Cactus Game Design Message Boards

As to this:

Quote from: Prof Underwood on November 17, 2009, 11:06:22 AM

And all of this "outrage" from native Americans has all come up in the last 20 years.  People chose those mascots many decades before that.  

The earliest date I have seen has been 1968 for Native American protests. And to be fair, Native American, of all of the minority groups in this nation have been given the short end of the stick in the name of "manifest destiny". Yes, slavery was a terrible, terrible thing, but last I checked we did not create government plots of land to force African Americans to and then become supremely surprised when the rates of suicide, drunkenness and the like are astronomical among the Native Americans. Perception is a big thing, and other groups that have been used for mascots that had any inkling of racism have been changed, so why should Native Americans be any different?

Bingo 

Also the argument that just because something may not have been harmful when it was originally started does not mean that it cant be considered harmful later on.  The more likely scenario is that the minority culture could not voice their opposition until the majority culture became more accomodating to thier desires.  This is similar to the way the "Civil Rights" movement seems to Spring out of thin air in the 1960s if you look at it only from a white perspective.  From a white perspective, all of a sudden you have uppity black folk who are trying to get their "rights" rocking hte boat when things have been fine all along.  But from the black perpsective things have not been fine all along and it was only at that time that they had enough support in the majority culture to insist on being treated fairly.  But from the black perpsective, the civil rights movement has been going on for centuries.

I see the native american movement in a similar light.

And I think from a christian perspective that this should not even be an issue.  How can a christian seriously argue for an organization that uses as its symbol a racially disparaging word or icon?  AS ambassadors for christ who made us all equal in christ, how can we support this type of behavior in the mainstream culture?  By doing it would be the same as if we held those ideas and passed them off as our own and basically say that it is acceptable in a christian life to embrace racial epithats.

From my perspective, if it is the right thing to do, then it is right no matter what the cost.  Will it cost the Washington Redskins a lot of money to change their name, logo and identity?  Yes, it will.  But if it is right, it is right no matter what the cost.  Now do I expect the Redskins to live by that motto?  no.  But I think they should.

Florida State didn't "get permission" until they also were threatened with a lawsuit.

True, but that does nothing to help any argument you may be constructing here.  The washington redskins obviously havent changed their name even WITH a lawsuit.  but one thing Florida State did do is work with the tribe to come to an agreement about using their name and image as their team representative and Mascot.

And another issue that is even closer to a direct comparison.  Miami University used to be called the Miami Redskins.  Miami is named after the Miami indians who used to live in this area.  About 10 years ago they changed their name to the Redhawks because the tribe had protested their use of the derogatory "Redskins" as the College logo and mascot.  There are still signs around town where people still cking to the old identity.  There is a buisness called "redskin realty" in down town oxford and once when I went to a Miami Hockey game I saw a fan wearing what I thought was a Washington redskin Jersey but it was a Miami Redskin Jersey and he still refused to call them the "Redhawks"

While individual fans may have a hard time adjusting, the vast majority of the United States knows Miami by the "Redhawks" mascot.  They were asked to change and they did so because they wanted to keep a good relationship with the tribe.  Miami University still has several programs that work in conjunction with the Miami Tribe including one of the only places where the Miami Language is still written and recorded.

It is also possible for a few members of a tribe to take offense, when the mjority does not.  Case in point:

Arcadia High School has an Apache as its mascot.  A local man who is part Apache and a couple of his friends decided to stir up trouble at some games at the school, holding up signs, yelling, threatening to sue, and whatnot.

The school contacted the Apache tribe and asked their opinion.  The tribe responded that they were honored to be used as a mascott provided they see what images were used and approve them.  The school gave them pictures of all icons, images, and outfits worn by school members that had anything to do with the mascott.  The tribe approved of EVERYTHING the school had been doing save one thing: The girls that march in front of the band were no longer allowed to wear the headdress of Apache men (seeing as they were females), and were told to wear the headdress of Apache women instead.  The tribe even provided a picture of what it should look like.  This began a great period of cooperation between the school and the tribe, to the point where the school now has a jacket and clothing drive for the tribe every year.  When my brother-in-law was an administrator at the school, he went on the trip to deliver the clothes one year and said they were treated warmly, respectfuly, and gratefully.  Not a single tribe member complained about the huge Arcadia Apache words or picture on the side of the trailer.

But at the next game, that local, obnoxious part-Apache man was back with his banners to protest.  In my opinion, some people are too sensitive and take offense too quickly, especially when they think they can make money from it (by suing or threatening to sue).

