|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Jul 23, 2021 11:37:22 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Jul 23, 2021 15:30:41 GMT -8
Once I learned the longtime Cleveland connection with the "Guardians" - iconic massive statues at either end of a historic bridge in the city - it makes perfect sense. I was a huge Indians fan growing up, they were the closest MLB team to my home and we saw them play at least one weekend every summer. I'm OK with it and local reaction seems very positive.
|
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Jul 23, 2021 15:51:53 GMT -8
They still suck.  |
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Jul 24, 2021 13:33:39 GMT -8
Nice announcement video with Mr. Hanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jul 25, 2021 23:04:47 GMT -8
The mascot was racist, but the nickname never was. However, it is difficult for their to be a non-racist mascot or merchandise to go with the team name, Indian. Stanford got rid of the team name the Indians after an approximately 4500%+ increase in Native Americans in the student population. The logo was racist. The Indians' mascot was Lightfoot, a member of the Yurok tribe, which several Native Americans found offensive. However, Lightfoot used his mascot status to promote a greater appreciation for Native American culture. The University flushed that down the tubes in 1972 and got rid of Lightfoot and barred him and various tribal members, who wanted the University to preserve the "Indian" nickname. Lightfoot and several other Native Americans actively campaigned to reinstate the Native American nickname, in order to promote Native American culture, at least in part. Instead, the University stumbled into the whole Cardinal/Cardinals nonsense. And they are a color now, a shade of red. 40 years on, there was still a push for the Stanford Cardinal to go back to the Indians nickname. And it destroyed their marketing, just devastated it. The Cardinal now boast one of the most apathetic fan bases in the entire country. Despite having a lot of alumni with a lot of money, Stanford still hurts for donations and had to intentionally decrease capacity at their football stadium. The Indians were a powerhouse in the early 1970s. Once they changed into the Cardinal, all of the major sports save baseball (and that was also trash in the 70s) were just destroyed. And that did not change for more than 20 years. If it's a rip the band-aid off now and rebuilt in 2041, I get the argument. But bringing up Stanford's complete alienation of a huge portion of their fanbase is just silly. Having said the foregoing, I think that this is a good change. At least, the Guardians is a great team name for Cleveland. And that is wholly unlike the patently stupid Stanford Indians/Cardinals/Cardinal fiasco from 49 years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Jul 26, 2021 6:34:50 GMT -8
The mascot was racist, but the nickname never was. However, it is difficult for their to be a non-racist mascot or merchandise to go with the team name, Indian. Stanford got rid of the team name the Indians after an approximately 4500%+ increase in Native Americans in the student population. The logo was racist. The Indians' mascot was Lightfoot, a member of the Yurok tribe, which several Native Americans found offensive. However, Lightfoot used his mascot status to promote a greater appreciation for Native American culture. The University flushed that down the tubes in 1972 and got rid of Lightfoot and barred him and various tribal members, who wanted the University to preserve the "Indian" nickname. Lightfoot and several other Native Americans actively campaigned to reinstate the Native American nickname, in order to promote Native American culture, at least in part. Instead, the University stumbled into the whole Cardinal/Cardinals nonsense. And they are a color now, a shade of red. 40 years on, there was still a push for the Stanford Cardinal to go back to the Indians nickname. And it destroyed their marketing, just devastated it. The Cardinal now boast one of the most apathetic fan bases in the entire country. Despite having a lot of alumni with a lot of money, Stanford still hurts for donations and had to intentionally decrease capacity at their football stadium. The Indians were a powerhouse in the early 1970s. Once they changed into the Cardinal, all of the major sports save baseball (and that was also trash in the 70s) were just destroyed. And that did not change for more than 20 years. If it's a rip the band-aid off now and rebuilt in 2041, I get the argument. But bringing up Stanford's complete alienation of a huge portion of their fanbase is just silly. Having said the foregoing, I think that this is a good change. At least, the Guardians is a great team name for Cleveland. And that is wholly unlike the patently stupid Stanford Indians/Cardinals/Cardinal fiasco from 49 years ago. Of course not, not racist at all. Why would any Native American object to this?  