Bill81361

Report: Cleveland Indians to Drop Name

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, the admiral said:

If Jacobs Field had kept its name all this time, Cleveland Jakes would be an intriguing possibility.


Oh nooooo

It will be the Cleveland Progressive Insurance Flo's .... isn't it!!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, infrared41 said:

 

Disagree. The '95 Clevelands were probably just as good without Joebert Belle. Keep in mind that Jim Thome (.314 25 HR 73 RBI) and Manny Ramirez (.308 31 HR 107 RBI) were batting 6th or 7th in that '95 lineup. No way the Red Sox are as good as they were in '95 without Mo Vaughn.

 


Yeah, Joebert wasn’t essential to the ‘95 team in the same way Mo was to the ‘95 Red Sox. Also, Mo will probably be a Veteran’s Committee pick long before Joebert gets the nod, because Mo didn’t treat journalists like subhuman trash.

 

Quote

EDIT: And if you keep bashing my beloved Cleveland Clevelands, I'm going to make it so you can only post in concepts and the weekly NFL picks thread. Yes, I will abuse my mod status to defend the honor of my team. 😎


Jokes on you, I have a concepts thread I’ve neglected for about a year and a half! 😉

 

2 hours ago, the admiral said:

Just call it what it is, which is that the other side of the culture war won and they take no prisoners.


Fair enough.

MOD EDIT: Let's not fly so close to the sun. Thanks.

Edited by infrared41

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, the admiral said:

Just call it what it is, which is that the other side of the culture war won and they take no prisoners.

 

you gotta chill on the they take no prisoners discourse,

 

MOD EDIT: Let's not fly so close to the sun. Thanks.

Edited by infrared41

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

Jokes on you, I have a concepts thread I’ve neglected for about a year and a half!

 

Sure, it sounds OK now, but I bet you won't be so happy about after the first year. 😎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, infrared41 said:

 

Sure, it sounds OK now, but I bet you won't be so happy about after the first year. 😎


So, I can’t start up Sports Fan Fiction again? 🙃

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SFGiants58 said:


So, I can’t start up Sports Fan Fiction again? 🙃

 

Well, you will probably need something to do so why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cleveland Wild Things anyone?

web1_web_vaughan_1021_7252333.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a joke, I've been referring to the someday former Indians as the Clevelands. After giving it some thought, I think Clevelands might actually work as a new name. Think about it, what is Cleveland most famous for? Being Cleveland. The Cleveland Clevelands. It's the only logical choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

As a joke, I've been referring to the someday former Indians as the Clevelands. After giving it some thought, I think Clevelands might actually work as a new name. Think about it, what is Cleveland most famous for? Being Cleveland. The Cleveland Clevelands. It's the only logical choice.

I refer you to your reply to me when I said it was amazing.

 

On 12/16/2020 at 11:01 AM, infrared41 said:

 

the_cleveland_show_-_cleveland_brown_581

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, IceCap said:

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've actually never said anything to support the "Indians" name.   That doesn't enter into the conversation at all.  It was a question of whether the word "Indians" is more specific than "Spiders", which is a matter of taxonomy and genealogy.

 

4 hours ago, IceCap said:

Edit- People aren't dogs 

 

People are people and everyone are people.   But if you want to insinuate comparing them to dogs is insulting, then you're going to walk with bad faith into any metaphor.  Because all things short of the divine are lesser than humans.

 

But, going with the metaphor I went with, Canis Familiaris or the domestic dog are all one species.   Dogs are dogs.   Breeds are a construct invented by people to describe certain physical characteristics, a subdivision of dogs.   They're still the same, though, no matter how they look.   If they didn't, they wouldn't be able to breed fertile progeny.

 

Different cultures and genealogical pools of people exist, but they're all just people.   People are people.   No person is lesser than anyone else.   I would say that the Puerto Rican side and the mostly European side of my family are two different culturally and genealogically subsections of humanity.   But such differences have no meaning beyond what people put in them.   Saying differences exist isn't inherently objectionable.  And saying they're not interchangeable is proved true when you just said that Vikings is more acceptable than any Native identity.  I'm sure you feel the same way about Notre Dame.

 

It just feels like reading through that whole conversation there's been a lot of meaning added that doesn't seem to be there from a neutral point of view.

 

4 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

Except it is. They were so terrible for such a sustained period, while also being utterly irrelevant for 90% of that time. Combine those two factors and you have the argument. I know it’s not much better, but it’s where I’m stuck. 

 

The high point of the Brewers and Padres combined are equal to the high point of the Indians over the last 25 years.   But again we're celebrating them embracing history.

 

If, as IceCap mentioned earlier, they had the Yankees' legacy, would that change your opinion?   I've seen you discuss this topic and have discussed this topic with you before, and I'm pretty sure the answer is "No."

 

So historicity doesn't enter into it.   If you have a strong enough argument on the identity, then you don't need to harp on the historicity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, infrared41 said:

 

I'll have you know that the Clevelands also lost a World Series to the Braves in 1995.

My mistake 😅

 

53 minutes ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

 But if you want to insinuate comparing them to dogs is insulting, then you're going to walk with bad faith into any metaphor.  Because all things short of the divine are lesser than humans.

Maybe don't compare people to animals in the first place then?

 

53 minutes ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

And saying they're not interchangeable is proved true when you just said that Vikings is more acceptable than any Native identity.  I'm sure you feel the same way about Notre Dame.

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."

 

53 minutes ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

If, as IceCap mentioned earlier, they had the Yankees' legacy, would that change your opinion?

"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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IceCap said:

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.

