Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
Inbox
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 3  Next >

New Batting Practice Hats

Posted: 12/27/2012 11:31 AM

New Batting Practice Hats 


ESPN's Uni Watch announced a first look at new BP hats for all of MLB.  I LOVE the new A's hat.  Enjoy.

http://espn.go.com/blog/playbo...g-practice-caps
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/27/2012 11:39 AM

Re: New Batting Practice Hats 


THE PACHYDERM PREVAILS...VIVA ELEPHANTE!!!
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/27/2012 11:55 AM

Re: New Batting Practice Hats 


WTF is up with the jolly brave? Who thought that was a good idea and approved that?
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/27/2012 12:19 PM

Re: New Batting Practice Hats 



ericwantsbbd wrote: WTF is up with the jolly brave? Who thought that was a good idea and approved that?
blah2

Is this still the 90s?
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/27/2012 12:20 PM

Re: New Batting Practice Hats 


I like the Rays, A's and Brewers alternate one.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/27/2012 12:24 PM

Re: New Batting Practice Hats 


You Don't find that offensive? Really?
Jasoninittoirwinit wrote:
blah2

Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/27/2012 12:53 PM

Re: New Batting Practice Hats 



ericwantsbbd wrote: You Don't find that offensive? Really?
Jasoninittoirwinit wrote:
blah2

Why would I? It's only offensive the moment you let it become offensive.


The only difference I see in any human is the level of stupidity and lack of common sense. Those things have no boundaries across our species.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/27/2012 1:00 PM

Re: New Batting Practice Hats 


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.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/27/2012 1:04 PM

Re: New Batting Practice Hats 



ericwantsbbd wrote:
psst: you can look up Jingoism - I'm 100% positive you have no idea what it means.
Judging by its use, it appears you don't. In fact the entire irony of this is hilarious.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/27/2012 1:06 PM

Re: New Batting Practice Hats 



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.
No clue what it means, and don't care to look it up. Not a pompous ass that cares to know things like that, then throw them around as if it's a normal conversation.

You have your opinions, I have mine. The fact that you think your opinions are facts, and my opinions are wrong, should tell you something.

I apologize if my first response started this, it wasn't my intention. So we can agree to disagree. Or whatever.

Go A's.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/27/2012 1:25 PM

Re: New Batting Practice Hats 


Nice hats I'm buying one.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/27/2012 1:26 PM

Re: New Batting Practice Hats 


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.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/27/2012 1:27 PM

RE: New Batting Practice Hats 


Oh for f***'s sake, look. It's a hyperstereotypic illustration of a Native American warrior. Is it as bad as Chief Wahoo? No. Is it still something that many in the Native American community have expressed dismay over? Yes. The Braves themselves shied away from using it as a shoulder patch a few years back, as the Uni Watch article notes. They should have shied away again.

It doesn't matter if YOU like it (I happen to, and I like Chief Wahoo too. I recognize the offensive potential though, I just love old design). The subject group doesn't care for it.

And besides that it doesn't NEED to be on a ball cap. The Braves have enough recognizable fare in their branding cache. Go with that. Even the tomahawk, or the 70's sleeve feather.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/27/2012 1:28 PM

Re: New Batting Practice Hats 


J - It's cool. I'm bored today and might be a little more punchy than usual.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/27/2012 1:35 PM

RE: New Batting Practice Hats 


To your point about why we let those things stand, my theory has always been that its because there's SO FEW Native Americans left, and that those that are still around are so disembodied from any kind of social power at all that really, it's like one ant screaming in a forest.

Also, IIRC there was an uproar over the UND Fighting Sioux some years back and some in the Sioux Nation actually requested they keep using the name because it prompted awareness about their tribe. School got rid of it anyway
www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06..._n_1596154.html

And wasn't there a similar story about the Braves' war chant at games years back?

Personally, if it's me and I were running one of these teams, I'd hold a year long PR effort reaching out to members of the tribes within the entire state, and have them vote on whether or not it stays or goes. Do it via outreach events at tribal facilities so the PC folks don't stuff the ballot box. I'd wanna talk directly to the people my "logo" is portraying. Then make the results public and follow their lead on a decision.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/27/2012 1:47 PM

RE: New Batting Practice Hats 


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.

Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/27/2012 2:09 PM

RE: New Batting Practice Hats 


People read to much into this. I think of it more as honoring great warriors, not about glorifying America and forsaking or mocking Native Americans. Teams routinely name themselves after warriors from different cultures, times, etc Nobody gets bent out of shape over teams like the Vikings, Scarlet Knights, Crusaders, Minute Men, Aztecs, Volunteers, Trojans, Cowboys, Rangers, Patriots, or Vandals. They're all named after warriors/military of some type.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/27/2012 2:09 PM

Re: New Batting Practice Hats 


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.

The use of Native American imagery in sports is an interesting use of stereotypes (to me anyways). On its surface, we might think that we are complimenting Native Americans by equating them with our "great" athletes (please excuse the term). However, the origins of those images comes from an attempt to suggest the athletes are "savages" or "on the war path." These stereotypes are obviously wrong and I can understand why some would take offense. However, I would argue that our image of the Native American as a society has changed. I think Native American images are much more likely to be associated with connection to the environment, wisdom, and oppression than savageness. So the stereotype associated with the image has changed; where does that leave the Braves and Indians of the sports world?

Personally, I don't really care too much as I feel people are too easily offended. If you get upset by words, then you never learned that sticks and stones are what really hurt. Still, I do think that the Braves and Indians of the world have a responsibility to propagate the right image, if they are going to use Native American imagery. By right, I mean they should be historically accurate and do things to raise awareness about what was done to the Native Americans.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/27/2012 2:26 PM

Re: New Batting Practice Hats 



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.
The people vs. thing line is where I basically left that.  Theoretically, yeah, still wrong. Just not AS wrong, I guess.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/27/2012 2:26 PM

Re: New Batting Practice Hats 


An example:


Are minsteral shows offensive? They create pretty amusing character types of black people.

==

Of course they are! Why are they offensive? becuase they typecast an entire swatch of people with black skin. It doesn't really offend me because I happen to be a different race than black, but certainly I'd understand why black people would find this wretched.

Why do we find this acceptable behavior when it comes with team logo's and mascots? It's like we understand what racism is and how it perpetuates itself, but we are fearful of applying standards to our own norms because of it's potential to increminate our own self.

That is: It doesn't matter what I find offensive, it matters if others are offended and then I must decide whether that person has a valid reason to be offended, or they are full of baloney. I think, that the people referenced as "braves" "Indians""redskins" etc who have voiced their displeasure at the names used have a valid reason.
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 3  Next >