Leprechauns aren't depictions of real people though.

 

I'd give this one up. As I said, I'm 100% Irish and obviously the leprechaun isn't offensive. But it's hard to say the same rationale cannot be applied to Fighting Irish as would Fighting Sioux, etc.

 

You can give up on it; don't care if you're 200% Irish either.  That's the point: how is the Fighting Irish, using a leprechaun ready to mix it up not offensive and the Fighting Sioux with a dude in an Indian outfit is?

 

Many American Indians weren't offended by Chief Wahoo either.

But isn't the Fighting Irish mascot a self identifier in the way the Indians mascot is not?  That's how the NCAA interprets it.  The Fighting Irish name came from the fans (students) themselves many of whom are Irish Catholics.  It's no different than when I call my family dagos. 

 

If Irish Americans take offense, then the NCAA will likely rule in favor of Notre Dame changing it.

 

Of course the Irish won't take offense, they're supposed to be a bunch of brawling drunks, much like most Native Americans didn't take offense with Chief Wahoo.

 

Calling a group a name is not the same as a caricature.

 

Btw, is everyone on here happy to see Chief Wahoo gone a Native American?  Why don't these same folks pressure Notre Dame and any other team using any stereotype caricature to remove same?

 

 

It’s true that four of the six religious who founded Notre Dame in 1842 with French priest Edward Sorin were Irish; that nearly all of Fr. Sorin’s successors claim Irish descent; and that the student body has always had a strong Irish presence.

 

The Fighting Irish nickname was first coined for the Irish immigrant soldiers who fought for the Union during the Civil War in what became called the Irish Brigade, including three regiments from New York. Their valor was later memorialized in the poetry of Joyce Kilmer. That’s also the Irish way: Ireland’s poetry is often better than its fighting, turning defeat into eternal glory. The University has a valid claim to the nickname because the brigade’s beloved chaplain was Rev. William Corby, C.S.C., who later became the third president of Notre Dame.

 

https://www.nd.edu/features/whats-in-a-name/

 

But again, if Irish are offended by an Irish Catholic University using the logo then they should ask the NCAA to rescind it.

 

 

But isn't the Fighting Irish mascot a self identifier in the way the Indians mascot is not?  That's how the NCAA interprets it.  The Fighting Irish name came from the fans (students) themselves many of whom are Irish Catholics.  It's no different than when I call my family dagos. 

 

If Irish Americans take offense, then the NCAA will likely rule in favor of Notre Dame changing it.

 

Why is it limited to only Irish Americans taking offense?  The Fighting Irish is supposed to be a fun stereotype 'cause there's nothing better than violence and alcoholism, then the Paddy Wagon can come by and scoop 'em all up.

 

Are you a Native American that pressured the Cleveland Indians to get rid of Chief Wahoo?  You're an Italian-American offended by Chief Wahoo...hmm. 

^ When did I say that I was offended by Chief Wahoo?  I'll wait.

^ When did I say that I was offended by Chief Wahoo?  I'll wait.

 

My bad I guess, just when you stated you wouldn't buy merchandise with Chief Wahoo on it 'cause you're uncomfortable...usually is a sign someone doesn't like the logo, but not in your case I guess, so I stand corrected.

There are legitimate arguments that the Indians name was originally meant in admiration, as with Notre Dame's.  But there are no arguments that the people choosing the Indians name were pretty much talking about themselves.  And if we're going to hold an American Oppression Olympics (let's not), the Irish could field a team but would not win a lot of medals.  There are structural-level problems in comparing Notre Dame with Chief Wahoo.  The similarities are superficial.

It’s true that four of the six religious who founded Notre Dame in 1842 with French priest Edward Sorin were Irish; that nearly all of Fr. Sorin’s successors claim Irish descent; and that the student body has always had a strong Irish presence.

 

The Fighting Irish nickname was first coined for the Irish immigrant soldiers who fought for the Union during the Civil War in what became called the Irish Brigade, including three regiments from New York. Their valor was later memorialized in the poetry of Joyce Kilmer. That’s also the Irish way: Ireland’s poetry is often better than its fighting, turning defeat into eternal glory. The University has a valid claim to the nickname because the brigade’s beloved chaplain was Rev. William Corby, C.S.C., who later became the third president of Notre Dame.