In the context which it was employed, the nickname “Indians” was indeed racist. Casually reducing an entire sector of human culture down to a silly, simplistic and comical sports good luck token. In the last nearly 50 years Stanford’s athletic success has been unprecedented, winning Learfield Directors Cup for 25 straight years. By some accounts they have the largest permanent endowment for athletics of any university. When there was a brief mention last year in the wake of COVID of cutting some sports, alumni and supporters immediately stepped in within a month and restored ALL of them. Other than some individual folks occasionally wearing what they consider “vintage” pre-Cardinal gear to games, there has been no “push” to restore the “Indian” mascot. The issue is very properly - and successfully - closed. |
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Jul 26, 2021 7:30:20 GMT -8
The mascot was racist, but the nickname never was. However, it is difficult for their to be a non-racist mascot or merchandise to go with the team name, Indian. Stanford got rid of the team name the Indians after an approximately 4500%+ increase in Native Americans in the student population. The logo was racist. The Indians' mascot was Lightfoot, a member of the Yurok tribe, which several Native Americans found offensive. However, Lightfoot used his mascot status to promote a greater appreciation for Native American culture. The University flushed that down the tubes in 1972 and got rid of Lightfoot and barred him and various tribal members, who wanted the University to preserve the "Indian" nickname. Lightfoot and several other Native Americans actively campaigned to reinstate the Native American nickname, in order to promote Native American culture, at least in part. Instead, the University stumbled into the whole Cardinal/Cardinals nonsense. And they are a color now, a shade of red. 40 years on, there was still a push for the Stanford Cardinal to go back to the Indians nickname. And it destroyed their marketing, just devastated it. The Cardinal now boast one of the most apathetic fan bases in the entire country. Despite having a lot of alumni with a lot of money, Stanford still hurts for donations and had to intentionally decrease capacity at their football stadium. The Indians were a powerhouse in the early 1970s. Once they changed into the Cardinal, all of the major sports save baseball (and that was also trash in the 70s) were just destroyed. And that did not change for more than 20 years. If it's a rip the band-aid off now and rebuilt in 2041, I get the argument. But bringing up Stanford's complete alienation of a huge portion of their fanbase is just silly. Having said the foregoing, I think that this is a good change. At least, the Guardians is a great team name for Cleveland. And that is wholly unlike the patently stupid Stanford Indians/Cardinals/Cardinal fiasco from 49 years ago. Holy crap this is so full of holes it's like swiss cheese. I guess despite all of Stanford's wokeness around ditching the Indian name/mascot, they are doing just fine. 32 Olympians in Tokyo this year. Apethetic and devastating, indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Jul 26, 2021 7:57:44 GMT -8
The mascot was racist, but the nickname never was. However, it is difficult for their to be a non-racist mascot or merchandise to go with the team name, Indian. Stanford got rid of the team name the Indians after an approximately 4500%+ increase in Native Americans in the student population. The logo was racist. The Indians' mascot was Lightfoot, a member of the Yurok tribe, which several Native Americans found offensive. However, Lightfoot used his mascot status to promote a greater appreciation for Native American culture. The University flushed that down the tubes in 1972 and got rid of Lightfoot and barred him and various tribal members, who wanted the University to preserve the "Indian" nickname. Lightfoot and several other Native Americans actively campaigned to reinstate the Native American nickname, in order to promote Native American culture, at least in part. Instead, the University stumbled into the whole Cardinal/Cardinals nonsense. And they are a color now, a shade of red. 40 years on, there was still a push for the Stanford Cardinal to go back to the Indians nickname. And it destroyed their marketing, just devastated it. The Cardinal now boast one of the most apathetic fan bases in the entire country. Despite having a lot of alumni with a lot of money, Stanford still hurts for donations and had to intentionally decrease capacity at their football stadium. The Indians were a powerhouse in the early 1970s. Once they changed into the Cardinal, all of the major sports save baseball (and that was also trash in the 70s) were just destroyed. And that did not change for more than 