Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Stereotypes and Other Offensive Depictions in Sports Mascots and Team Names
Posts
Did you read the thread? In it, many characteristics of native americans which were historically used by whites in a derogatory manner are mentioned. Chief Wahoo also has those characteristics!
If Chief Wahoo was like, an angular-featured dude with a tightlipped smile and green skin, no one would accuse him of stereotyping native americans.
This is really pretty fucking easy to understand.
dappled sunlight / strikes your butt
girl you got a / real sweet butt
I have no fucking clue what a stereotype is.
Only that the people who are potentially offended by any imagery are the one who decide if it's a stereotype. Just because you say Elmer Fudd isn't a stereotype, doesn't make it so. Strangely enough.
Or would you care to admit that your argument is only based around he's white and doesn't fit in with known stereotypes and is therefor not offensive ever?
You're muckin' with a G!
That's exactly what a stereotype is! A stereotype is a set of commonly ascribed traits for a particular gender or ethnic group.
Besides that, every damn character on loony toons is white, which means that Fudd was simply the resident retard.
The above post is one of the finer examples of cognitive dissonance I've seen.
Chief Wahoo's primary trait is that he represents "Indians". If Elmer Fudd were renamed "Whitey McWhite" and his traits were reshaped to embody common white stereotypes, then he'd be equivicable to Chief Wahoo.
Because there are no like depictions.
If he was a stereotype, then you would see that same image and that same behavior in multiple places predating him, and at least some of them would be explicitly referencing their stereotypical nature ("This is how white people are")
But you don't because he is an independent characterization. Just because he happens to be white does not make him a white stereotype.
And who decides Chief Wahoo is offensive? Indians right? Or at least people who find his existence offensive. Wouldn't that mean that Elmer Fudd can be considered offensive by whites?
Being a character based on the 'majority' created by artists of that majority isn't an automatic shield from stereotyping or racism. Geez.
Lots of people don't think Chief Wahoo is offensive, that doesn't make it true. Why then does this line of thought not apply to any other character, even Elmer Fudd? Because he's white? Because only historically oppressed people can find offense in a particular representation?
Well, it appears so. Sorry for the offense I have caused.
You're muckin' with a G!
Yes, you've made that clear.
That doesn't make him a stereotype.
dappled sunlight / strikes your butt
girl you got a / real sweet butt
Idiots consider him an offensive stereotype of the stupid people.
On what grounds? It is theoretically possible, but I'd argue that those whites (if they are genuinely offended) have greatly misinterpreted the character. The fact is, there simply aren't any white stereotypes that he portrays, so the ONLY grounds to be offended would be the fact that a negative character is white. You DO see this complaint occasionally from extremists in the black community, who will complain when a villain in a movie or TV show is black, and personally, I think that they are being absurd. As long as no negative stereotypes are being portrayed, they should be happy that the black actor is getting the work (because of how white-dominated so much screen acting still is.)
dappled sunlight / strikes your butt
girl you got a / real sweet butt
I don't know, there's a general idea that people who can't speak properly are dumber than average. Not that I've ever heard this complaint leveled against Elmer Fudd, but I don't think it'd be too much of a stretch.
How about the Atlanta Braves though? Logo is a tomahawk. Are they offensive? I really don't have a problem with them, unlike the Redskins, or Chief Wahoo.
Elmer Fudd is clearly a stereotype, he just isn't a stereotype of something completely white, he's also hugely out of date as a stereotype. He's a stereotype of the 'Idiot Southerner who can't shoot straight and is easily decieved".
Still, you want a stereotype which is offensive to white people? Look no further than the regularly used image of a British person in the US. Bad teeth, continually drinking tea, obsessed with the queen and good manners, very stuck up, massively sexually repressed, likely poor, likely cockney and unintelligable, prone to violence especially at sporting events, continually drunk.
I'm British. Is this offensive? Of course not, because its just a joke, noone actually believes that. You can also look at how the French are cowards who do nothing but eat cheese.