 

https://www.nd.edu/features/whats-in-a-name/

 

But again, if Irish are offended by an Irish Catholic University using the logo then they should ask the NCAA to rescind it.

 

That's all good and nice but the Chief Wahoo has been around for 70 years; why is it an issue now?  Besides the name Fighting Irish was used as nickname for a military unit, easily could have applied to the Fighting Jews, Italians, or Polish if they were there.

 

The nickname carries negative connotations today.

 

Btw, Kilmer was a member of NY's 69th Regiment (the Fighting 69th) with Father Duffy of Times Square's Duffy Square.  Wonder if someone will come up with a reason to take his statue down along with fellow Irishman George Cohan's? I mean the Irish are supposed to be notorious racists after all and Cohan wrote all those WWI patriotic songs.

^ When did I say that I was offended by Chief Wahoo?  I'll wait.

 

My bad I guess, just when you stated you wouldn't buy merchandise with Chief Wahoo on it 'cause you're uncomfortable...usually is a sign someone doesn't like the logo, but not in your case I guess, so I stand corrected.

 

Doesn't like is not the same as offended by.  So continue to stand corrected. 

It’s true that four of the six religious who founded Notre Dame in 1842 with French priest Edward Sorin were Irish; that nearly all of Fr. Sorin’s successors claim Irish descent; and that the student body has always had a strong Irish presence.

 

The Fighting Irish nickname was first coined for the Irish immigrant soldiers who fought for the Union during the Civil War in what became called the Irish Brigade, including three regiments from New York. Their valor was later memorialized in the poetry of Joyce Kilmer. That’s also the Irish way: Ireland’s poetry is often better than its fighting, turning defeat into eternal glory. The University has a valid claim to the nickname because the brigade’s beloved chaplain was Rev. William Corby, C.S.C., who later became the third president of Notre Dame.

 

https://www.nd.edu/features/whats-in-a-name/

 

But again, if Irish are offended by an Irish Catholic University using the logo then they should ask the NCAA to rescind it.

 

That's all good and nice but the Chief Wahoo has been around for 70 years; why is it an issue now?  Besides the name Fighting Irish was used as nickname for a military unit, easily could have applied to the Fighting Jews, Italians, or Polish if they were there.

 

The nickname carries negative connotations today.

 

Btw, Kilmer was a member of NY's 69th Regiment (the Fighting 69th) with Father Duffy of Times Square's Duffy Square.  Wonder if someone will come up with a reason to take his statue down along with fellow Irishman George Cohan's? I mean the Irish are supposed to be notorious racists after all and Cohan wrote all those WWI patriotic songs.

 

The whole idea of who controls the name and who named them seems lost on you. 

There are legitimate arguments that the Indians name was originally meant in admiration, as with Notre Dame's.  But there are no arguments that the people choosing the Indians name were pretty much talking about themselves.  And if we're going to hold an American Oppression Olympics (let's not), the Irish could field a team but would not win a lot of medals.  There are structural-level problems in comparing Notre Dame with Chief Wahoo.  The similarities are superficial.

 

But that's where we're at in 2018: American Oppression Olympics. 

It’s true that four of the six religious who founded Notre Dame in 1842 with French priest Edward Sorin were Irish; that nearly all of Fr. Sorin’s successors claim Irish descent; and that the student body has always had a strong Irish presence.

 

The Fighting Irish nickname was first coined for the Irish immigrant soldiers who fought for the Union during the Civil War in what became called the Irish Brigade, including three regiments from New York. Their valor was later memorialized in the poetry of Joyce Kilmer. That’s also the Irish way: Ireland’s poetry is often better than its fighting, turning defeat into eternal glory. The University has a valid claim to the nickname because the brigade’s beloved chaplain was Rev. William Corby, C.S.C., who later became the third president of Notre Dame.

 

https://www.nd.edu/features/whats-in-a-name/

 

But again, if Irish are offended by an Irish Catholic University using the logo then they should ask the NCAA to rescind it.

