IceCap

Moderators
  • Content Count

    46,161
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    265

Everything posted by IceCap

  1. I have my reasons. Ethnically speaking I'm half white European and half Jewish. I've heard every derogatory term you can think of- for people of mixed ancestry and just Jews in general- hurled at me with increasing frequency (thankfully not here...anymore). I've been in the muck of this sort of discussion before so no. I'm not "reaching" as SWoD accused me of doing. When I say "this reminds me of something actual racists say" I wasn't saying it to get a rise or win internet "gotcha" points. It's contentious stuff because of history and context. There's a lot of nasty stuff in our collective past that justifiably raises emotions. As I said, I arrived at the conclusions I did because of my own experiences in discussion that involve race and ethnicity. You start to pick out key phrases after you hear them or read them enough times. If you truly did not mean anything malicious by your wording though? Then I am sorry
  2. I thought that's what you meant because that's what popped into my head reading your posts. "Ethnicities aren't interchangeable" really does read like that to me. Sorry if you're flustered that's how it came off to someone else, but I think you'd rather deal with me telling you my honest opinion on the matter than holding back and continuing to hold that opinion to myself. You're using it in a racial context. In this conversation. Like I told OCD above, it's how it legitimately came across to me. I don't know what to tell you if you don't get that, but it's my honest reaction. You just did. You assumed I said what I said because I was "really [stretching] to misunderstand" rather than consider that maybe, just maybe, my reaction to what you and OCD said was genuine. Practice what you preach and maybe this will hold weight. So am I. I'm tired of people being called out for being "PC POLICE!!"/virtue signallers/being "SJWs"/cultural warriors just because they're bothered by stuff like this and think there's a better way forward. You don't have to agree with them, but geeze. People like to moan about how "no one stops to listen and have a conversation anymore" before calling someone a "virtue signalling SJW" for suggesting that the cartoon Native logo just might be racist. It cuts both ways here.
  3. My mistake Maybe don't compare people to animals in the first place then? Not really. People are people, and people are all fundamentally the same. A Native person, a white person, a black person, and an Asian person are all just people. That being said, historical context exists. You cannot compare how white people treat their own cultural and historical touchstones to how white people treat Native cultural and historical touchstones without addressing the fact that white people disposed and marginalized Natives on this continent. It's context. Yes, we're all agreeing that we're all one big happy human family, but you're being wilfully ignorant of exceptionally well documented historical facts if you refuse to see why "Vikings" is more benign than "Indians." And to the bold portion...I'll call a spade a spade. When you and @O.C.D go on about how human ethnicities are "not interchangeable" you sound an awful like you're advocating for racial separation and segregation. I mean my father's side is Jewish. My mother's side is northern European. I wouldn't exist if people took your "not interchangeable" rhetoric as fact. And yes I got the bit about you being half Puerto Rican and half European. I'm aware. It just makes what you're saying sound even more off-putting and weird. Maybe you don't intend it to come off this sinister, but "races and ethnicies aren't interchangeable" really does seem like it's a short jump to "everyone should stay with their own kind." "If things were different they'd be different" is hardly a compelling argument. Who cares what the discussion would look like if the Indians had the Yankees' track record? They don't, and as such it doesn't matter.
  4. The high points of the Cleveland Indians' modern existence are losing a WS to a Marlins team most famous for how it was dismantled by ownership and blowing a lead in the WS to the G-ddamn Chicago Cubs. Let's not pretend we're getting rid of a Yankees-caliber legacy here. We're not even getting rid of a Tigers-caliber legacy.
  5. "Spiders" is the obvious choice. They don't need to keep the red and navy, but I'd like them to. That being said, I'd be fine with a different colour scheme. They should avoid stuff like purple or black though. "Spiders" works as a name for historical reasons, but pairing it with a teenage boy's idea of a "" colour scheme will make the whole thing seem second rate. "Spiders" is a name that needs a traditional colour scheme to keep it all grounded.
