Sigh of relief
We got through another one. I’m always shocked at how many times bad deals like Jones-Bedard stall or fail because of weird sticking points (like Omar’s knees).
“I’d like to trade you my house and everything in it, my brand new Dodge Viper with secret lifetime speeding ticket immunity pass, and $100,000 for that disposable pen you have there.”
“You’ll have to throw in those shoes you’re wearing.”
“What, my shoes? Never! Why, I bought these at Costco and they’ve been adequate for six months!”
“No deal unless I get those shoes!”
“Fine! I’ll just keep all my stuff!”
“You do that!”
May this whole thing fall apart similarly, so that years from now we can laugh about the whole thing.
The big news today is the Indians cut a deal to name Jacobs Field “Progressive Field” like the auto insurance company that once called me at o-dark-thirty in the morning because they didn’t understand the concept of time zones.
As several people emailed me to note, it’s at least incongruous that a company named Progressive will now sponsor the stadium of a team that, while run by a progressive front office, has for a logo Chief Wahoo, by far the most embarrassingly racist of any major sports team in America today.
Wheeee!
Comments
USSM uses and recommends
That was a really funny post. Funniest one in months.
Progressive Field might be mistaken as the soup company.
I still think Redskins is worse, but to each their own.
I would have to arge that “Redskins” is the most embarrassingly racist of any major sports team in America today.
Chief Wahoo, while embarrassing in and of itself, isn;t flat out calling a people a derogatory name.
Funny analogy there. I wouldn’t exactly compare Bedard to a disposable pen, but you made your point. I am really just hoping the FO manages to keep Jones until the start of next season, where once he gets some regular playing time, his value will skyrocket to where FO wouldn’t dare trade him. But this offseason drags on for now.
It could be worse. Petco for a baseball field brings up some weird images to me.
I wonder when they change the Indians logo. It’s not like they are the Yankees or anything.
“o-dark-thirty in the morning”
+1 That schwat never gets old.
Progressive Field might be mistaken as the soup company.
Progresso.
To be clear, I think the Redskins as a name is way worse than Indians — I was talking about just the logo there.
I agree that Redskins is worse as a name, but the actual Chief Wahoo logo, which Derek seems to be referencing, is pretty bad. Maybe it’s just me, but it looks like a reddish version of a Sambo cartoon.
And even if you can’t find anything specifically and obviously racist in the drawing, it just looks racist.
And Derek answered before I did, making me look like an idiot. I gotta figure out this refresh button before I post.
Ten years ago people were not offended. This country is progressively becoming too politically correct. The word Yankee is just as derogatory as Redskin, but you won’t ever hear that from organizations like the NAACP or the organization that represents Native Americans. Why? Because no white American from New England has reason to be offended, and neither should Native Americans (which, ironically, is equally offensive considering America was not named after the original inhabitants of this land).
At one time schools were named after Indian tribes to honor them. Now, those same schools are under pressure to change their name because it is “racist.” We might as well start thinking what Seattle’s new name is going to be because we are mocking Chief Seattle somehow.
Seriously, if you are offended by the Indians’ logo or the Redskins’ name, grow up and go have a beer. You might as well be offended you are living in this country because your ancestors “stole” this land 500 years ago. I doubt you do anything to “right” that offense.
[End of rant and my debating the political correctness some of you seek. I will definitely enjoy reading any counter-arguments, though.]
Here’s to another day of quiet on the home front.
So…what happened?
Interesting comment, Wilder. I would argue that the systematic degradation that occurs as a result of perception developing out of stereotypes is where the damage lies.
Your Yankee analogy is not the same thing much for the reason German Americans were not persecuted like Japanese Americans in WWII– skin color. It is why a dark skinned American with a turban is bound on some level to feel all eyes are on them the second they step foot in an airport. Security checks are different when you get the special full pat down every time you enter the airport, compared to the white folks “losing the lottery” and getting frisked. If you have never felt the weight of perceived stereotype, it is incredibly easy to dismiss it as being all in the mind. It isn’t.
