At what point is a team or mascot racist? Are the ole miss rebels? Are the atlanta braves, FSU seminoles, or Washington Redskins? Are schools like Thommas Jefferson’s middle school racist since T.J. had slaves? Were the Georgia and South Carolina flags racist?
Hope the link doesn’t offend anybody, but it’s the only one I could find that actually showed the way the student’s and faculty actually felt. The other one’s were all just about the KKK and ACLU and NAACP going after one another.
The sketch in the link was stupid - flat out stupid. But I don’t see anything wrong with mascots such as the ‘Noles, or Braves, or Indians. Most schools’ mascots are some type of pride in the heritage of the institution, and so should it stay.
How come I never hear people complain about the Fighting Irish? Isn’t that degrading? I kinda think so. It’s saying that all Irish people are short tempered leprechauns who look for trouble. Should we only seek and destroy the ‘racist’ mascots, or all those that are prejudice?
If a school like Florida State wants to have pride in the Seminole indians, and San Diego State wants to have pride in the Aztecs, then Miss should be able to have Reb as their mascot. It’s part of their heritage - just as the Quakers are a part of University of Penn’s. Just because someone past might not be “respectable” is a poor reason to say they can’t remember that past.
If Miss can’t be the Rebels, I don’t think New York should be able to be called the Yankees…
I am Russian, Canuck Beer, so I dont understand this completle,
Didn’t the Civil War, lead by the Rebels, under the Confederate flag lead to years upon years of suffering and the bloodiest war in the History of the United states ever?
And the swastica is just a good luck charm ,huh?
Badmagic, if you want to find out whats wrong with that mascot do the following;
Print out a picture of the Fighting Irish, and show it to an Irish without saving a word.
Print out the Redskins and show it to an indian. Print out a Yankee logo, and show it to a yank.
Then, print out the Last mascot, the one you find nothing wrong with, and show it to a black man. See what you get.
*Originally posted by RussianBeer *
**Then, print out the Last mascot, the one you find nothing wrong with, and show it to a black man. See what you get. **
While we’re at it, let’s show the Padres logo to some Jews. Or how about we show a Jets logo to some Giants fans in New York! Or a Dallas Cowboys logo to some Philly fans at an Eagles game!! Whoa, that should make for some real fun…
You say to show Notre Dame’s logo to an Irishman … well then why can’t I show Reb to a white Southerner from Mississippi?
And it doesn’t seem that all those black folk who attend the Old Miss football games on Saturdays and strap on the helmet and pads to PLAY on that team have a problem with Reb as the mascot.
I said the sketch the man made was rediculously stupid and totally crosses the P.C. line. I never said the Nazi symbol was just a Tibetan good luck charm either. I say there are some things that shouldn’t be.
And if you knew history half as much as you think you do, the Civil War was not started by the Rebels. The Confederate States of America broke away, and it was the North that went to war with the South in order to keep the Union together.
Badmagic, if you want to find out whats wrong with that mascot do the following;
Print out a picture of the Fighting Irish, and show it to an Irish without saving a word.
Print out the Redskins and show it to an indian. Print out a Yankee logo, and show it to a yank.
Then, print out the Last mascot, the one you find nothing wrong with, and show it to a black man. See what you get. **
Not true, I am 100% iresh and I love the ND logo. Most of us Mic’s do. Hell tons of people get it tattooed on them.
*Originally posted by fester8542 *
**Not true, I am 100% iresh and I love the ND logo. Most of us Mic’s do. Hell tons of people get it tattooed on them. **
agreed. Many Irish (myself included) have no problem with the ND logo. That logo is more a statement of historical oppression of the Irish immigrants than in inflamitory hit aimed at the natural composure of the typical Irishman.
the confederate flag was the flag of an army fighting a war that had little to do with slavery and more with the fact that the north was leeching of the south’s agricultural industry…
some of the largest slave plantations were in the north…
-btw,
Florida State is in the process of phasing out the indian head logo and replacing it with their “3 torches” logo…
It’s all what you make it, our area of Florida is rich with Seminole culture, I myself am part Creek Indian which Seminole means “running Creek” because they separated from us. So…it’s all what you make it…
Honestly, hearing the Seminole War Chant in Doak Campbell stadium, is awesome…
They picked a part of heritage that has meaning for the area…that is all
agreed. Many Irish (myself included) have no problem with the ND logo. That logo is more a statement of historical oppression of the Irish immigrants than in inflamitory hit aimed at the natural composure of the typical Irishman
Thats my POINT, Irish, the Cowboys in Dallas, WONT get unpset at thier mascot, or thei logo, but that picture they WILL.
