The Cleveland Baseball Team....
-
@CalisGW said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@Kovz88 said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@The_DoctorsWife said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@Kovz88 said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@The_DoctorsWife said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@writetoshawn said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@The_DoctorsWife said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@CalisGW said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@NCStateHokie said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@CalisGW said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@NCStateHokie said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@CalisGW said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
So many white people crying about the name change. Just call them the Cleveland Crackers ( or anything offensive referring to white people ) and let’s move on.
Cleveland Whities
Cleveland Gringos
Cleveland White Boys
Cleveland Proud Boys
Cleveland Ku K.... you get the pointAs a white person am I supposed to be offended by all of these? The first 3 aren't remotely offensive to me. I claim ignorance on the Proud Boys and I want zero association with the 5th, hopefully that was assumed.
Two things in this thread that appears to flew over your head .
First, it’s a slippery slope when you start using names to describe a complete ethnicity. Where does it stop?
Second, native Americans are not Indians ( which has been stated in this thread by others ). So to use a symbol of a Native American and then call your team Indians is hugely ignorant. Anyone who believes it’s ok to keep the name is wholly uneducated and tbh, an embarrassment to their ethnicity.
No these 2 things haven't "flew" over my head. Maybe you misread something. Me not being offended by those 3 words above is just my opinion and I recognize that opinion means nothing. I am well aware that there are plenty of others that may be offended by them. I agree that it is a slippery slope but thanks for assuming that I didn't.
I am well aware that Native Americans and people from India (Indians) are not the same thing. It doesn't bother me one bit that Cleveland is changing its nickname. If that organization and actual Native Americans want that change then by all means go for it!! As I have pointed out several times in this thread I don't agree with people telling others what they should think, how they should think, or what they should or shouldn't be offended by. Perfect example is your response above. Assumptions aren't good for anyone.
It is cumulative of your posts in this thread is what I was attacking. There is no grey area , the point is that just because you are not offended doesn’t make it ok. There is a right side of history and a wrong side.
Name needs to be changed , period. No excuse, no buts, no what if’s. It was wrong then and it’s wrong now. Only thing that has changed is minorities have a lot more power than they had before ( which wasn’t much at all )
As a historian I'd like to point out that history is history. It is skewed at times, but in the end, it is still history. There is no wrong or right side of facts imo.
Were you aiming for ambiguity here? There were 3 sentences written and I can’t identify one assertion made. No salt; just an observation.
Kind of? I just think the phrase "right side of history" is inaccurate. There is historical accuracy and adhering to facts, yes, but there is no right or wrong side of it to be on. History is as it is written, whether you like it or not, is what I'm trying to say.
I've heard the phrase thrown around a lot. To say one is on the wrong side of history is to say "I'm right, you're backward and wrong, so get with the program." Which is kind of rude when it's used against someone else's opinion.
Let me know if I need to clarify further.
Interesting interpretation of the phrase but accurate. Personally when I hear that phrase I don't think factually right, I think morally. Example: Nazis are on the wrong side of history because they were objectively the bad guys to anyone but them. Again, that is just how I interpret the phrase, nothing wrong with your interpretation I was just trying to offer a different use in case that was how people here were using it.
I understand your viewpoint on the phrase. My thoughts on it are as follows: History and the passage of time doesn't really have a moral compass—if it did, notoriously bad things that occurred in the past wouldn't have happened, and vise-versa. That's why I feel the term "right side of history" is misleading in a sense. A person can believe that they're on the "right side" because they believe they're doing "the right thing" but could in fact be doing bad stuff.
Is what I'm saying making sense? I had some wine this evening and want to check.
Yes I agree that everyone always believes that they are fighting for a righteous cause. I don’t think anyone can say in the moment whether or not they are on the 'right side of history' because you never know the long term unintended consequences of what could be pure intentions. I tend to view it more as a past tense phrase, we can look back and see now what the ride side was but in the moment a lot of the time there is a lot of gray area. Except when it comes to genocide, anyone committing genocide is always the bad guys.
So can we agree that Americans were bad guys. Since Americans did try to commit genocide on Native Americans. Reflecting back on the past history in America and Native Americans, the use of Indians and exploiting is even worse looking.
Yes of course we can agree on that. Not sure if you think I didn't agree with that but I've been on board with the name change the whole time. Same way that even tho a lot of Americans like to pound their chest and say how we were the saviors of WW2 we can't forget not only the overkill of dropping the bombs but worst of all the Japanese 'internment' camps. Im on board with change and accountability
-
@Kovz88 said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@CalisGW said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@Kovz88 said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@The_DoctorsWife said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@Kovz88 said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@The_DoctorsWife said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@writetoshawn said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@The_DoctorsWife said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@CalisGW said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@NCStateHokie said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@CalisGW said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@NCStateHokie said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@CalisGW said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
So many white people crying about the name change. Just call them the Cleveland Crackers ( or anything offensive referring to white people ) and let’s move on.