20 years. If it's a rip the band-aid off now and rebuilt in 2041, I get the argument. But bringing up Stanford's complete alienation of a huge portion of their fanbase is just silly. Having said the foregoing, I think that this is a good change. At least, the Guardians is a great team name for Cleveland. And that is wholly unlike the patently stupid Stanford Indians/Cardinals/Cardinal fiasco from 49 years ago. Holy crap this is so full of holes it's like swiss cheese. I guess despite all of Stanford's wokeness around ditching the Indian name/mascot, they are doing just fine. 32 Olympians in Tokyo this year. Apethetic and devastating, indeed. And that they finally got rid of their ancient dump of a 92,000 capacity 1920's era earth bowl-wood bench stadium; which they hardly ever came close to filling, with a modern 50,000 seat stadium being depicted as a bad thing. I also read that donations paid for the new stadium in cash - no debt. Contrast that with the massive long-term debt taken on by Cal for their recent Memorial Stadium renovation. ASU just reduced the capacity of Sun Devil Stadium from 70,000 to 50,000 for reasons that had nothing to do with the success of their program or their mascot. Don't cry for Stanford. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jul 26, 2021 12:45:50 GMT -8
The mascot was racist, but the nickname never was. However, it is difficult for their to be a non-racist mascot or merchandise to go with the team name, Indian. Stanford got rid of the team name the Indians after an approximately 4500%+ increase in Native Americans in the student population. The logo was racist. The Indians' mascot was Lightfoot, a member of the Yurok tribe, which several Native Americans found offensive. However, Lightfoot used his mascot status to promote a greater appreciation for Native American culture. The University flushed that down the tubes in 1972 and got rid of Lightfoot and barred him and various tribal members, who wanted the University to preserve the "Indian" nickname. Lightfoot and several other Native Americans actively campaigned to reinstate the Native American nickname, in order to promote Native American culture, at least in part. Instead, the University stumbled into the whole Cardinal/Cardinals nonsense. And they are a color now, a shade of red. 40 years on, there was still a push for the Stanford Cardinal to go back to the Indians nickname. And it destroyed their marketing, just devastated it. The Cardinal now boast one of the most apathetic fan bases in the entire country. Despite having a lot of alumni with a lot of money, Stanford still hurts for donations and had to intentionally decrease capacity at their football stadium. The Indians were a powerhouse in the early 1970s. Once they changed into the Cardinal, all of the major sports save baseball (and that was also trash in the 70s) were just destroyed. And that did not change for more than 20 years. If it's a rip the band-aid off now and rebuilt in 2041, I get the argument. But bringing up Stanford's complete alienation of a huge portion of their fanbase is just silly. Having said the foregoing, I think that this is a good change. At least, the Guardians is a great team name for Cleveland. And that is wholly unlike the patently stupid Stanford Indians/Cardinals/Cardinal fiasco from 49 years ago. Of course not, not racist at all. Why would any Native American object to this? In the context which it was employed, the nickname “Indians” was indeed racist. Casually reducing an entire sector of human culture down to a silly, simplistic and comical sports good luck token. In the last nearly 50 years Stanford’s athletic success has been unprecedented, winning Learfield Directors Cup for 25 straight years. By some accounts they have the largest permanent endowment for athletics of any university. When there was a brief mention last year in the wake of COVID of cutting some sports, alumni and supporters immediately stepped in within a month and restored ALL of them. Other than some individual folks occasionally wearing what they consider “vintage” pre-Cardinal gear to games, there has been no “push” to restore the “Indian” mascot. The issue is very properly - and successfully - closed. Once again, the nickname "Indians" is not racist. I will 100% agree that it was very problematic and racist in how it was used. The rest of the first paragraph is a straw man's argument that ignores all of the historical context and tradition behind the name. There was a big push as late as 2012 to restore the Indians nickname. There are several old and affluent alumni, who despise the fact that Stanford became a shade of red and that the mascot is now the Tree. Learfield Cups? Wow! Ask a random sample of 100 people why they give out Learfield Cups, and I bet that 1 correctly says, Olympic sports. Without looking, describe to me what the Learfield Cup looks like. Go! |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Jul 26, 2021 12:52:37 GMT -8
