the uproar over the inaccurate caricature drawing of the Irish that forced this change. Good for them. No need to be so racist with the logo.
One more time.
We aren't discussing the nicknames. We are discussing the logos.
"Fighting Irish" is a nickname. The logo is a leprechaun. It isn't a human being with Irish stereotypes. It is a mythical creature.
"Indians" is a nickname. The logo IS a picture of a human being with Native American stereotypes.
If you can't tell the fundamental difference between the two, you are being intentionally obtuse.
-
I must be confused. Notre Dame changed their nickname to the Fighting Leprechauns now? Huh, must've been all the uproar over the inaccurate caricature drawing of the Irish that forced this change. Good for them. No need to be so racist with the logo.
You do realize, of course, that a mascot and a nickname aren't always synonymous.
Like, Georgtown's bulldog isn't really a Hoya. And UNC's ram mascot isn't really a Tarheel.
And Notre Dame's leprechaun isn't really an Irish human being.
-
And finally, we can conclude with the fact caricatures of native peoples were historically used in this country to justify and encourage something arguably close to genocide.
I have heard this argument often but I am unfamiliar with examples or studies on it. I will admit I am naive on this and I really am looking for examples to better educate myself.
Chief Wahoo (who really isn't a chief in the first place) looks like a silly cartoon to me. But I am only a trace amount Native American so I am far from an authority to make a definitive statement about it not being racist.
The name "Chief Wahoo" is pretty cringe worthy and I'd say outright demeaning. So I can agree with calling that racist. But on the other hand, the name "Chief Wahoo" came from Cleveland pop culture and not from baseball team directly. Chief Wahoo was a cartoon character that appeared on the front page of a newspaper depicting the result of the previous day's game. Though since the character appeared physically beaten after a loss, I see that tie as another pointing in the negative direction.
I don't think the logo honors any people in any way. At best it is a silly cartoon. I need a little bit more self education to call it racist but I can understand why people find the logo offensive.
-
I must be confused. Notre Dame changed their nickname to the Fighting Leprechauns now? Huh, must've been all the uproar over the inaccurate caricature drawing of the Irish that forced this change. Good for them. No need to be so racist with the logo.
Imagine how offended the Midshipmen of the Naval Academy must feel. This whole time, wades thought they were actual goats!
-
Imagine how offended the Midshipmen of the Naval Academy must feel. This whole time, wades thought they were actual goats!
Thank you. I was trying in vain to come up with a parallel and you nailed it.
-
So if the Indians used this:
(http://convertimage.me/gal/20130701-213252-ruzhn.jpg)
as their logo it would somehow be acceptable and not at all offensive because there are actual Indians out there that dress like this? What about Indians who don't dress like that at all? Is the logo offensive to them?
I don't get it. It's a sports logo. Anybody who confuses it with trying to be an accurate representation of whatever it may be (a chicken looking furry thing for a Golden Eagle, a leprechaun for an Irish person, whatever you'd call Bango for a buck, etc.) I guess has the right to be offended if they would like to be.
-
I don't get it.
Obviously.
-
I have heard this argument often but I am unfamiliar with examples or studies on it. I will admit I am naive on this and I really am looking for examples to better educate myself.
Chief Wahoo (who really isn't a chief in the first place) looks like a silly cartoon to me. But I am only a trace amount Native American so I am far from an authority to make a definitive statement about it not being racist.
The name "Chief Wahoo" is pretty cringe worthy and I'd say outright demeaning. So I can agree with calling that racist. But on the other hand, the name "Chief Wahoo" came from Cleveland pop culture and not from baseball team directly. Chief Wahoo was a cartoon character that appeared on the front page of a newspaper depicting the result of the previous day's game. Though since the character appeared physically beaten after a loss, I see that tie as another pointing in the negative direction.
I don't think the logo honors any people in any way. At best it is a silly cartoon. I need a little bit more self education to call it racist but I can understand why people find the logo offensive.
Thanks for the background. So, essentially, using "Chief Wahoo" is exactly the same as using a leprechaun for the "Fighting Irish." Not meant to depict an actual being, something from the history of the team and city, etc.
-
Imagine how offended the Midshipmen of the Naval Academy must feel. This whole time, wades thought they were actual goats!
...that's the exact point I'm making. Anyone who gets upset about a sports team logo because it doesn't depict the actual being that it is named for...well, go ahead and be upset I guess.
Thanks for proving the point.
-
One more time.
We aren't discussing the nicknames. We are discussing the logos.
"Fighting Irish" is a nickname. The logo is a leprechaun. It isn't a human being with Irish stereotypes. It is a mythical creature.
Question: Then why does the leprechaun need to have his fists up if he's not supposed to be representative of Irish stereotypes?
-
...that's the exact point I'm making. Anyone who gets upset about a sports team logo because it doesn't depict the actual being that it is named for...well, go ahead and be upset I guess.
Thanks for proving the point.
OK so your response is basically, "people are too sensitive."
A better response: It's just a sports logo so why do something that offends people? There are literally thousands of logos that don't offend. Why not do something similar?
-
Question: Then why does the leprechaun need to have his fists up if he's not supposed to be representative of Irish stereotypes?
Cause people are always trying to steal his pot of gold. Can't a make believe character defend himself and his property?
-
Cause people are always trying to steal his pot of gold. Can't a make believe character defend himself and his property?
(http://cdn.rsvlts.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/leprechaun.jpg)
-
Cause people are always trying to steal his pot of gold. Can't a make believe character defend himself and his property?
Oh... methinks he's not as make believe as you think.
Who all seen the leprechaun say yay.
-
71 years ago people my age were crapting their pants as they jumped out of planes in the middle of flak attacks with rudimentary parachutes.
Now we sit online and whine about which logos are and are not racist.
-
this is fun...watching/reading the twisting and turning to get the trapezoidal peg into the round hole. keep going...rationalization works every time-can hardly ever go wrong
-
OK so your response is basically, "people are too sensitive."
A better response: It's just a sports logo so why do something that offends people? There are literally thousands of logos that don't offend. Why not do something similar?
Without doing an iota of research aren't the Atlanta Braves a great example of this? Totally separated the name from the imagery.
1 years ago people my age were crapting their pants as they jumped out of planes in the middle of flak attacks with rudimentary parachutes.
Now we sit online and whine about which logos are and are not racist.
Congratulations on being the only generation that thinks they're better/tougher/harder working than those that came after them.
-
Without doing an iota of research aren't the Atlanta Braves a great example of this? Totally separated the name from the imagery.
Don't they still do the tomahawk chop at games or did they get rid of it? I think they still have a hat with a hatchet on it.
-
Don't they still do the tomahawk chop at games or did they get rid of it? I think they still have a hat with a hatchet on it.
and florida state? what is that chant? heyooo ehyoo-ohhhh heyoo yooooo... all together now...is that something they taught us at thanksgiving? jane fonda and teddy t. were so cute when they did this together though...sigh :D
God it's great to have chicos back Enna so?
-
Don't they still do the tomahawk chop at games or did they get rid of it? I think they still have a hat with a hatchet on it.
I did a quick cruise through their online shop and only saw the 'a' and 'Braves' with the tomahawk so 'yes' they still use the hatchet/tomahawk but if i'm seeing it correctly they only have the inanimate object and ditched using a human image.
Seems very similar to (and i can't believe i ignored my own backyard) the KC Chiefs using the arrowhead imagery and no longer using the Native American mascot. Both fan bases use the tomahawk chop during games but i don't think either is an official team sponsored activity.
-
The inaccurate and unflattering portrayals of leprechauns must stop immediately!!!
And Indians need to quit smiling so much!
-
Without doing an iota of research aren't the Atlanta Braves a great example of this? Totally separated the name from the imagery.
Congratulations on being the only generation that thinks they're better/tougher/harder working than those that came after them.
I'm 23
-
Congratulations on being the only generation that thinks they're better/tougher/harder working than those that came after them.
Congratulations on interpreting Wally's post bass akwards.
-
ND sucks.
In before the lock.
-
Congratulations on interpreting Wally's post bass akwards.
In fin's defense, 8 year olds today are total slackers.
-
In fin's defense, 8 year olds today are total slackers.
Thank you! i have an 8 year old and a 10 year old....the elder is soo much tougher!
Sorry Unleash, i totally missed that one. The good news for me is that i'm 50 and now have the upper hand on you as to how tough my upbringing was.
-
I find it amazing that there are still people in 2016 who think Chief Wahoo is not offensive.