Cleveland Whities
Cleveland Gringos
Cleveland White Boys
Cleveland Proud Boys
Cleveland Ku K.... you get the pointAs a white person am I supposed to be offended by all of these? The first 3 aren't remotely offensive to me. I claim ignorance on the Proud Boys and I want zero association with the 5th, hopefully that was assumed.
Two things in this thread that appears to flew over your head .
First, it’s a slippery slope when you start using names to describe a complete ethnicity. Where does it stop?
Second, native Americans are not Indians ( which has been stated in this thread by others ). So to use a symbol of a Native American and then call your team Indians is hugely ignorant. Anyone who believes it’s ok to keep the name is wholly uneducated and tbh, an embarrassment to their ethnicity.
No these 2 things haven't "flew" over my head. Maybe you misread something. Me not being offended by those 3 words above is just my opinion and I recognize that opinion means nothing. I am well aware that there are plenty of others that may be offended by them. I agree that it is a slippery slope but thanks for assuming that I didn't.
I am well aware that Native Americans and people from India (Indians) are not the same thing. It doesn't bother me one bit that Cleveland is changing its nickname. If that organization and actual Native Americans want that change then by all means go for it!! As I have pointed out several times in this thread I don't agree with people telling others what they should think, how they should think, or what they should or shouldn't be offended by. Perfect example is your response above. Assumptions aren't good for anyone.
It is cumulative of your posts in this thread is what I was attacking. There is no grey area , the point is that just because you are not offended doesn’t make it ok. There is a right side of history and a wrong side.
Name needs to be changed , period. No excuse, no buts, no what if’s. It was wrong then and it’s wrong now. Only thing that has changed is minorities have a lot more power than they had before ( which wasn’t much at all )
As a historian I'd like to point out that history is history. It is skewed at times, but in the end, it is still history. There is no wrong or right side of facts imo.
Were you aiming for ambiguity here? There were 3 sentences written and I can’t identify one assertion made. No salt; just an observation.
Kind of? I just think the phrase "right side of history" is inaccurate. There is historical accuracy and adhering to facts, yes, but there is no right or wrong side of it to be on. History is as it is written, whether you like it or not, is what I'm trying to say.
I've heard the phrase thrown around a lot. To say one is on the wrong side of history is to say "I'm right, you're backward and wrong, so get with the program." Which is kind of rude when it's used against someone else's opinion.
Let me know if I need to clarify further.
Interesting interpretation of the phrase but accurate. Personally when I hear that phrase I don't think factually right, I think morally. Example: Nazis are on the wrong side of history because they were objectively the bad guys to anyone but them. Again, that is just how I interpret the phrase, nothing wrong with your interpretation I was just trying to offer a different use in case that was how people here were using it.
I understand your viewpoint on the phrase. My thoughts on it are as follows: History and the passage of time doesn't really have a moral compass—if it did, notoriously bad things that occurred in the past wouldn't have happened, and vise-versa. That's why I feel the term "right side of history" is misleading in a sense. A person can believe that they're on the "right side" because they believe they're doing "the right thing" but could in fact be doing bad stuff.
Is what I'm saying making sense? I had some wine this evening and want to check.
Yes I agree that everyone always believes that they are fighting for a righteous cause. I don’t think anyone can say in the moment whether or not they are on the 'right side of history' because you never know the long term unintended consequences of what could be pure intentions. I tend to view it more as a past tense phrase, we can look back and see now what the ride side was but in the moment a lot of the time there is a lot of gray area. Except when it comes to genocide, anyone committing genocide is always the bad guys.
So can we agree that Americans were bad guys. Since Americans did try to commit genocide on Native Americans. Reflecting back on the past history in America and Native Americans, the use of Indians and exploiting is even worse looking.
Yes of course we can agree on that. Not sure if you think I didn't agree with that but I've been on board with the name change the whole time. Same way that even tho a lot of Americans like to pound their chest and say how we were the saviors of WW2 we can't forget not only the overkill of dropping the bombs but worst of all the Japanese 'internment' camps. Im on board with change and accountability
Just used your post to bait “Ms. Historian” and it worked. She doesn’t think Americans were bad guys. Guess in her eyes Nazi Germany weren’t bad guys either since Germany is our ally now. Shrug.
-
@calisgw @the_doctorswife @kovz88
Look, most people shy away from this type of dialogue. I’m most impressed we’re still here, where baseball and humanity intersect. Most people run scared and get upset for letting social issues enter the conversation. Whether we agree with each other or not, we’re here and willing to engage. I appreciate it!
-
Mom says you guys need to stop arguing on the internet again.
-
@CalisGW said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@Kovz88 said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@CalisGW said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@Kovz88 said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@The_DoctorsWife said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@Kovz88 said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@The_DoctorsWife said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@writetoshawn said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@The_DoctorsWife said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@CalisGW said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@NCStateHokie said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@CalisGW said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@NCStateHokie said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@CalisGW said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
So many white people crying about the name change. Just call them the Cleveland Crackers ( or anything offensive referring to white people ) and let’s move on.
