NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 21, 2014 -> 04:53 PM) There is one HUGE difference there. We didn't take over Africa and rename them on their own tribal and historical lands. They are actually African. Unless you are taking the term American to mean North American, and not United States of American. I don't use it as such, as tribes outside of the US still are identified by their tribal histories, such as the Maya, Inca, etc. They aren't known as Mexican Indians or some other artificial colonial construct. That's not really true though. The term Indians is in fact used elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere outside the US. Again, that's just trying to pick away nuances. They terms are different, and I can illustrate it very simply. If you met and had a conversation with, let's say, an Apache (or Cherokee or Comanche or any other tribal identification), I can guarantee you that you would be more comfortable saying American Indian than Redskin. In fact, I'm sure that unless you were discussing football, you wouldn't go anywhere near the term Redskin. That tells me what I need to know about the difference.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 21, 2014 -> 04:42 PM) No one ever made the statement that someone is not "allowed" or even "able"to take positions. For all the lecturing you are doing above about nomenclature, you sure seem to be putting words in my mouth. It is mainly an issue of credibility, which is important if one takes a position of authority on an issue, which is certainly what some folks in this section of our DISCUSSION FORUM like to do. Here's your quote... You are telling another poster you don't think they'll get off their couch to do anything about it, thus invalidating their perspective. And that poster (wasn't me) wasn't taking a position of authority - they were debating the issue. As we all are. I studied this field a bit in undergrad (was sort of an emphasis for me under Poli Sci major and History minor), even wrote my longest paper in undergrad on the Dawes Act, Microfederalism and the Reservation System (and it is thrilling reading I assure you, LOL). It means I know something. But unless the insulting nature of the word impacts me directly, I really don't think my opinion should carry more weight than anyone else's as to whether or not the team name is OK. It only means I am more likely (one would hope) to be in possession of more background information.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 21, 2014 -> 04:40 PM) Actually that is my point. One is socially accepted, and one isn't, despite their origins and histories having the same checkered backgrounds. One has the mythical power, one doesn't. People have convinced themselves that one is different. They don't have anything like the same backgrounds. Their backgrounds are no more similar than African American and the N word. Are those the same to you too?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 21, 2014 -> 04:27 PM) That's not at all what I was trying to say. Secondly, you don't think someone who has actually volunteered time and money for a particular cause is generally going to be more familiar with that cause than someone who latches onto it because it just happened become a hot topic in the news? You don't think that adds a little legitimacy to your stance? That you've actually spoken to the people involved as opposed to reading it or seeing it on the news? Fair enough. More familiar? Of course. Any more allowed or able to take a position? Not in the slightest.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 21, 2014 -> 04:27 PM) Look it up. The name "American Indian" was adopted because they couldn't think of another over arching term, that people would actually understand, that wasn't more racist and/or wasn't a product of the same people that began calling them "American Indians" in the first place (such as "Native American"), and they did so despite and with full knowledge of its negative and racist connotations. Just because it is "generally accepted" does not mean it doesn't have the same set of factors attached to it as redskin or any of the other things we have called groups people over the centuries. Go back to the 50's and examine the general accepted names for other groups that we would dare use in public because of their connotations today. After the organized slaughter and removal of these groups over a course of centuries, the only thing they had to go to was the identity that the colonialists gave to them to strip them of their tribal and national identities. These people are neither "American" nor "Indian", and definitely aren't "American Indian" anymore than they are "Redskins", "Noble Savages", or any of the other terms historically used to degredate their true histories and societies. Those are products of European minds, and not of the people who were here 10,000 years before the Europeans showed for for their 500 year genocidal show. The fact that they feel they have had their identity stripped down to the point where they feel there have no better identification than what their slaughterers have called them just goes to show how complete of a job that was done. It sure doesn't make it any less racist of a term. You really, really want American Indian to be the same as Redskin. Yet they really, really aren't. One is a misnomer that has been accepted and in fact embraced not only by anthropolgists but by these people themselves. The other has been used for centuries as purely an insult. It would be so much easier of all these things were the same. People want desperately to not have to deal with the shades of grey, to boil it all down to all or none. But especially in terms of cultural nomenclature, that is never the way it works.

