BBTV Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I actually think the 3d stitching on the Blue Jays' logo makes it look cheap. I can't articulate why, but it does. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braden Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I actually think the 3d stitching on the Blue Jays' logo makes it look cheap. I can't articulate why, but it does.Does it look cheap now?I think it's the kind of thing you need to see in person to really appreciate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Yes, IMHO it still does. For one thing, the logo is a little small. Maybe it's just that I'm so used to seeing patches made differently that I'm conditioned to think that a high-end patch looks a certain way, but for some reason when I see that 3d logo I think of something I'd see on the rack at walmart. I agree with you though that I'd probably think differently if I could see it in person and touch it. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillz Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I have the actual 3930 BP cap, and I really don't think the logo looks cheap at all. In fact, for me, it's the "3d" stitching that makes it look so good. It appears flat on the digital/print version, but the embroidered version is real nice. I really like the new Blue Jays identity, it really is something I could see them wearing without change for decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCap Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Yes, IMHO it still does. For one thing, the logo is a little small. Maybe it's just that I'm so used to seeing patches made differently that I'm conditioned to think that a high-end patch looks a certain way, but for some reason when I see that 3d logo I think of something I'd see on the rack at walmart. I agree with you though that I'd probably think differently if I could see it in person and touch it.It does look beautiful in person. The Wal-Marts in Philly must be head and shoulders above the ones elsewhere, because I've never seen anything as nice as the Jays' 3D embroidered logo on anything from the Wal-Marts I've been too.The league doesn't allow guns or cigars on a one time only throwback but they allow a racially-offensive moniker to be used full time? WTFRacially insensitive? Using "Indian" to refer to Native Americans is considered incredibly racially insensitive.Actually, that isn't true. According to the US Census Bureau, 55% of people who identified as indigenous preferred the term "American Indian," 34% preferred "Native American" and the remainder preferred other terms or had no preference; you would think, I guess, that we should listen the indigenous people of the Americas.Not only that, but the term "Indian" to refer to indigenous peoples in the Americas wasn't meant to be offensive. Christopher Columbus, the schmuck, thought he was in India. So he called the people he came across "Indians." He didn't call them that to demean them. So it's an inaccurate term and an incorrect term. It's not an offensive term, however.What about the fact that their logo is the equivalent of putting a Chinese guy with yellow skin and thin eyes, calling him a specific word that begins with a "c", and finding nothing wrong with it?The logo, Chief Wahoo, is racist. It should have been dropped decades ago. The logo, however, is not the same as the name. The name, "Indians," is a historical term used to describe people indigenous to the Americas. The guy who coined it made a mistake in thinking he was in India, but that doesn't make the term itself offensive. It wasn't said or used to demean or offend, like the c word you used as an example. That is used specifically to offend. "Indian" isn't. It's just an incorrect phrase that's endured through time. So the logo's terrible, but the name's ok. PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15 2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion 2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCap Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 dp PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15 2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion 2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSox44 Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 The logo, Chief Wahoo, is racist. It should have been dropped decades ago. The logo, however, is not the same as the name. The name, "Indians," is a historical term used to describe people indigenous to the Americas. The guy who coined it made a mistake in thinking he was in India, but that doesn't make the term itself offensive. It wasn't said or used to demean or offend, like the c word you used as an example. That is used specifically to offend. "Indian" isn't. It's just an incorrect phrase that's endured through time. So the logo's terrible, but the name's ok.JohnnySeoul is raging right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBubba Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Fair enough Ice_Cap. I think it's more of my dislike for the word because it's factually incorrect, not politically incorrect/offensive. But Redskins... Nobody cares about your humungous-big signature. PotD: 29/1/12   Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powersurge Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Yes, IMHO