I think there are respectful ways to depict Native Americans in sports imagery, having consent from them is probably step one (See Florida Seminoles).
-
I find it amazing that there are still people in 2016 who think Chief Wahoo is not offensive.
I think there are respectful ways to depict Native Americans in sports imagery, having consent from them is probably step one (See Florida Seminoles).
I think non-offensive imagery would be step one. Consent would be step two.
-
(http://images.all-free-download.com/images/graphiclarge/funny_cock_logo_design_vector_588324.jpg)
People need to relax.
-
(http://images.all-free-download.com/images/graphiclarge/funny_cock_logo_design_vector_588324.jpg)
People need to relax.
1. Is this really the official mascot?
2. What does this have to do with racism?
-
I find it amazing that there are still people in 2016 who think Chief Wahoo is not offensive.
I think there are respectful ways to depict Native Americans in sports imagery, having consent from them is probably step one (See Florida Seminoles).
Again, I think most people here are confusing racism with stereotyping. Might the logo be offensive? Sure, people can make that argument. Does that automatically make it racist? No.
Racism is defined as "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others." What about the logo determines achievement, let alone "achievement involving one's own race [as] superior and has a right to dominate others" or that a group is inferior to another?
Offensive? Sure. Have at it. Racist? Not unless we're rewriting the definition of racism.
-
1. Is this really the official mascot?
2. What does this have to do with racism?
nothing to do with racism, but a millennial would be offended and running for his/her safe space screaming for counselors and filing lawsuits
-
Again, I think most people here are confusing racism with stereotyping. Might the logo be offensive? Sure, people can make that argument. Does that automatically make it racist? No.
Racism is defined as "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others." What about the logo determines achievement, let alone "achievement involving one's own race [as] superior and has a right to dominate others" or that a group is inferior to another?
Offensive? Sure. Have at it. Racist? Not unless we're rewriting the definition of racism.
well done!
actually we are using the logo to assert superiority, in this case athletic prowess, over another. the logo isn't used as a symbol of repression in sports. i don't think any less of a "fighting irish" or an indian when i see these logos. i see something i want on my side to beat the shnit out of your banana slugs or orange or red or whatever other sissy logo mascot you have
that's how we were brought up. rather than find offense in everything, we find strength
-
nothing to do with racism, but a millennial would be offended and running for his/her safe space screaming for counselors and filing lawsuits
Interesting. I hadn't realized any/all offended native Americans were millennials.
You denounce others for over generalizations and here you are doing the same
-
Again, I think most people here are confusing racism with stereotyping. Might the logo be offensive? Sure, people can make that argument. Does that automatically make it racist? No.
Racism is defined as "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others." What about the logo determines achievement, let alone "achievement involving one's own race [as] superior and has a right to dominate others" or that a group is inferior to another?
Offensive? Sure. Have at it. Racist? Not unless we're rewriting the definition of racism.
Ok, even if its "offensive but not racist," that is reason enough to get rid of it.
-
I think non-offensive imagery would be step one. Consent would be step two.
Well, I suppose. But I would think getting consent for such a logo would be the first step, and then designing the imagery in collaboration with the Tribe(s) would make the most sense. Better to include them every step of the way, not just final approval, IMO.
-
(https://storage.googleapis.com/vidsums/8f4f0b03-a05b-41a4-92ab-21fe77d39cc9_text.gif)
-
1. Is this really the official mascot?
2. What does this have to do with racism?
To answer your second question, this entire thread, what does it have to do with racism? Native Americans at more than a 70% response said this isn't an issue. You all need to relax.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-americans-arent-offended-by-redskins-name/2016/05/18/3ea11cfa-161a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html
-
Ok, even if its "offensive but not racist," that is reason enough to get rid of it.
Is this offensive?
-
well done!
actually we are using the logo to assert superiority, in this case athletic prowess, over another. the logo isn't used as a symbol of repression in sports. i don't think any less of a "fighting irish" or an indian when i see these logos. i see something i want on my side to beat the shnit out of your banana slugs or orange or red or whatever other sissy logo mascot you have
that's how we were brought up. rather than find offense in everything, we find strength
God that is such bullsh*t. It was always offensive to certain parts of society. We just didn't care enough to listen.
Chief Wahoo is from a former age where our society didn't pay much attention to the racism based stereotyping of Native Americans. Willie Wampum, Chief Noc a Homa, etc. are examples of imagery that was retired because of that. Chief Wahoo somehow remains.
It's real simple. Just be respectful. Cleveland has a perfect acceptable logo. Use it. Retire this one.
-
To answer your second question, this entire thread, what does it have to do with racism? Native Americans at more than a 70% response said this isn't an issue. You all need to relax.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-americans-arent-offended-by-redskins-name/2016/05/18/3ea11cfa-161a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html
Welcome back Chicos
-
Is this offensive?
What you or I think honestly does not matter.
-
Ok, even if its "offensive but not racist," that is reason enough to get rid of it.
Sure, that's fine. If we want to start a different discussion on that we can do that, and I'll probably step out as I have no strong opinion on it either way. But the discussion began when the logo was called "the most racist logo in sports." The logo is not racist unless we are changing the definition of racism, which I suppose in theory could put it into a tie for "the most racist logo in sports" if no other logos out there are racist (which is certainly possible).
-
Ok, even if its "offensive but not racist," that is reason enough to get rid of it.
So how many people does something have to offend before we can get rid of it? Because I'm pretty sure we can band together enough people to say the entire University of Notre Dame - not just their logo/imagery - is offensive. We could probably take down UW as well and make it a 2-for-1 ridding.
-
Welcome back Chicos
It's weird. You'd think the dude would try to conceal his identity by not immediately throwing up a dozen posts about race and TV ratings (and in the process sling mud at anyone else's viewpoint contrary to his). But we are what we are. I feel bad for the guy, actually.
-
So how many people does something have to offend before we can get rid of it? Because I'm pretty sure we can band together enough people to say the entire University of Notre Dame - not just their logo/imagery - is offensive. We could probably take down UW as well and make it a 2-for-1 ridding.
I for one am absolutely offended by Canada. Let's get rid of them.
-
It's weird. You'd think the dude would try to conceal his identity by not immediately throwing up a dozen posts about race and TV ratings (and in the process sling mud at anyone else's viewpoint contrary to his). But we are what we are. I feel bad for the guy, actually.
Why feel bad? He got what he deserved.
-
What you or I think honestly does not matter.
Your right so Chief Wahoo can stay as it does not matter.
-
I for one am absolutely offended by Canada. Let's get rid of them.
Don't get me started.....first off, what they do to get the maple syrup out is barbaric, invasive and clearly non consensual. Second, why do you think they call them "The Mounties"? WAKE UP PEOPLE Canada is basically one big rape culture.
-
Interesting. I hadn't realized any/all offended native Americans were millennials.
You denounce others for over generalizations and here you are doing the same
i didn't say ALL millennials. i said A millennial as in, for exampl. yes, there are some people who are offended by this stuff. what a surprise. i'd love to ask these same people what their level of offense is toward the term martian as well. i wish some team would name themselves the fighting swiss rocket men...now you're talkin
btw, my dads dad(my gramps) was from switzerland
-
i didn't say ALL millennials. i said A millennial as in, for exampl. yes, there are some people who are offended by this stuff. what a surprise. i'd love to ask these same people what their level of offense is toward the term martian as well. i wish some team would name themselves the fighting swiss rocket men...now you're talkin
btw, my dads dad(my gramps) was from switzerland
Why did you use "millenial" at all in your original post? Clearly, you chose that word for a reason.
I get so fed up with other generations denouncing millenials. It's so unnatural carnal knowledgeing ridiculous.
-
God that is such bullsh*t. It was always offensive to certain parts of society. We just didn't care enough to listen.
Chief Wahoo is from a former age where our society didn't pay much attention to the racism based stereotyping of Native Americans. Willie Wampum, Chief Noc a Homa, etc. are examples of imagery that was retired because of that. Chief Wahoo somehow remains.
It's real simple. Just be respectful. Cleveland has a perfect acceptable logo. Use it. Retire this one.
and there you have it...cuz i said so, 'ey?
" It was always offensive to certain parts of society"
so when and where does it end? when sully says so, that's when.?-( i submit that you are being a bully and i am offended and i feel disrespected because you disagree and called my post "bull plop
-
and there you have it...cuz i said so, 'ey?
