Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 24 Next >>
Topic: Bye Bye Jemima Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Robert Bradley
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 September 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 4810
Posted: 07 July 2020 at 9:39am | IP Logged | 1 post reply

When I was a kid I can remember all sorts of fun caricatures in sports logos - the beer barrel Milwaukee Brewers logo, Bango the Buck for the Milwaukee Bucks, the San Diego Padres' Friar, the twins for the Minnesota Twins - but teams got way from those, many of them to bland logos or fiercer-looking "intimidating" logos.

The trend has begun to correct itself in baseball with nostalgia returning some teams to their roots (the Padres, Brewers, Orioles, Blue Jays have all gone retro in the recent designs).

My local NFL team is a good example of overthinking things - they took their cardinal head logo and tried to make him fiercer in 1994, which only makes me ask "who is going to be intimidated by a cardinal?"  Or any logo for that matter?

I doubt we will ever see a return to the whimsical logo characters of the 1960's and before, but it would be nice to see some with some personality other than "in-your-face attitude."


Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Eric Sofer
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 31 January 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 4789
Posted: 07 July 2020 at 10:45am | IP Logged | 2 post reply

As a native Clevelander, I'll give you my two cents about our baseball team.

I never had a problem with the Cleveland Indians after I found out that it was a tribute to Chief Sockalexis. It seemed legitimate to me.

I DID find the original caricaturization rather offensive... but the last version of Chief Wahoo seemed more a cartoon, and I didn't think it so bad.

Now, the big issue is - is it offensive? Is it offensive to a large portion of the native Americans? I have gone to Indians games, and I always see the same seven or eight protesters with the same signs, and I do not in the least doubt that they find it downright offensive.

But... how many? How many make a significant percentage to react to? Ohio's population is around 11.7 million, and the native American population is around 17,723. I have no idea how many insist that the logo and team name be changed (although we're discussing the name change right now). Is it enough? I mean, I don't believe this is about lives that matter. To put a blunt point on it - and I apologize, as I do not intend to offend here - but I think that native Americans are not as easy to identify as blacks are. 

If 100 native Americans object, and the rest don't care, I don't see that as a mandate. That doesn't mean it's not worth discussion; I feel it means that it's not reason enough to get in an uproar.

And of course, the same discussion should happen in Kansas City, Washington, Atlanta, and Florida State. I gather it is, and the discussion is a good thing; the demand for change doesn't seem very strong to me, though.

As for the Cleveland Indians; the ownership of the Indians was bribed three years ago to remove Chief Wahoo from uniforms, and in return, the Indians got the 2019 All Star game. Please note that does NOT apply to souvenirs; just the stadium and the uniforms. Will it change? It sure can. SHOULD it change? I'm nowhere near smart enough to know.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Shawn Kane
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 04 November 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 3239
Posted: 07 July 2020 at 12:23pm | IP Logged | 3 post reply

I'm a New York Giants fan but I live close to D.C. I was listening to a talk radio show this morning that was having a discussion with Lindsay Czarniack who has worked nationally with ESPN and NBC Sports about the Redskins name. She says the name change is due but mentions a Native American wearing the team's gear coming up to her at the Super Bowl and saying "It really doesn't bother a lot of us." There's always going to be two sides of that argument even if the name goes away (which I believe it will). I don't have a horse in the race so whether they change the name or not isn't really on my list of big concerns in 2020.

One of the hosts makes mention of what happens to people who still wear the old logo. Do they get treated like horrible people because it's now deemed unacceptable? There's lots of money to be made re-branding the team but that's also expensive so it's not like lifelong fans can just replace all their stuff. Not to mention people who like to wear their favorite player's jerseys. Darrell Green, Art Monk, Doug Williams, Joe Jacoby, and Joe Theismann and other greats never played for whatever their new name will be. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Brian Floyd
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 July 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 8322
Posted: 07 July 2020 at 2:00pm | IP Logged | 4 post reply

Just as Billy "White Shoes" Johnson, Warren Moon and Earl Campbell never played for the Titans, Shawn.

My sympathies for you being a Giants fan. That team is going to be crap until they get a new GM, but I don't think Gettleman iwll be going anywhere any time soon. And right now he's almost making Matt Millen look good.

I'm a Cowboys fan, my father is a Redskins fan, and my stepson is an Eagles fan. No Giants fans in my family as far as I know. (My in-laws are *spit* Patriots fans.)




Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Shawn Kane
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 04 November 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 3239
Posted: 07 July 2020 at 2:39pm | IP Logged | 5 post reply

I agree with you about your Oilers point (I mainly wear my LT jersey even though that jersey is a throwback now) but I think the radio guy was thinking more along the lines that the Skins name is changing due to the name being found offensive. Can a person wear their Gary Clark jersey without getting shamed by someone in public? I don't know. 

