Cleveland Indians changing their team name

[ten ocho recon scout]

4 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

The overall point you make is fine.  But it is important to be wholly honest.  The different and very territorial Native Americans were viciously fighting each other and killing each other and taking each other's land with violence long before the Europeans came here and did the same.

The fact of the fact of the fact is the "borders" between Native American tribes was fluid and was only dictated by the result of the last bloodshed.

So we can all be conscious of "land being taken" from the Native Americans.  But let's not pretend any Native American land was ever safe from being taken by violence, since it was already happening.

Was gonna chime in to point this out.

The Native Americans were shit on by the Europeans, and later America. But the fact is, they merely lost.... the entire history of the world was shaped in the same way.

Its correct to point out what America did to them. But if you fail to mention their own wars amongst themselves, youre creating propaganda. You also need to mention the history between the Native tribes and the Spanish. 

And you also need to mention the history between the Native tribes and the Mexicans.... that one seems to get left out the most.

 

[ten ocho recon scout]

3 hours ago, Jay said:

 

What else do they have in Cleveland?

Bone thugs and harmony

 

Cleveland boners. I like it. 

The same smiling indian mascot would still work, just add a winking eye 

[AngelsLakersFan]

6 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Was gonna chime in to point this out.

The Native Americans were shit on by the Europeans, and later America. But the fact is, they merely lost.... the entire history of the world was shaped in the same way.

Its correct to point out what America did to them. But if you fail to mention their own wars amongst themselves, youre creating propaganda. You also need to mention the history between the Native tribes and the Spanish. 

And you also need to mention the history between the Native tribes and the Mexicans.... that one seems to get left out the most.

 

The stone age ended for the rest of the world 10,000 years ago. The natives had a good run but eventually you gotta clear out the teepees so people can use the sidewalk. It's a harsh truth, but such is the price of progress.

[Pancake Bear]

Not sure why this is still in the baseball forum, but wth.

6 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

But your first paragraph really lacks historical context and any kind of differentiation between levels of oppression and to what degree they have an impact that echoes through history.

This was one of two posts in this thread to suggest my understanding of history was flawed. Whatever, I let it go. But then AJ unironically says:

50 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States is highly recommended, especially the first chapter in terms of relevance.

Howard Zinn? And you're dunking on me for bad history? Absolutely freaking priceless.

I only read history (primarily early US) recreationally and have for a few years now. I only have literally two bookcases of books on history (mostly early American - not including a few more shelves worth on my Kindle) with a handful of books specifically addressing Native American conflicts in early America (and for that matter, several more specifically on African American studies also, including a couple by Zinn's buddy, Eric Foner, fwiw).

But nah, my history is bad because I actually trust legitimate history and not Marxist revisionists who don't give a crap about what actually happened, but only how it can be spun into extreme leftist propoganda that has decimated countries as bad as the conquistadors ever did.

What next, the 1619 Project? What a crock.

[ten ocho recon scout]

7 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

The stone age ended for the rest of the world 10,000 years ago. The natives had a good run but eventually you gotta clear out the teepees so people can use the sidewalk. It's a harsh truth, but such is the price of progress.

The last sentence is nail on head.

History is sad and filled with tragedy. But like any animal, we compete against competition...survival of the fittest.

The Natives werent on the losing end because of americans and europeans being evil. They lost because they got a late start. "Guns, germs, and steel". 

And again, for anyone to point out the ugly parts of this particular subject, to balance it out, you have to look at the history of every other continent on earth as well. Everybody has a story.

[Taylor]

3 hours ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

 

I'm not sure if this is dishonesty or pure ignorance. Probably both.

The line you're referring to is as follows:

"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

This was one of many lines of charges laid out against King George in the Declaration. The British persuaded Indians to attack the colonists. Source:

http://founding.com/he-has-excited-domestic-insurrections-amongst-us-and-has-endeavoured-to-bring-on-the-inhabitants-of-our-frontiers-the-merciless-indian-savages-whose-known-rule-of-warfare-is-an-undistinguished-des/

 

Your white guilt has rotted your brain.

Um, OK. Yeah, that's why we treated Native Americans with respect and dignity after winning the Revolution. You can try to whitewash our history all you want. 

[Taylor]

58 minutes ago, Pancake Bear said:

What next, the 1619 Project? What a crock.

Yes, the 1619 Project. Then you should read The New Jim Crow.

[Taylor]

Hey dudes, it's possible to love America and acknowledge that our history is full of atrocities committed against people of color.

[Taylor]

51 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

And again, for anyone to point out the ugly parts of this particular subject, to balance it out, you have to look at the history of every other continent on earth as well. Everybody has a story.