" It was always offensive to certain parts of society"
so when and where does it end? when sully says so, that's when.?-( i submit that you are being a bully and i am offended and i feel disrespected because you disagree and called my post "bull plop
As I have said before, there are all sorts of logos out there that don't offend. The Indians even have one that is supposedly their primary logo. Why use one that is clearly racist and offends another culture? (Hint: they are doing it to make money.)
-
Why did you use "millenial" at all in your original post? Clearly, you chose that word for a reason.
I get so fed up with other generations denouncing millenials. It's so unnatural carnal knowledgeing ridiculous.
and that's...ok. i can respect your opinion and disgust. we just disagree, no big deal 8-) why do people have to get so worked up when there is a disagreement? we need more people to just accept that there are going to be disagreements and refrain from personalizing them.
*(oh boy, i have a feeling some here are putting this post into a folder to beat me with later-fair enough. sometimes we all need to be reminded of this)
-
As I have said before, there are all sorts of logos out there that don't offend. The Indians even have one that is supposedly their primary logo. Why use one that is clearly racist and offends another culture? (Hint: they are doing it to make money.)
BINGO! when they get hurt in the wallet, it will end...quickly
-
and that's...ok. i can respect your opinion and disgust. we just disagree, no big deal 8-) why do people have to get so worked up when there is a disagreement? we need more people to just accept that there are going to be disagreements and refrain from personalizing them.
*(oh boy, i have a feeling some here are putting this post into a folder to beat me with later-fair enough. sometimes we all need to be reminded of this)
It's not about personalizing. It's about you having a very skewed notion toward an entire generation. An extremely hypocritical viewpoint
-
It's real simple. Just be respectful.
Why not use this same logical approach to the national anthem? It's real simple. Just be respectful.
-
Welcome back Chicos
If I were really whom you claim, I would have a vigorous defense of the Indians Chief Wahoo. Every just relax.
-
Why not use this same logical approach to the national anthem? It's real simple. Just be respectful.
So if people all stood for the national anthem, you'd be fine with removing all offensive imagery from sports teams?
Interesting stance
-
Why not use this same logical approach to the national anthem? It's real simple. Just be respectful.
Isn't peaceful disrespect the whole point of civil disobedience?
I've never heard of an effective protest movement that insisted on ensuring that no one ever feels disrespected. I don't think Gandhi, MLK or Cesar Chavez worried much about offending people.*
* = No, I'm not comparing NFL players to these people. Just pointing out that "offending" others is a necessary component of effective protest.
-
If I were really whom you claim, I would have a vigorous defense of the Indians Chief Wahoo. Every just relax.
I don't ever recall you vigorously defending Chief Wahoo - you were in love with the racial slur "redskin".
-
It's not about personalizing. It's about you having a very skewed notion toward an entire generation. An extremely hypocritical viewpoint
there you go again-you don't even know what my "notion" is, but it's "skewed"?
"skewed" according to who? hey, millennials have worked hard for their reputations, let's not bust it up in one little post. both my son's are millennials as defined by the period they've grown up in, but that's where it ends. the hyper-generalized reputations they have forged for themselves is there, real and would take a few pages of discussion to reveal and analyze. they are a complicated bunch and i would say MANY of them have a "skewed" vision. hell, anyone who disagrees with me has a "skewed" vision for that matter.
ones "skewed" vision is another's reality, eyn'a?
-
there you go again-you don't even know what my "notion" is, but it's "skewed"?
"skewed" according to who? hey, millennials have worked hard for their reputations, let's not bust it up in one little post. both my son's are millennials as defined by the period they've grown up in, but that's where it ends. the hyper-generalized reputations they have forged for themselves is there, real and would take a few pages of discussion to reveal and analyze. they are a complicated bunch and i would say MANY of them have a "skewed" vision. hell, anyone who disagrees with me has a "skewed" vision for that matter.
ones "skewed" vision is another's reality, eyn'a?
Again, you used millennial because of the over-generalized negative reputation that so many older generations falsely use. You clearly believe it. It's sad
The most delicious hypocrisy though is that you guys are responsible for the development of the millennials. Don't get mad at us, get mad at yourself
-
The same things that are being said about millennials were said about GenXers 20+ years ago. (And probably the same things that were being said about Boomers by the WWII generation before that.) Millennials will be just fine. They'll find their way like everyone else did.
-
The same things that are being said about millennials were said about GenXers 20+ years ago. (And probably the same things that were being said about Boomers by the WWII generation before that.) Millennials will be just fine. They'll find their way like everyone else did.
How can anyone be so sure about that?
-
How can anyone be so sure about that?
Because dozens of generations have before them.
-
http://deadspin.com/rob-manfred-hints-at-meeting-with-indians-ownership-to-1788235022?rev=1477494243467&utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
"At the end of the interview, Mike Golic asked the Commissioner about the Indians’ use of Chief Wahoo throughout the postseason—the team has, by decision of its players, worn its second alternate dark blue Wahoo uniform during every postseason game.
Manfred hinted to Golic that he has plans to speak with team ownership about the use of the logo during the offseason:
'Well, I understand that particular logo is offensive to some people, and I understand why. On the other side of the coin, you have a lot of fans that have history and are invested in the symbols of the Indians. I think that after the World Series, at an appropriate point in time, Mr. [Larry] Dolan and I have agreed we’ll have a conversation about what should happen with that particular logo going forward.'"
-
http://deadspin.com/rob-manfred-hints-at-meeting-with-indians-ownership-to-1788235022?rev=1477494243467&utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
"At the end of the interview, Mike Golic asked the Commissioner about the Indians’ use of Chief Wahoo throughout the postseason—the team has, by decision of its players, worn its second alternate dark blue Wahoo uniform during every postseason game.
Manfred hinted to Golic that he has plans to speak with team ownership about the use of the logo during the offseason:
'Well, I understand that particular logo is offensive to some people, and I understand why. On the other side of the coin, you have a lot of fans that have history and are invested in the symbols of the Indians. I think that after the World Series, at an appropriate point in time, Mr. [Larry] Dolan and I have agreed we’ll have a conversation about what should happen with that particular logo going forward.'"
That's great. If it offends some people have at a discussion and come to some sort of conclusion.
Again, the discussion started with the statement that the Indians logo is "the most racist logo in sports." The logo is not racist unless we are redefining the term "racist/racism."
If people want to debate whether the logo is offensive have at it. I'm not passionate about that one way or the other. I just don't think that anything that is "offensive" is "racist."
-
That's great. If it offends some people have at a discussion and come to some sort of conclusion.
Again, the discussion started with the statement that the Indians logo is "the most racist logo in sports." The logo is not racist unless we are redefining the term "racist/racism."
That's not true. According to Merriam-Webster:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism
racism:
1. a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3 : racial prejudice or discrimination
I highlighted the third one because that is why I am using the term.
So let's look up "prejudice."
1. injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
b. an instance of such judgment or opinion
c. an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics
"Discrimination"
1 a : the act of discriminating
b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
2 : the quality or power of finely distinguishing
3a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually
b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>
Therefore saying the Indians' logo is "racist" is perfectly accurate.
-
That's not true. According to Merriam-Webster:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism
racism:
1. a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3 : racial prejudice or discrimination
I highlighted the third one because that is why I am using the term.
So let's look up "prejudice."
1. injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
b. an instance of such judgment or opinion
c. an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics
"Discrimination"
1 a : the act of discriminating
b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
2 : the quality or power of finely distinguishing
3a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually
b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>
Therefore saying the Indians' logo is "racist" is perfectly accurate.
What hostility gets directed at Indians based on this logo? What discrimination has gone on based on this logo? I haven't heard of any, but could be wrong.
-
One could very easily state that an inaccurate depiction of a race in a drawing is a hostile act. One of the definitions of "hostile" is "having an intimidating, antagonistic, or offensive nature <a hostile workplace>"
You yourself called it "offensive."
If it is "offensive," it can be called "hostile." Since it is irrationally hostile to a group of people, it is prejudicial. Since it is prejudice based on race, it is racism.
-
One could very easily state that an inaccurate depiction of a race in a drawing is a hostile act. One of the definitions of "hostile" is "having an intimidating, antagonistic, or offensive nature <a hostile workplace>"
You yourself called it "offensive."
If it is "offensive," it can be called "hostile." Since it is irrationally hostile to a group of people, it is prejudicial. Since it is prejudice based on race, it is racism.