it still does. For one thing, the logo is a little small. Maybe it's just that I'm so used to seeing patches made differently that I'm conditioned to think that a high-end patch looks a certain way, but for some reason when I see that 3d logo I think of something I'd see on the rack at walmart. I agree with you though that I'd probably think differently if I could see it in person and touch it.It does look beautiful in person. The Wal-Marts in Philly must be head and shoulders above the ones elsewhere, because I've never seen anything as nice as the Jays' 3D embroidered logo on anything from the Wal-Marts I've been too.The league doesn't allow guns or cigars on a one time only throwback but they allow a racially-offensive moniker to be used full time? WTFRacially insensitive? Using "Indian" to refer to Native Americans is considered incredibly racially insensitive.Actually, that isn't true. According to the US Census Bureau, 55% of people who identified as indigenous preferred the term "American Indian," 34% preferred "Native American" and the remainder preferred other terms or had no preference; you would think, I guess, that we should listen the indigenous people of the Americas.Not only that, but the term "Indian" to refer to indigenous peoples in the Americas wasn't meant to be offensive. Christopher Columbus, the schmuck, thought he was in India. So he called the people he came across "Indians." He didn't call them that to demean them. So it's an inaccurate term and an incorrect term. It's not an offensive term, however.What about the fact that their logo is the equivalent of putting a Chinese guy with yellow skin and thin eyes, calling him a specific word that begins with a "c", and finding nothing wrong with it?The logo, Chief Wahoo, is racist. It should have been dropped decades ago. The logo, however, is not the same as the name. The name, "Indians," is a historical term used to describe people indigenous to the Americas. The guy who coined it made a mistake in thinking he was in India, but that doesn't make the term itself offensive. It wasn't said or used to demean or offend, like the c word you used as an example. That is used specifically to offend. "Indian" isn't. It's just an incorrect phrase that's endured through time. So the logo's terrible, but the name's ok.I've seen this argument on this board about 1000 times and I have to admit that despite the fact that there have been a multitude of great arguments on both sides it hasn't changed my opinion on the subject; the logo is indeed racist. I have changed my view on the name though. You can make a strong case that the name really isn't as bad as people make it out to be. Is it the most appropriate? Eh...who knows? There are worse names out there....the Redskins are one example of a name that is much worse. The Chief Wahoo logo is a lot harder to defend though. It is racist, even if it wasn't originally intended to be, which is why I wish they would have switched to the 'C' logo years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCap Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Agreed. Wahoo needs to go. I don't think the name is a problem, especially if it was paired with the old block C as the primary, or even something that depicted a Native in a respectable manner. PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15 2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion 2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enio125 Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Yes, IMHO it still does. For one thing, the logo is a little small. Maybe it's just that I'm so used to seeing patches made differently that I'm conditioned to think that a high-end patch looks a certain way, but for some reason when I see that 3d logo I think of something I'd see on the rack at walmart. I agree with you though that I'd probably think differently if I could see it in person and touch it.It does look beautiful in person. The Wal-Marts in Philly must be head and shoulders above the ones elsewhere, because I've never seen anything as nice as the Jays' 3D embroidered logo on anything from the Wal-Marts I've been too.The league doesn't allow guns or cigars on a one time only throwback but they allow a racially-offensive moniker to be used full time? WTFRacially insensitive? Using "Indian" to refer to Native Americans is considered incredibly racially insensitive.Actually, that isn't true. According to the US Census Bureau, 55% of people who identified as indigenous preferred the term "American Indian," 34% preferred "Native American" and the remainder preferred other terms or had no preference; you would think, I guess, that we should listen the indigenous people of the Americas.Not only that, but the term "Indian" to refer to indigenous peoples in the Americas wasn't meant to be offensive. Christopher Columbus, the schmuck, thought he was in India. So he called the people he came across "Indians." He didn't call them that to demean them. So it's an inaccurate term and an incorrect term. It's not an offensive term, however.What about the fact that their logo is the equivalent of putting a Chinese guy with yellow skin and thin eyes, calling him a specific word that begins with a "c", and finding nothing wrong with it?The logo, Chief Wahoo, is racist. It