Cleveland Whities
Cleveland Gringos
Cleveland White Boys
Cleveland Proud Boys
Cleveland Ku K.... you get the pointAs a white person am I supposed to be offended by all of these? The first 3 aren't remotely offensive to me. I claim ignorance on the Proud Boys and I want zero association with the 5th, hopefully that was assumed.
Two things in this thread that appears to flew over your head .
First, it’s a slippery slope when you start using names to describe a complete ethnicity. Where does it stop?
Second, native Americans are not Indians ( which has been stated in this thread by others ). So to use a symbol of a Native American and then call your team Indians is hugely ignorant. Anyone who believes it’s ok to keep the name is wholly uneducated and tbh, an embarrassment to their ethnicity.
No these 2 things haven't "flew" over my head. Maybe you misread something. Me not being offended by those 3 words above is just my opinion and I recognize that opinion means nothing. I am well aware that there are plenty of others that may be offended by them. I agree that it is a slippery slope but thanks for assuming that I didn't.
I am well aware that Native Americans and people from India (Indians) are not the same thing. It doesn't bother me one bit that Cleveland is changing its nickname. If that organization and actual Native Americans want that change then by all means go for it!! As I have pointed out several times in this thread I don't agree with people telling others what they should think, how they should think, or what they should or shouldn't be offended by. Perfect example is your response above. Assumptions aren't good for anyone.
It is cumulative of your posts in this thread is what I was attacking. There is no grey area , the point is that just because you are not offended doesn’t make it ok. There is a right side of history and a wrong side.
Name needs to be changed , period. No excuse, no buts, no what if’s. It was wrong then and it’s wrong now. Only thing that has changed is minorities have a lot more power than they had before ( which wasn’t much at all )
As a historian I'd like to point out that history is history. It is skewed at times, but in the end, it is still history. There is no wrong or right side of facts imo.
Were you aiming for ambiguity here? There were 3 sentences written and I can’t identify one assertion made. No salt; just an observation.
Kind of? I just think the phrase "right side of history" is inaccurate. There is historical accuracy and adhering to facts, yes, but there is no right or wrong side of it to be on. History is as it is written, whether you like it or not, is what I'm trying to say.
I've heard the phrase thrown around a lot. To say one is on the wrong side of history is to say "I'm right, you're backward and wrong, so get with the program." Which is kind of rude when it's used against someone else's opinion.
Let me know if I need to clarify further.
Interesting interpretation of the phrase but accurate. Personally when I hear that phrase I don't think factually right, I think morally. Example: Nazis are on the wrong side of history because they were objectively the bad guys to anyone but them. Again, that is just how I interpret the phrase, nothing wrong with your interpretation I was just trying to offer a different use in case that was how people here were using it.
I understand your viewpoint on the phrase. My thoughts on it are as follows: History and the passage of time doesn't really have a moral compass—if it did, notoriously bad things that occurred in the past wouldn't have happened, and vise-versa. That's why I feel the term "right side of history" is misleading in a sense. A person can believe that they're on the "right side" because they believe they're doing "the right thing" but could in fact be doing bad stuff.
Is what I'm saying making sense? I had some wine this evening and want to check.
Yes I agree that everyone always believes that they are fighting for a righteous cause. I don’t think anyone can say in the moment whether or not they are on the 'right side of history' because you never know the long term unintended consequences of what could be pure intentions. I tend to view it more as a past tense phrase, we can look back and see now what the ride side was but in the moment a lot of the time there is a lot of gray area. Except when it comes to genocide, anyone committing genocide is always the bad guys.
So can we agree that Americans were bad guys. Since Americans did try to commit genocide on Native Americans. Reflecting back on the past history in America and Native Americans, the use of Indians and exploiting is even worse looking.
Yes of course we can agree on that. Not sure if you think I didn't agree with that but I've been on board with the name change the whole time. Same way that even tho a lot of Americans like to pound their chest and say how we were the saviors of WW2 we can't forget not only the overkill of dropping the bombs but worst of all the Japanese 'internment' camps. Im on board with change and accountability
Just used your post to bait “Ms. Historian” and it worked. She doesn’t think Americans were bad guys. Guess in her eyes Nazi Germany weren’t bad guys either since Germany is our ally now. Shrug.
People who talk in generalities like "Americans were the bad guys" completely miss the fact that all groups have evil people among them that commit stunningly horrible acts.
Some Native tribes (ex. Comanche) were so brutal by our standards, you could make a case they were on par with some Nazis with their torture methods. And this was before contact with Europeans.
Aztecs and Maoris ate people. Take a look at the Congo or Sierra Leone for more recent examples of how brutal some people can be.
Evil people exist regardless of race, tribe or religion, but they are not representative of the entire race, tribe or religion.
Retroactively applying our current morals upon groups from the past means everyone is guilty of something.
