Posted: 12/27/2012 11:31 AM
Posted: 12/27/2012 11:39 AM
Posted: 12/27/2012 11:55 AM
Posted: 12/27/2012 12:19 PM
ericwantsbbd wrote: WTF is up with the jolly brave? Who thought that was a good idea and approved that?
Posted: 12/27/2012 12:20 PM
Posted: 12/27/2012 12:24 PM
Posted: 12/27/2012 12:53 PM
ericwantsbbd wrote: You Don't find that offensive? Really? Jasoninittoirwinit wrote:
Posted: 12/27/2012 1:00 PM
Posted: 12/27/2012 1:04 PM
ericwantsbbd wrote: psst: you can look up Jingoism - I'm 100% positive you have no idea what it means.
Posted: 12/27/2012 1:06 PM
ericwantsbbd wrote: So a picture of a man raping a child is only offensive if you let it be? You're like, ignoring the child in my example, and the entire nation of indivduals in yours. Jingoism is a thing and it's really hideous. That finger you're pointing at others, has 4 other friends, and they are pointing at you. psst: you can look up Jingoism - I'm 100% positive you have no idea what it means.
Posted: 12/27/2012 1:25 PM
Posted: 12/27/2012 1:26 PM
nah. Historically the US has acted precisely as Jingoists towards an entire nation of individuals. Creating and perpetuating stereotypes continues that jingoism - just in a more subtle way. We often create characters of individuals (see: gook in Vietnam, Jap in WWII, towelhead in 1st Iraq War, Terrorist for Muslims in current day and age) and this is just bits of leftovers from a different era. Suggesting it isn't offensive, or a portion of jingoism from differnet eras perpetuated today, is being dishonest.
We don't have the Fighting Chinese mascots with slanty eyes and yellow skin. We don't see mascots with with dark skin, large lips and curley hair and call them the slaves. Why do we allow Indians, Redskins, Braves to stand? (i've heard the exception is the "fighting Irish" but that doens't stand up as the school started as an Irish Catholic institution and the mascot is a leprechan.)
smokednoak wrote: Judging by its use, it appears you don't. In fact the entire irony of this is hilarious.
Posted: 12/27/2012 1:27 PM
Posted: 12/27/2012 1:28 PM
Posted: 12/27/2012 1:35 PM
Posted: 12/27/2012 1:47 PM
I think they let it stand because 1. they don't really care 2. it would cost a ton to remarket a team especially considering these teams have had the same name for eons. But that's a red herring as lots of teams rebrand - look at the Rays/Devil Rays recently.
Or the Astros this year. --There are lots of native americans. I personally know lots of Navajo and a few Hopi (local tribes where I live) and they are regular people with a heritage that's unique and interesting. Why we'd allow negative characters of these people to stand is bizarre. It's the attitude of people who say, "it's art! and it only offends other people who aren't me so who cares?!" I think it's a jingoist nature.
Posted: 12/27/2012 2:09 PM
Posted: 12/27/2012 2:26 PM
smokednoak wrote: Shouldn't tomahawks and feathers, being just as stereotypical, be offensive as well? I for one feel there is nothing wrong with a stereotype until it is misused. Using stereotypes in jokes can be hilarious. Using stereotypes when hiring people, obviously wrong.
MSN PrivacyLegalAdvertise on MSNAbout our adsRSS
© 2014 Microsoft|