  6. I wonder how you square this rather segregated view of humanity with mixed race families? Like mine? You want nuance? Here's nuance... "Vikings" refer to explorers/warriors from medieval Scandinavia. They were white. White people naming a team after a white historical group to represented a state's population largely derived from that group's place of origin is pretty damn benign. White people naming a team after another group of people their ancestors dispossessed, displaced, and marginalized is far more sinister. So if you want nuance? There you go. This ignores the above context and nuance @O.C.D has been crying for. You can't separate the usage of Native American iconography in sports from the deplorable way Natives have been treated historically (and in many ways presently) on this continent. I will grant you that "Indians" itself is rather benign when compared to the slur the Washington NFL team used. The name "Indians" would probably be a non-issue had the team dropped Wahoo decades ago. Instead they clung to a racist cartoon of a logo defiantly for so long that it poisoned the whole identity. There was a compromise possible with this specific team- and the "no change no matter what" crowd kept that from happening. Edit- People aren't dogs
  7. It can be applied to any race or ethnicity. It's such a generic statement as to either be meaningless or point to you arguing in bad faith. "Historical agency," and "context" aren't your strong suits are they?
  8. One could argue that Chief Wahoo being around for so long poisoned the well with the name. The name would likely be around forever had they dropped Wahoo in the 70s and then gone the Spokane route in the 2000s. Instead they held on to the racist cartoon until everyone was so fed up with them that a full change was probably for the best.
  9. I'm going to be as honest as I can be. You think any fan of the Los Angeles Galaxy or LAFC gives one iota of a care in the world about the Los Angeles Wolves? You think either the New York Red Bulls or NYCFC owe anything to the Cosmos? No. Hell, MLS could have had the Cosmos. They chose not to have the Cosmos. So you can draw these lines any which way you want- it doesn't change the fact that MLS today doesn't owe anything to the NASL. The NASL utterly imploded and cratered top flight soccer in north America for years. MLS fumbled out of the gate- and only started getting its act together in the mid 2000s when they stopped trying to "Americanize" the sport. So no, it's not all "just a coincidence" but a few key people here and there does not create this grand legacy you so desperately want to exist. Everything in North American soccer prior to MLS' rebirth as a league that respected the game's global traditions has been tinged by failure. And all of this is academic anyway. Why are we having this argument? You're mad that someone who isn't from Montreal likes the name "Montreal FC" over "Montreal Impact"? Really? You're free to disagree with him on that but come on man. There was no need to use that disagreement as a jumping off point of multiple walls of text dedicated to why the deep legacy of North American soccer is worth defending. All the guy said was that he didn't like a singular 90s style name. That's all. It's hardly a revolutionary- or even unpopular- opinion around here.
  10. How about this? "I like the name Sounders but dislike the name Impact." That's all you need to justify an opinion like this. You're arguing against strawmen. That's a lot of effort to connect a lot of dots, and I remain unconvinced. Sorry. MLS from 2005-onward owes little to the MLS that existed up to that point. Much less the NASL. And it is, to be frank, getting tiring. Tiring that every time we get a new team- be it in MLS or the USL- you have people with NASL nostalgia who won't pipe down about the new name that was chosen being "an insult to the proud soccer tradition of the city" or whatever. The NASL's cultural impact was minimal. Cascadia is the exception that proves the rule because not even the Cosmos were sees as so invaluable that MLS HAD to have them. It's all getting a bit tiring, and a bit tedious. MLS is making its own mark and seems far more sustainable than any league that came before it- even the early MLS. Every year the people who keep holding onto the flame of the NASL get older and greyer. And the NASL gets slightly less relevant to younger MLS fans.
