Les Habiens = proselytizing Cristianity on First Nation's people.
it's funny, I recently asked my Dad about the history of them being nicknamed Les Habitants, and he didn't know, which isn't surprising, since he also knew nothing about residential schools.
I guess if we compare "Redskins" and "Indians" (and Chief Wahoo being the problem) to "Chiefs" and "Blackhawks" we can clearly see a difference.
I personally don't have an issue with Chiefs or Blackhawks. Seems pretty respectful to me.
it's still cultural appropriation no matter how you slice it.
it is....I honestly don't know where to draw the line.
So did Elvis, the Beastie Boys, Living Color and a million examples. I think cultural appropriation accusations is Woke gone wild. I'm not talking about the Washington Redskins, I'm talking about a girl in college being accused of it for wearing hoop earrings kind of garbage. Should cultural blending be outlawed?
I think appropriation is different from influence. with music, I go with the latter. I personally agree with you about the hoop earrings and such, but I can also understand if a black person gets triggered by it. there's no black and white rule book.
I don't dispute that it's cultural appropriation, but as Russel points out, is that, in and of itself, bad? It can be. It can be disrespectful. But it's not wrong in itself to take cues from elsewhere. Lines in fashion, music, and other cultural areas can (and sometimes should) be blurred. It gets tricky because I see some people doing some really cringeworthy things that, while probably not badly intended maliciously, might come off as disrespectful.
Sometimes it feels like that's where we are with teams. Was the name "Indians" meant to be disrespectful? Probably not. Maybe even so with R******s (as crazy as that seems), but they still come off that way and fans still react to it that way (see the tomahawk chop). Is Chief Wahoo "cultural appropriation?" Who cares? It was flat out disrespectful even if that's not how we saw it when it was designed in the 1940s. Calling that logo "cultural appropriation" is like calling the n-word "slang" (i.e., it's true but such an under-sell).
As for the names, it gets trickier. The very idea of naming yourself after a group of people that you are not is kind of odd. Then again, you could assign that to the Packers, Oilers, Brewers,* Cowboys, etc., but it comes off differently when it's a group that's been traditionally marginalized/bullied/shit on in this country. I don't care what the intentions were, a critical mass of fan behavior in response to these names has been pretty abhorrent.
These lines are difficult to draw, though. But in the long run, I suspect most fans of the team(s) will adjust. I think that's pretty much what's happened to college teams (Marquette, Miami OH, Syracuse), though the jury's still out at North Dakota...that fanbase is still pretty upset.
*In fairness, those of us old enough to remember Gorman Thomas may suspect that he was, in fact, a Brewer in his spare time.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
I guess if we compare "Redskins" and "Indians" (and Chief Wahoo being the problem) to "Chiefs" and "Blackhawks" we can clearly see a difference.
I personally don't have an issue with Chiefs or Blackhawks. Seems pretty respectful to me.
it's still cultural appropriation no matter how you slice it.
it is....I honestly don't know where to draw the line.
So did Elvis, the Beastie Boys, Living Color and a million examples. I think cultural appropriation accusations is Woke gone wild. I'm not talking about the Washington Redskins, I'm talking about a girl in college being accused of it for wearing hoop earrings kind of garbage. Should cultural blending be outlawed?
I think appropriation is different from influence. with music, I go with the latter. I personally agree with you about the hoop earrings and such, but I can also understand if a black person gets triggered by it. there's no black and white rule book.
Triggered by someone else wearing hoop earrings?!
Something sets someone off, I won’t discount it. I do, though, have a problem when one person’s offense means everyone should then be offended. And act accordingly.
Not playing that game.
Just live and let fucking live! People seem to be concerned about perception over reality moreso these days.
I guess if we compare "Redskins" and "Indians" (and Chief Wahoo being the problem) to "Chiefs" and "Blackhawks" we can clearly see a difference.
I personally don't have an issue with Chiefs or Blackhawks. Seems pretty respectful to me.
it's still cultural appropriation no matter how you slice it.
it is....I honestly don't know where to draw the line.
So did Elvis, the Beastie Boys, Living Color and a million examples. I think cultural appropriation accusations is Woke gone wild. I'm not talking about the Washington Redskins, I'm talking about a girl in college being accused of it for wearing hoop earrings kind of garbage. Should cultural blending be outlawed?
I think appropriation is different from influence. with music, I go with the latter. I personally agree with you about the hoop earrings and such, but I can also understand if a black person gets triggered by it. there's no black and white rule book.
Triggered by someone else wearing hoop earrings?!
Something sets someone off, I won’t discount it. I do, though, have a problem when one person’s offense means everyone should then be offended. And act accordingly.
Not playing that game.
Just live and let fucking live! People seem to be concerned about perception over reality moreso these days.
not specifically only hoop earrings, that was just the one example that mrussell mentioned. there are any number of things that can cause people to get offended.
