I can guess how most of you feel but I think it's a pretty good, progressive move.

(12-13-2020 10:10 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  I can guess how most of you feel but I think it's a pretty good, progressive move.

If the name was given intending to disrespect Native Americans, then drop it. If not, then what is clearly mixed feelings seems a little overboard to drop the name. Regardless, I like the name Cleveland Spiders significantly more.

What’s conservative today was progressive yesterday. What’s progressive today is conservative tomorrow. Whether something is offensive is also very subjective. So where is the line drawn in your opinion?

I agree "Redskin" is MUCH worse than "Indians", BUT "Indians" is STILL an inaccurate misnomer. What's YOUR issue with people NOT using problematic words?

(12-13-2020 11:07 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  I agree "Redskin" is MUCH worse than "Indians", BUT "Indians" is STILL an inaccurate misnomer. What's YOUR issue with people NOT using problematic words?

You’re presupposing a word a problematic without giving any reason it is. I haven’t said what side I’m on - you’re assuming and became defensive. I said the reception I’ve seen is mixed - I never gave my position. I’m generally not convinced by subjective or emotional reasoning. Some Native Americans are offended but I know some are not. It’s unclear and there is not objective formula to determine what is and is not offensive.

My question was where is the line drawn but perhaps the better question is who draws that line. If all it takes is someone to be offended then there goes everything ever. If it takes a majority or super-majority of a given class then perhaps that’s a little better.

I also said I prefer the name Spiders, regardless. I think being tied to a name is silly. While not common in the last couple decades, teams constantly changed names for many decades.

You're RIGHT, I did become defensive. That was unfair. I did because my other post in this forum was a POTUS poll, which Trump won handily. I agree "Spiders" or even "Naps" would be a great nickname.

It was bound to happen after social media's success in getting rid of deadskins.

Vandiver: that's a great point.

If this is the trend, then teams that I expect to be given at least a slight look for a name change for the Big 4 teams:

NFL
Kansas City Chiefs
Minnesota Vikings
New England Patriots (?)

MLB
Atlanta Braves
New York Yankees (?)
San Diego Padres (?)
Texas Rangers

NBA
Philadelphia 76ers
Portland Trail Blazers
Utah Jazz - just offensive to call any team in Utah the "Jazz"

NHL
Chicago Blackhawks
Montreal Canadiens (?)
New York Rangers

Be: the non-Native American stuff is pretty innocuous.

Is it? I’ve heard rumblings about the Texas Rangers name. Note that the New York Rangers are tangentially named the Rangers because of the Texas Rangers. There’s a lot hate towards Lewis & Clark - the idea behind the Trail Blazers. With the 1619 Project, I can see why the 76ers name would be on the chopping block. Vikings are depicted as barbaric which seems to be offensive to many. I do wonder if using the Spanish word Padres is going too far. I truly don’t know how other people take these names. It may be best to avoid names that elude to any people if that’s the case.

Kansas City has to be the Chefs.

Redskins needed to go.

Indians is pretty innocuous. But its not a silly change. Don't think the Indian presence was ever very significant around Cleveland.

If the Chiefs or Braves get changed, that's just stupid.

(12-14-2020 06:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  Redskins needed to go.

Indians is pretty innocuous. But its not a silly change. Don't think the Indian presence was ever very significant around Cleveland.

If the Chiefs or Braves get changed, that's just stupid.

Braves remain committed to name as other teams make changes

Atlanta Braves| Dec 14, 2020

Quote:The Braves continue to signal a commitment to their team name, including a spotlight on Native American culture and tradition in recent weeks, as other professional sports franchises have opted to change names.

Braves officials told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution in July they have no intention of changing the name of the franchise nor the use of a tomahawk as a logo. They are discussing the tomahawk chant often done at home games.

“We are so proud of our team’s name, and our expectation is that we will always be the Atlanta Braves,” Terry McGuirk, the Braves’ chairman, told the AJC.

“I would say unequivocally the Atlanta Braves’ name will stay the Atlanta Braves,” he added later. “We come to that position as a result of … a lot of listening to our fans, to the Native American community. We have spent the last six months trying to make sure we are grounded in everything we say going forward, so I would again answer the question: Yes, we will be the Atlanta Braves.”