I've already made all the points I can on this, really, so I won't get into the circles again. There are people who are denial of the simple, factual reality that it is an insulting name, and I can't do anything about that. If people want to debate whether that should be OK or not, that's worth talking about maybe, but I won't keep hitting my head on the brick wall of ignorance. However, for the things that are NOT subjective and are outright bizarre... QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 05:40 PM) It is a term of historical ignorance and racism assigned by colonialists. There is no such historical figure as an Indian, or an American Indian, just like there is no group that is a Redskin. There were tribes and nations all over these lands. Not a one of them would have self identifed as an Indian. They are Iroquois, or Pottawattomie, or whatever their historical nations were. It is just as historically of a loaded term as any others. This is just full of factual inaccuracies. There IS a historical and anthropological term Indian, specifically American Indian, and it is in fact the generally accepted term for the people living in the Americas prior to (insert your favorite Euro "discoverer" here) and going back at least 10,000 years. Go ask an Anthropologist. And yes of course there were tribes and families and villages, just like there are in every society, but that absolutely does not mean that higher level associations do not also exist (i.e. Nationalities), or that overarching scientific terms do not exist (i.e. Europeans). And you have conflated "historically loaded" with "racist" here. They aren't the same. Heck, even if they were, that does nothing to make the term Redskin any less racist or insulting. QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 21, 2014 -> 10:19 AM) I guess what I'm trying to argue for is to use some of that passion you seem to have to go out there and contribute in other ways, rather than to use causes like this to challenge your debate skills...because I really don't believe that you'll get off your couch to do much of anything for American Indians when it really comes down to it. The above post is strange to me. We aren't allowed to discuss any topic we haven't personally contributed money to? I mean, this is a DISCUSSION FORUM. In case it matters, I have helped causes associated with poor reservations, but honestly I fail to see how that adds any weight to what I say on this. The only thing that would add weight is if I actually WAS an American Indian (which in some very small percentage I probably am based on family stories, but not enough worth noting). QUOTE (Tmar @ Aug 21, 2014 -> 11:12 AM) Once again, if Indians called themselves redskins is it really offensive to them? "After O’Fallon’s 1821 council with the Sauks, the next recorded uses of redskin were in August 1821 at a treaty conference held at Chicago with representatives of the Ottawas, Chippewas, and Potawatomis (Kappler 1904–1941, 2: 198–201). There the lead speaker for the Potawatomis was the accomplished orator Metea (Meete-ay), a chief from the Wabash River (McKenney and Hall 1933, 2: 205212), who declared: “I am an Indian, a red-skin, and live by hunting and fishing, but my country is already too small” (Schoolcraft 1825: 342). And Topinabee (Topenebee), the Potawatomi principal chief, said: “My Father,—I am a red skin. I do not know how to read or write, but I never forget what is promised me” (Schoolcraft 1825: 347)." anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf Seriously? A quote translated through two languages to arrive in English from an 1821 Treaty discussion with a non-written-language people? The term existed well before then anyway, hell early US Presidents used it. It was, and is, an insult, and any thorough reading of history will tell you that. Picking apart specific instances where it wasn't immediately protested doesn't change that, just as you can find all sorts of places where African Americans call themselves the N-word (in fact more so in that case I'd imagine)./

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 21, 2014 -> 03:57 PM) Especially with what else this org has in the pitching department, I think there's a good chance they're going to do the "work him as a starter then bring him up as a reliever" route. Which is ideal for him. Not only because he has a legit plus pitch (the fastball) but not a lot else, but also because he specifically told me last year he prefers relieving to starting.