So any logo or nickname that any individual finds possibly offensive is hostile and therefore racist? Got it. Fair enough. I'd say sports teams should probably just play it safe and go simply by their city's/school's names. No more nicknames or logos.
-
So any logo or nickname that any individual finds possibly offensive is hostile and therefore racist?
Nope. Didn't say that. Nice try though.
-
Why feel bad? He got what he deserved.
I should have said I felt sad. Sad that he needs this place so desperately.
-
Nope. Didn't say that. Nice try though.
I just think when you have to twist and turn to make something fit it's hard for me to buy it. I look at the definition of the actual word (racist) and if that thing (the logo, in this case) doesn't fit that definition, I don't consider it racist. When you have to go, "Well, in the definition of racism you have this word, which could mean this definition that doesn't fit, but this definition does have this other word in it, and this other word's definition is related to the logo, so therefore we can circle all the way back and say this logo is, in fact, racist." Sure, when you twist and turn and keep trying, you'll find what you are looking for, as is most often the case with anything. But I could take quite a few logos and find a way to find different words that somehow relate back to words within the definition of the word "racism." That doesn't make that logo racist.
If the logo intentionally depicted offensive stereotypes about the Indian race I would wholeheartedly agree it's racist. If the logo was intentionally poking fun at a traditional Indian head piece then that makes it pretty racist. If the Indian logo is throwing back a 40 oz then yup, racist.
To me, the logo does none of those things. There are no offensive stereotypes, it's not an attempt to demean the Indian race, it's not a way to show other races are better than the Indian race. it's simply a sports logo, nothing more, nothing less. If people look at the logo and think, "Hey, the logo has red skin, a head piece, and split hair suggesting a pony tail. That's an Indian! I'm so much better than that depiction because I'm (whatever race they may be)!" then I would suggest the racism comes from the individual viewing that, not from the logo.
-
Dude, the logo has cartoonish red skin. Don't you understand that depicting a an entire race in such a manner is by nature prejudicial?
Read about "Little Black Sambo" and the caricatures of black people in the illustrations.
(https://polygrafi.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/sambo-doll4.jpg)
Or about how people have depicted Jews.
(https://patrick.net/content/uploads/2014/01/polish_cartoon2.jpg)
Chinese
(http://www.racismreview.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AmericanBornChinese-48.jpg)
Chief Wahoo is the exact same damn thing! But because it is associated with sports it is somehow different?
-
Dude, the logo has cartoonish red skin. Don't you understand that depicting a an entire race in such a manner is by nature prejudicial?
Read about "Little Black Sambo" and the caricatures of black people in the illustrations.
(https://polygrafi.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/sambo-doll4.jpg)
Or about how people have depicted Jews.
(https://patrick.net/content/uploads/2014/01/polish_cartoon2.jpg)
Chinese
(http://www.racismreview.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AmericanBornChinese-48.jpg)
Chief Wahoo is the exact same damn thing! But because it is associated with sports it is somehow different?
Those would be the same as an Indian drawn drinking a 40 oz beer. Last I checked Chief Wahoo doesn't have that.
So again, if someone is asked to draw a Hispanic person, an Indian, an African American, and a Caucasian they are racist if they participate in that activity, because they are generalizing an entire race of people down to a single drawn image? If someone draws a sombrero on a stick figure for the Hispanic person, a(n inaccurate) head piece on a stick figure for the Indian, a stick figure with a black face for an African American, and a stick figure for the Caucasian person they're being racist?
There's nothing demeaning about any of those. Stereotypical? Yup. But differentiating people without concluding that one is better or worse than another is not racism.
-
Those would be the same as an Indian drawn drinking a 40 oz beer. Last I checked Chief Wahoo doesn't have that.
So again, if someone is asked to draw a Hispanic person, an Indian, an African American, and a Caucasian they are racist if they participate in that activity, because they are generalizing an entire race of people down to a single drawn image? If someone draws a sombrero on a stick figure for the Hispanic person, a(n inaccurate) head piece on a stick figure for the Indian, a stick figure with a black face for an African American, and a stick figure for the Caucasian person they're being racist?
There's nothing demeaning about any of those. Stereotypical? Yup. But differentiating people without concluding that one is better or worse than another is not racism.
I never said that someone who draws such a logo is racist. I said the logo itself, if it includes racial or ethnic stereotypes, is racist.
I have no idea who initially drew up Chief Wahoo. I have no idea what his or her belief system was. They were likely very much a person of their times when we didn't pay attention to those things. We have made progress in a number of ways on that front. You don't see the above depictions of blacks, Jews or chinese any longer. This is just another one that needs to go away.
-
If I were really whom you claim, I would have a vigorous defense of the Indians Chief Wahoo. Every just relax.
True. Because only you would know.
-
Thanks for the background Sultan. That added context helps me understand how the Indians' logo is viewed as racist. I still have a hard time parting from my first impression of it being just a silly cartoon. But that impression was formed when I was an 8 year old boy, just starting to get into sports. I lacked the knowledge and life experiences to see it as racist.
I appreciate this discussion. It has educated me a great deal. It has also prompted me to do more research on the logo. I'm starting to agree more and more with Sultan on this topic.
Another note: This version of the logo isn't the original. There was a different Indian face logo from 1946-1950. I'll post it when I'm on a real computer and not on my phone.
-
Thank you.
I just don't understand in this day and age we can be so cavalier about images and nicknames. We are talking about sports. High school, college, pro...whatever. It's just a bunch of people playing a game.
-
Here is the logo that preceded the current Chief Wahoo.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/68/OldClevelandIndiansLogo.jpg)
-
Some more background on the original logo from Wikipedia:
In 1947, Cleveland Indians owner Bill Veeck hired the J.F. Novak Company, designers of the patches worn by Clevelands police and firefighters, to create a new logo for his team. Seventeen-year-old draftsman Walter Goldbach, an employee of the Novak Company, was asked to perform the job.[3][4] Tasked with creating a mascot that "would convey a spirit of pure joy and unbridled enthusiasm", he created a smiling Indian face with yellow skin and a prominent nose.[4] Goldbach has said that he had difficulty "figuring out how to make an Indian look like a cartoon",[4][5] and that he was probably influenced by the cartoon style that was popular at the time.[6]
-
Some more background on the original logo from Wikipedia:
In 1947, Cleveland Indians owner Bill Veeck hired the J.F. Novak Company, designers of the patches worn by Clevelands police and firefighters, to create a new logo for his team. Seventeen-year-old draftsman Walter Goldbach, an employee of the Novak Company, was asked to perform the job.[3][4] Tasked with creating a mascot that "would convey a spirit of pure joy and unbridled enthusiasm", he created a smiling Indian face with yellow skin and a prominent nose.[4] Goldbach has said that he had difficulty "figuring out how to make an Indian look like a cartoon",[4][5] and that he was probably influenced by the cartoon style that was popular at the time.[6]
Joy and enthusiasm. Struggled to make it look like a cartoon. Doesn't sound like some racist, demeaning drawing to me.
-
Joy and enthusiasm. Struggled to make it look like a cartoon. Doesn't sound like some racist, demeaning drawing to me.
I guess I'm not sure why you are deciding to die on this hill but...
...I never said the intent behind the drawing had anything to do with it. In fact there are all sorts of racist images that had their roots in cartoons meant to be fun. That doesn't make it right today.
-
I guess I'm not sure why you are deciding to die on this hill but...
...I never said the intent behind the drawing had anything to do with it. In fact there are all sorts of racist images that had their roots in cartoons meant to be fun. That doesn't make it right today.
Context. Amos and Andy, Willie Wampum, Chief Wahoo weren't conceived with any racist intent. And in their "day" they ranged from hilarious to silly. Those days are long gone. Recognize it. There are things that are OK in popular culture today that won't be a generation or two from now. And hopefully today's young people (then old like me) will recognize it. It's one way progress is made.
-
Context. Amos and Andy, Willie Wampum, Chief Wahoo weren't conceived with any racist intent. And in their "day" they ranged from hilarious to silly. Those days are long gone. Recognize it. There are things that are OK in popular culture today that won't be a generation or two from now. And hopefully today's young people (then old like me) will recognize it. It's one way progress is made.
Exactly. You can find horribly racist Bugs Bunny cartoons all over Youtube. You wouldn't put those on television today for good reason. Chief Wahoo is of that era.
-
Kinda confused Wades why it is so important to you to prove that this hideous logo is not racist....