The Braves haven’t responded to requests for comment Monday in the aftermath of the Cleveland news.

The NFL’s Kansas City Chiefs and the National Hockey League’s Chicago Blackhawks have also said they have no intention of changing their names.

“The brand goes along with the name,” McGuirk told the AJC. “The tomahawk logo on the jersey as a big piece of our iconography is here to stay. We are proud of it. We think our constituencies hold it in an equally high level of esteem.”

Schiller said the Braves name, to him, “means somebody who possesses courage, is a warrior. So for me, it’s held in high regard and it’s esteemed by the Native American culture and it’s powerful. It’s very representative of strength and honor.”

The Braves franchise was known by various other names in the late 1800s and early 1900s in Boston: the Red Stockings, Red Caps, Beaneaters, Doves and Rustlers. The team was renamed the Braves in 1912 and known by that moniker until 1936, when the name was changed to the Bees. The team returned to Braves in 1941, and that name followed the franchise as it moved from Boston to Milwaukee in 1953 and from Milwaukee to Atlanta in 1966.

in other Braves/MLB news:
Marcell Ozuna named NL’s first Outstanding Designated Hitter!


well, I guess that's the wave of the future.

(12-14-2020 06:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  Redskins needed to go.

Indians is pretty innocuous. But its not a silly change. Don't think the Indian presence was ever very significant around Cleveland.

If the Chiefs or Braves get changed, that's just stupid.

The Chief Wahoo was what made it really bad. A number of my native American friends have all commented that if they had dropped the Chief Wahoo years ago, and the other faux-native stuff (foam tomahawks, etc) then the name itself wouldn't have bothered them. It was the whole package that made it offensive and degrading.

(12-15-2020 12:51 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(12-14-2020 06:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  Redskins needed to go.

Indians is pretty innocuous. But its not a silly change. Don't think the Indian presence was ever very significant around Cleveland.

If the Chiefs or Braves get changed, that's just stupid.

The Chief Wahoo was what made it really bad. A number of my native American friends have all commented that if they had dropped the Chief Wahoo years ago, and the other faux-native stuff (foam tomahawks, etc) then the name itself wouldn't have bothered them. It was the whole package that made it offensive and degrading.

That's a staple at Atlanta Braves games.

(12-14-2020 01:11 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Be: the non-Native American stuff is pretty innocuous.

Isn't that a matter of opinion?

The issue with these discussions is the subjectivity. Who gets to decide something is problematic?

Who gets to decide that it is appropriate for one to be offended and not another?

(12-14-2020 01:11 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Be: the non-Native American stuff is pretty innocuous.

But if they become The Cleveland Baseball Team, maybe they can win the division -
just saying!

ATU: it's ALL opinion and perspective. It seems KC and Chicago are soliciting the opinions of Native Americans WRT the nicknames. I don't have an issue with the NAME "Brave" but it's IMPOSSIBLE to argue that the iconography isn't problematic.

(12-15-2020 01:04 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(12-15-2020 12:51 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(12-14-2020 06:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  Redskins needed to go.

Indians is pretty innocuous. But its not a silly change. Don't think the Indian presence was ever very significant around Cleveland.

If the Chiefs or Braves get changed, that's just stupid.

The Chief Wahoo was what made it really bad. A number of my native American friends have all commented that if they had dropped the Chief Wahoo years ago, and the other faux-native stuff (foam tomahawks, etc) then the name itself wouldn't have bothered them. It was the whole package that made it offensive and degrading.

That's a staple at Atlanta Braves games.

The "Rev." Deion Sanders brought the tomahawk chop with him to the Braves from Fla State when he played for both the Braves and the Falcons in the '90s. Before that, they never did any chopping in Atlanta for Braves games, so you can blame him, but BLM would then be on your azz. I am more offended by the Falcons as they have been offending sports fans for decades with their poor play and terrible uniforms that get worse and worse every time they change them. Go Falcons, and take the Hawks with you! But leave the Braves alone--the only Atlanta sports team worth a darn.

Why are you saying BLM care about Deion so much. Be careful that you don't accidentally light your strawman on fire.