  11. Did it though? MLS floundered until it began to market itself to existing soccer fans. It's not like MLS came into being in the mid 90s and everyone was buying scarves. MLS was, to be frank, a laughing stock. Until at least 2005. The mid-2000s were when they finally figured out that emphasizing global football traditions was what would give them an audience. Does this mean that every pre-mid 2000s soccer-related thing in North America is without merit? No. Cascadia kept the flame alive, for example. The Whitecaps, Sounders, and Timbers all draw on that pre-MLS legacy, but let's not kid ourselves. The Chiefs weren't vital to success of Atlanta United FC. Toronto FC doesn't owe much, if anything, to the Blizzard or Falcons. The most famous pre-MLS team in North America- the New York Cosmos- got told "thanks but no thanks." And while I do have my issues with NYCFC both from a branding and overall culture standpoint? They proved you DON'T need to rely on old NASL nostalgia to make soccer work on this continent. The Cosmos brand is a joke now, while both NYCFC and a team named after an energy drink are doing their things happily. I'd dispute this, as MLS' first ten years of operation wasn't even the foundation that the modern MLS is built upon, but here's the thing... ...it's all academic anyway. Like I said above, SFGiants58 just doesn't like the name "Impact." That's all it is, an aesthetic preference. He wasn't going out of his way to insult the "proud legacy of North American soccer" or whatever. He was just saying that he thought a name was bad. It wasn't meant as an attack on your ethos of keeping North America's soccer traditions alive or anything.
  12. Massively off base, but that's ok. I just want him to stop being an argumentative about his opinion. He can like whatever he wants, and he can argue in favour of it as long as he wants, without being needlessly aggressive about it. No, you're right. Some things are objectively true. The sky is blue, water is wet, and you shouldn't stick a fork in an electrical socket. You know what's not objectively true? That the Dallas Stars look worse in their current colour scheme compared to their old colour scheme. So maybe stop acting like it is, eh? So here's where the mod hat comes on and you can take it or leave it. You need to fix your attitude. NHL sweater discussion on this forum has become a G-ddamn chore in part because of your combative attitude. To be fair you're not alone and we'll get to the others in due time. Right now though? I'm talking to you. You don't need to preface every post with "this is just my opinion" but there's a wide gulf of behavioural options between that and your MO of "being a combative to everyone who disagrees with you." Arguably we mods have allowed you and others to make NHL uniform discussions an unpleasant experience for long enough, and that's over. So again, consider this a mod warning- find a way to make your point without being needlessly combative about it.
  13. You can have nostalgia for something and still admit it wasn't a success. The NASL crashed and burned. That's not my opinion. That's just a fact. What I think you and Brian in Boston are missing is that SFGiants58 just thinks the name "Impact" is bad. It's a subjective opinion, yes, but welcome to discussing sports aesthetics. It's all subjective. You and BiB are coming at him like he's actively laughing while pissing on "thirty years of history" when he's not. He's saying that, in his opinion, the old name is bad. That's all. Not everything is an assault on something holy.
  14. We might as well shut down this site if we're only going to be able to comment on teams we're fans of. Well the hard truth is that... a lot of it is. The NASL is probably the peak of North American soccer pre-MLS and it didn't accomplish anything. I know a lot of old timers refuse to accept that and make the same arguments any time a MLS team doesn't adopt their locale's old NASL name, but that's the truth. The NASL was a failure. I'd even argue that MLS, prior to the late 2000s, is disposable. Their attempts to "Americanize" the game- including some of the worst team names/logos to grace a top flight league- left them mostly irrelevant. It was only when they began to embrace actual soccer/football traditions that they gained a sustainable niche in the North American sports marketplace. And if that means Toronto FC and Atlanta United FC endure while the Toronto Blizzard and Atlanta Chiefs fade further into obscurity then ok.
  15. This is such a bogus statement. Look, I can do it in reverse. "The Stars look vibrant, powerful, and fast in their victory green and silver unis. They used to look drab, washed out, and boring in their black, dark green, and washed out gold." See? I can make one group of colours seem like the opposite of what you said they were! Isn't language fun? And if you're tempted to respond, consider this- this is all subjective. I actually don't really care if you liked the black, hunter green, and old gold stars. I really don't. In certain combos (pre-ASG template) it looked good on them. My problem isn't your preference but your insistence that you're right everyone else is wrong, and that your subjective opinion is The Right One. Discussing hockey sweaters used to be my favourite thing to do here, but a number of people made it a chore, and this Dallas Stars cluster is a prime example of how that happened.