Are you that ignorant or that bored? Neither is good
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume its the latter. I appreciate a good argumentative challenge as much as the next guy, but this one is a bit too much of a stretch.
-
Kinda confused Wades why it is so important to you to prove that this hideous logo is not racist....
Are you that ignorant or that bored? Neither is good
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume its the latter. I appreciate a good argumentative challenge as much as the next guy, but this one is a bit too much of a stretch.
Because when someone throws around the racism card I don't just blindly buy into it. It might be offensive. It is not racist.
-
Here is the logo that preceded the current Chief Wahoo.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/68/OldClevelandIndiansLogo.jpg)
Technically true, but preceded for only one year and almost 40 years before the current logo.
This is the list of logos http://sportsteamhistory.com/cleveland-indians-logo-history
I guess I'm not sure why you are deciding to die on this hill but...
...I never said the intent behind the drawing had anything to do with it. In fact there are all sorts of racist images that had their roots in cartoons meant to be fun. That doesn't make it right today.
The great news is that you don't need to carry that cross. Native American people have weighed in, and more than 70% are fine with current Native American imagery in sports. Let us embrace their wisdom and concentrate on meaningful issues impacting the world.
So if people all stood for the national anthem, you'd be fine with removing all offensive imagery from sports teams?
Interesting stance
I would be fine if people were respectful. It is respectful to stand for a national anthem. Native Americans in the majority don't find this imagery offensive. I choose to also be respectful of their wishes and those results.
-
The great news is that you don't need to carry that cross. Native American people have weighed in, and more than 70% are fine with current Native American imagery in sports. Let us embrace their wisdom and concentrate on meaningful issues impacting the world.
You have been treading out this poll for years now. Here is why it is irrelevant to me.
1. The poll you cite has had numerous critics on how the data was collected. I don't know enough to know how legitimate it is however.
2. Even if it is legitimate, 30% is a significant number. Plenty to be concerned about.
3. Racist imagery offends more than just the target of the imagery. It offends me that we live in a society that allows that crap.
-
Because when someone throws around the racism card I don't just blindly buy into it. It might be offensive. It is not racist.
I have already showed you, through the very definition of the word, why it is racist. You are simply now at the point where you are being obstinate about it. And that's fine I guess.
-
The great news is that you don't need to carry that cross. Native American people have weighed in, and more than 70% are fine with current Native American imagery in sports. Let us embrace their wisdom and concentrate on meaningful issues impacting the world.
So 30% aren't statistically significant? Sorry, but that's just completely ridiculous.
-
The MLB commissioner is going to meet with the owner of the Cleveland baseball team after the season and discuss the logo.
-
The MLB commissioner is going to meet with the owner of the Cleveland baseball team after the season and discuss the logo.
I heard they are going to switch to a picture of Gandhi.
-
3. Racist imagery offends more than just the target of the imagery. It offends me that we live in a society that allows that crap.
This is actually a good point. I'm of European ancestry, but I don't want to raise my kids in a society where these kinds of logos are acceptable.
-
You have been treading out this poll for years now. Here is why it is irrelevant to me.
1. The poll you cite has had numerous critics on how the data was collected. I don't know enough to know how legitimate it is however.
2. Even if it is legitimate, 30% is a significant number. Plenty to be concerned about.
3. Racist imagery offends more than just the target of the imagery. It offends me that we live in a society that allows that crap.
Like the Piss Christ: artist received tax dollars and initially was well received.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
or this: going for 2.5 million
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/01/chris-ofili-elephant-dung_n_7470692.html
-
I have already showed you, through the very definition of the word, why it is racist. You are simply now at the point where you are being obstinate about it. And that's fine I guess.
It is not racist. You showed me that if you dig deep enough you can find a way to find words within the definition that have words in their definition that can twist their way back to some of the words in the definition of racism. If you look at the actual definition of the word racism (a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others. OR a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. OR hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.) there is nothing that is racist about the logo.
Nothing about the logo determines cultural or individual achievement or that one race is superior (or inferior) to another or has the right to dominate or be dominated, nothing that is a policy or system of government fostering such a doctrine, and nothing that is hateful or intolerant of other races.
Now, if you think that by taking words out of those definitions and finding different words in the definitions of those words and somehow tying them back to the word racism means that the logo then fits the definition of racism then sure, the logo is racist. But I could find a way to do that with every word and every image in the world then.
-
Like the Piss Christ: artist received tax dollars and initially was well received.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
or this: going for 2.5 million
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/01/chris-ofili-elephant-dung_n_7470692.html
You have every right to be offended by both. Not sure why you decided to bring those up, but whatever...
-
It is not racist. You showed me that if you dig deep enough you can find a way to find words within the definition that have words in their definition that can twist their way back to some of the words in the definition of racism. If you look at the actual definition of the word racism (a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others. OR a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. OR hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.) there is nothing that is racist about the logo.
Nothing about the logo determines cultural or individual achievement or that one race is superior (or inferior) to another or has the right to dominate or be dominated, nothing that is a policy or system of government fostering such a doctrine, and nothing that is hateful or intolerant of other races.
Now, if you think that by taking words out of those definitions and finding different words in the definitions of those words and somehow tying them back to the word racism means that the logo then fits the definition of racism then sure, the logo is racist. But I could find a way to do that with every word and every image in the world then.
Have you ever used a dictionary before? Many words are complex and have multiple definitions. I'm not really twisting logic here.
-
Like the Piss Christ: artist received tax dollars and initially was well received.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
or this: going for 2.5 million
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/01/chris-ofili-elephant-dung_n_7470692.html
I agree 100 percent that professional (or amateur) sports teams should use neither the Piss Christ or images created with elephant dung as their mascots/logos.
Glad we finally could find some common ground in this debate.
-
Have you ever used a dictionary before? Many words are complex and have multiple definitions. I'm not really twisting logic here.
There is nothing complex about any of the number of definitions for the term racism. There is no need to twist and turn to find a way to make the logo fit the term. It simply doesn't. But again, if we want to twist and turn until we find a way, we can do it with anything, so sure. Very racist logo I guess.
-
You have every right to be offended by both. Not sure why you decided to bring those up, but whatever...
Because the media will highlight the Redskins and Chief Wahoo as offensive and racist yet give praise to this "art"; one paid for by the tax payer.
-
You are moving goalposts and changing narratives. Finding Cleveland's logo offensive does not equate to a defense of taxpayer dollars subsidizing 'Piss Christ'. Quit pretending it does.
-
Because the media will highlight the Redskins and Chief Wahoo as offensive and racist yet give praise to this "art"; one paid for by the tax payer.
WOW THE MEDIA CAN BE HYPOCRITICAL!???!!!
THIS IS EARTH SHATTERING NEWS!!!!!
-
There is nothing complex about any of the number of definitions for the term racism.
Correct. I have already shown that.
You are the one who is sticking by the "racial superiority" definition as its only definition.
-
Because the media will highlight the Redskins and Chief Wahoo as offensive and racist yet give praise to this "art"; one paid for by the tax payer.
Yeah .... I mean, there was virtually no media coverage of the outrage spurred by "Piss Christ" and National Endowment funding.
The irony here is that one of the native imagery defenders here is using a poll conducted by the Washington Post to support his position.
More evidence of media bias!
-
You are moving goalposts and changing narratives. Finding Cleveland's logo offensive does not equate to a defense of taxpayer dollars subsidizing 'Piss Christ'. Quit pretending it does.
...but the media finds the "Piss Christ" acceptable and the "Black Modonna" is valued in the millions so who is pretending.
-
It has nothing to do with this discussion. Quit going Chicos-esque.
-
...but the media finds the "Piss Christ" acceptable and the "Black Modonna" is valued in the millions so who is pretending.
This isn't moving the goalposts, it's installing tennis nets on the football field.
-
...but the media finds the "Piss Christ" acceptable and the "Black Modonna" is valued in the millions so who is pretending.
Who is "the media?"
-
Correct. I have already shown that.
You are the one who is sticking by the "racial superiority" definition as its only definition.
I provided all 3 definitions but sure.
-
Profile >> Modify Profile >> Buddies/Ignore List >> Edit Ignore List >> Add to Ignore List
I needed to go look it up myself and figured I'd post the steps just in case anyone else wanted a reminder.
-
You have been treading out this poll for years now. Here is why it is irrelevant to me.
1. The poll you cite has had numerous critics on how the data was collected. I don't know enough to know how legitimate it is however.
