Cleveland MLB team chooses new name, the Guardians

adsfan

#164303
May 31, 2008
12,621
3,665
Milwaukee
So we gonna change the name of the state of Indiana? Or Indianapolis?...

It literally means "Land of the Indians"

If the US goes down that path, we will have to change the name of about 25 states, Illinois, Kansas, Arkansas and Iowa are all named after Indian tribes. Both Dakotas, Michigan, Connecticut, Kentucky and Utah are Indian names. Utah wanted to be Deseret, but Congress, who approves all state names, said no.

Ohio is an Iroquois word for beautiful. Texas is a Caddo word for allies. Tennessee (Tanasi in Cherokee) was a village name that was mistakenly applied to an entire area that became a state. I guess they could go back to Franklin or State #16?

You would have to change half of the town names in Wisconsin and Illinois, including Milwaukee and Chicago!

At what point do some people start screaming that we are trying to erase the Native Americans (3 million people) from US history? The Cleveland Indians were named in honor of a player who died young. Now it is a dishonor? If the team won 10 World Series instead of two, would that be better?

The Indians used to be the Naps at one time. Would that be associated (incorrectly) with Napoleon Bonaparte?

There is no end to this madness! Somebody is offended by everything. That offends me.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Clinton Comets EHL

adsfan

#164303
May 31, 2008
12,621
3,665
Milwaukee
Nice video, unoffensive name, but I don't like the double-G baseball logo.

I looked at the video and the logo. It is a G on one side of a baseball and another G on the other side of the baseball. It is kind of like the Green Bay Packers helmet logo, which is also not a double G.

shopping
 

oknazevad

Registered User
Dec 12, 2018
470
329
If the US goes down that path, we will have to change the name of about 25 states, Illinois, Kansas, Arkansas and Iowa are all named after Indian tribes. Both Dakotas, Michigan, Connecticut, Kentucky and Utah are Indian names. Utah wanted to be Deseret, but Congress, who approves all state names, said no.

Ohio is an Iroquois word for beautiful. Texas is a Caddo word for allies. Tennessee (Tanasi in Cherokee) was a village name that was mistakenly applied to an entire area that became a state. I guess they could go back to Franklin or State #16?

You would have to change half of the town names in Wisconsin and Illinois, including Milwaukee and Chicago!

At what point do some people start screaming that we are trying to erase the Native Americans (3 million people) from US history? The Cleveland Indians were named in honor of a player who died young. Now it is a dishonor? If the team won 10 World Series instead of two, would that be better?

The Indians used to be the Naps at one time. Would that be associated (incorrectly) with Napoleon Bonaparte?

There is no end to this madness! Somebody is offended by everything. That offends me.
Firstly, "Indians" is and has always been a misnomer for the indigenous peoples of the Americas. Not only was it foisted on them by an outsider, but it is used collectively in a way that states a level of homogeneity and uniformity that does not and has never existed. It's a junk term in the first place. The same is not true of actual native-derived terms of local origin. So there's false equivalency for you.

Secondly, the whole "honoring Louis Sockalexis" thing is long debunked. He never played for the current team in any fashion. He played for the Spiders. And the team was mocked for having him by being called the Indians. Over a decade and a half later, the name was foisted upon the current team by sportswriters when they didn't really want it. Do some more research, the info is very much out there.

And finally, the entirety of your last sentence is straight up slippery-slope fallacy. Therefore your entire "argument" can be dismissed out of hand as logically fallacious and useless.

Personally, I find it hilarious that the same people who said "who cares, it's just a name" are the same ones having fits about the name being changed. The hypocrisy is laughable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Big McLargehuge

Albatros

Registered User
Aug 19, 2017
12,274
7,723
Ostsee
If the US goes down that path, we will have to change the name of about 25 states, Illinois, Kansas, Arkansas and Iowa are all named after Indian tribes. Both Dakotas, Michigan, Connecticut, Kentucky and Utah are Indian names. Utah wanted to be Deseret, but Congress, who approves all state names, said no.

The biggest problem with those names is that the fewest of them resemble their supposed meaning as can be demonstrated below:

Ohio is an Iroquois word for beautiful.

False. It's a European, originally French misnomer probably derived from a Seneca word for a large creek.

Texas is a Caddo word for allies.

The word for friendly tribes in Caddo is ''táyshaʔ" which was then bastardized by the Spanish into Texas.

Tennessee (Tanasi in Cherokee) was a village name that was mistakenly applied to an entire area that became a state. I guess they could go back to Franklin or State #16?

Or write it ᏔᎾᏏ as it should be written?

You would have to change half of the town names in Wisconsin and Illinois, including Milwaukee and Chicago!

Indeed, Millioke and Shikaakwa would already be a step in the right direction. We've moved away from Bombay and Calcutta in favor of Mumbai and Kolkata, so why not Milwaukee and Chicago.

At what point do some people start screaming that we are trying to erase the Native Americans (3 million people) from US history?