-
@abbyspapa said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@CalisGW said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@Kovz88 said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@CalisGW said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@Kovz88 said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@The_DoctorsWife said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@Kovz88 said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@The_DoctorsWife said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@writetoshawn said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@The_DoctorsWife said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@CalisGW said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@NCStateHokie said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@CalisGW said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@NCStateHokie said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@CalisGW said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
So many white people crying about the name change. Just call them the Cleveland Crackers ( or anything offensive referring to white people ) and let’s move on.
Cleveland Whities
Cleveland Gringos
Cleveland White Boys
Cleveland Proud Boys
Cleveland Ku K.... you get the pointAs a white person am I supposed to be offended by all of these? The first 3 aren't remotely offensive to me. I claim ignorance on the Proud Boys and I want zero association with the 5th, hopefully that was assumed.
Two things in this thread that appears to flew over your head .
First, it’s a slippery slope when you start using names to describe a complete ethnicity. Where does it stop?
Second, native Americans are not Indians ( which has been stated in this thread by others ). So to use a symbol of a Native American and then call your team Indians is hugely ignorant. Anyone who believes it’s ok to keep the name is wholly uneducated and tbh, an embarrassment to their ethnicity.
No these 2 things haven't "flew" over my head. Maybe you misread something. Me not being offended by those 3 words above is just my opinion and I recognize that opinion means nothing. I am well aware that there are plenty of others that may be offended by them. I agree that it is a slippery slope but thanks for assuming that I didn't.
I am well aware that Native Americans and people from India (Indians) are not the same thing. It doesn't bother me one bit that Cleveland is changing its nickname. If that organization and actual Native Americans want that change then by all means go for it!! As I have pointed out several times in this thread I don't agree with people telling others what they should think, how they should think, or what they should or shouldn't be offended by. Perfect example is your response above. Assumptions aren't good for anyone.
It is cumulative of your posts in this thread is what I was attacking. There is no grey area , the point is that just because you are not offended doesn’t make it ok. There is a right side of history and a wrong side.
Name needs to be changed , period. No excuse, no buts, no what if’s. It was wrong then and it’s wrong now. Only thing that has changed is minorities have a lot more power than they had before ( which wasn’t much at all )
As a historian I'd like to point out that history is history. It is skewed at times, but in the end, it is still history. There is no wrong or right side of facts imo.
Were you aiming for ambiguity here? There were 3 sentences written and I can’t identify one assertion made. No salt; just an observation.
Kind of? I just think the phrase "right side of history" is inaccurate. There is historical accuracy and adhering to facts, yes, but there is no right or wrong side of it to be on. History is as it is written, whether you like it or not, is what I'm trying to say.
I've heard the phrase thrown around a lot. To say one is on the wrong side of history is to say "I'm right, you're backward and wrong, so get with the program." Which is kind of rude when it's used against someone else's opinion.
Let me know if I need to clarify further.
Interesting interpretation of the phrase but accurate. Personally when I hear that phrase I don't think factually right, I think morally. Example: Nazis are on the wrong side of history because they were objectively the bad guys to anyone but them. Again, that is just how I interpret the phrase, nothing wrong with your interpretation I was just trying to offer a different use in case that was how people here were using it.
I understand your viewpoint on the phrase. My thoughts on it are as follows: History and the passage of time doesn't really have a moral compass—if it did, notoriously bad things that occurred in the past wouldn't have happened, and vise-versa. That's why I feel the term "right side of history" is misleading in a sense. A person can believe that they're on the "right side" because they believe they're doing "the right thing" but could in fact be doing bad stuff.
Is what I'm saying making sense? I had some wine this evening and want to check.
Yes I agree that everyone always believes that they are fighting for a righteous cause. I don’t think anyone can say in the moment whether or not they are on the 'right side of history' because you never know the long term unintended consequences of what could be pure intentions. I tend to view it more as a past tense phrase, we can look back and see now what the ride side was but in the moment a lot of the time there is a lot of gray area. Except when it comes to genocide, anyone committing genocide is always the bad guys.
So can we agree that Americans were bad guys. Since Americans did try to commit genocide on Native Americans. Reflecting back on the past history in America and Native Americans, the use of Indians and exploiting is even worse looking.
Yes of course we can agree on that. Not sure if you think I didn't agree with that but I've been on board with the name change the whole time. Same way that even tho a lot of Americans like to pound their chest and say how we were the saviors of WW2 we can't forget not only the overkill of dropping the bombs but worst of all the Japanese 'internment' camps. Im on board with change and accountability
Just used your post to bait “Ms. Historian” and it worked. She doesn’t think Americans were bad guys. Guess in her eyes Nazi Germany weren’t bad guys either since Germany is our ally now. Shrug.
People who talk in generalities like "Americans were the bad guys" completely miss the fact that all groups have evil people among them that commit stunningly horrible acts.
Some Native tribes (ex. Comanche) were so brutal by our standards, you could make a case they were on par with some Nazis with their torture methods. And this was before contact with Europeans.