2. Even if it is legitimate, 30% is a significant number. Plenty to be concerned about.
3. Racist imagery offends more than just the target of the imagery. It offends me that we live in a society that allows that crap.
The poll has been around for less than 6 months. Hard to tread out this poll for years when it isn't even a year old.
I'm not who you suggest I am.
30% might be significant, 70% is more significant.
It offends others that people are overly sensitive about things that aren't crap, but someone else says it is.
Time to just relax and respect the opinions of those Native Americans that can speak for themselves.
-
The poll has been around for less than 6 months. Hard to tread out this poll for years when it isn't even a year old.
I'm not who you suggest I am.
30% might be significant, 70% is more significant.
It offends others that people are overly sensitive about things that aren't crap, but someone else says it is.
Time to just relax and respect the opinions of those Native Americans that can speak for themselves.
Like standing for the national anthem?
-
The poll has been around for less than 6 months. Hard to tread out this poll for years when it isn't even a year old.
I'm not who you suggest I am.
30% might be significant, 70% is more significant.
It offends others that people are overly sensitive about things that aren't crap, but someone else says it is.
Time to just relax and respect the opinions of those Native Americans that can speak for themselves.
So either A) you are the sociopathic poster we (defined as over 70% of other posters) think you are, or B) you present yourself in the same manner as that poster, who has been banned from this board multiple times, enough so that people think you are him.
Congrats.
-
How is chicos not IP banned. I seriously doubt he has any idea how to switch his.
-
How is chicos not IP banned. I seriously doubt he has any idea how to switch his.
As has been stated by Mods, he uses VPN to hide his true IP address. VPNs also use dynamic IPs, they change very frequently. You can ban him but its Whackamole because his IP is always changing.
The net of it is that Chicos needs a hobby.
-
White people in America don't get to decide if something isn't racist.
None of us know what it's like. Our opinions are invalid.
-
White people in America don't get to decide if something isn't racist.
None of us know what it's like. Our opinions are invalid.
So why can white people decide what is racist? Wouldn't our opinion be invalid both ways?
-
The net of it is that Chicos needs a hobby.
I was gonna fixit for you, but couldn't decide whether to add "attention" or "medication".
-
So why can white people decide what is racist? Wouldn't our opinion be invalid both ways?
I don't think white people truly get to decide what is racist either, but it depends on how explicit the racism is. If it's subtle racism, that's less appropriate for a white person to call out. If it's obvious racism, that's fine to determine.
For subtle racism, let's say someone locks their car doors when my [relative] is near their car at the local library. I don't get to tell my [relative] that isn't racism. However, I can say that it probably is racism. Ultimately, I don't get to decide because I'm a white guy that has no idea what racism feels like.
For obvious racism, let's say someone told my [relative] to "get out of my subdivision, you nasty Mexican" last Thursday. Again, I don't get to decide that isn't racist. However, I have the right to say that's racist because it's obvious.
I believe Chief Wahoo falls under obvious racism. Even if it's not, I don't get to decide it isn't racist.
-
I don't think white people truly get to decide what is racist either, but it depends on how explicit the racism is. If it's subtle racism, that's less appropriate for a white person to call out. If it's obvious racism, that's fine to determine.
For subtle racism, let's say someone locks their car doors when my [relative] is near their car at the local library. I don't get to tell my [relative] that isn't racism. However, I can say that it probably is racism. Ultimately, I don't get to decide because I'm a white guy that has no idea what racism feels like.
For obvious racism, let's say someone told my [relative] to "get out of my subdivision, you nasty Mexican" last Thursday. Again, I don't get to decide that isn't racist. However, I have the right to say that's racist because it's obvious.
I believe Chief Wahoo falls under obvious racism. Even if it's not, I don't get to decide it isn't racist.
Fair enough. I think people know where I stand on the issue of the logo.
I do think it's possible for white people to "experience" racism without it even being directed at them. In your examples you are still experiencing the racism, even though you aren't the Hispanic person being told to get out of the neighborhood you're in. It affects you differently than it does the person it is directed at for sure, but you're still experiencing it.
-
I do think it's possible for white people to "experience" racism without it even being directed at them. In your examples you are still experiencing the racism, even though you aren't the Hispanic person being told to get out of the neighborhood you're in. It affects you differently than it does the person it is directed at for sure, but you're still experiencing it.
Unfortunately, my experience is completely different. I'm more able to empathize, but it's not the same because it doesn't happen to me. I don't know what it's like.
Honestly, even with a non-caucasian [relative], I rarely think about racism because I don't have to. Most of the people I know (who are predominantly white) are the same way.
-
Like standing for the national anthem?
(https://i.imgur.com/uKNBBiR.gif)
-
First of all, Mascots and logos are not picked to denigrate but be something positive that people can relate to and be proud of. I don't think the Indians logo is racist or was ever intended to be such and people who think only white people can be or are racist by the fact of existing are being a bit oversensitive. I have been the object of reverse racism and have seen my own children verbally attacked with racial slurs for being white. Real racism should be discouraged when encountered but IMO this controversy is overblown.
-
As has been stated by Mods, he uses VPN to hide his true IP address. VPNs also use dynamic IPs, they change very frequently. You can ban him but its Whackamole because his IP is always changing.
The net of it is that Chicos needs a hobby.
it's NOT chicos-that is all i will say
-
First of all, Mascots and logos are not picked to denigrate but be something positive that people can relate to and be proud of. I don't think the Indians logo is racist or was ever intended to be such and people who think only white people can be or are racist by the fact of existing are being a bit oversensitive. I have been the object of reverse racism and have seen my own children verbally attacked with racial slurs for being white. Real racism should be discouraged when encountered but IMO this controversy is overblown.
bully on that-good luck with your explanation as i tried to do the same. who wants a mascot that is weak and/or something not to be proud of?
-
it's NOT chicos-that is all i will say
LOL. I love this cryptic 8th grade stuff. Just like Hoopaloop was "not Chicos," it was "someone else who let Chicos use their screen name."
-
First of all, Mascots and logos are not picked to denigrate but be something positive that people can relate to and be proud of. I don't think the Indians logo is racist or was ever intended to be such and people who think only white people can be or are racist by the fact of existing are being a bit oversensitive. I have been the object of reverse racism and have seen my own children verbally attacked with racial slurs for being white. Real racism should be discouraged when encountered but IMO this controversy is overblown.
I don't think it was intended to be racist either. But times change.
I have no problem with the name Indians, but why not have a logo showing Indians in a positive light instead of a silly, probably racist caricature.
-
LOL. I love this cryptic 8th grade stuff. Just like Hoopaloop was "not Chicos," it was "someone else who let Chicos use their screen name."
Ding ding ding
-
LOL. I love this cryptic 8th grade stuff. Just like Hoopaloop was "not Chicos," it was "someone else who let Chicos use their screen name."
seriously? then i'd refer you to henry sugar #129 above. and who's living in some heads here, rent free? who's in need of other hobbies?
"not now kato, you fool"!!
-
seriously? then i'd refer you to henry sugar #129 above. and who's living in some heads here, rent free? who's in need of other hobbies?
"not now kato, you fool"!!
I literally have no idea what any of this means.
-
I literally have no idea what any of this means.
+1, but TBF, that's par for the course.
-
I literally have no idea what any of this means.
He said that he's in great pain and he wants to know if you can help him.
-
LOL. I love this cryptic 8th grade stuff. Just like Hoopaloop was "not Chicos," it was "someone else who let Chicos use their screen name."
Oh, so 8th grade is a little too much for you? Must I dumb it down for you? I think you could get it if you wanted to, but your opinion of me clouds your ability to do some critical thinking.
Here, I will go real slow for you- you know Henry's msg #129 above, right? It goes thru the steps of how to put someone on ignore. For those of you in rio Linda, that means erasing them from appearing on your scoop page so you do not have to make any wise ass responses back to them revealing your attempts to cover any embarrassment. OR with any self control, you could try to let it roll off your shoulders and move on without responding back. I was going to try #2, but with some of your buddies(yogi's) piling on a little for you, to prevent your self esteem from getting hurt, I just felt the need to defend myself.
As for the comment from the pink panther-sometimes people refer to humor as incongruity. I know, this may have been a little beyond the 8th grade for you; for that, I will apologize and try something a little simpler for you to chuckle at, if that's at all possible. once again, however, I understand your how your preconceived opinions living in your head, "rent free" seem to be a real hinderance to many things
"When a person or situation gets to you so much that all you can think about is that one thing, and one thing only. It's on your mind so much that they might as well settle down in your mind and rent space in you head. "
Enjoy your day and GO PACK, 'ey?