 

That's all good and nice but the Chief Wahoo has been around for 70 years; why is it an issue now?  Besides the name Fighting Irish was used as nickname for a military unit, easily could have applied to the Fighting Jews, Italians, or Polish if they were there.

 

The nickname carries negative connotations today.

 

Btw, Kilmer was a member of NY's 69th Regiment (the Fighting 69th) with Father Duffy of Times Square's Duffy Square.  Wonder if someone will come up with a reason to take his statue down along with fellow Irishman George Cohan's? I mean the Irish are supposed to be notorious racists after all and Cohan wrote all those WWI patriotic songs.

 

The whole idea of who controls the name and who named them seems lost on you.

 

Don't care.  It's a negative stereotype.  MLB or NCAA, it's a negative stereotype in 2018. 

 

That's my opinion.  Deal with it or not but I'll get kicked out of here for continuing this topic-discussion.  Sorry but that's true as well in this ''open forum''. 

 

Thanks for the back-n-forth though.  It's all good.

Great.  Take it up with Notre Dame and the NCAA. 

There are legitimate arguments that the Indians name was originally meant in admiration, as with Notre Dame's.  But there are no arguments that the people choosing the Indians name were pretty much talking about themselves.  And if we're going to hold an American Oppression Olympics (let's not), the Irish could field a team but would not win a lot of medals.  There are structural-level problems in comparing Notre Dame with Chief Wahoo.  The similarities are superficial.

 

But that's where we're at in 2018: American Oppression Olympics. 

 

Maybe kinda.  But there's nuance to it, there's multiple events.  It's not the 2 weeks of televised arm wrestling you're making it out to be.

^ When did I say that I was offended by Chief Wahoo?  I'll wait.

 

My bad I guess, just when you stated you wouldn't buy merchandise with Chief Wahoo on it 'cause you're uncomfortable...usually is a sign someone doesn't like the logo, but not in your case I guess, so I stand corrected.

 

Doesn't like is not the same as offended by.  So continue to stand corrected.

 

Btw, you didn't say you didn't like Chief Wahoo; you think its weird and inappropriate.  Inappropriate carries a connotation of offensive. There's a difference. 

Yep.  Uncomfortable and offended by are different.  Continue standing.

 

Doesn't like was your phrasing.

This Notre Dame thing is apples to oranges. With the ND thing, you have an Irish Catholic School that embraces the moniker as a sense of pride. That was never the case with Native Americans and Chief Wahoo. Now personally, I don't find the Chief offensive and just see him as a cartoon character but still, at the end of the day, it was not like the Chief was created by Native Americans, so the whole Notre Dame comparison does not really work well.

 

The Chief has been around 70 years, how many logos have lasted that long? many teams have updated their logo through the times and use different logos today than what they used even 20 years ago. Change happens, change is not always bad. If the Chief was not a polarizing figure, it would have been phased out years ago without more than a collective yawn.  And the beauty of this is that those who still are in love with the Chief can still get their Chief Wahoo gear and wear it to the park.

The length of time thing confuses me. We, as a culture, did lots of very questionable things for longer periods of time. That's hardly an argument against making change.

 

It's not that it suddenly became an issue, it's that it took until now for people to speak up against it since it's an offensive caricature of a race of people who were oppressed and treated poorly from the moment Europeans got here. Using their image, or any version of it, without their blessing is questionable and lacking class. A change here is good.

Chief Wahoo to be discontinued in 2019.  I personally think the block C looks cooler anyway.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/tribe/index.ssf/2018/01/cleveland_indians_58.html#incart_2box

 

Great, now we'll have two MLB teams in Ohio with red "C" logos. That will certainly help get the rest of the country to stop thinking Ohio is generic.

Ohio has two MLB teams?

Okay maybe I heard it wrong, but I thought I just heard "there will be no depictions of Chief Wahoo in the stadium." Does that mean they're going to go so far as to change historical photographs? Because that would be kind of weird. 