Aztecs and Maoris ate people. Take a look at the Congo or Sierra Leone for more recent examples of how brutal some people can be.
Evil people exist regardless of race, tribe or religion, but they are not representative of the entire race, tribe or religion.
Retroactively applying our current morals upon groups from the past means everyone is guilty of something.
Your response is intelligent, insightful, and wise.
What I want to add (not that you asked) is that sometimes when engaging with someone who is personally afflicted through their own experiences, the first thing to start with is to acknowledge that what happened here was wrong, unacceptable, and warrants change. Without that most essential part of this type of dialogue, it becomes two sides becoming defensive and often filled with vitriol. People here will call me a pss or whatever (don’t care), but these things have to begin with empathy.
Thanks for your astute commentary though.
-
Acknowledgement is without the key. Some people just can’t get over the fact they or their ethnicity is not perfect and have committed atrocious acts.
What struck me as awful was the comment about Americans were not bad , just made a few mistakes. Lol
-
@CalisGW said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
Acknowledgement is without doubt, the key. Some people just can’t get over the fact they or their ethnicity is not perfect and have committed atrocious acts.
What struck me as awful was the comment about Americans were not bad , just made a few mistakes. Lol
-
@TheGoaler said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
'Rockers' sounds cool, until your pitchers get rocked!
Doubt they'd go with it given Colorado's name. Can't imagine the Rockers playing the Rockies!
-
I was listening to WFAN yesterday and someone brought up the fact that in Major league sports there is basically no dog mascots/team names. Considering the Browns fans and the whole 'Dog Pound' thing maybe they could have some sort of canine related name for the baseball team.
-
@writetoshawn said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@calisgw @the_doctorswife @kovz88
Look, most people shy away from this type of dialogue. I’m most impressed we’re still here, where baseball and humanity intersect. Most people run scared and get upset for letting social issues enter the conversation. Whether we agree with each other or not, we’re here and willing to engage. I appreciate it!
Same here. I enjoy participating in these thoughtful discussions, talking things out and stuff. It's very interesting to read what various thoughts people have on issues like this, whether I agree with people or not.
-
@abbyspapa said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@CalisGW said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@Kovz88 said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@CalisGW said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@Kovz88 said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@The_DoctorsWife said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@Kovz88 said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@The_DoctorsWife said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@writetoshawn said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@The_DoctorsWife said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@CalisGW said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@NCStateHokie said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@CalisGW said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@NCStateHokie said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@CalisGW said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
So many white people crying about the name change. Just call them the Cleveland Crackers ( or anything offensive referring to white people ) and let’s move on.
Cleveland Whities
Cleveland Gringos
Cleveland White Boys
Cleveland Proud Boys
Cleveland Ku K.... you get the pointAs a white person am I supposed to be offended by all of these? The first 3 aren't remotely offensive to me. I claim ignorance on the Proud Boys and I want zero association with the 5th, hopefully that was assumed.
Two things in this thread that appears to flew over your head .
First, it’s a slippery slope when you start using names to describe a complete ethnicity. Where does it stop?
Second, native Americans are not Indians ( which has been stated in this thread by others ). So to use a symbol of a Native American and then call your team Indians is hugely ignorant. Anyone who believes it’s ok to keep the name is wholly uneducated and tbh, an embarrassment to their ethnicity.
No these 2 things haven't "flew" over my head. Maybe you misread something. Me not being offended by those 3 words above is just my opinion and I recognize that opinion means nothing. I am well aware that there are plenty of others that may be offended by them. I agree that it is a slippery slope but thanks for assuming that I didn't.
I am well aware that Native Americans and people from India (Indians) are not the same thing. It doesn't bother me one bit that Cleveland is changing its nickname. If that organization and actual Native Americans want that change then by all means go for it!! As I have pointed out several times in this thread I don't agree with people telling others what they should think, how they should think, or what they should or shouldn't be offended by. Perfect example is your response above. Assumptions aren't good for anyone.
It is cumulative of your posts in this thread is what I was attacking. There is no grey area , the point is that just because you are not offended doesn’t make it ok. There is a right side of history and a wrong side.
Name needs to be changed , period. No excuse, no buts, no what if’s. It was wrong then and it’s wrong now. Only thing that has changed is minorities have a lot more power than they had before ( which wasn’t much at all )
As a historian I'd like to point out that history is history. It is skewed at times, but in the end, it is still history. There is no wrong or right side of facts imo.
Were you aiming for ambiguity here? There were 3 sentences written and I can’t identify one assertion made. No salt; just an observation.
Kind of? I just think the phrase "right side of history" is inaccurate. There is historical accuracy and adhering to facts, yes, but there is no right or wrong side of it to be on. History is as it is written, whether you like it or not, is what I'm trying to say.
I've heard the phrase thrown around a lot. To say one is on the wrong side of history is to say "I'm right, you're backward and wrong, so get with the program." Which is kind of rude when it's used against someone else's opinion.
Let me know if I need to clarify further.