I think some folks are maybe overreacting to Bassitt a bit. I like him, I think I had him around 20 or 22 on my list of prospects, just as he was starting his return. He looks healthy which is great, but I can't see a legit argument having him any higher than the bottom of the teens. He's got a very good fastball, and nothing else above average, unless he's made large scale changes recently.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Aug 21, 2014 -> 09:02 AM) Wonder if this punches his ticket to the AFL? He just went last year and is coming off an injury, so I'm pretty sure it assures he WON'T be there.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 04:55 PM) Yet everyone here is using the term "Indians" like it has never had any negative connotations attached to, or that it wasn't the terms assigned by the colonists. But yet no one has any idea of what I am talking about when I mention the power assigned to words. Indians is a proper and scientific name for a group of people (though of course it is sort of hilariously inaccurate). In fact Native Americans was added later as an attempt to be more sensitive (or PC if you like), but then those people themselves in many cases felt that was just as inaccurate as Indians. That's why American Indians is the way you now, again, often see the groups termed in academic papers and textbooks. It was never an insult, unless terms like "white" or "Irish" or "people" are also insults. Indian and Redskin are in no way interchangeable in their tone - only in the people they point at.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 04:43 PM) But no one does this, and hasn't for a very, very long time. That's why this case is different. Again, let's poll 100 people and how many do we honestly think relate Washington Redskins to a football team or an actual person/tribe? Um, it's the name of an NFL team. It is likely done millions of times a day. And as for polling, SS showed you a few - that all showed a majority found it offensive. There was the one exception, which you posted, but again that was a laughably bad survey question (which you seemed to agree with given the fact that you assumed it was a typo).

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 04:37 PM) That's gotta be a typo in the article. Copied and pasted from their own press release. That's some epically bad review work there.

QUOTE (TRU @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 04:32 PM) A lot of words are insults, and people still use them. And I am not even talking about saying "Some redskin cut me off in the parking lot today" just typing that out sounds ridiculous as to why someone would use that as an insult or racist saying. That being said, for a football team that's been around since 1932 I find it a little "eye roll" if you will that its just NOW that people want to wage some big fight against it. The majority of white/Euro people wouldn't have thought twice about calling someone the N word in 1932 either. It was an insult then too. We have just evolved as a society, and are in a place where many people don't find these things to be OK. It isn't that the nature of the word has changed. It's that we are evolving as a society in our reaction to hurling insults.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 04:29 PM) Lol, of course it was. Sigh. Well, when a number of surveys say one thing and another is an extreme outlier, you have to wonder why. Maybe it's because the question was asked like this: This is like survey 101 here. First, you don't ask a compound question and expect a yes/no answer. That's like asking "Do you like chocolate? Does it get stuck in your teeth?" Second, that question isn't even grammatically correct - no surprise there was some confusion from it. I frankly cannot believe that question made it through any sort of professional review process. I cannot say if that is WHY it was so aberrant in it's results, but it is a pretty big clue.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 04:22 PM) SOME do. Which is plenty for me. It might be 30%, but the surveys being posted seem like it is closer to 70%. I'd imagine you'd get similar results asking about the N word. Of course it won't be all, that's a silly bar to set.