should have been dropped decades ago. The logo, however, is not the same as the name. The name, "Indians," is a historical term used to describe people indigenous to the Americas. The guy who coined it made a mistake in thinking he was in India, but that doesn't make the term itself offensive. It wasn't said or used to demean or offend, like the c word you used as an example. That is used specifically to offend. "Indian" isn't. It's just an incorrect phrase that's endured through time. So the logo's terrible, but the name's ok.I've seen this argument on this board about 1000 times and I have to admit that despite the fact that there have been a multitude of great arguments on both sides it hasn't changed my opinion on the subject; the logo is indeed racist. I have changed my view on the name though. You can make a strong case that the name really isn't as bad as people make it out to be. Is it the most appropriate? Eh...who knows? There are worse names out there....the Redskins are one example of a name that is much worse. The Chief Wahoo logo is a lot harder to defend though. It is racist, even if it wasn't originally intended to be, which is why I wish they would have switched to the 'C' logo years ago.Chief Wahoo is just as racist as Notre Dame's fighting leprechaun and i don't see people bitching about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSox44 Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Yes, IMHO it still does. For one thing, the logo is a little small. Maybe it's just that I'm so used to seeing patches made differently that I'm conditioned to think that a high-end patch looks a certain way, but for some reason when I see that 3d logo I think of something I'd see on the rack at walmart. I agree with you though that I'd probably think differently if I could see it in person and touch it.It does look beautiful in person. The Wal-Marts in Philly must be head and shoulders above the ones elsewhere, because I've never seen anything as nice as the Jays' 3D embroidered logo on anything from the Wal-Marts I've been too.The league doesn't allow guns or cigars on a one time only throwback but they allow a racially-offensive moniker to be used full time? WTFRacially insensitive? Using "Indian" to refer to Native Americans is considered incredibly racially insensitive.Actually, that isn't true. According to the US Census Bureau, 55% of people who identified as indigenous preferred the term "American Indian," 34% preferred "Native American" and the remainder preferred other terms or had no preference; you would think, I guess, that we should listen the indigenous people of the Americas.Not only that, but the term "Indian" to refer to indigenous peoples in the Americas wasn't meant to be offensive. Christopher Columbus, the schmuck, thought he was in India. So he called the people he came across "Indians." He didn't call them that to demean them. So it's an inaccurate term and an incorrect term. It's not an offensive term, however.What about the fact that their logo is the equivalent of putting a Chinese guy with yellow skin and thin eyes, calling him a specific word that begins with a "c", and finding nothing wrong with it?The logo, Chief Wahoo, is racist. It should have been dropped decades ago. The logo, however, is not the same as the name. The name, "Indians," is a historical term used to describe people indigenous to the Americas. The guy who coined it made a mistake in thinking he was in India, but that doesn't make the term itself offensive. It wasn't said or used to demean or offend, like the c word you used as an example. That is used specifically to offend. "Indian" isn't. It's just an incorrect phrase that's endured through time. So the logo's terrible, but the name's ok.I've seen this argument on this board about 1000 times and I have to admit that despite the fact that there have been a multitude of great arguments on both sides it hasn't changed my opinion on the subject; the logo is indeed racist. I have changed my view on the name though. You can make a strong case that the name really isn't as bad as people make it out to be. Is it the most appropriate? Eh...who knows? There are worse names out there....the Redskins are one example of a name that is much worse. The Chief Wahoo logo is a lot harder to defend though. It is racist, even if it wasn't originally intended to be, which is why I wish they would have switched to the 'C' logo years ago.Chief Wahoo is just as racist as Notre Dame's fighting leprechaun and i don't see people bitching about that.JohnnySeoul? Is that you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC in Da House w/o a Doubt Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Fair enough Ice_Cap. I think it's more of my dislike for the word because it's factually incorrect, not politically incorrect/offensive. But Redskins...... need need to do whatever it takes to get Robert Griffin III.Regarding baseball uni's, I love the Blue Jays pants... Love the double stripes. The Jays may have moved from the worst uniforms in baseball to the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBubba Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Well, no actually. The leprechuan doesn't have stereotypical skin colour...and in case you haven't noticed, they're not real, so there's not exactly anyone