MLB Changes 2017

[FinsUp1214]

I could get behind brown pinstripes, but I don't think they're my top option either. There's no need for them when team history shows you can nail it without them (and a much more superior uniform than the brown/orange, in my opinion):

 

 

I think when comparing the two, though brown pinstripes look okay, the brown works better when used in this manner. It's perfectly showcased without being too much. It also would let gold stand out more, as it did here.

[IceCap]

20 hours ago, hawk36 said:

Here is the tribe's seal. Not that they'd ask to use this but maybe use elements as inspiration?

 

That central emblem would make a great starting point for a new Indians primary.

[The_Admiral]

14 hours ago, TheOldRoman said:

No. I'm in favor of the Padres going brown and yellow, but you have to use brown *very* delicately to avoid it bein garish. Pinstripes are fine in black, navy, or royal blue. Brown pinstripes are taking it too far. Plus, with modern printing of thin stripes instead of thick, knit stripes like the Yankees use, they'd look black from any distance.

 

Yeah, I'd pass on brown pinstripes, too, but you're forgetting about the fantastic burgundy pinstripes for the Phils, vastly superior to the thin red pinstripes that make them look pink. 

 

I'd also let go of the 2004 lettering style if I were to reclaim brown and gold. That kind of fan concession calls for a little more work than a third? fourth? fifth? recolor of a design that was meant to do anything but evoke the brown and gold days.

[Mitch B]

On 10/28/2016 at 9:43 AM, Matito said:

I love that Spokane has authentic Native American language on their alt too. Great touch.

 

This should be the model for a number of other teams.  Respectfully utilize the beauty of Native American Culture and it's a win-win for the team and the tribe(s) they represent.

[TheOldRoman]

44 minutes ago, the admiral said:

 

Yeah, I'd pass on brown pinstripes, too, but you're forgetting about the fantastic burgundy pinstripes for the Phils, vastly superior to the thin red pinstripes that make them look pink. 

 

Yes, but those were the thick, woven stripes like the Yankees use, if I'm not mistaken.

[mjd77]

1 hour ago, Mitch B said:

 

This should be the model for a number of other teams.  Respectfully utilize the beauty of Native American Culture and it's a win-win for the team and the tribe(s) they represent.

 

My issue with this is I still want to see a real logo.  A generic roundel with feathers in it doesn't do it for me. 

[Gothamite]

That is a logo. 

 

If you're saying you want a mascot logo, that's where it gets tricky. 

[BBTV]

1. Logo

   1. I have no issue with the Blackhawks or Washington's (NFL) logos, but I could do without having another logo that's a profile of a chief.  

       

      I actually prefer the style posted below to the more realistic version.  If done right it could become an iconic mark.  If not done right, you could end up with a Miami Dolphins situation (logo that looks like it's for some generic company rather than a sports team) 

      This:  

       

      I also love the C-feather concepts (but not the "C I" one shown above, because the C looks like a G.)
       

2. Name

   1. I don't refer to NAs as "Indians", but I think that (unfortunately) most Americans still do.  While I don't think anyone is saying it to be derogatory or insulting, calling a conquered/mistreated people by an improper name that groups them all together despite the diversity of their tribes is at best insensitive, and at worst insulting.  I'm glad we're at the point where it's OK to acknowledge American atrocities, and where (most) people realize that in our history we're guilty of the same crimes as the governments who will forever be vilified in history books.  
      
      I've never heard if any actual Native American tribes want that word/name to go away (anyone know?)  I think it should, but I'm not sure what the priority is there (certainly it's lower than getting rid of the logo.)  The thing is that I've yet to hear a replacement name that works, so I can only go in the direction of something like "Spiders" (love that concept that was posted.)  "Natives" doesn't sound right, "Tribe" isn't horrible, but doesn't end with "s", and I haven't really heard anything else.
       

 

 

 

[AnPheitseog]

32 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

1. Logo

   1. I have no issue with the Blackhawks or Washington's (NFL) logos, but I could do without having another logo that's a profile of a chief.  