QUOTE (TRU @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 04:18 PM) Ive still never heard anyone use the term Redskin when referring to an Indian outside of the Washington Redskins. And I am a pretty offensive and incentive person and hang out with such. Because it's an insult, so most people don't. If you've heard the N word, it's because of two key differences. One is, as I noted earlier, there is a lot more current population AND more current tension between blacks and whites (and Hispanics) where such adversity can make that language come out of the woodwork. The other is that, for reasons I still don't really understand, some African Americans have co-opted the term into their own speech. I mean, how often do your friends have a reason to even be angry at an American Indian person? How often does that come up?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 03:57 PM) All good points. One thing I will point out is, last I heard, I thought the fan base was fairly outspokenly in favor of what the owner was doing in support of the name. That said, I am not arguing for keeping, but agree with the concept if everyone in a certain race is offended by it (that said, I have never seen an actual poll other then from people involved in the primary groups that have been protesting this for years), it isn't a good idea. I do think their is a difference between the use of Redskin and a term like the Tribe for the Indians or names like the Braves or Seminoles. Those are not derogatory in nature, imo. Note: I'm specifically talking names, not mascots, etc. Oh I agree, I don't see how the names Indians or Blackhawks are offensive because they are not insults on their face. They are proper names. Totally different. QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 04:00 PM) Serious question, do you have a link to this supposed percentage? I hear people saying that all the time, but nobody ever provides evidence. You have the same dozen or so groups that speak out about it, so of course you hear them. I know I have read stories where some Indian leaders have said pretty much that they don't give a s*** about the name one way or the other, but can't remember where I saw them. I will try and look for them. I do not. And frankly I don't care if it is 30% or 80% or whatever. It isn't zero or particularly close to zero, if they are all these groups and leaders and individuals being interviewed saying it offends them, and that's really all I need (from my perspective). As for someone who I think earlier tried to argue it wasn't an insult like the N word, and if it was there would be more response... that's just math. People who are classified as AmerInd, even if using quarter blood rule, have a population that is orders of magnitude smaller than those of African descent in this country. Not to mention that many live on reservations, away from places media typically operate. So of course the voices are not as loud. The term is an insult, always has been. Not sure what there is to even argue there. The only argument, to me, is whether or not the team should change it's name as a result of that fact. I don't think the government should do that, by the way. But I am definitely supportive of the individuals pressuring the team to do so.

This is being vastly over-complicated. Redskin was, for a few hundred years, and still is, a racist insult. Just like "the N word". And, just like that word, the name was more flippantly and callously applied some time ago. So we have a football team with that name. The people who are targets of it - as well as people who feel that they've gotten a pretty s***ty shaft already from this country - are offended. Lots of them. In fact from what I've read, just about every AmerInd person or leader that's been asked is offended. To me, that is plenty enough to make a change. An insulting, racist name that offends most of a group? Change it. Finally, as for the whole "PC Police" argument, that always cracks me up. What you are seeing here - people putting pressure on a business to make a positive change - is a great and quite American thing. It's cool to watch, and it symbolizes one of the positives of both capitalism and free speech. I hope the name changes, and I think it will, probably pretty soon. Really at this point it's just the owner (who has been shown to be quite the model citizen) holding out, and I think he eventually caves to that economic pressure. That will be a good day.

Recap posted.

QUOTE (ron883 @ Aug 19, 2014 -> 09:39 PM) Hi. Who are you? Hi, I'm an Olympic Medalist who is now trying to be a professional baseball player.

Going to have another interview tomorrow with a different prospect - see the thread in FutureSox asking for suggested questions. Should be posted Thursday morning. Trying to make up for not doing many this year.

Kind of late notice, but I am going to be interviewing Eddy Alvarez (Kanny infielder and former Olympic speedskater) tomorrow (Wednesday) late afternoon. What questions would people like to ask Eddy?

Chris Freudenberg struck out the last 7 batters he faced, straight. What's really odd is, he hadn't struck out any before that. He's a puzzling prospect.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Aug 18, 2014 -> 03:31 PM) Wheeler is going to be 23 next month. Can the Sox move him up already??? QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Aug 19, 2014 -> 11:38 AM) Given his age, I'd love to see him in AA next year. He's been tandem-pitching with Jordan Guerrero, as they both build up arm strength. They should both be starting next year at full innings. Also both will likely be in fall instructs.

You know, for those of you who are looking to break into baseball jobs... we could always use another hand writing the Recaps on FutureSox. Daniel and Rob do a great job, but it can sometimes be hard to cover all the needed nights between just those two. So if that interests you at all, PM me. The season is coming to an end soon, but one could do a couple to warm up then start regular in the spring. ETA: Being able to show something tangible like this could give someone an edge in a sea of candidates.