As for the Giants, I'm the eternal optimist but they have a long way to go to not be terrible.
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Wickett
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 July 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 795
Posted: 12 July 2020 at 11:08am | IP Logged | 6 post reply

"I think that's a ridiculous statement based on what it
actually is that they are protesting against.

What would you do Joe? What would you do to even the
board a little, to stop people living in fear? To stop
people thinking it's OK to dress in white and treat
people like crap purely due to the colour of their skin?

How would you improve the education standards for non-
whites? How would you address beliefs that people are
sub-human because they are not white?

How would you address any of this?"

I think its important to distinguish between "Black Lives Matter" as a movement, and Black Lives Matter as a political organization.  

There is a broad based movement to protest police brutality and systemic racism.  That movement has co-opted the Black Lives Matter slogan, but it is much larger than the actual organization.  

If you look at the Black Lives Matter organization, then Joe is exactly right about their goals.  They are self described Marxists, who want to throw out capitalism and reorganize every aspect of American society.  In order to do that, first you have to tear down what is there.

I think one of the problems we are having is that criticisms of Black Lives Matter as a political organization are being misinterpreted as criticisms of the movement, or the broader idea that black lives matter.

I agree with the message that black lives matter, and that changes are necessary, but they need to be the RIGHT changes, or they won't be effective, and will often have unintended consequences that do more harm than good.

I think the policies being advocated by the Black Lives Matter organization fall into that category.  They attack the symptoms of the disease, without addressing the cause, and they do so in a way that goes too far in the wrong direction.  
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Wickett
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 July 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 795
Posted: 12 July 2020 at 11:37am | IP Logged | 7 post reply

"White fear elected Trump. It runs deep."

I disagree with the first part of that John.  

I voted for Obama in 2008.  I was even a delegate for him at the state Democratic Convention. I chose him because he was the anti-establishment candidate, he presented himself as a pragmatist, rather than an idealogue, I agreed with his ideas about education and foreign policy, I was inspired by his optimism, and he promised to have the most transparent administration in history.

Unfortunately, what we got didn't live up to the promise.  Obama's handling of the economy was disastrous and prolonged our recovery from the "Great Recession."  In his second term, he governed as a far left idealogue, and his administration was anything but transparent.  So at the end of the day, Obama was more of the same, as far as policy and governance are concerned.

I think Obama and Trump both won because the electorate was rejecting the establishment.

For me personally, I voted for Trump because Hilary was a terrible candidate whose name was synonymous with corruption.

The Republicans ran 17 candidates.  I would have preferred ANY of them over Trump except George Patacki and Scott Walker (add Rick Perry to that list after he couldn't remember which cabinets he would eliminate).

I would still take Trump over HC, and maybe over Biden.

Unfortunately, during this election and the last, several good candidates have been available. but during the primary process, both parties have elevated the worst possible candidates to the top, so once again I feel as though we're having to choose the lesser of too evils, or which candidate will do the least amount of harm to our country.  

That's neither an enthusiastic choice, nor one motivated by "white fear." 


Edited by John Wickett on 12 July 2020 at 11:38am
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Wickett
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 July 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 795
Posted: 12 July 2020 at 12:45pm | IP Logged | 8 post reply

There are two ways to see everything:


The problem with a "cancel culture" is that one side is forcefully deprived of the ability to express its views.

As an example, consider the effort to tear down the "Emancipation" statues in Washington DC and Boston.  

The statues depict Lincoln standing over a freed slave who is kneeling.  The original statue was paid for using donations from freed slaves who wanted to pay tribute to the president they believed had liberated them.  To them the statue was a symbol of freedom.  

For those who want to remove the statue, its a symbol of racism, because the posture of the slave shows subservience to Lincoln.
Having viewed the statues, I understand how they could be seen that way.

However, the point is there are at least two conflicting perspectives on the meaning and significance of the statues; both of which are viable, because the meaning is a matter of OPINION.  

Whether the statues should remain is a legitimate question that should be discussed by the community.  But my point is the discussion needs to happen.  If a group of people are allowed to get together and just tear down the statue, then the free speech of those who erected it, and those who continue to support it is abridged.  

That is dangerous and unamerican.  I support the first amendment 100%; even when the speech being protected is deplorable to me, for several reasons:

First, today's majority could be tomorrow's minority, so setting a precedent that "cancels" or criminalizes offensive speech ultimately endangers the rights of everyone to express themselves. 

