[ SECRET POST #2272 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2272 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.


__________________________________________________



18.


__________________________________________________

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 06 pages, 140 secrets from Secret Submission Post #325.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Appropriation

[(Anonymous)]

(not OP)

Using Native American totems as mascots for sports teams that are not Native and are in no way involved with Natives? I'm just going out on a limb there, if anyone wants to correct me, feel free to do so!

Re: Appropriation

[dreemyweird]

But
is it a thing that genuinely bothers someone? Because I see nothing bad in this.

Re: Appropriation

[(Anonymous)]

Yes.

Yes, it is a thing that genuinely bothers people, both American Indians and others, especially when the logos used are caricatures (see: "Redskins" as the name for a sports team, which has a history as a borderline-slur, or the Cleveland Indians logo, which almost gets to the point of caricature that way). Both in itself, and because it tends to contribute to stereotypes in society that are actively harmful (although this tends to have more to do with other depictions in society than sports team logos do).

Here's a really good blog all about this kind of thing: http://nativeappropriations.com/

Re: Appropriation

[(Anonymous)]

>Spends entire post complaining about caricatures

'...and that's why appropriation is wrong!'

?

Re: Appropriation

[(Anonymous)]

I was speaking to the post, not to the thread, if you follow me.

Re: Appropriation

[(Anonymous)]

Possibly.

To clarify, would you say a clearly not stereotypical totem pole chosen for the design was still problematic?

Re: Appropriation

[(Anonymous)]

Possibly? Ideally the organization in question would try to have some kind of involvement with natives in some way; a lot of it depends on the way it's done. But I don't think something like the old Seahawks logo is intrinsically problematic.

But, again, my comment was to "Do people see Native American sports team logos as problematic", not about appropriation specifically.

Re: Appropriation

[dreemyweird]

Yeah, I think I see it now. People here don't tend to do this kind of thing (when the stereotypes are used, they're usually simply negative stereotypes, as in "members of this social group drink and swear a lot"), but I'd totally be bothered if it was a "stereotype+negative subtext" combination.

Re: Appropriation

[(Anonymous)]

How do you feel about the fighting irish?

Re: Appropriation

[(Anonymous)]

It does not bother me for a number of reasons. First, because there's an actual historical connection between Notre Dame and the Irish - I mean, it's a Catholic university that drew heavily on the Irish diaspora in America for its students for a long time, and that also has an extremely sizable Irish-American fanbase. Second, because there's no real prejudice against Irish Americans anymore. Third, I think there's a difference between the way that Irishness is depicted (nowadays, at least) in the Fighting Irish mascot when you compare it to the way that American Indians are often portrayed in sports logos, when you look at things like Redskins, and Chief Wahoo, and the Tomahawk Chop. I think that's in a different category.

(I don't think it matters but for reference: I'm Irish-American myself, and don't have any Native American heritage whatsoever. and my grandma's side of the family are all Notre Dame fans)

Re: Appropriation

[(Anonymous)]

So THAT is okay because you (having a personal connection) don't find it personally offensive, but THIS is not okay because you (having no personal connection) find it offensive.

Uh-huh.

Re: Appropriation

[(Anonymous)]

NA

If you have a personal connection to something, a stake in the offensiveness, it's okay to say you don't find it offensive. Someone who isn't Irish in any way might feel obliged to assume "the Fighting Irish" is also offensive.

Re: Appropriation

[chardmonster]

You seem fourteen. Old enough to read but too young to understand, and certainly young enough to care about TOTALLY FIGHTING THE ZEITGEIST, MAAAAAN


Fix that.

Re: Appropriation

[(Anonymous)]

DA

I find it funny, tbh. Particularly since there was actually a confederate unit nicknamed that during the American Civil War [because it was made up entirely of Irish immigrants/the descendants of them]. They were also the only unit the confederate government granted medals too. /triva

tl;dr: I find it funny because they're ignoring certain history attached to that name when they use it.