Interesting interpretation of the phrase but accurate. Personally when I hear that phrase I don't think factually right, I think morally. Example: Nazis are on the wrong side of history because they were objectively the bad guys to anyone but them. Again, that is just how I interpret the phrase, nothing wrong with your interpretation I was just trying to offer a different use in case that was how people here were using it.
I understand your viewpoint on the phrase. My thoughts on it are as follows: History and the passage of time doesn't really have a moral compass—if it did, notoriously bad things that occurred in the past wouldn't have happened, and vise-versa. That's why I feel the term "right side of history" is misleading in a sense. A person can believe that they're on the "right side" because they believe they're doing "the right thing" but could in fact be doing bad stuff.
Is what I'm saying making sense? I had some wine this evening and want to check.
Yes I agree that everyone always believes that they are fighting for a righteous cause. I don’t think anyone can say in the moment whether or not they are on the 'right side of history' because you never know the long term unintended consequences of what could be pure intentions. I tend to view it more as a past tense phrase, we can look back and see now what the ride side was but in the moment a lot of the time there is a lot of gray area. Except when it comes to genocide, anyone committing genocide is always the bad guys.
So can we agree that Americans were bad guys. Since Americans did try to commit genocide on Native Americans. Reflecting back on the past history in America and Native Americans, the use of Indians and exploiting is even worse looking.
Yes of course we can agree on that. Not sure if you think I didn't agree with that but I've been on board with the name change the whole time. Same way that even tho a lot of Americans like to pound their chest and say how we were the saviors of WW2 we can't forget not only the overkill of dropping the bombs but worst of all the Japanese 'internment' camps. Im on board with change and accountability
Just used your post to bait “Ms. Historian” and it worked. She doesn’t think Americans were bad guys. Guess in her eyes Nazi Germany weren’t bad guys either since Germany is our ally now. Shrug.
People who talk in generalities like "Americans were the bad guys" completely miss the fact that all groups have evil people among them that commit stunningly horrible acts.
Some Native tribes (ex. Comanche) were so brutal by our standards, you could make a case they were on par with some Nazis with their torture methods. And this was before contact with Europeans.
Aztecs and Maoris ate people. Take a look at the Congo or Sierra Leone for more recent examples of how brutal some people can be.
Evil people exist regardless of race, tribe or religion, but they are not representative of the entire race, tribe or religion.
Retroactively applying our current morals upon groups from the past means everyone is guilty of something.
Agree. Every group now and throughout history has bad eggs. In the case of American history, a few bad eggs certainly do not spoil the bunch.
-
Bad eggs? You keep glossing over the treatment Americans did to other ethnicities. Trying to systematically wipe out Native Americans through virus ( small pix I believe ) and encampment. Also Americans were big on slavery. AMERICANS considered people as property. That is more than just a few bad eggs or as you put it earlier, a few flaws.
Either one of those two happening today would have the world outraged and would be considered crimes against humanity.
If you can’t see that? Then anything you say can’t be taken seriously
-
@abbyspapa said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@CalisGW said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@Kovz88 said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@CalisGW said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@Kovz88 said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@The_DoctorsWife said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@Kovz88 said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@The_DoctorsWife said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@writetoshawn said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@The_DoctorsWife said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@CalisGW said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@NCStateHokie said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@CalisGW said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@NCStateHokie said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@CalisGW said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
So many white people crying about the name change. Just call them the Cleveland Crackers ( or anything offensive referring to white people ) and let’s move on.
Cleveland Whities
Cleveland Gringos
Cleveland White Boys
Cleveland Proud Boys
Cleveland Ku K.... you get the pointAs a white person am I supposed to be offended by all of these? The first 3 aren't remotely offensive to me. I claim ignorance on the Proud Boys and I want zero association with the 5th, hopefully that was assumed.
Two things in this thread that appears to flew over your head .
First, it’s a slippery slope when you start using names to describe a complete ethnicity. Where does it stop?
Second, native Americans are not Indians ( which has been stated in this thread by others ). So to use a symbol of a Native American and then call your team Indians is hugely ignorant. Anyone who believes it’s ok to keep the name is wholly uneducated and tbh, an embarrassment to their ethnicity.
No these 2 things haven't "flew" over my head. Maybe you misread something. Me not being offended by those 3 words above is just my opinion and I recognize that opinion means nothing. I am well aware that there are plenty of others that may be offended by them. I agree that it is a slippery slope but thanks for assuming that I didn't.
I am well aware that Native Americans and people from India (Indians) are not the same thing. It doesn't bother me one bit that Cleveland is changing its nickname. If that organization and actual Native Americans want that change then by all means go for it!! As I have pointed out several times in this thread I don't agree with people telling others what they should think, how they should think, or what they should or shouldn't be offended by. Perfect example is your response above. Assumptions aren't good for anyone.
It is cumulative of your posts in this thread is what I was attacking. There is no grey area , the point is that just because you are not offended doesn’t make it ok. There is a right side of history and a wrong side.