Of course not, not racist at all. Why would any Native American object to this? In the context which it was employed, the nickname “Indians” was indeed racist. Casually reducing an entire sector of human culture down to a silly, simplistic and comical sports good luck token. In the last nearly 50 years Stanford’s athletic success has been unprecedented, winning Learfield Directors Cup for 25 straight years. By some accounts they have the largest permanent endowment for athletics of any university. When there was a brief mention last year in the wake of COVID of cutting some sports, alumni and supporters immediately stepped in within a month and restored ALL of them. Other than some individual folks occasionally wearing what they consider “vintage” pre-Cardinal gear to games, there has been no “push” to restore the “Indian” mascot. The issue is very properly - and successfully - closed. Once again, the nickname "Indians" is not racist. I will 100% agree that it was very problematic and racist in how it was used. The rest of the first paragraph is a straw man's argument that ignores all of the historical context and tradition behind the name. There was a big push as late as 2012 to restore the Indians nickname. There are several old and affluent alumni, who despise the fact that Stanford became a shade of red and that the mascot is now the Tree. Learfield Cups? Wow! Ask a random sample of 100 people why they give out Learfield Cups, and I bet that 1 correctly says, Olympic sports.Without looking, describe to me what the Learfield Cup looks like. Go! Well, obviously you don't know what it is, because that answer is wrong. Also, Stanford did not win it this year....Texas did. By the way, Indians live in India. Native Americans live in America. Why would Stanford want to be named after people that live in India? |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jul 26, 2021 13:28:38 GMT -8
Once again, the nickname "Indians" is not racist. I will 100% agree that it was very problematic and racist in how it was used. The rest of the first paragraph is a straw man's argument that ignores all of the historical context and tradition behind the name. There was a big push as late as 2012 to restore the Indians nickname. There are several old and affluent alumni, who despise the fact that Stanford became a shade of red and that the mascot is now the Tree. Learfield Cups? Wow! Ask a random sample of 100 people why they give out Learfield Cups, and I bet that 1 correctly says, Olympic sports.Without looking, describe to me what the Learfield Cup looks like. Go! Well, obviously you don't know what it is, because that answer is wrong. Also, Stanford did not win it this year....Texas did. By the way, Indians live in India. Native Americans live in America. Why would Stanford want to be named after people that live in India? I would say that you are wrong. Olympic sports dominate the scoring system. You are one of the 99. Indians live the world over. The current American PC word for the indigenous people of the United States of America is Native American. Canadians refer to those people as First Nation peoples. The term Indian commonly refers to Native Americans. There are references to Indians in the Constitution of the United States of America. In fact, there is still a Bureau of Indian Affairs, a bureau of the Department of the Interior. The Stanford Indians were named the Indians, because Pop Warner was formerly the coach of the Carlisle Indian School Football Team, including coaching Jim Thorpe. He took the nickname with him from Carlisle to Stanford. Indian again referring to Native American Indians. The name itself and why it was applied to Stanford was not inherently racist. How it was used thereafter was, at least in part. Rather than put in he work to fix the racism in the use of the nickname, Stanford chose to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It probably was the easiest choice at the time. |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Jul 26, 2021 13:38:07 GMT -8
Of course not, not racist at all. Why would any Native American object to this? In the context which it was employed, the nickname “Indians” was indeed racist. Casually reducing an entire sector of human culture down to a silly, simplistic and comical sports good luck token. In the last nearly 50 years Stanford’s athletic success has been unprecedented, winning Learfield Directors Cup for 25 straight years. By some accounts they have the largest permanent endowment for athletics of any university. When there was a brief mention last year in the wake of COVID of cutting some sports, alumni and supporters immediately stepped in within a month and restored ALL of them. Other than some individual folks occasionally wearing what they consider “vintage” pre-Cardinal gear to games, there has been no “push” to