Also, naming a high school for the local tribe is a tribute. Naming Seattle for Chief Sealth works the same way. Naming a national team for a racial stereotype? Not the same. In areas like Toledo (WA) that have a sizable Native American population and a high school mascot of “Indian” let the local community decide to keep or change it. On a national level, in the nation’s capital? How hypocritical of us, seriously. This should have been done years and years ago.
I’m not all that politically correct, but I do know the power of subtlety. Simply put, we can do better. And to say “have a beer and get over it” strikes me as being rather capricious.
Also, 10 years ago people WERE offended. The criticism has been slowly mounting for years, as society in general becomes not more politically correct, but more aware of how our individual actions and attitudes affect other people.
I’m also not going to “right the offense” of my ancestors stealing, both here in America and centuries earlier in the North Atlantic. However, I can do little things to make a difference, and being a conscientious vocal dissenter and objector to blithely named sports teams takes very little effort.
Looking at the situation from the eyes of those who could see slight through stereotype on a daily basis? That takes more work.
When you meet someone for the first time, do you use the name they introduce themselves with, or do you make up your own name for them? Would you use one that was deliberately offensive, even if you didn’t make it up yourself? “Fatty,” perhaps, or “baldy,” or “gimpy”? Would you use it to their face? And if they asked you to stop, would you? What kind of a person would you be if you continued using it anyway, in spite of their objections?
The word Yankee is just as derogatory as Redskin, but you won’t ever hear that from organizations like the NAACP or the organization that represents Native Americans. Why? Because no white American from New England has reason to be offended
Exactly. No New Englander is offended by “Yankee” — even when it is used derisively, as it often is in the south — so there’s nothing wrong with that term. But that’s the point: we don’t get to decide which terms “they” find objectionable. It really doesn’t matter what I think, and unless you are (in this case) indigenous it doesn’t matter what you think either. They are offended, they have objected, and it’s simply good manners on our part to acknowledge and accommodate those objections. Even if that means we have to make the terrible, backbreaking effort to learn new terminology or stop using an old-fashioned image. This has nothing to do with righting wrongs; it has everything to do with being polite.
There are people who don’t give a damn what anyone else thinks, and go ahead saying and doing whatever they please. We call these people preschool children. Fortunately, most of them grow up with the help of parents who teach them to stop calling people ever-more-subtle variations on “poopyhead”; if their parents fail in that basic task, social pressure usually comes to the rescue. But not always. Whether a result of bad parenting or something worse, some simply grow up and have a beer and still call people by names those people object to. When faced with objections these people typically complain about “political correctness” to cover their ignorance of their blunder, or their laziness in not working to avoid it, or their rudeness in not caring. Or they may just be attempting to draw attention away from what is really prejudice. I can’t say. But they really doth protest too much about something that simply a question of good manners.
As I understand it, The Redskins are far and away the most popular NFL team among Native Americans, regardless of where in the country they are.
Personally as a Caucasian male of German heritage, I don’t get this fixation some have with ethnic caricatures as mascots. I’ve only encountered one offensive mascot in sports- “The Fighting Whities”.
I would like to just take this opportunity to call you all a bunch of pork chops.
BrianV is right. If you visit a reservation, you’ll see many people wearing Redskins and Indians paraphernalia.
I wore a pair of adidas for six years. They were gritty veterans.
With Progressive joining Safeco and Allstate as sponsors of major sporting venues (not to mention Nationwide sponsoring the entire AAA-level NASCAR series), I’m left to draw only one conclusion: We aren’t getting into enough accidents.
“BrianV is right. If you visit a reservation, you’ll see many people wearing Redskins and Indians paraphernalia.”
Does that lessen the negative connotation of the team names?
Reminds me of the linguistic/sociological debate that is raging in the black community right now about the word “nigga” and the haphazard use of the term on a widespread scale. Many use the term lightly, despite it being a derivation of the most loaded word in the English language. Just because it is used so, by one toward another the first is friendly with, does not change the fact that there is a tremendous negative power in that word and many in the given community would rather not hear it ever used. The same goes for Native Americans and Redskins/Indians gear; there is just an ugliness and exploitation to the names and in the greater scheme of things our world would be better without those team names and without that ugly word.
