Fixing Things That Are No Longer Acceptable

[A.G._Crockett]

"No-one else find the premise that changing a club's name or logo to avoid offending large groups of other people is "woke" rather than reasonable just a little awkward?"



I have found that often one man's 'reasonable' is another man's 'stupid'.
I'm a fan of folks cinching-up their panties a little tighter and getting on with their lives.

I'm curious; which group do you want to "cinch-up their panties a little tighter and get on with their lives".  Is it the group that is offended by stylized mascots and names, or those that say that because they are not offended by stylized mascots and names referring to another group, the group itself should not be offended?

I always find it interesting that so many people think they have some moral authority to determine what should or should not offend another group whose race, or religion, or culture, is being caricatured.  Do others get to decide that for you?  If, for instance, you happened to be Jewish, should someone else be able to tell you to not be offended but to just "cinch-up your panties a little tighter and get on your life" if a sports team was using a caricature of Holocaust victims as a mascot?

And lest you consider that an example so extreme that it is somehow silly, consider name "Redskins", or the Cleveland baseball "Chief Yahoo" mascot.

[Matt_Cohn]

-one else find the premise that changing a club's name or logo to avoid offending large groups of other people is "woke" rather than reasonable just a little awkward?

This is the sort of thing I wish we had a like button for. Yes, “woke” seems often to be used somewhat pejoratively, or at least without a great deal of thoughtfulness.

[MKrohn]

Wonder what will happen to all the colonial Royal Clubs.  There may come a day.

They will never give up the "Royal", the reciprocals are too good.

In some places the Royal prefix was abandoned quite some time ago, eg Royal Singapore.

Also, while there are some arrangements it is not correct that all Royal clubs have reciprocals with all the others. It’s also worth noting that there are non-exUk commonwealth/empire clubs with Royal/Real prefix in countries like Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Spain etc.
Atb

Apart from Singapore some 60 years ago, have any of us colonials given up the Royal?


For an Australian the merged club (Royal Sing and the Island Club) in Singapore is still very British, there is a focus on process over efficiency which we find endearing.

[Adam Lawrence]

Wonder what will happen to all the colonial Royal Clubs.  There may come a day.

They will never give up the "Royal", the reciprocals are too good.

In some places the Royal prefix was abandoned quite some time ago, eg Royal Singapore.

Also, while there are some arrangements it is not correct that all Royal clubs have reciprocals with all the others. It’s also worth noting that there are non-exUk commonwealth/empire clubs with Royal/Real prefix in countries like Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Spain etc.
Atb

Apart from Singapore some 60 years ago, have any of us colonials given up the Royal?


For an Australian the merged club (Royal Sing and the Island Club) in Singapore is still very British, there is a focus on process over efficiency which we find endearing.

I'm told that Singapore Island CC is the richest golf club in the world...

[Sean_A]

Ward,

Educate me, as a mere Brit.  Is it only a "few" who find the Confederate flag offensive?  Is it only a few who are offended by kitsch historical representations of Indian tribes?  Perhaps I'm mixing in the wrong crowd, that wasn't the impression I got.

These are interesting questions. I think there are probably ways to represent Native American tribes respectfully as logos/tesam nicknames. The issue is why fight what seems to be a losing cause. For example, the Cleveland Indians logo is problematic and will be changed. To me the logo is harmless, but when I put myself in other shoes the logo is a bit harsh not only for the term Indians, but also the goofy depiction. On the other hand, a team like the Chicago Blackhawks specifies a leader and a specific war of a few tribes against the US and some other tribes. I think the logo is noble and the name reflective of history. However, if the involved tribes don't like the logo and/or name it should be changed regardless of what I think is the common perception among sports fans.  It is my perception that at least one of the tribes involved in the Blackhawk War want the logo and name changed. Thats good enough for me. Its especially harsh because the Sauk now live further west (forcibly moved), maybe Oklahoma. So the footprint of their nation is no longer near Chicago. I believe the team owner has recently stated that he will not change the name or logo. I can see his point too, he isn't the US government which waged war against the tribe. I wonder if the issue couldn't be amicably settled by the team owner reaching out to the tribal leaders and see if a deal can be struck. That may sound crass, but in this era of corporate sponsorship, why not? 


