|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jul 26, 2021 14:50:39 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. 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) Manoj "M. Night" Shyamalan isn't Indian, I guess? There is a disagreement about how Native American Indians came to be known as such. However, it was not because the European people that arrived though that they were in India. That is some WASPy racist nonsense right there. The Spanish word for Indian is Indios, while the Spanish word for people from India is Indus (or Hindus or Indianos). The problem is that the English word for the native people from both the Americas and from India became the same word. The most probable reason in my mind as to why Indians were called Indios is that Indios has a double meaning in Spanish. In Dios means In God, and Columbus referred to the New World as a New Eden and the native peoples of the Americas as the People in God. By that, I believe that he meant to convey that they dressed immodestly to the standards of 15th century Southern Europeans. But still, not because Columbus believed himself to be in India. The other generally-accepted theory, which I consider wildly unlikely because of the timeline, is that Columbus believed that he had landed in the East Indies. The reason that this is unlikely is that the East Indies were not discovered until after Columbus landed in the New World. The explanation appears to be retconned to me. Only Java and Sumatra were well-known to the Europeans prior to 1492 and the Europeans lacked a good working understanding of the size of either island. And their knowledge of any of the other islands would have been even less. It is possible that sailors in the Iberian Peninsula believed that the East Indies were the West Indies that Columbus had already discovered. But I believe that the naming reason in the paragraph above is more probably correct. I am part Native American, as well, but I do not believe that I am part Cherokee. |
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Jul 26, 2021 15:05:06 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, mine was triangular, with holes in it. |
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Jul 26, 2021 15:05:53 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? For tax purposes. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Jul 26, 2021 15:40:51 GMT -8
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) Manoj "M. Night" Shyamalan isn't Indian, I guess? There is a disagreement about how Native American Indians came to be known as such. However, it was not because the European people that arrived though that they were in India. That is some WASPy racist nonsense right there. The Spanish word for Indian is Indios, while the Spanish word for people from India is Indus (or Hindus or Indianos). The problem is that the English word for the native people from both the Americas and from India became the same word. The most probable reason in my mind as to why Indians were called Indios is that Indios has a double meaning in Spanish. In Dios means In God, and Columbus referred to the New World as a New Eden and the native peoples of the Americas as the People in God. By that, I believe that he meant to convey that they dressed immodestly to the standards of 15th century Southern Europeans. But still, not because Columbus believed himself to be in India. The other generally-accepted theory, which I consider wildly unlikely because of the timeline, is that Columbus believed that he had landed in the East Indies. The reason that this is unlikely is that the East Indies were not discovered until after Columbus landed in the New World. The explanation appears to be retconned to me. Only Java and Sumatra were well-known to the Europeans prior to 1492 and the Europeans lacked a good working understanding of the size of either island. And their knowledge of any of the other islands would have been even less. It is possible that sailors in the Iberian Peninsula believed that the East Indies were the West Indies that Columbus had already discovered. But I believe that the naming reason in the paragraph above is more probably correct. I am part Native American, as well, but I do not believe that I am part Cherokee. Who's Columbus? I thought you said that wasn't his real name......you had a whole long thread on that.....you're slipping. Maybe Cleveland should have went with the "In God's" as their mascot. That would have really pissed some people off. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Jul 26, 2021 15:42:20 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, mine was triangular, with holes in it. I don't think that's it. I don't remember giving anyone a "Learfield Cup Check" However, Learfield Cup may have been the skull cap/batting helmet that baseballllllls used to wear while posting on this board. |
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Jul 26, 2021 17:02:09 GMT -8
Maybe should have gone with the “River Fire”! Unique and intimidating!