People are people, yes. Genetic differences exist between ethnic groups and races. In certain medical situations if those differences weren't taken into account it could create inadvertent harm. Forensic science has to be aware of how those genetic differences manifest to be able to do their job correctly. Your point about historical strife and marginalization and the difference in Vikings and Indians is valid and I agree with it.

 

Saying people aren't interchangeable was me trying to highlight the cultural and ethnic differences between humans and say it's a beautiful thing. That a Native person, a white person, a black person, and an Asian person are indeed different (and human) and it's part of what makes human diversity worth knowing and celebrating.

 

At no point would I suggest that human beings should have segregation forced upon them or that races can't or shouldn't mix with one another. I'm not sure why you thought that's what I meant, but I assure you it wasn't.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, O.C.D said:

People are people, yes. Genetic differences exist between ethnic groups and races. In certain medical situations if those differences weren't taken into account it could create inadvertent harm. Forensic science has to be aware of how those genetic differences manifest to be able to do their job correctly. Your point about historical strife and marginalization and the difference in Vikings and Indians is valid and I agree with it.

 

Saying people aren't interchangeable was me trying to highlight the cultural and ethnic differences between humans and say it's a beautiful thing. That a Native person, a white person, a black person, and an Asian person are indeed different (and human) and it's part of what makes human diversity worth knowing and celebrating.

 

At no point would I suggest that human beings should have segregation forced upon them or that races can't or shouldn't mix with one another. I'm not sure why you thought that's what I meant, but I assure you it wasn't.

 

 


Dude let it go. 

You are trying to be so damn book smart that you continue to be more Jimmy The Greek about this with each post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, selgy said:

This is meaningless. 

For 10 years my team the Devil Rays was the worse team in Baseball. 

Since 2008 we have made two World Series, have the fifth most wins (NYY 1149, LAD 1141, STL 1106, BOS 1086, TB 1081), etc. 

Being tied to an old name does not associate or tie you to losing.  

 

Didn't your success come after you changed your name and visual identity?  🤣

 

1 hour ago, IceCap said:

Maybe don't compare people to animals in the first place then?

 

An illustration is a comparison made with something that has a similar feature in order to explain that feature.

 

1 hour ago, IceCap said:

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."

 

I'm very happy that I'm alive.   Is "interchangeable" a charged word?   I've never heard it used in any racial context.

 

And to think, one could be jumped on for saying just the opposite.   "I really love Asian food."   "What?   Asian is just some huge mono-culture that's all the same?   You think Chinese and Japanese people are the same?"

 

I'm so tired of the way people act.   Both sides scream at each other and no one listens or stops to think for a second.   On a Disney board I frequent, a kid is a fan of Splash Mountain because it was the cute animal ride he grew up with as a child.   He loved the characters, the music, the thrills.   When the news came out about the ride being changed, a friend who helped him through some dark times started saying to other people that he was racist because he loved the ride.   This guy then proceeds to gather people into a mob to attack him.   When the kid said he was going through a rough time emotionally because of all this abuse hurled at him, the guy taunted him, calling him a baby who wants to kill himself over a theme park ride.   He said he was done, deleted his social media, and disappeared.

 

People are people.   I said that.   The fact that you're parroting it back to me makes me feel like I'm being gaslit.   I read through the conversation and it looked like there were a lot of logical leaps being taken.   I've seen people jump on someone for saying something that can be misunderstood.   This looks like someone being jumped on for saying something you've gotta really stretch to misunderstand.   You want to call me naive, okay.   I like to think it's just a way of how I live my life.   I don't prejudge people.

 

1 hour ago, IceCap said:

"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.

 

Actually, I said things wouldn't be different.   You think the identity is offensive whether they win or lose?   Then their record doesn't enter into it.   It's superfluous.   If anything, it's demeaning to the players and fans over that century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, selgy said:


Dude let it go. 

You are trying to be so damn book smart that you continue to be more Jimmy The Greek about this with each post. 

I got accused of advocating segregation. You're calling me Jimmy the Greek (a racist) because I'm saying objective genetic differences exist between ethnic groups and showed two examples of when it matters. This started because someone said "If you think Spiders is a generic name then by your logic Indians is generic name too" and I disagreed and said Indians are a very specific type of human.

 

The projection put upon me hasn't been fair and as soon it stops I won't feel the need to defend myself from mischaracterization

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, O.C.D said:

I got accused of advocating segregation. You're calling me Jimmy the Greek (a racist) because I'm saying objective genetic differences exist between ethnic groups and showed two examples of when it matters. This started because someone said "If you think Spiders is a generic name then by your logic Indians is generic name too" and I disagreed and said Indians are a very specific type of human.

 

The projection put upon me hasn't been fair and as soon it stops I won't feel the need to defend myself from mischaracterization

 


You started with the "engine" and have been doubling down on all of this since. 

I am done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, selgy said:


You started with the "engine" and have been doubling down on all of this since. 

I am done

I didn't know the slur existed otherwise I wouldn't have suggested the name. It was an idea to have a similar sounding name while getting rid of the Indian mascot. That's the truth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, infrared41 said:

As a joke, I've been referring to the someday former Indians as the Clevelands. After giving it some thought, I think Clevelands might actually work as a new name. Think about it, what is Cleveland most famous for? Being Cleveland. The Cleveland Clevelands. It's the only logical choice.

Now, I want a Clevelands- Phillies world series 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ridleylash said:

The Spiders' problem isn't just "bad", it's that they're known as the worst team ever to grace an MLB field. Nobody talks about the good Spiders teams, only the historically terrible one.

How many people actually knew that? I'm a pretty die-hard baseball fan and even I would've had to look that up if someone had asked me before this thread. The vast majority of fans are not gonna know or probably even care considering it was 1899.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.