The issue will really come full circle if Notre Dame is asked to change their nickname. 


Ciao

[Jim_Coleman]

   Fixed the title; fixed Secession. Thanks for the editing lesson. A little embarrassing.
  Also, I don’t consider “woke” to have a negative connotation.  I certainly didn’t intend it as such.

[ward peyronnin]

I believe when I refer to the few I refer to the self appointed activist folks who thrive on de/reconstructing and stirring the pot as the "spokesmen" for a larger identity group and who thereby awake their increasingly protected class towards ever new lines in the sand . I guess we now must use Latinx; racial equality has become equity which is materially different. Transgender people now rule the restroom and ladies sporting field in America not the vast majority of people who dont go along with this. Individual rights parsed to the nth degree drive sweeping dictates. Female soccer stars are trundled into a major college football game to kick the ball in a bubble dashing off the field to avoid actual engagement and then introduce our VP at the inauguration when polls show 90 % respond they see it as a stunt/gimmick. Revisionist historians who clearly state that American wealth was created solely on the backs of black slaves irrespective of the traders, farmers, miners, businessmen, teachers and etc. who also built our country.
Probably is hard for a Brit to see when you have your aristocracy and Royals to blame for everything

[mike_malone]

What was no longer acceptable was your headline without “no” in it. Thanks for fixing it.

[Tim Leahy]

Ward,

Educate me, as a mere Brit.  Is it only a "few" who find the Confederate flag offensive?  Is it only a few who are offended by kitsch historical representations of Indian tribes?  Perhaps I'm mixing in the wrong crowd, that wasn't the impression I got.

These are interesting questions. I think there are probably ways to represent Native American tribes respectfully as logos/tesam nicknames. The issue is why fight what seems to be a losing cause. For example, the Cleveland Indians logo is problematic and will be changed. To me the logo is harmless, but when I put myself in other shoes the logo is a bit harsh not only for the term Indians, but also the goofy depiction. On the other hand, a team like the Chicago Blackhawks specifies a leader and a specific war of a few tribes against the US and some other tribes. I think the logo is noble and the name reflective of history. However, if the involved tribes don't like the logo and/or name it should be changed regardless of what I think is the common perception among sports fans.  It is my perception that at least one of the tribes involved in the Blackhawk War want the logo and name changed. Thats good enough for me. Its especially harsh because the Sauk now live further west (forcibly moved), maybe Oklahoma. So the footprint of their nation is no longer near Chicago. I believe the team owner has recently stated that he will not change the name or logo. I can see his point too, he isn't the US government which waged war against the tribe. I wonder if the issue couldn't be amicably settled by the team owner reaching out to the tribal leaders and see if a deal can be struck. That may sound crass, but in this era of corporate sponsorship, why not? 


The issue will really come full circle if Notre Dame is asked to change their nickname. 


Ciao

What do you have against the Irish, Sean, you racist bastard?
ND fans embrace the leprechaun logo and Fighting Irish team name and ND has the largest fan base in the world.

[Matt_Cohn]

I believe when I refer to the few I refer to the self appointed activist folks who thrive on de/reconstructing and stirring the pot as the "spokesmen" for a larger identity group and who thereby awake their increasingly protected class towards ever new lines in the sand . I guess we now must use Latinx; racial equality has become equity which is materially different. Transgender people now rule the restroom and ladies sporting field in America not the vast majority of people who dont go along with this. Individual rights parsed to the nth degree drive sweeping dictates. Female soccer stars are trundled into a major college football game to kick the ball in a bubble dashing off the field to avoid actual engagement and then introduce our VP at the inauguration when polls show 90 % respond they see it as a stunt/gimmick. Revisionist historians who clearly state that American wealth was created solely on the backs of black slaves irrespective of the traders, farmers, miners, businessmen, teachers and etc. who also built our country.
Probably is hard for a Brit to see when you have your aristocracy and Royals to blame for everything

I think you've lost the plot on whether certain golf course names and logos are offensive or inappropriate.