That stereotype you just attributed Elmer Fudd to, can you give me other non-Elmer Fudd examples of it?
And as for the English, your Imperialism is responsible for the majority of the ongoing conflicts in the world outside of Eastern Asia (and a few inside) so I think it's a l;ittle different to tease you about still having a monarchy, compared to the adding insult to injury of the American Indian people who are dying off on their reservations right now.
I always thought he was West North Central and that empty region with Wyoming.
Retard in flannel? They're the (often self-proclaimed) representative from Wisconsin to Montana.
Economically depressed? Yes. Subject to massive prejudice and discrimination? Definitely. Probably the most neglected and continually ignored minority in the entire united states, especially considering they probably have it about as bad (socioeconomically speaking) as any other ethnic group we have? I would make that argument, yeah.
Dying off? No.
Actually, yes.
Tribe membership is dropping to the point where some tribes are considering loosening their blood percentage restrictions in order to keep flow disappearing entirely.
Individual people aren't dying, but the culture is and the tribes are.
is retard in flannel" a stereotype, or is it JUST the flannel that is.
Flannel is definitely seen as a tradition dress of outdoorsmen (lumberjacks and hunters, etc.) but I'd say that most depictions of said outdoorsmen are actually positive, manly stuff (like the aformentioned lumberjacks)
There is a whole internet's worth of resources out there. The fact that no one has been able to post a non-Looney tunes version of this stereotype is pretty telling as far as whether or not one actualy exists.
:shock:
So shamans do impart immortality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExMj_1Xdgu8
the speech and specific behavior are rather different.
One could argue that the Muslim religion is responsible for the majority of ongoing conflicts in the world.
I think most reasonable people would say it does. Which is why a lot of people think the NCAA was/is tilting at a few windmills on the issue; yes, there are names and mascots that are an issue, and there are ones that are not, and they seem to have at least some trouble differentiating between the two (last I heard the Seminoles were clear, though).
The cool thing about the "Chiefs," "Redskins," and "Indians" is that there is (to my knowledge) no "Indian" tribal council that gets to sign off on those bad boys, since right off the bat they're lumping all Indians in as a single culture/people.
EDIT: Oops, I failed at the "readings." Portion of post removed.
I believe this was, at the time, an intended consequence of the enrollment requirements set forth by the federal government. Basically they knew that, given time, the blood quantum requirements would essentially dilute tribes into non-existance. Same way they knew that fractionation from allotment would eventually lead to individual members owning so little land (or sharing ownership with so many) that the ownership would no longer be meaningful (and in fact that has been used as a legal justification to repossess it, IIRC).
Well, part of it has to do with the fact that tribal membership comes with rights and privileges(both legally defined, and granted by the tribe itself) and they don't want to just open the floodgates fr anyone to run in and claim that they deserve a cut of casino money because they are "culturally" related.
Extremist Islamic Arab Rejectionism of the western world can also be traced back to England, as it has roots both in the Crusades, and in the British Occupation of the Middle East during the Twentieth century.
More the people falling from the tree and popping up occasionally. Generally, the stereotype is of snowrednecks (although the snow part might just be my take on flannel being a warm material).
Also, the continued existence of a monarchy in an alleged democracy is pretty hilarious.
Ahh, I see, so then its fine for me to have massive racial slurs about say, people of Aztec or Inca descent, since their ancestors committed human sacrifice and genocide. I guess I can be cruel to Japanese people too, due to their brutality in world war 2. Anyone from Central China too, thanks to the cruelties of the cultural revolution. Or to the Germans, thanks to World War 2. Or to the French, thanks to their FAR more brutal colonial practices and the Napoleonic wars. And the Belgians too, for their continuation of slavery well towards the end of the 19th century and yet more brutal colonialism. I guess I can also make fun of people from Africa, due to their ongoing genocides and civil wars, and the common practice of tribes assisting European slavers in their acquisition of slaves from Central Africa. I can be cruel to the Mongolians thanks to Genghis Khans invasion of the west, and to the Italians for the cruelty of the Roman Empire. The USA also, perfectly fine to stereotype anyone from there, since clearly your economic imperialism and aggressiveness around the world in securing resources is clearly the cause of all the major ongoing conflicts in the world (whats that? This statement is a vast oversimplification of a complex global and local situation in which numerous factors are involved? I'm shocked, shocked to hear that!)