I live by the old "just because you're offended doesn't mean you're right" mantra. but I will listen and learn where applicable.
I was in a curriculum meeting last week and we were sharing ideas with each other. I told my colleagues that I had my students create an Ugly sweater for the holidays that had inventions/contributions from an early river civilization in it. Kids voted on the best ugly sweater and that kid won a small prize. They absolutely loved the assignment.
My supervisor informed me that you aren’t supposed to use the name Ugly sweater anymore because of the negative connotations. To me this has gone way too far, what is the end game?
I was in a curriculum meeting last week and we were sharing ideas with each other. I told my colleagues that I had my students create an Ugly sweater for the holidays that had inventions/contributions from an early river civilization in it. Kids voted on the best ugly sweater and that kid won a small prize. They absolutely loved the assignment.
My supervisor informed me that you aren’t supposed to use the name Ugly sweater anymore because of the negative connotations. To me this has gone way too far, what is the end game?
I was in a curriculum meeting last week and we were sharing ideas with each other. I told my colleagues that I had my students create an Ugly sweater for the holidays that had inventions/contributions from an early river civilization in it. Kids voted on the best ugly sweater and that kid won a small prize. They absolutely loved the assignment.
My supervisor informed me that you aren’t supposed to use the name Ugly sweater anymore because of the negative connotations. To me this has gone way too far, what is the end game?
What did your super say when you asked them that question?
I relayed something sort of dangerous (I guess) that I saw our 7 year old do to my wife, this morning.
Her reaction "oh my gosh, that is dangerous we cannot have him doing that"
Me "I am glad to see him do something sort-of dangerous. The idea that a son of mine grows up to be a scared and caged little wuss is horrifying to me!"
I am for a lot of the changes we are making -- including the Indians -- but I do also agree that many of these changes are taken so far that our kids are going to be afraid to express any normal or rational feeling.
My supervisor just kind of shrugged his shoulders. he was more looking out for me than telling me what to do so I m guessing it is coming from higher up. I said I ll call it “sweater that has the most room for improvement.”
My supervisor just kind of shrugged his shoulders. he was more looking out for me than telling me what to do so I m guessing it is coming from higher up. I said I ll call it “sweater that has the most room for improvement.”
Ugly sweaters aren't perfect in their inherent ugliness? I think you are a disgrace.
I was in a curriculum meeting last week and we were sharing ideas with each other. I told my colleagues that I had my students create an Ugly sweater for the holidays that had inventions/contributions from an early river civilization in it. Kids voted on the best ugly sweater and that kid won a small prize. They absolutely loved the assignment.
My supervisor informed me that you aren’t supposed to use the name Ugly sweater anymore because of the negative connotations. To me this has gone way too far, what is the end game?
You don't want to hurt the feelings of the sweater for sure.
Now you're just straight pissing me off. I hope ugly sweaters cancel you.
I always pegged you as a Nats fan since you live in Richmond.
No, I was born and raised in Cleveland. Moved to Tampa for college and then to NOVA/Richmond. I don't like any DC teams. But I'm all in on Cleveland forever, and then Tampa.
Now you're just straight pissing me off. I hope ugly sweaters cancel you.
I always pegged you as a Nats fan since you live in Richmond.
No, I was born and raised in Cleveland. Moved to Tampa for college and then to NOVA/Richmond. I don't like any DC teams. But I'm all in on Cleveland forever, and then Tampa.
Now you're just straight pissing me off. I hope ugly sweaters cancel you.
I always pegged you as a Nats fan since you live in Richmond.
No, I was born and raised in Cleveland. Moved to Tampa for college and then to NOVA/Richmond. I don't like any DC teams. But I'm all in on Cleveland forever, and then Tampa.
Do you at least support the Flying Squirrels?
Haha. Good call there! I've been to many games, that's for sure. It's a Giants club so sure. I like the Giants. Stadium is a dump but it's in a great area for night life. They need to rebuild.
I don't dispute that it's cultural appropriation, but as Russel points out, is that, in and of itself, bad? It can be. It can be disrespectful. But it's not wrong in itself to take cues from elsewhere. Lines in fashion, music, and other cultural areas can (and sometimes should) be blurred. It gets tricky because I see some people doing some really cringeworthy things that, while probably not badly intended maliciously, might come off as disrespectful.
Sometimes it feels like that's where we are with teams. Was the name "Indians" meant to be disrespectful? Probably not. Maybe even so with R******s (as crazy as that seems), but they still come off that way and fans still react to it that way (see the tomahawk chop). Is Chief Wahoo "cultural appropriation?" Who cares? It was flat out disrespectful even if that's not how we saw it when it was designed in the 1940s. Calling that logo "cultural appropriation" is like calling the n-word "slang" (i.e., it's true but such an under-sell).
