|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 21, 2008 12:52:57 GMT -6
Per dictionary.com, racism is:
"a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others"
or
"hatred or intolerance of another race or other races"
Just because something is objectionable, does not mean that it is racist. The media and PC movement have conditioned your responses for you MoHawk. They have removed your ability to critically think about something and label it based on your gut feeling of whether it is objectionable or not with no analysis. Objectionableness has nothing to do with the analysis, but the PC movement has taught you that if you think anyone anywhere might think something is racist, then it de facto is.
|
|
|
|
Post by MoHawk on Apr 21, 2008 14:07:45 GMT -6
jwiley: "Iowa" "Connecticut" and the like are state names, they don't represent sports teams, I don't view those as racist because they don't bring to mind a cartoonish nature, such as the Redskins or Cleveland Indians mascot, Chief Wahoo.
I see no difference between Chief Wahoo and Chief Illiniwek. A white kid dressing up and doing a war dance at halftime of a basketball game or football game is no tribute, in my mind, to Native American culture.
Ralph: Those "some people, some where" you speak of are usually the subjects of the depiction. The Seminole tribe has signed off on FSU using the name and mascot, so while I don't like it, I can't have a problem with it.
Anyone implying that I'm "thin skinned" does not know me very well at all. I understand there is plenty of room for humor and some "creative license" as it were when it comes to the topic of racism. Thus why I don't have a problem with Arsenio Hall or things of that nature as that is done intelligently and without malice to Jews or white people in general. Just poking fun.
Same thing with Dave Chapelle and the "Race Draft". Hilarious stuff.
Is Chief Illiniwek intention malice towards that tribe? No. Is it completely ignorant and unintelligent? Yes. THAT'S what makes it racist in my book. It's the intent...not neccesarily the image or representation itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 21, 2008 14:31:41 GMT -6
Ralph: Those "some people, some where" you speak of are usually the subjects of the depiction. The Seminole tribe has signed off on FSU using the name and mascot, so while I don't like it, I can't have a problem with it. Anyone implying that I'm "thin skinned" does not know me very well at all. I understand there is plenty of room for humor and some "creative license" as it were when it comes to the topic of racism. Thus why I don't have a problem with Arsenio Hall or things of that nature as that is done intelligently and without malice to Jews or white people in general. Just poking fun. Is Chief Illiniwek intention malice towards that tribe? No. Is it completely ignorant and unintelligent? Yes. THAT'S what makes it racist in my book. It's the intent...not neccesarily the image or representation itself. So you have co-opted the definition of racism to mean anything that is ignorant and unintelligent that is anyway connected to race? Look again at the definition of racism and think about it. You do not have a coherent definition of racism that you can articulate. This is not surprising. Many on the left have long held latent beliefs in their own racial superiority. The best manifestation of this that I have ever seen was on 60 Minutes a few years ago when they were discussing the Michigan Law School AA case. One of the liberal profs was being interviewed, and he said essentially "When we are discussing crack cocaine in my criminal law class, it is important that we have African Americans in the room to add to the discussion." To me, that's racist. To ascribe special in-depth knowledge to them about crack cocaine because their race is repugnant to my sensibilities. It is as disgusting as saying they are less intelligent or less capable of performing on exams because of the color of their skin. |
|
|
|
Post by MoHawk on Apr 21, 2008 14:44:42 GMT -6
I think we're getting into "Apples to oranges" territory here. That Michigan professor is dead wrong when he says that Ralph. There's plenty of white people, Hispanics and any other race living in America addicted to crack cocaine and all can contribute to that discussion...IF they've been touched by crack cocaine somehow in their lives. Just because someone is a certain race does not make them an expert in those topics. In short, I agree with you the Michigan professor is retarded.
I've already said why I find the mascot(s) and costume unacceptable. Why do you find them acceptable Ralph? I don't mean that in a "dick-ish" way at all, I'm just generally interested to hear your viewpoint on the topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 21, 2008 15:19:33 GMT -6
I'm not saying whether they are acceptable or unacceptable. I just wonder why you were so quick to condemn them as racist.
The shirt - prolly racist/nationalist. Seems calculated to get a laugh based on perpetuating a stereotype regarding language ability or eye shape, the stereotype is borne out of a belief that the inability to make the r/l sound is related to stupidity.
Mascots - prolly not racist - neither seems to be calculated to show inferiority or hostility toward a race or group - if anything, demonstrates a sign of strength of such group and pay homage - the Cleveland Indian, on the other hand, is prolly on the racist side as they have made the caricature and designed him to look foolish.
Vick - Not racist on it's face. You think racist because you have been conditioned by your teachers and TV to think whenever you see a situation like that to react as follows - "oh my god, it's blackface, blackface is bad because they did that in the 1920's to denigrate African Americans and perpetuate negative stereotypes." That is the probably the mainstream reaction based on social conditioning and why I would never do it. But on it's face, his attempt at making a lifelike replication of Michael Vick by utilizing that paint, while stupid given the reaction most people will have based on conditioning, in and of itself does not advocate his belief in racial superiority or hatred or intolerance toward the Black community.
I think you will see it differently than me, but racism does not equal objectionable. The PC movement in this country has brainwashed your reaction to certain things and sought to remove your ability to think critically on such matters so that whenever the race card is pulled, you'll buy it hook line and sinker. I've lived somewhere where I was a minority. The fact of the matter is that people can be stupid assholes about anything, and just because they are a different race than you and something objectionable objectionable happens, doesn't mean that the dipshit doing it is racist. More likely than not, they are just dipshits.
|
|
|
|
Post by MoHawk on Apr 21, 2008 15:37:40 GMT -6
I can buy that Ralph. I find Chief Illiniwek racist because I don't think the point of that was to honor the Illini tribe. That's why I find it racist.