[Sean_A]

Ward,

Educate me, as a mere Brit.  Is it only a "few" who find the Confederate flag offensive?  Is it only a few who are offended by kitsch historical representations of Indian tribes?  Perhaps I'm mixing in the wrong crowd, that wasn't the impression I got.

These are interesting questions. I think there are probably ways to represent Native American tribes respectfully as logos/tesam nicknames. The issue is why fight what seems to be a losing cause. For example, the Cleveland Indians logo is problematic and will be changed. To me the logo is harmless, but when I put myself in other shoes the logo is a bit harsh not only for the term Indians, but also the goofy depiction. On the other hand, a team like the Chicago Blackhawks specifies a leader and a specific war of a few tribes against the US and some other tribes. I think the logo is noble and the name reflective of history. However, if the involved tribes don't like the logo and/or name it should be changed regardless of what I think is the common perception among sports fans.  It is my perception that at least one of the tribes involved in the Blackhawk War want the logo and name changed. Thats good enough for me. Its especially harsh because the Sauk now live further west (forcibly moved), maybe Oklahoma. So the footprint of their nation is no longer near Chicago. I believe the team owner has recently stated that he will not change the name or logo. I can see his point too, he isn't the US government which waged war against the tribe. I wonder if the issue couldn't be amicably settled by the team owner reaching out to the tribal leaders and see if a deal can be struck. That may sound crass, but in this era of corporate sponsorship, why not? 


The issue will really come full circle if Notre Dame is asked to change their nickname. 


Ciao

What do you have against the Irish, Sean, you racist bastard?
ND fans embrace the leprechaun logo and Fighting Irish team name and ND has the largest fan base in the world.

The screw turns a bit when a generally well liked people are depicted as brawlers. It's a bit like my situation in the UK when people talk about immigrants.

Lucky for me the Irish aren't a race 😎.

Ciao

[ward peyronnin]

Fairplay Matt- Best as a PM response

[Rob Marshall]

Ward,

Educate me, as a mere Brit.  Is it only a "few" who find the Confederate flag offensive?  Is it only a few who are offended by kitsch historical representations of Indian tribes?  Perhaps I'm mixing in the wrong crowd, that wasn't the impression I got.

These are interesting questions. I think there are probably ways to represent Native American tribes respectfully as logos/tesam nicknames. The issue is why fight what seems to be a losing cause. For example, the Cleveland Indians logo is problematic and will be changed. To me the logo is harmless, but when I put myself in other shoes the logo is a bit harsh not only for the term Indians, but also the goofy depiction. On the other hand, a team like the Chicago Blackhawks specifies a leader and a specific war of a few tribes against the US and some other tribes. I think the logo is noble and the name reflective of history. However, if the involved tribes don't like the logo and/or name it should be changed regardless of what I think is the common perception among sports fans.  It is my perception that at least one of the tribes involved in the Blackhawk War want the logo and name changed. Thats good enough for me. Its especially harsh because the Sauk now live further west (forcibly moved), maybe Oklahoma. So the footprint of their nation is no longer near Chicago. I believe the team owner has recently stated that he will not change the name or logo. I can see his point too, he isn't the US government which waged war against the tribe. I wonder if the issue couldn't be amicably settled by the team owner reaching out to the tribal leaders and see if a deal can be struck. That may sound crass, but in this era of corporate sponsorship, why not? 


The issue will really come full circle if Notre Dame is asked to change their nickname. 