-
If the Indians win the Series (and that's far from a foregone conclusion), I can't help but wonder if they'll retire Chief Wahoo. They've been de-emphasizing him for years, and the Commish is planning to speak with them during the off season. Maybe he's gone either way, but it might be easier to retire him if they win. Kinda like Peyton Manning. ;)
-
White people in America don't get to decide if something isn't racist.
None of us know what it's like. Our opinions are invalid.
Tell that to my Catholic, German American grandparents who had a cross burning in their front yard while living in West Virginia at the start of World War II and my uncle who fought in the battle of the Bulge who was asked, "How does it feel to kill your Nazi cousins." Bigotry is not just limited to race and please don't tell us we don't know what it's like.
-
Tell that to my Catholic, German American grandparents who had a cross burning in their front yard while living in West Virginia at the start of World War II and my uncle who fought in the battle of the Bulge who was asked, "How does it feel to kill your Nazi cousins." Bigotry is not just limited to race and please don't tell us we don't know what it's like.
Anti-Catholic and anti-German, anti-Irish, anti-Italian, etc. sentiment, while previously very real, came nowhere close to what racial groups such as Native Americans and African Americans have experienced, and continue to experience. And, as your post clearly demonstrates (since you are talking about your grandparents), anti-Catholic and ethnically-based prejudices of various European groups has been basically non-existent since the 1960s, when these groups integrated into the white American mainstream. So while your grandparents may have had to deal with this (and as a Catholic of German and Irish ancestry myself, mine certainly did too, by the way), I highly doubt you have ever felt the impacts of such bigotry.
-
Oh, so 8th grade is a little too much for you? Must I dumb it down for you? I think you could get it if you wanted to, but your opinion of me clouds your ability to do some critical thinking.
Here, I will go real slow for you- you know Henry's msg #129 above, right? It goes thru the steps of how to put someone on ignore. For those of you in rio Linda, that means erasing them from appearing on your scoop page so you do not have to make any wise ass responses back to them revealing your attempts to cover any embarrassment. OR with any self control, you could try to let it roll off your shoulders and move on without responding back. I was going to try #2, but with some of your buddies(yogi's) piling on a little for you, to prevent your self esteem from getting hurt, I just felt the need to defend myself.
As for the comment from the pink panther-sometimes people refer to humor as incongruity. I know, this may have been a little beyond the 8th grade for you; for that, I will apologize and try something a little simpler for you to chuckle at, if that's at all possible. once again, however, I understand your how your preconceived opinions living in your head, "rent free" seem to be a real hinderance to many things
"When a person or situation gets to you so much that all you can think about is that one thing, and one thing only. It's on your mind so much that they might as well settle down in your mind and rent space in you head. "
Enjoy your day and GO PACK, 'ey?
On a practical level, how do I ignore someone who is continually creating new user names?
On a philosophical level, I prefer not to ignore anyone, but rather engage them respectfully. At the same time, I try to abide by the rules of the moderators, including adhering to bans. I was actually given a two week timeout a few years ago. I figured I deserved it and stayed off Scoop for the duration of the ban, and afterwards sent a PM apology to the moderator that banned me. I've tried to be respectful of the rules ever since. I expect the same from all my fellow Scoopers.
-
If the Indians win the Series (and that's far from a foregone conclusion), I can't help but wonder if they'll retire Chief Wahoo. They've been de-emphasizing him for years, and the Commish is planning to speak with them during the off season. Maybe he's gone either way, but it might be easier to retire him if they win. Kinda like Peyton Manning. ;)
That's an interesting point. And I think you're right, it would probably be easier for fans to swallow.
-
I don't think it was intended to be racist either. But times change.
I have no problem with the name Indians, but why not have a logo showing Indians in a positive light instead of a silly, probably racist caricature.
I totally agree with you on that. As I have mentioned before, our HS is the Warriors and the logos are a warbonnet and a lance . Great way to address the issue. something Marquette could have done
-
He said that he's in great pain and he wants to know if you can help him.
(http://37.media.tumblr.com/72976c5a8b83b4695bb00fab002d0e8a/tumblr_n9qk0cQbbv1r60h6bo3_250.gif)
-
Anti-Catholic and anti-German, anti-Irish, anti-Italian, etc. sentiment, while previously very real, came nowhere close to what racial groups such as Native Americans and African Americans have experienced, and continue to experience. And, as your post clearly demonstrates (since you are talking about your grandparents), anti-Catholic and ethnically-based prejudices of various European groups has been basically non-existent since the 1960s, when these groups integrated into the white American mainstream. So while your grandparents may have had to deal with this (and as a Catholic of German and Irish ancestry myself, mine certainly did too, by the way), I highly doubt you have ever felt the impacts of such bigotry.
I don't know where you've been, but anti-Catholic sentiment is alive and well. I'm not going to compare it to the injustices against Native and African Americans, but there's been a renewal of anti-Catholic sentiment over the past decade, let alone one of it's showrunners happens to be a candidate for POTUS right now. Now, I'm not going to go out and start whining that I feel like I'm being victimized as a Catholic (because I don't), but just because people aren't acting on their prejudices, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
-
I don't know where you've been, but anti-Catholic sentiment is alive and well. I'm not going to compare it to the injustices against Native and African Americans, but there's been a renewal of anti-Catholic sentiment over the past decade, let alone one of it's showrunners happens to be a candidate for POTUS right now. Now, I'm not going to go out and start whining that I feel like I'm being victimized as a Catholic (because I don't), but just because people aren't acting on their prejudices, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Examples, please?
I mean, I've no doubt people have said things that are upsetting to or insensitive toward Catholics, probably even insulting. But are Catholics being denied opportunity or treated unequally in the workplace, courtroom, schools, etc., because of their Catholicism?
If not, cries of anti-Catholicism (as another, not you, has done) really doesn't belong in this discussion.
-
Examples, please?
I mean, I've no doubt people have said things that are upsetting to or insensitive toward Catholics, probably even insulting.
Plenty of examples in the emails released by wikileaks.
-
Plenty of examples in the emails released by wikileaks.
Great. Show me some.
-
I don't know where you've been, but anti-Catholic sentiment is alive and well. I'm not going to compare it to the injustices against Native and African Americans, but there's been a renewal of anti-Catholic sentiment over the past decade, let alone one of it's showrunners happens to be a candidate for POTUS right now. Now, I'm not going to go out and start whining that I feel like I'm being victimized as a Catholic (because I don't), but just because people aren't acting on their prejudices, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Not buying it.
I am a practicing Catholic and can't think of one instance where I have been the victim of prejudice.
-
Not buying it.
I am a practicing Catholic and can't think of one instance where I have been the victim of prejudice.
Again... just because people aren't acting on their prejudice doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Examples, please?
I mean, I've no doubt people have said things that are upsetting to or insensitive toward Catholics, probably even insulting. But are Catholics being denied opportunity or treated unequally in the workplace, courtroom, schools, etc., because of their Catholicism?
If not, cries of anti-Catholicism (as another, not you, has done) really doesn't belong in this discussion.
Absolutely, but neither does claims of anti-Catholic prejudice being non-existent since the 60's. And I'm talking about sentiment and prejudice here, not injustices. If you want specific examples, go bark up someone else's tree because those aren't my nuts on the ground.
-
Not buying it.
I am a practicing Catholic and can't think of one instance where I have been the victim of prejudice.
As it affects my life, never. However... my wife went to Calvin College. Christian Reformed. When she took me to their homecoming when we were engaged(1992) and introduced me to her friends, the first thing they asked was about my religion and I watched them visibly flinch when she said that I was Catholic. Not the only time that I have witnessed reactions like that from non-Catholics around here. Some conservative protestant denominations still view Catholics as pope-worshipers.
-
Again... just because people aren't acting on their prejudice doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Absolutely, but neither does claims of anti-Catholic prejudice being non-existent since the 60's. And I'm talking about sentiment and prejudice here, not injustices. If you want specific examples, go bark up someone else's tree because those aren't my nuts on the ground.
I guess I slightly misspoke. I'm sure there are people who privately harbor anti-Catholic prejudice. Although certainly far, far, fewer than five decades ago.
The difference is that the people who still feel that way about Catholics are such a fringe minority of American society that they have virtually zero impact on the actual lives of American Catholics.
