2014: Year of the fainting couch

[fm93]

For over half a century the baseball team here in Atlanta was called the Atlanta Crackers which is usually considered a derogatory term for white people. They didn't cease to exist to be due to whining or protests but because the Milwaukee Braves moved to Atlanta and there was no room for both a major league team and minor league team.

This is all true, but there are a few key differences between this and the Redskins issue:

1) In this case, the name almost certainly didn't have to do with race, whereas "Redskins," regardless of your position, clearly does. Atlanta's Negro League team was called the Black Crackers, which would be nonsensical if "Crackers" was being used in the racial context. And really, context means everything--obviously the people who object to Washington's team name aren't opposed to the word "redskin" in general, since no one's raising any complaints over redskin potatoes, just like no white people are complaining about saltine crackers. Additionally, before the Crackers arrived in 1901, Atlanta previously had a team in 1892 called the Firecrackers. The newer Crackers, then, were likely named after the old team.

2) Even if the name "Crackers" was used in a racial sense, the group of people to whom it applies--white people, and especially white Southerners--constituted the majority of the population in the area. Atlanta's a majority-black city today, but back in the early 1900s it was predominantly white. So the fact that the city and community rallied around and supported a team with that name indicates that the community mutually agreed to view it as a symbol of honor and pride. (It's similar to how some black people use a variant of the n-word as a term of endearment among themselves, but non-black people can't use it.) Likewise, this is why a team called the Vikings can be acceptable in the state of Minnesota, in which much of its population is Scandinavian, and why the Celtics don't generate much complaint in Boston, a city rich in Irish heritage. Washington DC, however, is not particularly Native American. It's not the case here that a community decided to embrace a team with a name that directly related to the community's heritage.

Also, for future consideration, I am also a resident of the metro Atlanta area, so you're not likely to slip very many Atlanta-related arguments past me.

[lilpixieofterror]

This is all true, but there are a few key differences between this and the Redskins issue:

1) In this case, the name almost certainly didn't have to do with race, whereas "Redskins," regardless of your position, clearly does. Atlanta's Negro League team was called the Black Crackers, which would be nonsensical if "Crackers" was being used in the racial context. And really, context means everything--obviously the people who object to Washington's team name aren't opposed to the word "redskin" in general, since no one's raising any complaints over redskin potatoes, just like no white people are complaining about saltine crackers. Additionally, before the Crackers arrived in 1901, Atlanta previously had a team in 1892 called the Firecrackers. The newer Crackers, then, were likely named after the old team.

2) Even if the name "Crackers" was used in a racial sense, the group of people to whom it applies--white people, and especially white Southerners--constituted the majority of the population in the area. Atlanta's a majority-black city today, but back in the early 1900s it was predominantly white. So the fact that the city and community rallied around and supported a team with that name indicates that the community mutually agreed to view it as a symbol of honor and pride. (It's similar to how some black people use a variant of the n-word as a term of endearment among themselves, but non-black people can't use it.) Likewise, this is why a team called the Vikings can be acceptable in the state of Minnesota, in which much of its population is Scandinavian, and why the Celtics don't generate much complaint in Boston, a city rich in Irish heritage. Washington DC, however, is not particularly Native American. It's not the case here that a community decided to embrace a team with a name that directly related to the community's heritage.

Also, for future consideration, I am also a resident of the metro Atlanta area, so you're not likely to slip very many Atlanta-related arguments past me.

Awww yes, look at the excuses continue...

[Sparko]

This is all true, but there are a few key differences between this and the Redskins issue:

1) In this case, the name almost certainly didn't have to do with race, whereas "Redskins," regardless of your position, clearly does. Atlanta's Negro League team was called the Black Crackers, which would be nonsensical if "Crackers" was being used in the racial context. And really, context means everything--obviously the people who object to Washington's team name aren't opposed to the word "redskin" in general, since no one's raising any complaints over redskin potatoes, just like no white people are complaining about saltine crackers. Additionally, before the Crackers arrived in 1901, Atlanta previously had a team in 1892 called the Firecrackers. The newer Crackers, then, were likely named after the old team.