Ciao

What do you have against the Irish, Sean, you racist bastard?
ND fans embrace the leprechaun logo and Fighting Irish team name and ND has the largest fan base in the world.

https://www.irishpost.com/news/notre-dame-university-under-pressure-to-retire-football-teams-fighting-irish-leprechaun-logo-188854

[ward peyronnin]

Perhaps I can present a bit of a fable if one will overlook a bit of time bending for events otherwise based on facts:
There once was an esteemed playing field of golf named Shinnecock Hills Golf Club. The club name appears to have been chosen to honor and connect the club to an indigenous people. Even more connection ensued when the club traditionally hired members of the tribe for greenkeeper crews and even course Supt. Not long ago mainly due to the condition of the course and perhaps for other reasons the club released the Shinnecock ostensibly to raise the professionalism of its greenkeeper and course maintanence to a level commensurate to a course hosting US Opens.
The outcome was a large group of friends and relatives of the greenkeeper reacting by finding the club's appropriation of the tribal name offensive. They convinced a large group among their several thousand peers of the injustice of this. A large group of activist called attention to the other regional tribes who heretofore had been a large group too busy running their casinos and golf course to notice. Another large group of activists stirred up a large group of the New York city transients who represent a large group of the city which resulted in media and twitter commentary. A large group of the large group of CEOs comprising the NYC populace refused to sponsor any form of revenue to the club and even placed current and former members on a no advancement/rehire black list. The USGA had no choice but to remove the club from its open rota.
New governance at the club agreed to change the name to the National Golf Club and replace the offensive logo with a striking but innoffensive dimpled globe accenting our countries imprint. Too little too late. The tribe sued the club for compensation for the use of it's retail brand and labor exploitation of decades and won multii millions from a club now frankly on the ropes and whose members had little appetite for funding an appeal or judgement. They put the club on the block whereupon the tribe, with their judgement , was the successful bidder. The tribe then developed  housing parcels for sale to a large group of 15 of the large group of transients who so avidly sought justice.

And that Mark is your bedtime story for today

[Jerry Kluger]

Mark: The analogy concerning the confederate flag is the Nazi swastika.  To some it is viewed as a heritage issue but to most it is viewed as a symbol of an awful time in history.  I cannot claim to be an expert of any kind but I believe that in nearly all cases the use of Native American tribes or symbols in the golf context was not meant to disparage but instead to recognize them. 

[Tim Martin]

I cannot claim to be an expert of any kind but I believe that in nearly all cases the use of Native American tribes or symbols in the golf context was not meant to disparage but instead to recognize them.

Jerry-I agree and would think that one hundred years ago or so when many were named there was no malice intended but in fact just the opposite.

[Tim Leahy]

Ward,

Educate me, as a mere Brit.  Is it only a "few" who find the Confederate flag offensive?  Is it only a few who are offended by kitsch historical representations of Indian tribes?  Perhaps I'm mixing in the wrong crowd, that wasn't the impression I got.

These are interesting questions. I think there are probably ways to represent Native American tribes respectfully as logos/tesam nicknames. The issue is why fight what seems to be a losing cause. For example, the Cleveland Indians logo is problematic and will be changed. To me the logo is harmless, but when I put myself in other shoes the logo is a bit harsh not only for the term Indians, but also the goofy depiction. On the other hand, a team like the Chicago Blackhawks specifies a leader and a specific war of a few tribes against the US and some other tribes. I think the logo is noble and the name reflective of history. However, if the involved tribes don't like the logo and/or name it should be changed regardless of what I think is the common perception among sports fans.  It is my perception that at least one of the tribes involved in the Blackhawk War want the logo and name changed. Thats good enough for me. Its especially harsh because the Sauk now live further west (forcibly moved), maybe Oklahoma. So the footprint of their nation is no longer near Chicago. I believe the team owner has recently stated that he will not change the name or logo. I can see his point too, he isn't the US government which waged war against the tribe. I wonder if the issue couldn't be amicably settled by the team owner reaching out to the tribal leaders and see if a deal can be struck. That may sound crass, but in this era of corporate sponsorship, why not? 


The issue will really come full circle if Notre Dame is asked to change their nickname. 


Ciao

What do you have against the Irish, Sean, you racist bastard?
ND fans embrace the leprechaun logo and Fighting Irish team name and ND has the largest fan base in the world.

https://www.irishpost.com/news/notre-dame-university-under-pressure-to-retire-football-teams-fighting-irish-leprechaun-logo-188854

Sounds like the Irish trying to pick a fight.