Seriously, don't be absurd. Almost every race, ethnicity, and creed can be blamed for some kind of insane atrocity in its lifespan. If stereotypes are not OK, unless the people on the other end have done something bad, then stereotypes are always OK since every group has done something bad. To say that "Oh, the English, well their ancestors Imperial ways were super evil, so we can make fun of them" is frankly absurd.
Its almost as hilarious as the pretend division of powers to imaginary sub federal states in a system which can't possibly support such a division in reality when in fact all such a division does is create insane levels of unnecessary bureaucracy and laws! Or the sheer absurdity of a written constitutional document prepared in 1787 being the backbone of all law in a nation. What total silliness. What country would ever do something as silly as that.
I can't really help it. I mean, I can lay out for you how the British are CLEARLY responsible for the Holocaust (Britain's behavior towards Germany post World War I), but in the context of everything else I've said in this thread AGAINST racism, do you think I'm being entirely serious?
I thought you were the one who said that stereotypes don't offend you.
Are those stereotypes, though, or just common tropes in cartoons? I feel like I see that sort of behavior regardless of race or occupation.
Laying the woes of the world at the feet of the British isn't stereotyping, or rather is most certainly not stereotyping in the context that this thread is meant to be discussing (e.g. offensive sports mascots). It's inflammatory accusation, and if you could I'd rather it not be discussed in this thread.
I disagree with this almost completely. Majority culture did not find the horrible stereotypes of Africans offensive or derogatory in the South during slavery, that most certainly did NOT make them inoffensive.
I took Evander's "Lots of people" to imply the majority of people in a culture.
You took issue with the idea that lots of people thinking something isn't offensive doesn't imply that it's inoffensive, which is unusual. If lots of people find something inoffensive, but it strongly offends a small group of people for clear, identifiable reasons (like Chief Wahoo), then it's still offensive.
Actually, I took issue with "reading." Apparently last night when I was maeking poast, that "don't" was printed in invisible ink. Or pixels. Or whatever.
I apologize to all involved. I have brought great shame to my family line.
(And then, despite that, a few Native American folks will root for the Redskins anyway out of loyalty. )
As for Elmer Fudd, I consider him a stereotype (cultural, not racial) of the wimpy weekend hunter trying to compensate for a small penis with a big gun. That could be reading way too much into it, but that's always what I've seen.
And as an Irish Ex-Catholic who will happily back Notre Dame's Fighting Irish, the questions that seem (to me) to provide a useful rule of thumb are:
- Does the mascot get buy-in from people from that culture?
- Are people from that culture still getting screwed over?
The Minnesota Vikings can have a goofy dumbass mascot, and nobody is going to care, because Vikings weren't herded onto reservations, sent off to schools where they were beaten for speaking their own language, and in some cases simply massacred to save time. At least, not recently.
The black guy and Asian guy mascot images ping our "Oh crap no" meter (or mine, anyway) because you can still point to racism against those cultures today. The Irish? Except for the Travelers, not many folks in the U.S. are getting really worked up about the fucking Irish coming in and taking their jobs.
The other tricky part is that for a lot of other cultural mascots, you've just got their cultural props. Some of the identifying features on Native American mascots, though, are actually part of religious rituals (almost always completely unintentionally). If the Notre Dame guy starts waving around a crucifix and rosary beads to get the crowd to do the wave, people's opinions of the harmless nature of the plucky guy change rapidly.
(Oh, and random side note: You can have more than one chief. As I understand it, the Southern Cheyennes have a council of chiefs. My wife's uncle is one, in fact. I claim no knowledge about the historical structure, whether each chief controls a small group or what. I just have some vague understanding of how it is today.)
I think you're missing my point.
Because I am NOT defending stereotyping.