restore the “Indian” mascot. The issue is very properly - and successfully - closed. Once again, the nickname "Indians" is not racist. I will 100% agree that it was very problematic and racist in how it was used. The rest of the first paragraph is a straw man's argument that ignores all of the historical context and tradition behind the name. There was a big push as late as 2012 to restore the Indians nickname. There are several old and affluent alumni, who despise the fact that Stanford became a shade of red and that the mascot is now the Tree. Learfield Cups? Wow! Ask a random sample of 100 people why they give out Learfield Cups, and I bet that 1 correctly says, Olympic sports. Without looking, describe to me what the Learfield Cup looks like. Go! I heard you the first time. I just disagree. So sorry for any "old and affluent" Stanford alums who despise their alma mater's mascot despite their ongoing athletic successes. NOT. Stanford seems to be getting along just fine both financially and competitively in their absence. Before they pass on, they might want to take a good long look at their priorities. There are a lot of folks who merit my sympathy and compassion. "Old and affluent" Stanford alums who despise their alma mater's sports nickname (and haven't gotten over it in nearly 50 years) don't make the cut. I'm sure they have many great qualities despite this embarrassingly silly shortcoming. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Jul 26, 2021 14:06:57 GMT -8
Well, obviously you don't know what it is, because that answer is wrong. Also, Stanford did not win it this year....Texas did. By the way, Indians live in India. Native Americans live in America. Why would Stanford want to be named after people that live in India? I would say that you are wrong. Olympic sports dominate the scoring system. You are one of the 99. Indians live the world over. The current American PC word for the indigenous people of the United States of America is Native American. Canadians refer to those people as First Nation peoples. The term Indian commonly refers to Native Americans. There are references to Indians in the Constitution of the United States of America. In fact, there is still a Bureau of Indian Affairs, a bureau of the Department of the Interior. The Stanford Indians were named the Indians, because Pop Warner was formerly the coach of the Carlisle Indian School Football Team, including coaching Jim Thorpe. He took the nickname with him from Carlisle to Stanford. Indian again referring to Native American Indians. The name itself and why it was applied to Stanford was not inherently racist. How it was used thereafter was, at least in part. Rather than put in he work to fix the racism in the use of the nickname, Stanford chose to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It probably was the easiest choice at the time. Indians do not live the world over. They live in India. The term Indian only refers to Native Americans because the European contingent that arrived in the Americas thought they were in India. Yes, it stuck, but it was never correct. I'm part Native American (Cherokee to be exact) And Stanford did not throw out any babies, Indians, Native Americans or otherwise........ Can't wait to watch some Olympic Football! (no, I'm not referring to soccer) |
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Jul 26, 2021 14:14:12 GMT -8
I would say that you are wrong. Olympic sports dominate the scoring system. You are one of the 99. Indians live the world over. The current American PC word for the indigenous people of the United States of America is Native American. Canadians refer to those people as First Nation peoples. The term Indian commonly refers to Native Americans. There are references to Indians in the Constitution of the United States of America. In fact, there is still a Bureau of Indian Affairs, a bureau of the Department of the Interior. The Stanford Indians were named the Indians, because Pop Warner was formerly the coach of the Carlisle Indian School Football Team, including coaching Jim Thorpe. He took the nickname with him from Carlisle to Stanford. Indian again referring to Native American Indians. The name itself and why it was applied to Stanford was not inherently racist. How it was used thereafter was, at least in part. Rather than put in he work to fix the racism in the use of the nickname, Stanford chose to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It probably was the easiest choice at the time. Indians do not live the world over. Redmond, WA would like a word with you. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Jul 26, 2021 14:28:38 GMT -8
Indians do not live the world over. Redmond, WA would like a word with you. OK....yes there are Indians from India living all over the world.....but not the Indians (Native Americans) that he was referring to. Dammit......now I've gone cross eyed. |
|