  16. The Stars' current look is nice. I don't think it needs gold. The green pops enough. They really nailed the shade.
  17. I think it has to be the Gretzky-era logo. Everything about it from the generic "Los Angeles" to the Lakers-esque KINGS to the weird shield and banner that looks both like a car company logo and a beer bottle label....to the crown that's not overly-simplistic but not overly detailed...it's a mess of elements but I love it. I love it in the Gretzky-era black and silver and I love it in the purple and gold.
  18. Ducks- This is the sort of thing something like this is for. Not my cup of tea but it's fun. Coyotes- This design was always hot garbage, but the purple base will look better than the dark green Bruins- Love it. Good to see they resisted the urge to replace black with brown. Sabres- I love it and I'm ashamed I love it. Flames- First real miss. They took a mostly black jersey and made it...even more black? Switching the logos and making it a black jersey of the Cup run sweaters would have been better. Hurricanes- Eh....I would have preferred a blue version of the pre-navy and silver Whalers look. Blackhawks- It's fine. The 'Hawks have had so many alternates that play with the same themes that this one just seems like white noise. Avalanche- Super shocked to see them embracing their Quebec City heritage, and it's weird to see the fdl in federal red as opposed to sepratist blue. Looks nice, but come on you cowards. Give us a version of the wolf jerseys Blue Jackets- Another one where you need to commit. No stinger on the jersey? Should have played up lime green instead of red. Stars- The ASG template is overrated and the star in the logo not lining up with the striping bothers me. Red Wings- What is this? Is this finished? Did someone make a jersey out of a 1/3 completed image file? You know, before they changed the default stripes on the template? Oilers- They look nice, but it's not that distinct. Another case where they should have committed. Bring back the robo sperm alternates! They're perfect for something like this. Panthers- These are wonderful. I might actually get one. Kings- I'm not a fan of the Kings in purple and gold, but MAN does that Gretzky-era logo look nice in those colours. This is the first one where I'm like "yeah that can be a a full-time look." Wild- They look nice, but they aren't the North Stars. Would have preferred a red version of their inaugural set. Canadiens- The Canadiens should not be wearing a blue sweater with white stripes. Sorry. Predators- I like this better than their normal yellow look. Devils- Bring back the Christmas colours full time and use this as an alternate. Wonderful Islanders- The most blatant case of COMMIT YOU COWARDS! The Fisherman is RIGHT THERE! Rangers- I get that options were limited because there were already two versions of the Lady Liberty sweaters, but this just seems lacking. Senators- I like it. It feels like the sane alternate the Senators should have given us back in 1997. Flyers- They're fine, but I prefer the originals they're based on. Penguins- I've always liked the diagonal PITTSBURGH text for them, so I love these. Sharks- These are alright, but I miss the original's Denver Broncos side panels. Blues- No thanks. The originals these are based off of was the apex of how much red you could make work in a Blues uniform. This is just too much. Why not this set in throwback colours? I donno. Red just doesn't do it for me. Lightning- This should have been their primary from day one, what they won their first Cup in, and should have remained what their look is today. Make this the primary ASAP. Maple Leafs- No...just no. Mixing two different eras of leaves? Blue logo on a blue sweater? Blue numbers on a blue sweater? Nah....if you wanted to just mix the '67 and '70 unis that's cool, but there were less slapdash ways of doing it than this. Canucks- I would have preferred a blue, white, and green version of the Flying V, but this is neat. Golden Knights- MUCH better than the gold alternates. Make this the new alt next year, please. Capitals- This is nice, and a good alternate going forward. Jets- I would have preferred a red version of the 1990-1996 look.
  19. I know the last North Stars/first Stars logo was nothing special. Just an italicized star with a wordmark... Still...something about it just says "hockey" to me. @Morgan33 got it right. That first Dallas set was perfection.
  20. It really is a pure baseball move, isn't it?
  21. Looks bad. And kind of funny for a team to go with something trying so hard to be cool after getting clowned in the Stanley Cup Final.
  22. I hate it when the best player at his position in a generation is denied a championship by a team of cheating s. s who aren't punished for said cheating for "reasons." I usually don't like saying a player or team "deserved" to win, because you deserve to win a championship when you win one but geeze... The Dodgers and Clayton Kershaw deserved this after 2017.