As for the names, it gets trickier. The very idea of naming yourself after a group of people that you are not is kind of odd. Then again, you could assign that to the Packers, Oilers, Brewers,* Cowboys, etc., but it comes off differently when it's a group that's been traditionally marginalized/bullied/shit on in this country. I don't care what the intentions were, a critical mass of fan behavior in response to these names has been pretty abhorrent.
These lines are difficult to draw, though. But in the long run, I suspect most fans of the team(s) will adjust. I think that's pretty much what's happened to college teams (Marquette, Miami OH, Syracuse), though the jury's still out at North Dakota...that fanbase is still pretty upset.
*In fairness, those of us old enough to remember Gorman Thomas may suspect that he was, in fact, a Brewer in his spare time.
"I don't dispute that it's cultural appropriation, but as Russel points out, is that, in and of itself, bad?"
Interesting question well worth exploring!
My own take is that it depends on what the culture being appropriated says about it. If most indigenous people in America are opposed to using their culture in sports names or white women hanging dream catchers from their rear view mirrors (sorry ladies- I've just seen that so many times), then it is not appropriate.
But them what about John Coltrane and Pharoah Sanders incorporating eastern musical influences in their music? Well, Japan has treated both (especially Coltrane) as gods, so I would say in that case- regarding the Japanese influences- no problem! Being aware and sensitive to the reaction of others cultures is, I would say, the key.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Yet the Kansas City Chiefs refuse to change their name.
Tell me why the Chiefs should change their name. What is insulting about the Chiefs?
again, where does it end?
cultural appropriation. it stops when the appropriation stops. no culture wants to be another culture's caricature or mascot.
So the Boston Celtics are up next? Come on man, this is all becoming such a joke.
you don't see a difference between the treatment of Irish people and the treatment of Indigenous peoples?
I don’t know where you got that from but again my question is, where does it all end? Again, what is wrong with the word “Chiefs”? Are people actually complaining about that? Is there mascot bad? I can totally see Chief Wahoo and the Redskins but Chiefs?
Yet the Kansas City Chiefs refuse to change their name.
Tell me why the Chiefs should change their name. What is insulting about the Chiefs?
again, where does it end?
cultural appropriation. it stops when the appropriation stops. no culture wants to be another culture's caricature or mascot.
So the Boston Celtics are up next? Come on man, this is all becoming such a joke.
you don't see a difference between the treatment of Irish people and the treatment of Indigenous peoples?
The Irish were treated very badly in this country, especially the catholics. NINA ( no Irish need apply). Now I'm not saying it was worse or as bad as native Americans, but it was bad. My last name when my father came was Rosul, but he Americanized it to avoid discrimination.
Yet the Kansas City Chiefs refuse to change their name.
Tell me why the Chiefs should change their name. What is insulting about the Chiefs?
again, where does it end?
cultural appropriation. it stops when the appropriation stops. no culture wants to be another culture's caricature or mascot.
So the Boston Celtics are up next? Come on man, this is all becoming such a joke.
you don't see a difference between the treatment of Irish people and the treatment of Indigenous peoples?
I don’t know where you got that from but again my question is, where does it all end? Again, what is wrong with the word “Chiefs”? Are people actually complaining about that? Is there mascot bad? I can totally see Chief Wahoo and the Redskins but Chiefs?
you don't know where I got that from? it's the entire point.
you do know that a Chief is the leader of a Native American tribe, right? and that fans wear Native American head dresses to games, and that after a touchdown a person in Native American clothing mounts a horse named Warpaint (which they are retiring)?
did you think they were named after a chief of police? it's not just the name; it's the entire package that is usually the issue.
I don't dispute that it's cultural appropriation, but as Russel points out, is that, in and of itself, bad? It can be. It can be disrespectful. But it's not wrong in itself to take cues from elsewhere. Lines in fashion, music, and other cultural areas can (and sometimes should) be blurred. It gets tricky because I see some people doing some really cringeworthy things that, while probably not badly intended maliciously, might come off as disrespectful.
Sometimes it feels like that's where we are with teams. Was the name "Indians" meant to be disrespectful? Probably not. Maybe even so with R******s (as crazy as that seems), but they still come off that way and fans still react to it that way (see the tomahawk chop). Is Chief Wahoo "cultural appropriation?" Who cares? It was flat out disrespectful even if that's not how we saw it when it was designed in the 1940s. Calling that logo "cultural appropriation" is like calling the n-word "slang" (i.e., it's true but such an under-sell).
As for the names, it gets trickier. The very idea of naming yourself after a group of people that you are not is kind of odd. Then again, you could assign that to the Packers, Oilers, Brewers,* Cowboys, etc., but it comes off differently when it's a group that's been traditionally marginalized/bullied/shit on in this country. I don't care what the intentions were, a critical mass of fan behavior in response to these names has been pretty abhorrent.