I don’t understand why this is such a life crisis topic for the pro wahoo crowd. I’m as huge as an Indians fan as anyone. Since a little boy I lived and died by the team and I use to wear wahoo a lot. About ten years ago, I stopped wearing  wahoo as I branched  out and was traveling to other cities. Folks weren’t impressed. I’m sure the generic C’s will provide a lot less scrutiny and that’s OK. I still love the Indians very much, I don’t root for a logo, I root for a team that represents the city I live in.

Funny how people not of XYZ ethnic origin take such strong views that a caricature of an XYZ person be retained. Why does it matter so much if we just get rid of this silly cartoon? Maybe it's just a nice, thoughtful thing to get rid of it. For the record, I have some Indians jackets and hats with Chief Wahoo on it. But I'm happy to see him go. It's time to just move on as a society.

Ohio has two MLB teams?

 

Makes up for the total absence of professional football.

The length of time thing confuses me. We, as a culture, did lots of very questionable things for longer periods of time. That's hardly an argument against making change.

 

It's not that it suddenly became an issue, it's that it took until now for people to speak up against it since it's an offensive caricature of a race of people who were oppressed and treated poorly from the moment Europeans got here. Using their image, or any version of it, without their blessing is questionable and lacking class. A change here is good.

 

What do you mean by length of time thing? this has been going on since the early 90s. People were protesting the Tribe and Atlanta Braves when they played in the World Series together. 

 

In the early 90s there were a bunch of colleges that changed their nicknames for the same reason. Remember when Miami was Redskin country. St. Johns had the Redmen, and Marquette was the Warriors (which I think they should have kept the name and just changed the mascot).  This issue is nothing new.

This Notre Dame thing is apples to oranges. With the ND thing, you have an Irish Catholic School that embraces the moniker as a sense of pride. That was never the case with Native Americans and Chief Wahoo. Now personally, I don't find the Chief offensive and just see him as a cartoon character but still, at the end of the day, it was not like the Chief was created by Native Americans, so the whole Notre Dame comparison does not really work well.

 

The Chief has been around 70 years, how many logos have lasted that long? many teams have updated their logo through the times and use different logos today than what they used even 20 years ago. Change happens, change is not always bad. If the Chief was not a polarizing figure, it would have been phased out years ago without more than a collective yawn.  And the beauty of this is that those who still are in love with the Chief can still get their Chief Wahoo gear and wear it to the park.

 

I don't find the Chief offensive either and don't care either way if he stays or goes.  The Cleveland ''C'' is generic and people out of town think it's Cincinnati or Chicago often times. 

 

The name Cleveland Indians needs to go as well as John Adams and his Indian War Drum beating in the bleachers.  Logo, team name, and drum, all need to go.

 

The Chief was updated since his inception 70 years ago.  The current version has a happy Indian....the original, not so much.

 

 

^ Personally, I like the script I over the block C

^ Personally, I like the script I over the block C

 

I don't really dislike the block C but maybe people need to get used to it, especially around the country.  But wearing my block C hat out of town does result in Chicago or Cincinnati questions, not Cleveland.  It's generic since Cincinnati has a C and Chicago Cubs has a C.

The length of time thing confuses me. We, as a culture, did lots of very questionable things for longer periods of time. That's hardly an argument against making change.

 

It's not that it suddenly became an issue, it's that it took until now for people to speak up against it since it's an offensive caricature of a race of people who were oppressed and treated poorly from the moment Europeans got here. Using their image, or any version of it, without their blessing is questionable and lacking class. A change here is good.

 

What do you mean by length of time thing? this has been going on since the early 90s. People were protesting the Tribe and Atlanta Braves when they played in the World Series together. 

 

In the early 90s there were a bunch of colleges that changed their nicknames for the same reason. Remember when Miami was Redskin country. St. Johns had the Redmen, and Marquette was the Warriors (which I think they should have kept the name and just changed the mascot).  This issue is nothing new.

 

Read the comment a couple above mine. People saying, "it has been fine for 70 years, why is it a problem now?"

 

I'm saying that's a dumb argument that has no validity.

The length of time thing confuses me. We, as a culture, did lots of very questionable things for longer periods of time. That's hardly an argument against making change.