The argument is all about context. A white person finding the name “Redskins” offensive is just rediculously stupid. A Native American who finds it offensive has a legitimate argument.
Here is an example. In my home I have a Confederatte flag on display in honor of my ancestors who fought and died for the Confederacy. If a white person enters my home, finds it offensive, and asks me to remove it I kindly tell them to go and have sexual relations with themselves. If a Black person finds it offensive, I remove it while they are in my home.
Until the major Native American tribes and corporations speak out as one voice and demand removal of the names, it is a non-issue. Just my humple opinion.
Here is an example. In my home I have a Confederatte flag on display in honor of my ancestors who fought and died for the Confederacy. If a white person enters my home, finds it offensive, and asks me to remove it I kindly tell them to go and have sexual relations with themselves. If a Black person finds it offensive, I remove it while they are in my home.
You seriously wait for African-Americans to tell you they are offended before you remove the Confederate flag? And if they don’t speak up you assume they are not offended?
I probably had ancestors who fought and died in the Crusades. Not everything in one’s family history is worth celebrating.
Depends which of the Crusades; the first few were honorable. The actual history matters, too, not just the random thoughts of those who don’t know it.
Can we not go down this route, guys?
This is scary. 2008 and the concept of white privilege still hasn’t sunk in.
the A’s have signed Emil Brown, likely prepatory to sending Kotsay out, poss. to Atlanta.
I’ve had a couple of lengthy conversations with friends who are of Native American background (varying degrees from part to 100%) about just this topic. All are proud of their heritage and many are active within their tribes. It may be a function of their ages (Gen X & thereabouts), but they all refer to themselves as “Indian.” Furthermore, the overwhelming response to this whole thing is, “there are FAR more important things to worry about than ‘Indian vs. Native American,’ team names or logos. Non-Indians should put all of that thought and energy into combating poverty, health issues and the related social ills on the reservations.”
Wait, why are you sighing in relief? I mean, aside from the whole ‘thank god there was no mention of Jones in the news today’ thing, which in no way precludes there being one tomorrow. Is there something you know that we don’t know (I mean in regard to this trade, not in general)?
As for the racist macot conversation, I feel compelled to say that the Yankees, or the Fighting Irish, or the Saltines any such team name/mascot that can be seen as derogatory toward white people cannot be racist because white people are not oppressed. There is no such thing as reverse racism. There can be prejudice, but the difference is that racism has to be institutionalized and at least in this country the institutions tend to work against minorities.
“This country is progressively becoming too politically correct.” No, this is the excuse of people who want to ignore the stereotyping and disrespect caused by their own language use.
“Native Americans (which, ironically, is equally offensive considering America was not named after the original inhabitants of this land).” I don’t know about equally, but it certainly is considered somewhat offensive by many indigenous peoples. Many prefer the use of their specific tribal name (for example, “Sammamish”), but this does not work on a scale of national discussion. We run into similar issues with hispanic/latina(o)/chican(o) and even African-American/black. But we can at least try to use labels that are generally accepted when we have to use them on a national scale (and check with individuals when we have to use labels which actually apply to them).
“You might as well be offended you are living in this country because your ancestors “stole” this land 500 years ago. I doubt you do anything to “right” that offense.” Well, a start is to not use terms that demean and dehumanize groups of people.
“In my home I have a Confederatte flag on display in honor of my ancestors who fought and died for the Confederacy.”
Is it displayed in such a way as to make this obvious (like in a display case with pictures of your ancestors, with stories about them, etc.)? Because otherwise, what’s the difference between that and someone whose grandfather fought for Hitler putting up a swastika flag? I believe that individuals can act honorably in support of a cause that is not honorable, but that does not mean we later show support for the cause to try to show respect for the individual.