And if you knew history half as much as you think you do, the Civil War was not started by the Rebels. The Confederate States of America broke away, and it was the North that went to war with the South in order to keep the Union together.
Dont debase me, thats why I asked you to explain. In either case. Again, it seems to me the confederate flag stands shows hatred towards the union. It represents the independace of the South and the breaking of the Union.
some of the largest slave plantations were in the north…
I thought at the time of the civil war, slavery in the north was aready illigal? (Isn’t it why the slaves ran to the north?)
I am not sure of this, can you provide a source?
Not as much as the south, and I couldn’t find the exact source I was looking for…but it just shows that slavery was widespread.
And if you think of the mechanics, the North demanded agriculture from the South, and basically lived off the South; and how was the south supposed to supply said agriculture/supplies being that they had the least population?
Not that its right, because it isn’t by a long shot. The war was more over economics and politics…slavery was just an issue that affected everyone.
I would say:
Economics and Politics: 70%
Slavery 30%
of the reason for war…among others.
and the north did fight to keep the south in the union, south wanted to suceed away from the north, but the north fought to take over the south to keep them in it.
So back to the mascot thing:
It’s all in how you look at it. To me an open mind sees that its just a symbol of our culture; not an attack against a people.
FSU wears their seminole head with pride and bravery (even though our football team is iffy right now LOL)
Yeah - slavery wasn’t the point of the Civil War. If it were, northern soldiers wouldn’t have joined the fight. Also, the North had a few slave states in the Union! Even Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation declared slaves in rebel territories free - not those allied with the Union
Abolishing slavery was Lincoln’s goal, and he eventually got his way =)
Yeah, but the archeolgical are old, they say scince even the 1700, thats before it was outlawed in the North. By the time the civil war came around they where outlawed.
But of corse I don’t disagree at all that economics played a huge role in the war, but it was after all a Union a country, and in a coutry the fertile lands produce food and agriculture (south) and the Industrial sector has the industry(north) I mean there were many, many factors that lead to the war. It was in the end, the South wanting to succeed and North Staying…
Back to the mascot thing,
PrStudio, look at it again, it is on purpose debasing the blacks, its a bigot and racist website and mascot, by friggin nazis!! (Nationalist.org???)
*Originally posted by fester8542 *
**Not true, I am 100% iresh and I love the ND logo. Most of us Mic’s do. Hell tons of people get it tattooed on them. **
Didnt know you were such a senitive soul Rev :trout:
Abolishing slavery was Lincoln’s goal, and he eventually got his way
Hmm i hope you are referring to the abolition of slavery ONLY in USA as i believe we in UK and europe had already officially abolished it by then.
And yes on topic that pic is racist but then really if you look hard enough there is racism everywhere against everyone imaginable.
Like for instance in the UK the brainless masses like to think that (for instance) ALL germans are highly efficient robots who dont know how to laugh and are all secretly nazis… i mean obviously thats true (KIDDING)
But seriously everyone has preconceived ideas about other races of people even if its something simple like people who think everyone from african or jamaican decent is good at running? which is of course ridiculous.
Even that IS racist regardless of wether the generalisation is good or bad.
Of course I mean the US - Lincoln wasn’t President of the world at that time Not sure what you mean by “UK and europe had already officially abolished it by then.” Last time I checked, the Europeans’ treatments of the South Africans, Asians, South Americans, etc. was nothing short of forced servitude.
*Originally posted by ave *
**Hmm i hope you are referring to the abolition of slavery ONLY in USA as i believe we in UK and europe had already officially abolished it by then. **
Not to burst anyone’s bubble or to support the US’s actions in slavery but the number of slaves actually brought to the US is miniscule compared to the numbers that were taken to the Caribbean and South America for the European Countries like Spain, France, Portugal (I think). During the main trade numbers of 250,000 were brought to the US while MILLIONS were brought to South America and the Carribean to work on Sugar plantations. Cotton plantations were no walk in the park but sugar cane harvesting and production is hugely labor intensive (much more so than cotton).
Once again, I’m not saying anything about slavery in the US being good, and warm, and cuddly. I am 100% against it in every form, but I’m just filling people in on the fact that it existed everywhere and in forms that were much worse than the conditions in the US.
I think the US, as part of some deal struck with the South, banned the importation of slaves sometime in the very early 1800s (1808 or 1810 I’m guessing.) The US slave population was self-sustained with no further importation from other countries. Therefore, the slaveowners had to try to make sure that their investments (slaves) did not die out.
**
Not sure what you mean by “UK and europe had already officially abolished it by then.” Last time I checked, the Europeans’ treatments of the South Africans, Asians, South Americans, etc. was nothing short of forced servitude.