Australia was especially harsh on its native peoples. Canada has a sordid history, too.

Doesn't excuse what America did, or give us a pass to make mascots out of marginalized groups of people.

That would be like an abusive boss saying to you, "Stop criticizing me. Our rival company also has abusive bosses!"

[Lou]

4 minutes ago, Taylor said:

Hey dudes, it's possible to love America and acknowledge that our history is full of atrocities committed against people of color.

That's crazy talk. Which reminds me...

 

[Cosmo_Kramer]

22 minutes ago, Taylor said:

Hey dudes, it's possible to love America and acknowledge that our history is full of atrocities committed against people of color.

History in general is full of atrocities

[Make Angels Great Again]

28 minutes ago, Taylor said:

Um, OK. Yeah, that's why we treated Native Americans with respect and dignity after winning the Revolution. You can try to whitewash our history all you want. 

 

Not white washing anything. I'm telling you that your statement earlier in the thread is objectively wrong.

[ukyah]

the cleveland indians have had 7 names in their history. i understand tradition, but your tradition is just a new name to someone before you. people get emotional about stuff because it happens in their lifetime and it makes them feel threatened, but when they die nobody will care about what they were threatened by during their brief spark of life.

welcome to sports existentialism 101. please take your seat that was someone's before you and will be someone else's after.

[Pancake Bear]

1 hour ago, Taylor said:

Hey dudes, it's possible to love America and acknowledge that our history is full of atrocities committed against people of color.

Nobody is saying otherwise. What I'm arguing against (can't speak for others) is revisionist history from Marxist perspectives that skew history by interpreting it through their preconceived narratives and ignoring what doesn't fit it. Zinn is a garbage historian. The 1619 Project is also garbage. Not because they are 100% inaccurate or because they get everything wrong but because what they get wrong has consequences. Every historian has bias, but those are particularly bad. They're far too misleading to have anything other than negative overall value.

In baseball terms: A few years ago, someone might think Pujols was good because he hit 100 RBI's and over 20 bombs. But that ignores important information that tells us he was actually not only not good, but he was in fact a poor batter overall, a poor defender at 1B, and worth negative 2 WAR. That doesn't even include the context of his ridiculous salary compared to what a league average player at 1B would be paid  

 

[Angelsjunky]

3 hours ago, Pancake Bear said:

Not sure why this is still in the baseball forum, but wth.

This was one of two posts in this thread to suggest my understanding of history was flawed. Whatever, I let it go. But then AJ unironically says:

Howard Zinn? And you're dunking on me for bad history? Absolutely freaking priceless.

I only read history (primarily early US) recreationally and have for a few years now. I only have literally two bookcases of books on history (mostly early American - not including a few more shelves worth on my Kindle) with a handful of books specifically addressing Native American conflicts in early America (and for that matter, several more specifically on African American studies also, including a couple by Zinn's buddy, Eric Foner, fwiw).

But nah, my history is bad because I actually trust legitimate history and not Marxist revisionists who don't give a crap about what actually happened, but only how it can be spun into extreme leftist propoganda that has decimated countries as bad as the conquistadors ever did.

What next, the 1619 Project? What a crock.

What is "legitimate history?" Is there such a thing that is knowable in a definitive way, without question? I think what you are talking about is orthodoxy, which has changed quite a bit over the last several decades, partially due to people like Zinn, and will continue to change.

I assume you are aware of Winston Churchill's famous adage, "history is written by the victors." That is the whole point of Zinn's book: he's try to give voice to history as it was experienced by others, those who didn't win wars - the conquered and colonized. You may find this illegitimate or get hung up on the conservative bugaboo of "Marxism," but I think what you call "legitimate history" is really just accepted orthodoxy.

As you say in another post, all historians are biased - but it goes far beyond that: our understanding of history involves narratives, which are constructed over time. People like Zinn have helped expand that narrative by offering differing views on what actually happened. We know more now than we did 50 years ago, partially because folks like Zinn have opened the conversation to multiple perspectives, not just the nationalist propaganda that informed historical orthodoxy.

[Angelsjunky]

3 hours ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Was gonna chime in to point this out.

The Native Americans were shit on by the Europeans, and later America. But the fact is, they merely lost.... the entire history of the world was shaped in the same way.

Its correct to point out what America did to them. But if you fail to mention their own wars amongst themselves, youre creating propaganda. You also need to mention the history between the Native tribes and the Spanish. 

And you also need to mention the history between the Native tribes and the Mexicans.... that one seems to get left out the most.

 

They didn't "merely lose" - they were invaded, colonized and enslaved. 

This isn't propaganda. Actually, the point of Zinn-esque narratives is to deflate the propaganda that we've all been raised on.