“Until the major Native American tribes and corporations speak out as one voice and demand removal of the names, it is a non-issue. Just my humple opinion.” Do you then believe, because this has not happened in some huge, public way, that it is not a signifcant issue? That those who complain about the bigotry and sterotyping are just some kind of fringe?
It borders on the absurd that these temas have not already made these changes. Many, many colleges have done so, and, despite outcry about “loss of tradition,” I have yet to read a single article or even hear about an institution suffereing because it chose to end the disrespectful use of a name or logo.
every day we sigh.
btw, Drayer has a ‘we still have no idea’ blog entry today, that turns into a paeon to Lambeau Field…
This might shock you, but to most Southerners the flag has nothing to do with hatred. Why should I assume someone is offended by something I myself love? I’m sure die hard Cleveland Indians feel the same about Chief Wahoo.
Like I said earlier, context and perspective. America desperatlely needs to lighten up.
I’m not sure which is more entertaining this morning, the debate over Clemen’s backside, or Jeff Kent announcing that he thinks everyone should have to take blood tests. And tell the truth, always, just like he does. Especially those young whippersnappers trying to take his job.
31- There isn’t anything other than the flag. I do have other flags on display as well.
I just had a thought. The vast majority of Native American tribes either openly fought for or sympathised with the Confederacy. Can a Native American Support displays of Confederete paraphenalia but become enraged at the Washington Redskins? Weird.
Am I missing something this early in the morning? We got through another what? Is the Bedard trade off the table?
Or is this some level of witty humor from DMZ to which I am completely oblivious?
I have a theory;
If you want to make some money in the stock market, find a stadium newly named or renamed for a company, and short that stock!
It does seem to be a pattern that after getting the naming rights, these companies go into the toilet, at least for a while.
Re: Progessive- Nu? What should they call the stadium? Denial Field?
Among the many things America needs, “lightening up” seems to be high on the list for people who don’t recognize any of the other needs.
#37– I think the particular genre of humor you are searching for here is “the running gag”
msb – Thanks for finding another couple of gems. Nothing to get a Saturday morning started like a mental image of Clemens’ abscessed behind!
Ten years ago people were not offended.
That’s simply not true. I remember the Atlanta Braves coming under criticism for their name when they made the WS in 1991, and that was 16 years ago.
I’m wondering if the Indians’ script ‘I’ cap logos are the first step in a phasing out of the Chief Wahoo logo. There are obviously some Cleveland fans who are attached to that logo, so slowly phasing it out might be the easiest way to get rid of it.
No one’s arguing that Chief Wahoo is the most important issue facing the world or anyone in it. Global warming has human-ending possibilities, and yet we’re worried about a Jones-Bedard trade.
That doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t note these things as they come up.
White Southerners, sure.
I’d be a little more sympathetic to the “flag = heritage” argument if this was about one of the actual flags of the Confederacy, rather than the battle flag. It’s like arguing you’re displaying your pride in being German by flying… well, you can guess where I’d go with the rest of that sentence.
Goooooooooooooodwin!
The target is alway being unreasonable, has no sense of humor, doesn’t know the tradition, yada yada . . . .
When I went to Mercer Island HS, the Islander mascot in the gym was a mural of a black Islander with a bone through his nose. Visiting teams from Seattle didn’t like it. But they were being unreasonable, didn’t know the tradition, touchy, etc. etc. etc.
Nothing new about any of this. Certainly not a product of the last ten years.
Jesus, it’s never going to get any better. I’m having a hard time imagining someone proudly displaying the stars and bars having any black friends.
So funny the things people take pride in.
To better understand, though certainly not to sympathize, with the southern white heritage obsession, try Tony Horwitz’s Confederates in the Attic or James Horton’s Slavery and Public History: The Tough Stuff of American Memory.
Yankees: not offensive to Northerners, which is probably why a bunch of them decided to proudly name themselves the “Yankees.” At the time of the Civil War some Southerners thought this was a really mean thing to say to a Northerner…but the Northerners have long-since co-opted the term and it’s lost all perjorative impact.