2) Even if the name "Crackers" was used in a racial sense, the group of people to whom it applies--white people, and especially white Southerners--constituted the majority of the population in the area. Atlanta's a majority-black city today, but back in the early 1900s it was predominantly white. So the fact that the city and community rallied around and supported a team with that name indicates that the community mutually agreed to view it as a symbol of honor and pride. (It's similar to how some black people use a variant of the n-word as a term of endearment among themselves, but non-black people can't use it.) Likewise, this is why a team called the Vikings can be acceptable in the state of Minnesota, in which much of its population is Scandinavian, and why the Celtics don't generate much complaint in Boston, a city rich in Irish heritage. Washington DC, however, is not particularly Native American. It's not the case here that a community decided to embrace a team with a name that directly related to the community's heritage.

Also, for future consideration, I am also a resident of the metro Atlanta area, so you're not likely to slip very many Atlanta-related arguments past me.

What about the beer I posted a picture of?

[Sparko]

Awww yes, look at the excuses continue...

exactly. It's only "racist" when it has nothing to do with whites.

[shunyadragon]

Source: New York Post

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Let's hope we become a more serious nation in 2015. I won't hold my breath.

Back to my Trivial Pursuit night at the pub in 2015, where the above is meaningless.

[Epoetker]

Back to my Trivial Pursuit night at the pub in 2015, where the above is meaningless.

Much like your reply.

[lilpixieofterror]

exactly. It's only "racist" when it has nothing to do with whites.

Yep, goes to show what the modern rights movement is really about. It almost seems like the goal is to punish whites for some 'transgressions' made by our great grandparents.

[Darth Executor]

Back to my Trivial Pursuit night at the pub in 2015, where the above is meaningless.

Shuny lives life on the edge.

[fm93]

exactly. It's only "racist" when it has nothing to do with whites.

The examples I used--Vikings and Celtics--represent people who are commonly considered white, but okay then.

[Epoetker]

Shuny lives life on the edge.

Maybe we should notify the good people of #Blackbrunch of this particular pub's location, given shuny's professed love for adventure. I'm sure it would be quite...enriching.

[Sparko]

Here you go Square_peg.

The Minnesota Senate on Monday approved John Hoffman’s (D-MN) bill to change the name “Asian carp” so called because the species originates from Asia, to “invasive carp”. Since Asian carp were introduced in the U.S. in the 1970’s, the fish have spread to dozens of states causing destruction in the delicate ecosystems of the waterways.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have been fighting off the most invasive species, the black carp from China, the Silver carp from Vietnam, and Grass carp from China from spreading into the Great Lakes were the fish could do massive damage the regions fishing industry. While arguing his case on the Senate floor, Hoffman said that referring to the fish as “Asian” was hurtful to some people…
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2014/...and-offensive/

I think that about proves the OP. This is getting ridiculous.

I think I will go eat some Mexican food. Er I mean, "Spicy cuisine native to the country south of ours"

[Cow Poke]

I think I will go eat some Mexican food. Er I mean, "Spicy cuisine native to the country south of ours"

You mean Texas? You're coming to Texas?

[Sparko]

You mean Texas? You're coming to Texas?

I wish.

You are more to the west of me though.

[Zymologist]

Here you go Square_peg.

The Minnesota Senate on Monday approved John Hoffman’s (D-MN) bill to change the name “Asian carp” so called because the species originates from Asia, to “invasive carp”. Since Asian carp were introduced in the U.S. in the 1970’s, the fish have spread to dozens of states causing destruction in the delicate ecosystems of the waterways.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have been fighting off the most invasive species, the black carp from China, the Silver carp from Vietnam, and Grass carp from China from spreading into the Great Lakes were the fish could do massive damage the regions fishing industry. While arguing his case on the Senate floor, Hoffman said that referring to the fish as “Asian” was hurtful to some people…
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2014/...and-offensive/

I think that about proves the OP. This is getting ridiculous.

I think I will go eat some Mexican food. Er I mean, "Spicy cuisine native to the country south of ours"

I believe that their renaming of "Asian carp" to "invasive carp" equates being Asian with being invasive, which I find offensive.

[rogue06]

I wish.

You are more to the west of me though.

Shouldn't them rattlers be depicted as being in Austin, especially in the capitol building?