Name needs to be changed , period. No excuse, no buts, no what if’s. It was wrong then and it’s wrong now. Only thing that has changed is minorities have a lot more power than they had before ( which wasn’t much at all )
As a historian I'd like to point out that history is history. It is skewed at times, but in the end, it is still history. There is no wrong or right side of facts imo.
Were you aiming for ambiguity here? There were 3 sentences written and I can’t identify one assertion made. No salt; just an observation.
Kind of? I just think the phrase "right side of history" is inaccurate. There is historical accuracy and adhering to facts, yes, but there is no right or wrong side of it to be on. History is as it is written, whether you like it or not, is what I'm trying to say.
I've heard the phrase thrown around a lot. To say one is on the wrong side of history is to say "I'm right, you're backward and wrong, so get with the program." Which is kind of rude when it's used against someone else's opinion.
Let me know if I need to clarify further.
Interesting interpretation of the phrase but accurate. Personally when I hear that phrase I don't think factually right, I think morally. Example: Nazis are on the wrong side of history because they were objectively the bad guys to anyone but them. Again, that is just how I interpret the phrase, nothing wrong with your interpretation I was just trying to offer a different use in case that was how people here were using it.
I understand your viewpoint on the phrase. My thoughts on it are as follows: History and the passage of time doesn't really have a moral compass—if it did, notoriously bad things that occurred in the past wouldn't have happened, and vise-versa. That's why I feel the term "right side of history" is misleading in a sense. A person can believe that they're on the "right side" because they believe they're doing "the right thing" but could in fact be doing bad stuff.
Is what I'm saying making sense? I had some wine this evening and want to check.
Yes I agree that everyone always believes that they are fighting for a righteous cause. I don’t think anyone can say in the moment whether or not they are on the 'right side of history' because you never know the long term unintended consequences of what could be pure intentions. I tend to view it more as a past tense phrase, we can look back and see now what the ride side was but in the moment a lot of the time there is a lot of gray area. Except when it comes to genocide, anyone committing genocide is always the bad guys.
So can we agree that Americans were bad guys. Since Americans did try to commit genocide on Native Americans. Reflecting back on the past history in America and Native Americans, the use of Indians and exploiting is even worse looking.
Yes of course we can agree on that. Not sure if you think I didn't agree with that but I've been on board with the name change the whole time. Same way that even tho a lot of Americans like to pound their chest and say how we were the saviors of WW2 we can't forget not only the overkill of dropping the bombs but worst of all the Japanese 'internment' camps. Im on board with change and accountability
Just used your post to bait “Ms. Historian” and it worked. She doesn’t think Americans were bad guys. Guess in her eyes Nazi Germany weren’t bad guys either since Germany is our ally now. Shrug.
People who talk in generalities like "Americans were the bad guys" completely miss the fact that all groups have evil people among them that commit stunningly horrible acts.
Some Native tribes (ex. Comanche) were so brutal by our standards, you could make a case they were on par with some Nazis with their torture methods. And this was before contact with Europeans.
Aztecs and Maoris ate people. Take a look at the Congo or Sierra Leone for more recent examples of how brutal some people can be.
Evil people exist regardless of race, tribe or religion, but they are not representative of the entire race, tribe or religion.
Retroactively applying our current morals upon groups from the past means everyone is guilty of something.
By your definition and standard. Nazis’ we’re just a few bad eggs. Pretty sure Jewish people would have something to say about that.
Everyone cast stones at other countries ( tribes ) pretty openly and easily. But, when it comes to taking a hard look at their own country? Yeah, then they get all defensive and try to gloss over true horrors.
-
@CalisGW said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
Bad eggs? You keep glossing over the treatment Americans did to other ethnicities. Trying to systematically wipe out Native Americans through virus ( small pix I believe ) and encampment. Also Americans were big on slavery. AMERICANS considered people as property. That is more than just a few bad eggs or as you put it earlier, a few flaws.
Either one of those two happening today would have the world outraged and would be considered crimes against humanity.
If you can’t see that? Then anything you say can’t be taken seriously
None of those crimes are the sole providence of Americans.
Were the Greeks under Alexander the "bad guys"?
Were the Persians under Cyrus or Darius the "bad guys"?
Were the Romans under Trajan the "bad guys"?
Were the Ottoman Turks under Suleiman or the Mongol Khans, or the Qing, or the British, or the Spaniards, or the Russians, or all the other expansionist empires all the "bad guys"?
If so, thank the heavens for "bad guys"!
All the fruits most of us enjoy today were seeded by expansionist empires, fertilized by oceans of blood and harvested through numerous acts of incredible violence and brutality.
Do you think the Apache and Comanche suddenly became arguably the best light infantry horse warriors in all of history just because white men showed up?
-
@abbyspapa said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@CalisGW said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
Bad eggs? You keep glossing over the treatment Americans did to other ethnicities. Trying to systematically wipe out Native Americans through virus ( small pix I believe ) and encampment. Also Americans were big on slavery. AMERICANS considered people as property. That is more than just a few bad eggs or as you put it earlier, a few flaws.