As far as being "brainwashed", I don't know about that. I think that kid doing the blackface is absolutely stupid, and I don't know if the kid himself is racist, but it was obviously a retarded move.
Again, I think it's "intent" and the intent with the Vick thing was certainly not of any artistic value...therefore I would define it as racist.
|
|
|
|
Post by hawkeyedug on Apr 21, 2008 15:41:33 GMT -6
Why would a school choose a native american as a mascot for any other than to honor said tribe? If there was any malice in there intentions wouldn't they just be making a mockery of themselves? "Ha Ha, look at us, were the stupid drunken indians..."  |
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 21, 2008 15:44:22 GMT -6
The guy who painted his face is a dipshit. There is no artistic value. He had no intent. Nor does the mere act of painting one's face, by itself, signify the superiority of another race or show a hatred or intolerance for another race.
You are letting emotion and douchebaggery (on behalf of the kid) and what you learned in history class dictate that something is racist, even though it does not fit the defintion of racism. Douchebaggery can do that, you see a big douchebag and you distance yourself as much as you can. I am going to write a book on it and become a sociology prof someday.
|
|
|
|
Post by MoHawk on Apr 21, 2008 15:47:05 GMT -6
We both agree kid is a douchebag. I'll leave it at that. A good and interesting discussion Ralph. I've enjoyed it.
|
|
|
|
Post by hawkeyedug on Apr 21, 2008 15:55:20 GMT -6
I guess I see "Vick Kid" as racist because I look to far into it. I assume that his intentions are to show superiority and stupidity, but he is probably only doing so about Vick, the individual. I have been swayed, but the kid is a fucktard, and probably is racist simply because he is so stupid and ignorant.
I've had this discussion with my girlfriend about whether my ignorant uncle is racist or not. He used the "N" word in her presence. While obviously very stupid, I don't think there was any malice intended, he was simply raised in small community Iowa, and still lives there. He hasn't been exposed to anyone who isn't whitey. Does complete and utter ignorance preclude someone from being racist? I can't decide for myself. I will say that I am strongly leaning toward "no, dude's a racist".
|
|
|
|
Post by HawksStock on Apr 21, 2008 16:42:42 GMT -6
The chief is just as racist as the Spartans symbol, both nations were defeated. Maybe chicken shits need to wait a few thousand years after a nation is defeated (to grow more skin) before their warriors can be used as a mascot.
And come on MH, the chief representing a tribe is as bad a leprechaun with his "dukes up" representing the Irish, please... don't be a tool.
|
|
|
|
Post by Norm "racerhawk" Parker on Apr 21, 2008 17:36:11 GMT -6
The chief is just as racist as the Spartans symbol, both nations were defeated. Maybe chicken shits need to wait a few thousand years after a nation is defeated (to grow more skin) before their warriors can be used as a mascot. And come on MH, the chief representing a tribe is as bad a leprechaun with his "dukes up" representing the Irish, please... don't be a tool. Are you less than 20 years old? Just curious. Your writing reflects your developmental level. |
|
|
|
Post by HawksStock on Apr 22, 2008 6:58:21 GMT -6
"Are you less than 20 years old? Just curious. Your writing reflects your developmental level."
and my degree in chemical engineering as well.
Fortunately, one only needs to grasp the truth of my statement and not grammatical correctness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Storm on Apr 22, 2008 8:28:21 GMT -6
I can buy that Ralph. I find Chief Illiniwek racist because I don't think the point of that was to honor the Illini tribe. That's why I find it racist. Do you even know what "Illiniwek" means? |
|
|
|
Post by MoHawk on Apr 22, 2008 9:28:22 GMT -6
I do indeed. I refer to the Illini as a singular tribe rather than list all of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Storm on Apr 22, 2008 10:29:39 GMT -6
I do indeed. I refer to the Illini as a singular tribe rather than list all of them. Was this supposed to be in response to me? If it was, it was wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Norm "racerhawk" Parker on Apr 22, 2008 16:37:54 GMT -6
"Are you less than 20 years old? Just curious. Your writing reflects your developmental level." and my degree in chemical engineering as well. Fortunately, one only needs to grasp the truth of my statement and not grammatical correctness. Note how I didn't say "intellectual level." There's a difference. I didn't mean to offend you, but there is no comparing a bunch of white folks using a indian warrior as a mascot with a bunch of white folks (Irish, and I'm Irish too) using a fighting Irishman for their mascot. Can you not see that? At any rate, Auto, don't you think it would be better to ask the Illini tribe if they think it's offensive, rather than a bunch of white sports fans? I mean, who gets to define racism? The people in power? |
|
|
|
Post by Norm "racerhawk" Parker on Apr 22, 2008 16:46:31 GMT -6
I can buy that Ralph. I find Chief Illiniwek racist because I don't think the point of that was to honor the Illini tribe. That's why I find it racist. Do you even know what "Illiniwek" means? I knew they were a tribe, but didn't know much about them. They were actually a group of tribes. If Wiki is accurate, then: The Illiniwek (also known as the Illini,Illinois Confederacy) were a group of six Native American tribes in the upper Mississippi River valley of North America. The tribes were the Kaskaskia, the Cahokia, the Peoria, the Tamaroa, Moingwena, Michigamea, Albiui, Amonokoa, Chepoussa, Chinkoa, "Coiracoentanon," Espeminkia, Maroa, Matchinkoa, Michibousa, Negawichi and Tapouara. |
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Apr 22, 2008 17:54:34 GMT -6
 I created and copyrighted this image |
|