Instead of erasing anything why not let the Native Americans decide by themselves how their culture should be presented? If you have a native name, then let the natives spell it. If you have a native baseball team identity, then let the natives define how that looks like.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Big McLargehuge

adsfan

#164303
May 31, 2008
12,621
3,665
Milwaukee
Firstly, "Indians" is and has always been a misnomer for the indigenous peoples of the Americas. Not only was it foisted on them by an outsider, but it is used collectively in a way that states a level of homogeneity and uniformity that does not and has never existed. It's a junk term in the first place. The same is not true of actual native-derived terms of local origin. So there's false equivalency for you.

Secondly, the whole "honoring Louis Sockalexis" thing is long debunked. He never played for the current team in any fashion. He played for the Spiders. And the team was mocked for having him by being called the Indians. Over a decade and a half later, the name was foisted upon the current team by sportswriters when they didn't really want it. Do some more research, the info is very much out there.

And finally, the entirety of your last sentence is straight up slippery-slope fallacy. Therefore your entire "argument" can be dismissed out of hand as logically fallacious and useless.

Personally, I find it hilarious that the same people who said "who cares, it's just a name" are the same ones having fits about the name being changed. The hypocrisy is laughable.


The Indians that I know generally call themselves "The People", or they use their tribal names, like Ojibwa or Ho-Chunk and not the names that the US government, AKA "the white man" gave to them (Chippewa or Winnebago). The ones that I have gotten to know personally in Wisconsin seem to prefer The People to Native Americans.

If you have ever been on a reservation, they generally look like WWII concentration camps. I would rather die than have to live on a "res". They are a national disgrace and improvement is painfully slow.

I am of course, offended by your post. :nod:
 

adsfan

#164303
May 31, 2008
12,621
3,665
Milwaukee
The biggest problem with those names is that the fewest of them resemble their supposed meaning as can be demonstrated below:



False. It's a European, originally French misnomer probably derived from a Seneca word for a large creek.



The word for friendly tribes in Caddo is ''táyshaʔ" which was then bastardized by the Spanish into Texas.



Or write it ᏔᎾᏏ as it should be written?



Indeed, Millioke and Shikaakwa would already be a step in the right direction. We've moved away from Bombay and Calcutta in favor of Mumbai and Kolkata, so why not Milwaukee and Chicago.



Instead of erasing anything why not let the Native Americans decide by themselves how their culture should be presented? If you have a native name, then let the natives spell it. If you have a native baseball team identity, then let the natives define how that looks like.

I was born and raised in Ohio and studied Ohio history in school, so I will disagree with that part.

The Ohio River is a 1000 feet wide at Cincinnati, so that is definitely "a large creek".

Ohio also has small waterfalls, lakes and part of one Great Lake.

The Adena and Hopewell cultures could have named the land after lots of water features.

Maybe we should use early Woodland names since they were in the Midwest 3000 years ago?

Miamisburg Mound | OHIO'S HISTORY

miamisburg-mound-2.jpg
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
The slippery slope argument about state names and city names is dumb. Because they're proper nouns in another language.

It is offensive to use the term "Indians," because that's not what they call themselves. They didn't consider all members of tribes native to this continent "Indians," it's only because Columbus was an idiot, and subjugation and genocide, that members of tribes are called "Indians." (And "Native Americans" isn't how they identify either. the Iroquois are Iroquios, the Lakota are Lakota, etc.)

A cartoon caricature that dehumanizes actual people for the purpose of sports entertainment isn't acceptable. If you're changing that, you might as well change all the other things you got wrong way back when, too.


There's nothing cartoony about naming states and cities what the people who lived there called them. If anything gets renamed, we should be renaming Columbus.
 

Reaser

Registered User
May 19, 2021
842
1,535
Obviously aware of the national conversation but always interesting to me that locally (state), that the Spokane Tribe of Indians, on the Spokane Indian Reservation, has a town called Wellpinit, which has their High School, with their chosen mascot as the Redskins. The Wellpinit Redskins.

Was an interesting time when non-Spokane Tribe of Indians members, that obviously didn't and don't live on the Spokane Indian Reservation and had no connection to the Spokane Tribe of Indians were saying that: "Indians is offensive because that's not what they call themselves"

... meanwhile, that's literally how they refer to themselves on their website as well as when interviewed in newspapers and they have their own logo, also.

And obviously the same non-Spokane Tribe of Indians members, with zero connection to the area were freaking out saying: "Redskins is racist!"

... meanwhile, the people that actually live on the Spokane Indian Reservation wanted to keep the name and told the school board that, which voted to keep the name for THEIR high school and said the name was a sense of pride and that it would be more demeaning if they were forced to change it.

Was an interesting time. Now over a half-decade later non-Spokane Tribe of Indians are still trying to force them to change their name and speak for them but the proud Spokane Tribe of Indians keeps sticking with Redskins for THEIR high school team's name.
 
Last edited:

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->