An email from wikileaks showing that Clinton's campaign has a negative view of Catholics has zero real impact on my life.
-
I guess I slightly misspoke. I'm sure there are people who privately harbor anti-Catholic prejudice. Although certainly far, far, fewer than five decades ago.
The difference is that the people who still feel that way about Catholics are such a fringe minority of American society that they have virtually zero impact on the actual lives of American Catholics.
An email from wikileaks showing that Clinton's campaign has a negative view of Catholics has zero real impact on my life.
Tell that to the Little Sisters of the Poor who still may be facing a 2k fine per employee for their refusal to pay for birth control and abortifacients mandated in Obamacare and view the waiver as a permission slip to have some other party pay for something which they believe is immoral.
-
Tell that to the Little Sisters of the Poor who still may be facing a 2k fine per employee for their refusal to pay for birth control and abortifacients mandated in Obamacare and view the waiver as a permission slip to have some other party pay for something which they believe is immoral.
I'm very familiar with the case and have a very different perspective from you. Reasonable accommodations have been made for them.
Regardless of my view or your view, the case will be settled by the Supreme Court, 4 of 8 of whom are Catholic. Further evidence of their integration into mainstream society.
-
I'm very familiar with the case and have a very different perspective from you. Reasonable accommodations have been made for them.
Regardless of my view or your view, the case will be settled by the Supreme Court, 4 of 8 of whom are Catholic. Further evidence of their integration into mainstream society.
This case should have never went to court in the first place. Petty obvious the Obama administration was really heavy handed with the sisters and could have easily granted them an exemption.
-
This case should have never went to court in the first place. Petty obvious the Obama administration was really heavy handed with the sisters and could have easily granted them an exemption.
Agree to disagree. Again, the great thing about our country is that we have a Supreme Court to arbitrate. And again, 50% of that court is Roman Catholic.
-
Tell that to the Little Sisters of the Poor who still may be facing a 2k fine per employee for their refusal to pay for birth control and abortifacients mandated in Obamacare and view the waiver as a permission slip to have some other party pay for something which they believe is immoral.
That's not an example of discrimination against Catholics. It's a Constitutional issue between their obligations as an employer versus their freedoms as a religious organization.
-
That's not an example of discrimination against Catholics. It's a Constitutional issue between their obligations as an employer versus their freedoms as a religious organization.
Catholicism is the only major religion that rejects birth control and as such was targeted to force it's religious groups to comply.
-
Catholicism is the only major religion that rejects birth control and as such was targeted to force it's religious groups to comply.
ALL qualifying employers have to comply. The fact that Catholic groups don't want to, and are facing punishment because of it, isn't due to anti-Catholic discrimination. It's due to the fact they are breaking the law.
-
Catholicism is the only major religion that rejects birth control and as such was targeted to force it's religious groups to comply.
Hobby Lobby, which had a very similar fight with the Obama administration, is owned by an evangelical family.
-
I don't know where you've been, but anti-Catholic sentiment is alive and well. I'm not going to compare it to the injustices against Native and African Americans, but there's been a renewal of anti-Catholic sentiment over the past decade ........
Some folks are offended when a religion hires pedophiles and then covers for them.
-
Some folks are offended when a religion hires pedophiles and then covers for them.
Just like Islam hired a bunch of terrorists and then covered for them, right?
-
I guess I slightly misspoke. I'm sure there are people who privately harbor anti-Catholic prejudice. Although certainly far, far, fewer than five decades ago.
The difference is that the people who still feel that way about Catholics are such a fringe minority of American society that they have virtually zero impact on the actual lives of American Catholics.
An email from wikileaks showing that Clinton's campaign has a negative view of Catholics has zero real impact on my life.
So those at the top of the food chain of the Clinton campaign are a "fringe minority of American society"? Don't think so.
-
This thread is still open?
-
This thread is still open?
kinda like pickin at da scab, eyn'a? oh, what the hell! freedom from religion and separation of church and state aughtta fit in here somewhere, but depends on who's arguing what i guess
-
So those at the top of the food chain of the Clinton campaign are a "fringe minority of American society"? Don't think so.
You're reaching.
-
You're reaching.
No, merely turning your own assertions into a syllogism.
If (A) the only people who have a negative view of Catholics are on the fringe
And (B) emails show that the Clinton campaign has a negative view of Catholics
Then (C) the Clinton campaign is on the fringe.
-
No, merely turning your own assertions into a syllogism.
If (A) the only people who have a negative view of Catholics are on the fringe
And (B) emails show that the Clinton campaign has a negative view of Catholics
Then (C) the Clinton campaign is on the fringe.
Good grief.
(A) One snarky remark made five years ago from a communications staffer (who wasn't a communications staffer at the time) does not "the Clinton campaign has a negative view of Catholics."
(B) The remark did not address all Catholics or Catholicism, but rather two specific Catholic converts (Rupert Murdoch and Robert Thomson) who the writer believed - correctly or not - were bastardizing Catholicism.
(C) That remark is not evidence of discrimination against Catholics.
Here's the remark, since you didn't include it, so everyone can judge whether it is what you claim it to be:
"Many of the most powerful elements of the conservative movement are all Catholic (many converts) from the [Supreme Court] and think tanks to the media and social groups,” Halpin wrote in the 2011 email, according to WikiLeaks. “It’s an amazing bastardization of the faith. They must be attracted to the systematic thought and severely backwards gender relations and must be totally unaware of Christian democracy.”
By the way, I also believe the Catholic Church has a backwards view of gender relations. Does this mean I'm prejudiced against Catholics?
-
Good grief.
(A) One snarky remark made five years ago from a communications staffer (who wasn't a communications staffer at the time) does not "the Clinton campaign has a negative view of Catholics."
(B) The remark did not address all Catholics or Catholicism, but rather two specific Catholic converts (Rupert Murdoch and Robert Thomson) who the writer believed - correctly or not - were bastardizing Catholicism.
(C) That remark is not evidence of discrimination against Catholics.
Here's the remark, since you didn't include it, so everyone can judge whether it is what you claim it to be:
"Many of the most powerful elements of the conservative movement are all Catholic (many converts) from the [Supreme Court] and think tanks to the media and social groups,” Halpin wrote in the 2011 email, according to WikiLeaks. “It’s an amazing bastardization of the faith. They must be attracted to the systematic thought and severely backwards gender relations and must be totally unaware of Christian democracy.”
By the way, I also believe the Catholic Church has a backwards view of gender relations. Does this mean I'm prejudiced against Catholics?
Good grief, indeed. They're not my words. They're Coleman's.
-
Good grief.
(A) One snarky remark made five years ago from a communications staffer (who wasn't a communications staffer at the time) does not "the Clinton campaign has a negative view of Catholics."
(B) The remark did not address all Catholics or Catholicism, but rather two specific Catholic converts (Rupert Murdoch and Robert Thomson) who the writer believed - correctly or not - were bastardizing Catholicism.
(C) That remark is not evidence of discrimination against Catholics.
Here's the remark, since you didn't include it, so everyone can judge whether it is what you claim it to be:
"Many of the most powerful elements of the conservative movement are all Catholic (many converts) from the [Supreme Court] and think tanks to the media and social groups,” Halpin wrote in the 2011 email, according to WikiLeaks. “It’s an amazing bastardization of the faith. They must be attracted to the systematic thought and severely backwards gender relations and must be totally unaware of Christian democracy.”
By the way, I also believe the Catholic Church has a backwards view of gender relations. Does this mean I'm prejudiced against Catholics?
Yup
-
In before the lock!
-
Can someone explain what "gender relations" are, i.e. is that a) similar to "public relations" insomuch as how the church speaks to the genders separately, b) how the genders relate to each other, or c) something else?
-
Can someone explain what "gender relations" are, i.e. is that a) similar to "public relations" insomuch as how the church speaks to the genders separately, b) how the genders relate to each other, or c) something else?
All of the above.
-
Can someone explain what "gender relations" are, i.e. is that a) similar to "public relations" insomuch as how the church speaks to the genders separately, b) how the genders relate to each other, or c) something else?
I believe Catholic teaching is to abstain from gender relations until marriage.
-
All of the above.
So in other words, nobody has a clue as to what that meant.
-
So in other words, nobody has a clue as to what that meant.
I gave an answer as sincere as your question.
-
I gave an answer as sincere as your question.
And I can appreciate your confidence, but I'm still wondering to what the hell Halpin was referring. Context is significant.