|
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Jul 26, 2021 17:23:36 GMT -8
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) Manoj "M. Night" Shyamalan isn't Indian, I guess? There is a disagreement about how Native American Indians came to be known as such. However, it was not because the European people that arrived though that they were in India. That is some WASPy racist nonsense right there. The Spanish word for Indian is Indios, while the Spanish word for people from India is Indus (or Hindus or Indianos). The problem is that the English word for the native people from both the Americas and from India became the same word. The most probable reason in my mind as to why Indians were called Indios is that Indios has a double meaning in Spanish. In Dios means In God, and Columbus referred to the New World as a New Eden and the native peoples of the Americas as the People in God. By that, I believe that he meant to convey that they dressed immodestly to the standards of 15th century Southern Europeans. But still, not because Columbus believed himself to be in India. The other generally-accepted theory, which I consider wildly unlikely because of the timeline, is that Columbus believed that he had landed in the East Indies. The reason that this is unlikely is that the East Indies were not discovered until after Columbus landed in the New World. The explanation appears to be retconned to me. Only Java and Sumatra were well-known to the Europeans prior to 1492 and the Europeans lacked a good working understanding of the size of either island. And their knowledge of any of the other islands would have been even less. It is possible that sailors in the Iberian Peninsula believed that the East Indies were the West Indies that Columbus had already discovered. But I believe that the naming reason in the paragraph above is more probably correct. I am part Native American, as well, but I do not believe that I am part Cherokee. By the way, M Night Shamalan lived in India for a whole 6 weeks and considers himself an American. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jul 26, 2021 21:28:57 GMT -8
Maybe should have gone with the “River Fire”! Unique and intimidating!  Cleveland probably wants people to forget about the River Fire, though............. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jul 26, 2021 21:36:30 GMT -8
Manoj "M. Night" Shyamalan isn't Indian, I guess? There is a disagreement about how Native American Indians came to be known as such. However, it was not because the European people that arrived though that they were in India. That is some WASPy racist nonsense right there. The Spanish word for Indian is Indios, while the Spanish word for people from India is Indus (or Hindus or Indianos). The problem is that the English word for the native people from both the Americas and from India became the same word. The most probable reason in my mind as to why Indians were called Indios is that Indios has a double meaning in Spanish. In Dios means In God, and Columbus referred to the New World as a New Eden and the native peoples of the Americas as the People in God. By that, I believe that he meant to convey that they dressed immodestly to the standards of 15th century Southern Europeans. But still, not because Columbus believed himself to be in India. The other generally-accepted theory, which I consider wildly unlikely because of the timeline, is that Columbus believed that he had landed in the East Indies. The reason that this is unlikely is that the East Indies were not discovered until after Columbus landed in the New World. The explanation appears to be retconned to me. Only Java and Sumatra were well-known to the Europeans prior to 1492 and the Europeans lacked a good working understanding of the size of either island. And their knowledge of any of the other islands would have been even less. It is possible that sailors in the Iberian Peninsula believed that the East Indies were the West Indies that Columbus had already discovered. But I believe that the naming reason in the paragraph above is more probably correct. I am part Native American, as well, but I do not believe that I am part Cherokee. By the way, M Night Shamalan lived in India for a whole 6 weeks and considers himself an American. Ok. Padma Lakshmi isn't Indian? |
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Jul 27, 2021 10:34:47 GMT -8
I am part Native American, as well, but I do not believe that I am part Cherokee. I was fairly certain I was a bit native American (from my mom's dad quartile) until I took that stupid DNA test. Only eastern and northern European. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jul 27, 2021 13:19:02 GMT -8
I am part Native American, as well, but I do not believe that I am part Cherokee. I was fairly certain I was a bit native American (from my mom's dad quartile) until I took that stupid DNA test. Only eastern and northern European. Mine came back like 4% Native Mesoamerican. 2% African. 94% various parts of Europe. I was a lot more Scandinavian than I thought, but those guys invaded large parts of the world for several centuries, so I guess? |
|
lefty
Freshman
Posts: 441 
|
Post by lefty on Aug 11, 2021 13:54:42 GMT -8
They will always be the Cleveland Indians and it will always be the Civil War. I guess the (Native Americans) have no objections in Florida State and Utah (among others) have no problem in these schools using their names. My family are cowboys and I want to personally complain that this is racist and demand that all teams using the name cowboys be changed and my heart goes out to the poor people of Ireland that have to endear seeing the leprechaun and their heritage disgraced by Norte Dame and then there is the Celtics! OMG the humanity of it!