       

      I actually prefer the style posted below to the more realistic version.  If done right it could become an iconic mark.  If not done right, you could end up with a Miami Dolphins situation (logo that looks like it's for some generic company rather than a sports team) 

      This:  

       

      I also love the C-feather concepts (but not the "C I" one shown above, because the C looks like a G.)
       

2. Name

   1. I don't refer to NAs as "Indians", but I think that (unfortunately) most Americans still do.  While I don't think anyone is saying it to be derogatory or insulting, calling a conquered/mistreated people by an improper name that groups them all together despite the diversity of their tribes is at best insensitive, and at worst insulting.  I'm glad we're at the point where it's OK to acknowledge American atrocities, and where (most) people realize that in our history we're guilty of the same crimes as the governments who will forever be vilified in history books.  
      
      I've never heard if any actual Native American tribes want that word/name to go away (anyone know?)  I think it should, but I'm not sure what the priority is there (certainly it's lower than getting rid of the logo.)  The thing is that I've yet to hear a replacement name that works, so I can only go in the direction of something like "Spiders" (love that concept that was posted.)  "Natives" doesn't sound right, "Tribe" isn't horrible, but doesn't end with "s", and I haven't really heard anything else.
       

 

 

 

The thing with Indians, even if it started as a misnomer, is that it is how at least some tribes choose to self Identify. Such as the Seneca Nation of Indians, who actually use both. https://sni.org/

The Delaware as well

http://delawaretribe.org/

it will of course vary tribe to tribe, but I cannot find it incorrect to do so if some tribes are doing it to refer to themselves.

 

Also i feel like you are doing the same issues with the term Native American, to be honest. I think the best(though not practical) is to refer to them by tribe name and be specific.

[BBTV]

I see what you mean, and I did think about that. You're right that a specific tribe would be better, but that's not going to happen.  If the Native American community is cool with Indians then I'm cool with it, I'm just not sure how you tell if they're all OK.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

16 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

1. 

 

This is similar to the Syracuse Chiefs' cap logo when they were affilliated with the Blue Jays.

 

 

But it is hard to imagine that even such a representation, which is inherently non-mocking, would be acceptable.

 

The issue at hand is only partly the look of any given logo; the bigger part is the very act of using Native names and logos, an act which, many feel, reduces Natives to characters in other people's history. It is an issue that is 100% a creation of the history of the genocidal treatment of Natives by the U.S. government and the cruel ways in which the U.S. population had become accustomed to thinking of them. There is no parallel in the use of imagery associated with any other people.

 

Purely on its aesthetic merits, the logo which you have shown is top-notch, as is the Syracuse logo. But the problem is that we don't have the luxury of evaluating Native-related logos on solely an aesthetic basis. Every such logo -- even the most dignified -- carries with it a great deal of cultural baggage; and the very use of any Native-related name or logo is fraught with a meaning that we cannot ignore, namely, the trivialisation of subjugation and near genocide.

[Ray Lankford]

14 hours ago, the admiral said:

 

Yeah, I'd pass on brown pinstripes, too, but you're forgetting about the fantastic burgundy pinstripes for the Phils, vastly superior to the thin red pinstripes that make them look pink. 

 

I'd also let go of the 2004 lettering style if I were to reclaim brown and gold. That kind of fan concession calls for a little more work than a third? fourth? fifth? recolor of a design that was meant to do anything but evoke the brown and gold days.

Not to put words in your mouth but Padres management deserves credit for not caving and bringing back the bubble font, which already looked ridiculous in the 70s.

[Gothamite]

11 hours ago, DiePerske said:

Also i feel like you are doing the same issues with the term Native American, to be honest. I think the best(though not practical) is to refer to them by tribe name and be specific.

 

I wish we would adopt the Canadian term "First Nations".  

[WSU151]

11 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

The issue at hand is only partly the look of any given logo; the bigger part is the very act of using Native names and logos, and act which, many feel, reduces Natives to characters in other people's history. It is an issue that is 100% a creation of the history of the genocidal treatment of Natives by the U.S. government and the cruel ways in which the U.S. population had become accustomed to thinking of them. There is no parallel in the use of imagery associated with any other people.