 

It's not that it suddenly became an issue, it's that it took until now for people to speak up against it since it's an offensive caricature of a race of people who were oppressed and treated poorly from the moment Europeans got here. Using their image, or any version of it, without their blessing is questionable and lacking class. A change here is good.

 

What do you mean by length of time thing? this has been going on since the early 90s. People were protesting the Tribe and Atlanta Braves when they played in the World Series together. 

 

In the early 90s there were a bunch of colleges that changed their nicknames for the same reason. Remember when Miami was Redskin country. St. Johns had the Redmen, and Marquette was the Warriors (which I think they should have kept the name and just changed the mascot).  This issue is nothing new.

 

Read the comment a couple above mine. People saying, "it has been fine for 70 years, why is it a problem now?"

 

I'm saying that's a dumb argument that has no validity.

 

I'd ask them to explain why it was OK for 70 years, and if it was, really.

If you told me that changing the logo would somehow help Native Americans not be the lowest performing demographic (cite) in high school I would totally be on board.

 

Or is it going to fix rampant unemployment or poverty on reservations? (cite)

 

Or does this change serve to make a bunch of smug suburban marshmallow eaters feel more comfortable? Make them feel like they are making a difference? Change the team name to the Parma Polacks and have a perogi race in the 6th inning for all I care,

It's not going to change anything.

 

If you told me that changing the logo would somehow help Native Americans not be the lowest performing demographic (cite) in high school I would totally be on board.

 

Or is it going to fix rampant unemployment or poverty on reservations? (cite)

 

Or does this change serve to make a bunch of smug suburban marshmallow eaters feel more comfortable? Make them feel like they are making a difference? Change the team name to the Parma Polacks and have a perogi race in the 6th inning for all I care,

It's not going to change anything.

 

 

The line about the Polacks has been my line all along.  People comfortable with their heritage don't seek out slurs.  Look at the Irish view of Notre Dame, the Boston Celtics, and even Lucky Charms.

 

This is one symptom of an overall trend that's disturbing, the victim mentality.  People are not only thin skinned, they take pride in it and seek out ways to be on "behalf" of others who often enough don't care.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-americans-arent-offended-by-redskins-name/2016/05/18/3ea11cfa-161a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html?utm_term=.61a4e06e534f

 

Now I know the Post is a biased right wing source in cahoots with Breitbart, but still.

 

This is a highly visible manifestation of this cultural disease easy to push back against.

The length of time thing confuses me. We, as a culture, did lots of very questionable things for longer periods of time. That's hardly an argument against making change.

 

It's not that it suddenly became an issue, it's that it took until now for people to speak up against it since it's an offensive caricature of a race of people who were oppressed and treated poorly from the moment Europeans got here. Using their image, or any version of it, without their blessing is questionable and lacking class. A change here is good.

 

What do you mean by length of time thing? this has been going on since the early 90s. People were protesting the Tribe and Atlanta Braves when they played in the World Series together. 

 

In the early 90s there were a bunch of colleges that changed their nicknames for the same reason. Remember when Miami was Redskin country. St. Johns had the Redmen, and Marquette was the Warriors (which I think they should have kept the name and just changed the mascot).  This issue is nothing new.

 

It seemed to start with the 1995 World Series when some "activists" saw an opportunity for attention.

 

The movie "Major League" garnered zero protest.

The length of time thing confuses me. We, as a culture, did lots of very questionable things for longer periods of time. That's hardly an argument against making change.

 

It's not that it suddenly became an issue, it's that it took until now for people to speak up against it since it's an offensive caricature of a race of people who were oppressed and treated poorly from the moment Europeans got here. Using their image, or any version of it, without their blessing is questionable and lacking class. A change here is good.

 

What do you mean by length of time thing? this has been going on since the early 90s. People were protesting the Tribe and Atlanta Braves when they played in the World Series together. 

 

In the early 90s there were a bunch of colleges that changed their nicknames for the same reason. Remember when Miami was Redskin country. St. Johns had the Redmen, and Marquette was the Warriors (which I think they should have kept the name and just changed the mascot).  This issue is nothing new.