Either one of those two happening today would have the world outraged and would be considered crimes against humanity.
If you can’t see that? Then anything you say can’t be taken seriously
None of those crimes are the sole providence of Americans.
Were the Greeks under Alexander the "bad guys"?
Were the Persians under Cyrus or Darius the "bad guys"?
Were the Romans under Trajan the "bad guys"?
Were the Ottoman Turks under Suleiman or the Mongol Khans, or the Qing, or the British, or the Spaniards, or the Russians, or all the other expansionist empires all the "bad guys"?
If so, thank the heavens for "bad guys"!
All the fruits most of us enjoy today were seeded by expansionist empires, fertilized by oceans of blood and harvested through numerous acts of incredible violence and brutality.
Do you think the Apache and Comanche suddenly became arguably the best light infantry horse warriors in all of history just because white men showed up?
Never said was sole province of Americans. You are trying to twist it that way to protect Americans.
Americans did very bad things , thus were bad guys in the past. ( just like almost every other country ).
My point , which still hasn’t been addressed by any arguing different , is the actions/crimes committed by Americans was more than “ just a few flaws “. To say the treatment of Native Americans and Blacks by Americans in the past ( can be argued still exist today ) are just a mistake, nothing to see here, is deplorable. Can be no healing until harsh truths are acknowledged.
-
@CalisGW said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@abbyspapa said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
@CalisGW said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
Bad eggs? You keep glossing over the treatment Americans did to other ethnicities. Trying to systematically wipe out Native Americans through virus ( small pix I believe ) and encampment. Also Americans were big on slavery. AMERICANS considered people as property. That is more than just a few bad eggs or as you put it earlier, a few flaws.
Either one of those two happening today would have the world outraged and would be considered crimes against humanity.
If you can’t see that? Then anything you say can’t be taken seriously
None of those crimes are the sole providence of Americans.
Were the Greeks under Alexander the "bad guys"?
Were the Persians under Cyrus or Darius the "bad guys"?
Were the Romans under Trajan the "bad guys"?
Were the Ottoman Turks under Suleiman or the Mongol Khans, or the Qing, or the British, or the Spaniards, or the Russians, or all the other expansionist empires all the "bad guys"?
If so, thank the heavens for "bad guys"!
All the fruits most of us enjoy today were seeded by expansionist empires, fertilized by oceans of blood and harvested through numerous acts of incredible violence and brutality.
Do you think the Apache and Comanche suddenly became arguably the best light infantry horse warriors in all of history just because white men showed up?
Never said was sole province of Americans. You are trying to twist it that way to protect Americans.
Americans did very bad things , thus were bad guys in the past. ( just like almost every other country ).
My point , which still hasn’t been addressed by any arguing different , is the actions/crimes committed by Americans was more than “ just a few flaws “. To say the treatment of Native Americans and Blacks by Americans in the past ( can be argued still exist today ) are just a mistake, nothing to see here is deplorable. Can be no healing until harsh truths are acknowledged.
The harsh truth is that everyone has blood on their hands if we apply present day morals retroactively. Which means everyone has to acknowledge that fact and then we have everyone apologizing to each other for something.
Recognizing the Nazis were evil, while driving your VW Beetle, sipping on a Fanta or chugging a Jagermeister in your Hugo Boss jeans, is little more than an empty gesture.
We can acknowledge that horrible things happened in the past, while also moving forward. Otherwise we get conflicts that never end because we are blaming each other forever.
-
Yet some on these forums DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE what Americans did in the past as bad. Do not think this applies to you ABBA.
What Americans did in the past ( wiping out Native Americans and Slavery ) were deplorable and heinous. Until there is that acknowledgment, there can be no moving on.
-
Now is American history spotless and flawless? No, of course not. Nobody is perfect. But screwing over Native Americans was mostly Andrew Jackson's thing.
I would say that there was a lot more racism and problems than just the Andrew Jackson thing. The U.S. had been screwing them over before Jackson and after Jackson. Native Americans had a lot of stuff happening to them up until the 1900's when things started to get better. They were treated poorly and ostracized for decades.
No country is spotless though.
-
@Kuhlkilla said in The Cleveland Baseball Team....:
Now is American history spotless and flawless? No, of course not. Nobody is perfect. But screwing over Native Americans was mostly Andrew Jackson's thing.
I would say that there was a lot more racism and problems than just the Andrew Jackson thing. The U.S. had been screwing them over before Jackson and after Jackson. Native Americans had a lot of stuff happening to them up until the 1900's when things started to get better. They were treated poorly and ostracized for decades.
No country is spotless though.
I would arguing that they are still being marginalized. When ever the government wants their land, they take it. (Oil pipe line ). Just because they are getting treated better doesn’t mean they are treated equally. Minorities ( some more than others ) are not treated equally in America. So yeah, goes way beyond Andrew Jackson.