 

Without going into it too much...this paragraph is highly debatable.  There are indeed other parallels, and using a native-themed mascot is rarely disparagement.  Even back in the day, people wanted to sound intimidating and/or "warrior"-like, not "Oh, hey, the joke's on us!"  

 

William and Mary doesn't use the nickname "Tribe" because the natives were wiped out by whitey.

[Gothamite]

2 hours ago, WSU151 said:

using a native-themed mascot is rarely disparagement.  Even back in the day, people wanted to sound intimidating and/or "warrior"-like, not "Oh, hey, the joke's on us!"  

 

Yes, teams wanted to connote ruthless, inhuman savagery.  And yes, that's still disparaging. 

[WSU151]

50 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

Yes, teams wanted to connote ruthless, inhuman savagery.  And yes, that's still disparaging. 

 

No more disparaging than Raiders, Pirates, Buccaneers, or Vikings.  Inhuman savagery is based on 2016 standards.  There was also strategy, nobility, speed, and stealth in Native American fighting styles.  That's inarguable.  Please don't cherry-pick the facts.  Thanks.

 

/endofanyargumentfromme

[Gothamite]

Cherry pick?  Lols, as I believe the kids today doth exclaim in amusement and derision.

 

None of the examples you cite are of groups specifically depicted as inhuman savages because of their race.  Which means they are not actually analogous at all.

 

You could possibly make that argument about something like the names "Braves" or "Chiefs", which are jobs and not immutable characteristics.  It wouldn't still be a great argument, since it willfully ignores centuries of oppression and outright genicode.  But it would at least be a coherent argument. 

[WSU151]

Names like Raiders, Buccaneers, Pirates and the like are all depicted as inhuman savages.   Race is pretty immaterial in those groups - a pirate is a pirate, no matter if he's white, black, whatever.  History shows the explorer-age Vikings (strongly associated with white Nordics) weren't really too nice to anyone.  Any Viking logo with a face and an axe is depicting inhuman savagery based on race (let's face it, axes aren't being shown because of deforestation).   But since those names are okay, it's really not the "inhuman savagery" you are worried about.  

 

Names like "Tribe" or "Warriors" don't explicitly refer to inhuman savagery. That's pure conjecture and yes, cherry-picking. You're choosing one aspect of combat (which sure sounds like cherry-picking to me, doesn't it?) It is what it is.

 

There are offensive logos and nicknames (like Savages, Redmen, et al).  But there are also the nicknames that are used out of respect.  Saying all Native American nicknames are a reference to inhuman savagery isn't quite correct. 

[Gothamite]

59 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

Names like Raiders, Buccaneers, Pirates and the like are all depicted as inhuman savages.   Race is pretty immaterial in those groups - a pirate is a pirate, no matter if he's white, black, whatever.  History shows the explorer-age Vikings (strongly associated with white Nordics) weren't really too nice to anyone. But since those names are okay, it's really not the "inhuman savagery" you are worried about.

 

Whatever, Criswell.

 

I am glad to see you admit that "Pirates" and the like are red herrings.

 

And while we're on red herrings, I don't believe I've ever said that every First Nation name is out of bounds.  Quite the opposite - I have supported some in the past, when a team/university can come to an agreement with a tribe.  It has to be evaluated on a case-by-case. 

 

That's why the claim that these types of names weren't ever intended to connote savagery or to dehumanize is rather hard to support.  Not all "honoring" involves honor. 

[WSU151]

 

13 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

Oh, please tell me what I'm really concerned with.  

 

That's why the claim that these types of names weren't ever intended to connote savagery is rather hard to support. 

 

Please keep telling me what I should be concerned with.

 

And that last sentence is really myopic.

 

Let's end this now as we'll pretty much always disagree.  I'm not changing my opinion/knowledge because you think I should, and likewise, I won't expect you to change your opinion.