Braves to move into new stadium in 2017

[mattstick]

Cheif Noc-a-Homa and the "Screaming Savage" logo are pretty interesting tributes...

[sophist]

Yeah....the logistics of travel for the new stadium will be fucked. 

Thankfully for me, the only time I ever see cobb county is when I drive through it to leave Georgia for a show out of state.  Fuck the westside. 

[VDB]

That being said, I completely understand why others deem it inappropriate and insensitive. I can't think of (off the top of my head) another mascot that refers to an actual race of people.

There are others that refer to groups of people, even groups that you could say have a particular racial homogeneity about them: Vikings, Fighting Irish, Patriots, Canadiens, Celtics, Spartans...

[Lifeboy]

That being said, I completely understand why others deem it inappropriate and insensitive. I can't think of (off the top of my head) another mascot that refers to an actual race of people.

There are others that refer to groups of people, even groups that you could say have a particular racial homogeneity about them: Vikings, Fighting Irish, Patriots, Canadiens, Celtics, Spartans...

Yeah, I was thinking about all of those teams, and I was going to name all of those off, but to me, they aren't really the same as referring to Native Americans.

It's difficult for me to articulate what I mean, but I think you get the idea...

[sophist]

words, how do they work? 

[antelope19]

Braves is not insensitive(however, I could do without that fucking tomahawk chop chant).  Redskins on the other hand......

[Lifeboy]

Braves is not insensitive(however, I could do without that fucking tomahawk chop chant).  Redskins on the other hand......

I could see how some would take offense to 'Redskins'...

But I can't see the insensitivity in 'Braves'...

[mattstick]

Keith Law nails it here:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=law/070410

[VDB]

My problem with that Law piece is that he is consistently conflating all Native American-themed names or iconography with the blatantly racist among them.

... one of the two major league teams that employ offensive stereotypes of Native Americans in their names and logos.

... Cleveland and Atlanta -- change their names and logos to something that isn't offensive to the first residents of our continent?

Native American groups have been calling for pro and amateur sports teams with caricature names, logos and mascots to change them for years.

... MLB and other pro leagues have sat on their hands when it comes to racist names and logos.

You'll hear the arguments that these nicknames aren't actually mocking Native Americans but honoring them. This is obviously false; if using ethnic stereotypes and epithets were a way of honoring segments of our population ...

Even if we all agree that "Washington Redskins" or the Chief Wahoo caricature is racist, we may not all agree that "Atlanta Braves" or "Florida State Seminoles" is patently racist just for the fact that it's based on Native Americans. Law's argument seems to pass right over this distinction therefore he's able to swiftly conclude that they are all equally racist and offensive.

[mattstick]

It's all cultural appropriation.

Do fans wear ceremonial head dresses to KC Chiefs and Florida State Seminoles games?

Do the Atlanta Braves promote the "tomahawk chop" at games?

I think Law has it right by not drawing a line - it's all on the same side of it.

[VDB]

So is "Boston Celtics" to be considered "cultural appropriation"? If not, what's the difference?

Law doesn't talk about cultural appropriation, either -- he calls all those names "racist" and "epithets" even when they are something generic or neutral. I think there's no quicker way to get a person to stop listening to you than to falsely impugn their motives or mindset -- especially, to accuse them of racism when you're using your own expansive definition of the term.

[mattstick]

You cannot escape the fact that dressing up a sports franchise in Native American symbols and cultural iconography is racist by pointing out that there are teams called the Celtics and Patriots.

[VDB]

You cannot escape the fact that dressing up a sports franchise in Native American symbols and cultural iconography is racist by pointing out that there are teams called the Celtics and Patriots.

But neither you nor Law, in his article, have established this as a "fact." It has been presented as an opinion and, in Law's case, he takes it for granted but his resulting argument (the teams should change their names because they are all racist) doesn't hold water because his position is fallacious: you can't prove an argument by citing your own unproven premise as support.

Now Matt, if you are saying that, yes, any and all use of Indian-inspired names or iconography (whether historically an actual slur like "redskin" or something neutral -- or even complimentary -- like "brave") is racist simply for existing in that it is a form of "cultural appropriation," then I'm saying logically you must agree that the "cultural appropriation" evidenced by the "Celtics" name and iconography is also racism.

But to me, "Boston Celtics" is not racist just like "Atlanta Braves" is not. "Boston Micks" would be racist, in the same way it is argued that "Washington Redskins" is.

[PIE-GUY]

But to me, "Boston Celtics" is not racist just like "Atlanta Braves" is not. "Boston Micks DRUNKS" would be racist, in the same way it is argued that "Washington Redskins" is.

fyp.

[VDB]

I object to the suggestion that the Irish have an exclusive claim to drunken, boorish behavior!