These lines are difficult to draw, though. But in the long run, I suspect most fans of the team(s) will adjust. I think that's pretty much what's happened to college teams (Marquette, Miami OH, Syracuse), though the jury's still out at North Dakota...that fanbase is still pretty upset.
*In fairness, those of us old enough to remember Gorman Thomas may suspect that he was, in fact, a Brewer in his spare time.
"I don't dispute that it's cultural appropriation, but as Russel points out, is that, in and of itself, bad?"
Interesting question well worth exploring!
My own take is that it depends on what the culture being appropriated says about it. If most indigenous people in America are opposed to using their culture in sports names or white women hanging dream catchers from their rear view mirrors (sorry ladies- I've just seen that so many times), then it is not appropriate.
But them what about John Coltrane and Pharoah Sanders incorporating eastern musical influences in their music? Well, Japan has treated both (especially Coltrane) as gods, so I would say in that case- regarding the Japanese influences- no problem! Being aware and sensitive to the reaction of others cultures is, I would say, the key.
See here's the issue. Your argument is reasonable except the bar of "most" people. That information that's impossible to obtain.
And what if 50.1% of Black women were against hoop earrings in white girls? What then? Do you outlaw it or just get to harass them in public?
I'm not picking on your argument, rather the silliness of it all, to me.
Yet the Kansas City Chiefs refuse to change their name.
Tell me why the Chiefs should change their name. What is insulting about the Chiefs?
again, where does it end?
cultural appropriation. it stops when the appropriation stops. no culture wants to be another culture's caricature or mascot.
So the Boston Celtics are up next? Come on man, this is all becoming such a joke.
you don't see a difference between the treatment of Irish people and the treatment of Indigenous peoples?
I don’t know where you got that from but again my question is, where does it all end? Again, what is wrong with the word “Chiefs”? Are people actually complaining about that? Is there mascot bad? I can totally see Chief Wahoo and the Redskins but Chiefs?
you don't know where I got that from? it's the entire point.
you do know that a Chief is the leader of a Native American tribe, right? and that fans wear Native American head dresses to games, and that after a touchdown a person in Native American clothing mounts a horse named Warpaint (which they are retiring)?
did you think they were named after a chief of police? it's not just the name; it's the entire package that is usually the issue.
No shit it s not named after the chief of police, but what is wrong with the word Chiefs in this context? The leader of a tribe? How is that offensive? Fans wear god damn cheese on their heads in Wisconsin.
I m good with war paint retiring.
But on the other note, not in the same league but Irish people were treated pretty shitty in this country.
Comments
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
Sometimes it feels like that's where we are with teams. Was the name "Indians" meant to be disrespectful? Probably not. Maybe even so with R******s (as crazy as that seems), but they still come off that way and fans still react to it that way (see the tomahawk chop). Is Chief Wahoo "cultural appropriation?" Who cares? It was flat out disrespectful even if that's not how we saw it when it was designed in the 1940s. Calling that logo "cultural appropriation" is like calling the n-word "slang" (i.e., it's true but such an under-sell).
As for the names, it gets trickier. The very idea of naming yourself after a group of people that you are not is kind of odd. Then again, you could assign that to the Packers, Oilers, Brewers,* Cowboys, etc., but it comes off differently when it's a group that's been traditionally marginalized/bullied/shit on in this country. I don't care what the intentions were, a critical mass of fan behavior in response to these names has been pretty abhorrent.
These lines are difficult to draw, though. But in the long run, I suspect most fans of the team(s) will adjust. I think that's pretty much what's happened to college teams (Marquette, Miami OH, Syracuse), though the jury's still out at North Dakota...that fanbase is still pretty upset.
*In fairness, those of us old enough to remember Gorman Thomas may suspect that he was, in fact, a Brewer in his spare time.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Something sets someone off, I won’t discount it. I do, though, have a problem when one person’s offense means everyone should then be offended. And act accordingly.
Not playing that game.
Just live and let fucking live! People seem to be concerned about perception over reality moreso these days.
I live by the old "just because you're offended doesn't mean you're right" mantra. but I will listen and learn where applicable.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
again, where does it end?
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
Regarding team names, it's a harder line to draw.
you do know that a Chief is the leader of a Native American tribe, right? and that fans wear Native American head dresses to games, and that after a touchdown a person in Native American clothing mounts a horse named Warpaint (which they are retiring)?
did you think they were named after a chief of police? it's not just the name; it's the entire package that is usually the issue.
www.headstonesband.com
And what if 50.1% of Black women were against hoop earrings in white girls? What then? Do you outlaw it or just get to harass them in public?
I'm not picking on your argument, rather the silliness of it all, to me.
It looks like European settlers gave Indigenous peoples the term Chief...