Second, silencing anyone (especially under the guise of fighting oppression) makes us the oppressors.  And the obvious hypocrisy demonstrated by our actions delegitimizes whatever values are motivating them.

Last, silencing offensive opinions doesn't make them go away.  You can't challenge a bad idea if that idea is never expressed.  So censorship is counterproductive.  

Some may think that restricting speech protects our children and future generations by shielding them from statues, books, movies, etc., that might hurt their feelings, but in reality its hiding a problem, rather than solving it.  And we add to the problem by depriving the next generation of the critical thinking skills they need to address it.

In this case I agree that confederate statutes should be removed, because we shouldn't honor people who were traitors to our country.  
But not everyone sees them that way.  To some they are champions of states' rights who fought an overly oppressive federal government.

So lets have a discussion.  The most likely outcome is that the statues WILL come down.  How that happens is important.

Having a statue ripped down in the middle of the night by a mob might temporarily remove a visual reminder of past racism.  But if the community comes together and does this the right way, it will send a message to minorities that we recognize the problem and are ready to move on.  Surely that is a better result. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Brian Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 30832
Posted: 12 July 2020 at 7:06pm | IP Logged | 9 post reply

I voted for Trump because Hilary was a terrible candidate whose name
was synonymous with corruption.

*******

Jesus Christ. Is this a joke? Trump is the very epitome of corruption. It’s
been his whole life. Judge the two of them however you like, but Trump
will always win the corruption game.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Neil Lindholm
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: China
Posts: 4939
Posted: 12 July 2020 at 7:13pm | IP Logged | 10 post reply

Yeah, I can see arguments for Trump over Clinton concerning policy and philosophy but corruption? Not even close. 
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Christopher Frost
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 24 October 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 484
Posted: 12 July 2020 at 8:48pm | IP Logged | 11 post reply

"White fear elected Trump."

No. While his racial views certainly appeal to a certain segment of the population, his rise was more due to the backlash against political correctness. Trump is a loudmouth who spouts off whatever nonsense comes to mind regardless of who he offends and that is very appealing to people in an age where everything you say or do is being used as a catalyst for taking offense. His entire campaign during the primaries in 2016 consisted mainly of attacking and belittling his opponents and he was able to ride that attitude right into the White House. I know a lot of people who think Trump is corrupt and a moron but most of them like how he speaks his mind instead of letting Twitterverse browbeat him into watching what he says. 

America was founded in revolution against the powers that be and one of it's most sacred institutions is the first amendment. That attitude of "don't tell me what I can or cannot say" is deeply ingrained in the American psyche and when someone like Trump comes along, people will flock to his side just for "sticking it to the man" (despite the very obvious fact that he is the man). 

Action and reaction. Yin and yang. Etc. As the culture continues to make strides for minorities, equal rights for all, and so forth, there is going to be some pushback against it and people seeking power will find a way to play on that. Hitler did it and so did Trump. White fear is just one of the tools he used to build his support the same way Adolf targeted the Jewish folks in Germany during his rise to power. 

As we move further and further into this nonsense of "cancel culture", the divide and pushback is going to increase in response and that will continue to pave the way for people who take a stand against it. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
David Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 2997
Posted: 12 July 2020 at 9:09pm | IP Logged | 12 post reply


 QUOTE:
"White fear elected Trump."

No. While his racial views certainly appeal to a certain segment of the population, his rise was more due to the backlash against political correctness. Trump is a loudmouth who spouts off whatever nonsense comes to mind regardless of who he offends and that is very appealing to people in an age where everything you say or do is being used as a catalyst for taking offense. His entire campaign during the primaries in 2016 consisted mainly of attacking and belittling his opponents and he was able to ride that attitude right into the White House. I know a lot of people who think Trump is corrupt and a moron but most of them like how he speaks his mind instead of letting Twitterverse browbeat him into watching what he says.

America was founded in revolution against the powers that be and one of it's most sacred institutions is the first amendment. That attitude of "don't tell me what I can or cannot say" is deeply ingrained in the American psyche and when someone like Trump comes along, people will flock to his side just for "sticking it to the man" (despite the very obvious fact that he is the man).

Action and reaction. Yin and yang. Etc. As the culture continues to make strides for minorities, equal rights for all, and so forth, there is going to be some pushback against it and people seeking power will find a way to play on that. Hitler did it and so did Trump. White fear is just one of the tools he used to build his support the same way Adolf targeted the Jewish folks in Germany during his rise to power.

As we move further and further into this nonsense of "cancel culture", the divide and pushback is going to increase in response and that will continue to pave the way for people who take a stand against it.

In other words, white fear elected Trump.

Edited by David Miller on 12 July 2020 at 9:11pm
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 

<< Prev Page of 24 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login