Braves: not a racial term, but the name for a job or role within a particular culture. See “Brewers,” “Patriots,” “Packers,” “Royals,” et. al. Some say “Bears” counts but we don’t need to go there.
Redskins: to post terms analogous to this one referring to African-Americans, Jews, Mexicans or any other group would violate the terms of service of this blog.
Indians: to me the name is borderline and not worth arguing over very strenuously. I really dislike the terms Native-American and African-American, terms that could reasonably apply to myself and Charlize Theron, respectively. That logo is as bad as as the term Redskins. Who would want their race charicatured that way?
Shortbus, well said. There is a terrific riff by Smokey Robinson that was a Def Poetry Jam session in which he called himself “Black” and said that “African-Americans” are people from Africa, not Black Americans.
And I wish I didn’t know, comprehend, and laugh at the comment on “Bears.”
Ehhh…pass.
Yeah, well…this is a country where substantial portions don’t think nooses and lynching have racial connotations for other parts of the country…
The word Yankee is just as derogatory as Redskin, but you won’t ever hear that from organizations like the NAACP or the organization that represents Native Americans.
The Yankee reservation on the upper east side of Manhattan seems a bit nicer than the Indian reservation at Pine Ridge, but to each his own.
The funny thing about the white southerner with his cherished stars and bars is usually the same guy who wants to “move on, not dwell on the past” when you bring up things like this. (In fact, so great is the urge to forget that photos like that were almost lost forever).
I still think this should be Cleveland’s logo.
Joser, I’m not sure how the white southerner with the Confederate flag relates to your picture from the civil rights movement. It seems a bit like your remarking that a Muslim Saudi Arabian immigrant should be forced to respond in some manner — perhaps asking to “move on, not dwell on the past” — when being asked to view an image from 9/11. What does that immigrant have to do with 9/11 other than being from the same country as many of the malfeasors, acting ostensibly under color of a religion? What does a Civil War battle flag have to do with cops beating a guy during a protest in the 50s, other than being from groups of people who, you assume, have some of the same attitudes toward race relations? See where I’m going with this?
Writing that kind of tripe may get you some approving head-nods at your local herb cooperative, and perhaps even earn you an A in your undergraduate Sociology class at UW, but that doesn’t mean that it will stand up to any kind of intellectual rigor by anyone with a scintilla of intelligence (not that I, particularly at 1:30 AM, claim to make use of it here).
By the way, not everyone who disagrees with the predominantly left-leaning view here is ignorant, nor is their lack of agreement with you “sad” or evidence of “how far we still need to go.” Rather, the alienation and patronizing attitudes toward them, in my view, is evidence of how far this country has slid from its founding principles (and, to the extent this is some kind of quasi-academic discussion, from academic freedom to make unpopular arguments and to have them given fair consideration and analysis — no, comment #31, that is not analysis).
I’m glad to see that we could have the quarterly anti-racism blog posting this early in the year, perhaps allowing us to make it all the way to Opening Day before we have to read another.
Aaaaand I think we’ve let the topic drift far enough, now.
Hey, hey!
It’s 1:10 on the east coast, and no word of a trade! We’re getting dangerously close to extended the streak, as Angelos is sure to be going down for his mid afternoon nap soon.
42.”Ten years ago people were not offended.
That’s simply not true. I remember the Atlanta Braves coming under criticism for their name when they made the WS in 1991, and that was 16 years ago.”
It goes back much farther than that, people have been trying, sometimes successfully, to get sports teams to change their names or logos since at least the 1970s. A high school in Pekin, IL changed its team name in 1981, after years of protests.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/levesque/106471_leve30.shtml
Anyone who thinks this started 10 years ago has simply not been paying attention to … well to a lot of things. The news (or history if you weren’t born yet) for one, as well as the history of ethnic oppression in this country (and the world too, I’m not saying the US is worse than other countries, in fact it’s probably better than most in this regard — but far from perfect).
you know, this whole ” consecutive days without a bad move” thing is very subjective.
some people might actually find the miguel cairo signing to be an idiotic move.
Wow that’s totally awesome except that I talked about why it’s not thanks though.