Whether or not they fought among themselves has nothing to do with what European colonizers did - it doesn't justify it. Colonialists have used that sort of crap to justify their actions for centuries, whether it is bringing the light "true religion" or civilizing the "savages." 

Yes, history has been shaped by such factors - but the whole point of progressivism is to try to move beyond the dog-eat-dog mentality. We are, hopefully, evolving. Rape and pillage used to be commonplace...that doesn't mean we should continue to do so.

[Taylor]

2 hours ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

 

Not white washing anything. I'm telling you that your statement earlier in the thread is objectively wrong.

Was I wrong that the Americans intended to use and did use their independence to oppress, displace, and murder Native Americans?

[Taylor]

1 hour ago, Pancake Bear said:

Nobody is saying otherwise. What I'm arguing against (can't speak for others) is revisionist history from Marxist perspectives that skew history by interpreting it through their preconceived narratives and ignoring what doesn't fit it. Zinn is a garbage historian. The 1619 Project is also garbage. Not because they are 100% inaccurate or because they get everything wrong but because what they get wrong has consequences. Every historian has bias, but those are particularly bad. They're far too misleading to have anything other than negative overall value.

Both Zinn and the 1619 Project attempt to share American history through the eyes of the people who were oppressed, rather than the people who were the oppressors.

No historian is completely accurate, but all of us have been force-fed history from the perspective of the white males who have been the dominant group in our society since our inception.

"Marxist" is a lame and lazy strawman that is thrown at anyone who even suggests there are corrupt systems that result in human suffering. I am not a Marxist by any means. Humans have the ability to make their own choices. But it's a butchering of history to say that Native Americans are just "one of several" oppressed people groups, and because none of us know anyone who was personally affected by the atrocities of the past, there's nothing that can be done today to heal, make up for evil, and offer justice and equality to people groups who still suffer today due to generational sin committed against their ancestors.

How much have you interacted with the 1619 Project? I listened to their five-part podcast, and it was illuminating to learn about how Black men and women have contributed significantly to our history and culture despite perpetual racism and oppression.

[Cosmo_Kramer]

1 hour ago, Pancake Bear said:

Nobody is saying otherwise. What I'm arguing against (can't speak for others) is revisionist history from Marxist perspectives that skew history by interpreting it through their preconceived narratives and ignoring what doesn't fit it. Zinn is a garbage historian. The 1619 Project is also garbage. Not because they are 100% inaccurate or because they get everything wrong but because what they get wrong has consequences. Every historian has bias, but those are particularly bad. They're far too misleading to have anything other than negative overall value.

In baseball terms: A few years ago, someone might think Pujols was good because he hit 100 RBI's and over 20 bombs. But that ignores important information that tells us he was actually not only not good, but he was in fact a poor batter overall, a poor defender at 1B, and worth negative 2 WAR. That doesn't even include the context of his ridiculous salary compared to what a league average player at 1B would be paid  

 

Sounds like revisionist history to me

[Blarg]

4 hours ago, T.G. said:

I really don’t give a rip what Cleveland changes their name to or that they’re even changing it.

Now, if the Trash Pandas change theirs, I will freakin’ riot!

I just bought Trash Pandas hats as Christmas presents for my sons. Should have gotten one of my own. 

[Blarg]

3 hours ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

The stone age ended for the rest of the world 10,000 years ago. The natives had a good run but eventually you gotta clear out the teepees so people can use the sidewalk. It's a harsh truth, but such is the price of progress.

I agree. 

[Blarg]

3 hours ago, Taylor said:

Hey dudes, it's possible to love America and acknowledge that our history is full of atrocities committed against people of color.

I feel no shame for what none of my ancestors were a part of. 

[Angelsjunky]

1 minute ago, Blarg said:

I feel no shame for what none of my ancestors were a part of. 

I agree. And even if my ancestors were part of it, I wouldn't feel shame. This is one area that SJWism is absurd: the whole white guilt thing.

But to be fair to Taylor, he didn't suggest that anyone feels shame - he used the word acknowledge. And, of course, address the actual ongoing repercussions. 

[Blarg]

1 minute ago, Angelsjunky said:

I agree. And even if my ancestors were part of it, I wouldn't feel shame. This is one area that SJWism is absurd: the whole white guilt thing.

But to be fair to Taylor, he didn't suggest that anyone feels shame - he used the word acknowledge. And, of course, address the actual ongoing repercussions. 

I still feel no obligation to Taylor's guilt and thinking that any restitution is in order. 

[Taylor]

9 minutes ago, Blarg said:

I feel no shame for what none of my ancestors were a part of. 

I don't feel any shame or guilt either. To me, it's about justice, not a sense of guilty obligation.