to offend.If Wahoo isn't racist, then this isn't. Both have stereotypical skin colours and stereotypical headwear:That's the last I'll comment on this, since it's probably been argued hundreds of times before on this site. Nobody cares about your humungous-big signature. PotD: 29/1/12   Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illwauk Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 The logo, Chief Wahoo, is racist. It should have been dropped decades ago. The logo, however, is not the same as the name. The name, "Indians," is a historical term used to describe people indigenous to the Americas. The guy who coined it made a mistake in thinking he was in India, but that doesn't make the term itself offensive. It wasn't said or used to demean or offend, like the c word you used as an example. That is used specifically to offend. "Indian" isn't. It's just an incorrect phrase that's endured through time. So the logo's terrible, but the name's ok.I've seen this argument on this board about 1000 times and I have to admit that despite the fact that there have been a multitude of great arguments on both sides it hasn't changed my opinion on the subject; the logo is indeed racist. I have changed my view on the name though. You can make a strong case that the name really isn't as bad as people make it out to be. Is it the most appropriate? Eh...who knows? There are worse names out there....the Redskins are one example of a name that is much worse. The Chief Wahoo logo is a lot harder to defend though. It is racist, even if it wasn't originally intended to be, which is why I wish they would have switched to the 'C' logo years ago.Indians isn't nearly as bad as Redskins or even Braves (which itself isn't even on the level of the latter), but I think there's still something to be said about naming a team after an entire race... not an ethnicity with its own unique culture and heritage, but essentially painting over all types of unique ethnic groups with one broad brush. Whereas you can sort-of compare names like Utes, Chippewas, Seminoles to Irish, calling a team the Indians is like calling a team the Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Africans, etc. Nothing wrong with those words in and of themselves either, but not only would it not make logical sense to use them as the basis of an identity of a major North American pro sports franchise, people would rightfully question your motives for doing so.That said, I could probably live with the Cleveland Indians name if they just got rid of Wahoo.Chief Wahoo is just as racist as Notre Dame's fighting leprechaun and i don't see people bitching about that.You must be new! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roxfan00 Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Rockies lose purple pinstripes for road uniformsBy Patrick SaundersI got a peek at the Rockies? new road uniforms this morning. As you might already know, the basic road uniforms remain gray, but the purple pinstripes are gone. It?s a classic, old-school look. Some might find it boring, but I always thought the road pinstripes were a bit much.The other road uniform combinations include the purple tops and gray pants and the black vests with gray pants. The Rockies also have the option of wearing their batting-practice tops if they like. They are black white and purple. I don?t think I have ever seen them wear those tops, but it is an option.So, what do you think about the uniform change? Denver Post "Mr. President, call in the National Guard! Send as many men as you can spare! Because we are killing the Patriots! They need emergency help!" - Shannon Sharpe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSox44 Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 I wish the Colorado script was brighter purple. If it was, I'd say "upgrade". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lights Out Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 The road pinstripes were a lot better.... but I think this would be the best road jersey for them......with this hat. POTD: 2/4/12 3/4/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sodboy13 Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 The road pinstripes were a lot better.... but I think this would be the best road jersey for them......with this hat.If you can't make the script line up properly for the promotional pictures, it's time to think about a redesign. On 1/25/2013 at 1:53 PM, 'Atom said: For all the bird de lis haters I think the bird de lis isnt supposed to be a pelican and a fleur de lis I think its just a fleur de lis with a pelicans head. Thats what it looks like to me. Also the flair around the tip of the beak is just flair that fleur de lis have sometimes source I am from NOLA. PotD: 10/19/07, 08/25/08, 07/22/10, 08/13/10, 04/15/11, 05/19/11, 01/02/12, and 01/05/12. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyAnna Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 I actually think the 3d stitching on the Blue Jays' logo makes it look cheap. I can't articulate why, but it does.Does it look cheap now?I think it's the kind of thing you need to see in person to really appreciate.Flat or 3D, I'm just happy the Jays have gone back to this logo. It's beautiful!! The Pike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.