All of this is true.  Sometimes people say there is a problem when there is not one.  I am not familiar with anything about this case other than the headline and the few articles I have read about it.  But while Arcadia was using the proper name or title for a single group and could do justice by them ( and actually sought to do justice by them)  the Washington Redskins are using a derogatory title for an entire race of people and have not, to my knowlege, or sought to do justice by that group.

All I can say is that when Miami university asked to continue using the "redskin" term they were told, flat out, "No, Not under any circumstances"  There was no negotiation with the tribe, they would not tolerate it and did not appreciate its use.  I would think that similar sentiments would apply to Washington if you polled the general Native American population.  but I could be wrong.

I do know that it offends me and I am not even part Native American.  What Arcadia HS did was, in my mind, a christian response to the same issue.  You may be doing something for a long time and not know that it deeply offends someone.  When the issue was brought to the light, they sought the council of those who would be in charge and sought Permission and made changes to accomodate that group of people in an effort to honor their culture.

When I see Washington do that, Then I will be fine with their organization.

Other notable Teams such as the Atlanta Braves and Cleveland Indians are a bit more of a gray area.  In many tribes they would have no problems with the names Braves or Indians since they tend to be more generic terms.  But I know that many native Americans that I have talked to (Miami University has a surprising number of them in attendance) think that Chief Wahoo of Cleveland is somewhat offensive given the goofy caricature that he represents.

wow.  Peyton Manning became the only quarterback to throw 40,000 yards in any decade and he only needs 3 TD's to be first player to throw 300 TD's in any decade.  Yeah..that is awesome!

Favre is playing the best football of his life - I don't think that can be argued - In any other season he's the MVP hands down - But this year seems to be the year of the QB. I've got Manning, Brees and as Suprising as it is Rivers above Brett right now.

Ok - So I was joking about Rivers - But he's having a great year too.

Please take the mascot issue to another thread.  This thread is about football.  Thank you.   

Favre is playing the best football of his life - I don't think that can be argued - In any other season he's the MVP hands down - But this year seems to be the year of the QB. I've got Manning, Brees and as Suprising as it is Rivers above Brett right now.

Ok - So I was joking about Rivers - But he's having a great year too.

I was about to be like "RIVERS!?!?!?" Hahah thanks for the clarification.

Manning: 2,872 Yards, 20 TDs, 7 Ints. -- 357 Attempts
Favre: 2269 Yards, 17 TDs, 3 Ints. -- 285
Brees: 2559 Yards, 19 TDs, 9 Ints. -- 291 Attempts

No point of posting completion percentages cause they're all within a percentage of each other.

Those are the stats. Considering Manning has thrown about 70-80 more passes than Favre or Brees, and yet doesn't have THAT many more TD (and 4 more Int than Favre), I'd put Favre above him. Brees and Favre have thrown comparable amounts of passes, but Favre has only two less TD and less than 300 more yards, and yet has 6 less interceptions. I'd put him above Brees.

Those three are about tied when you look at overall attempts, touchdowns, interceptions and yards. At this points it's up to what kind of QB you like. I'd take Favre cause he has the best TD/Int ratio, but someone might like yardage more and pick Manning. It's up for grabs at this point for who gets MVP.

I have to agree that Brees or Manning are the front runners for MVP.  If Farve gets hurt the vikings still have an amazing running game that can win games, but the colts and saints don't really have that.  I really look at it this way if a player were to get hurt and not play again this season how big of a drop off would there team have.  The colts with out manning are a below 500 team.  Saints are the same thing if they lose Brees, but if Farve goes down I still see the vikings winning games and being atleast 500 but probably even higher then that.  Farve does add wins to the vikings but not on a level like Brees or Manning.

I disagree. The Vikings have never been a 9-1 team at all! Now Favre comes and they're expected to win the super bowl. That's a valuable player for you.

I didn't mean literally NEVER... I just mean that the recent Vikings team hasn't been close to 9-1.

Quote from: lightningninja on November 18, 2009, 07:57:29 PM

I disagree. The Vikings have never been a 9-1 team at all! Now Favre comes and they're expected to win the super bowl. That's a valuable player for you.

Forgive me Viking fans but I must inform the young ninja padawan that Minnesota has been a 9-1 team, most recently in 1998 with Randall Cunningham at QB, Randy Moss a rookie at WR, and the never-miss Gary Anderson at placekicker.   

AND CHRIS CARTER! HOW DARE YOU FORGET HIM!

Cris* actually

ahh, I thought it looked wrong.

Just like this year's 49ers...