I do have a question. If in fact they are Native Americans and not Indians as you say then why would object to the team being called Indians since they are not Indians of course they are not really "Native Americans" since they came over from Asia therefore we should call them Asian Americans or maybe since some have married out of their race and their offspring should be call semi-Native American until they remarry out of their race and then their offspring would be less than 1/2 NA therefore they loose their Native American Status. What a total bunch of BS
|
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Aug 11, 2021 14:29:16 GMT -8
They will always be the Cleveland Indians and it will always be the Civil War. I guess the (Native Americans) have no objections in Florida State and Utah (among others) have no problem in these schools using their names. My family are cowboys and I want to personally complain that this is racist and demand that all teams using the name cowboys be changed and my heart goes out to the poor people of Ireland that have to endear seeing the leprechaun and their heritage disgraced by Norte Dame and then there is the Celtics! OMG the humanity of it! I do have a question. If in fact they are Native Americans and not Indians as you say then why would object to the team being called Indians since they are not Indians of course they are not really "Native Americans" since they came over from Asia therefore we should call them Asian Americans or maybe since some have married out of their race and their offspring should be call semi-Native American until they remarry out of their race and then their offspring would be less than 1/2 NA therefore they loose their Native American Status. What a total bunch of BS "[T]he (Native Americans)" that you are talking about in the case of Florida State and Utah did, in fact, get specific permission, as per NCAA rules, from the Seminole and Ute tribes, respectively, to use the tribal names as their mascots. As for your comparisons to Notre Dame, the Celtics, Cowboys, etc., those groups did not suffer genocides and diasporas at the hands of the American government (as representatives of the American people) and thus are not worried about further degradation via the stigmas of racism attached to their groups by the use of mascots and negative/false imagery by sports teams and society at large. Not "Native Americans"? Depends on who you ask. Western science has definite theories of when Native Americans (some such indigenous people still prefer "Indians") got here. Most think 15-20,000+ years ago which is more "Native" than people who have been here for 529 years, don't you think? Doesn't matter, though, because there are Native American religions that disagree with that scientific theory and say that they have been here all along. I don't agree with that, but then again, I don't agree that humans were created somewhere around 6,000 years ago (5 days after God created the heavens, earth, light and darkness) and are the offspring of what had to have been severe inbreeding like Christians do, so what do I know? |
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Aug 11, 2021 15:21:29 GMT -8
They will always be the Cleveland Indians and it will always be the Civil War. I guess the (Native Americans) have no objections in Florida State and Utah (among others) have no problem in these schools using their names. My family are cowboys and I want to personally complain that this is racist and demand that all teams using the name cowboys be changed and my heart goes out to the poor people of Ireland that have to endear seeing the leprechaun and their heritage disgraced by Norte Dame and then there is the Celtics! OMG the humanity of it! I do have a question. If in fact they are Native Americans and not Indians as you say then why would object to the team being called Indians since they are not Indians of course they are not really "Native Americans" since they came over from Asia therefore we should call them Asian Americans or maybe since some have married out of their race and their offspring should be call semi-Native American until they remarry out of their race and then their offspring would be less than 1/2 NA therefore they loose their Native American Status. What a total bunch of BS These are some absolutely horrible takes. |
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Aug 11, 2021 15:32:16 GMT -8
They will always be the Cleveland Indians and it will always be the Civil War. I guess the (Native Americans) have no objections in Florida State and Utah (among others) have no problem in these schools using their names. My family are cowboys and I want to personally complain that this is racist and demand that all teams using the name cowboys be changed and my heart goes out to the poor people of Ireland that have to endear seeing the leprechaun and their heritage disgraced by Norte Dame and then there is the Celtics! OMG the humanity of it! I do have a question. If in fact they are Native Americans and not Indians as you say then why would object to the team being called Indians since they are not Indians of course they are not really "Native Americans" since they came over from Asia therefore we should call them Asian Americans or maybe since some have married out of their race and their offspring should be call semi-Native American until they remarry out of their race and then their offspring would be less than 1/2 NA therefore they loose their Native American Status. What a total bunch of BS One only need look at the years of Indian baseball to understand why it was offensive to Native Americans in general and those around Ohio in particular. Look at the image. It's a stereotype. Look at their mascot. A worse stereotype. The tomahawk chop evokes images of warring tribes. And the chant--a poor remix of what a white man thought a war chant might sound like. Everything about it screams "White concoction" and this means it cannot fully represent the people that white people named their team after. So what's the point? Might as well call them the Dragons or some other mythological creature because the Native Americans that the Cleveland baseball team represents are equally mythological. |
|