 

It seemed to start with the 1995 World Series when some "activists" saw an opportunity for attention.

 

The movie "Major League" garnered zero protest.

 

This is an issue going back at least 50 years; teams have been changing their names and mascots and Indian-related themes for that long. It's not new, and it's not going away.

 

The question I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer for - why are Indians the subject of so many mascots and caricatures? If teams were equally engaging of racist caricatures, then why don't we have more "Cleveland Niggers" or "Cleveland Honkies", "Cleveland Heebs" or "Cleveland Chinks"? Why were Native Americans singled out - all of over the US - to be the subject of this? Many people seem to think that at one time is was just fine to have racist mascots because "no one cared", but that really can't be the case if we don't have nearly as many teams representing present-day Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, or others. What is it about Native Americans that lends itself to this? Why was this ever acceptable?

The length of time thing confuses me. We, as a culture, did lots of very questionable things for longer periods of time. That's hardly an argument against making change.

 

It's not that it suddenly became an issue, it's that it took until now for people to speak up against it since it's an offensive caricature of a race of people who were oppressed and treated poorly from the moment Europeans got here. Using their image, or any version of it, without their blessing is questionable and lacking class. A change here is good.

 

What do you mean by length of time thing? this has been going on since the early 90s. People were protesting the Tribe and Atlanta Braves when they played in the World Series together. 

 

In the early 90s there were a bunch of colleges that changed their nicknames for the same reason. Remember when Miami was Redskin country. St. Johns had the Redmen, and Marquette was the Warriors (which I think they should have kept the name and just changed the mascot).  This issue is nothing new.

 

It seemed to start with the 1995 World Series when some "activists" saw an opportunity for attention.

 

The movie "Major League" garnered zero protest.

 

Would you wear the wahoo logo on an Indian reservation? I wouldn't. That was my point of realization when driving cross country in 2015, that I didn't want to wear anything that could be perceived as disrespectful.

 

 

The length of time thing confuses me. We, as a culture, did lots of very questionable things for longer periods of time. That's hardly an argument against making change.

 

It's not that it suddenly became an issue, it's that it took until now for people to speak up against it since it's an offensive caricature of a race of people who were oppressed and treated poorly from the moment Europeans got here. Using their image, or any version of it, without their blessing is questionable and lacking class. A change here is good.

 

What do you mean by length of time thing? this has been going on since the early 90s. People were protesting the Tribe and Atlanta Braves when they played in the World Series together. 

 

In the early 90s there were a bunch of colleges that changed their nicknames for the same reason. Remember when Miami was Redskin country. St. Johns had the Redmen, and Marquette was the Warriors (which I think they should have kept the name and just changed the mascot).  This issue is nothing new.

 

It seemed to start with the 1995 World Series when some "activists" saw an opportunity for attention.

 

The movie "Major League" garnered zero protest.

 

This is an issue going back at least 50 years; teams have been changing their names and mascots and Indian-related themes for that long. It's not new, and it's not going away.

 

The question I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer for - why are Indians the subject of so many mascots and caricatures? If teams were equally engaging of racist caricatures, then why don't we have more "Cleveland Niggers" or "Cleveland Honkies", "Cleveland Heebs" or "Cleveland Chinks"? Why were Native Americans singled out - all of over the US - to be the subject of this? Many people seem to think that at one time is was just fine to have racist mascots because "no one cared", but that really can't be the case if we don't have nearly as many teams representing present-day Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, or others. What is it about Native Americans that lends itself to this? Why was this ever acceptable?

 

Why are you trying to be so judgmental of people 75 years ago?

 

If I had a choice between Chief Wahoo or many Millenials current attitude of second guessing WWII as a mistake because America should not have "taken care of it's own first", I'd take Chief Wahoo. Rather having living Jews vs. a patch that can be removed. Nothing has really changed, it's a bit if an illusion on your part. People will ask the same questions of this generation 75 years from now.

 

Plenty of current examples: How about Flat Earth idiots? Or anti-vax morons? Or just "taking care of our own" as an excuse to ignore everything currently going on in the world? Just, ugh. Let it be.

Holy false equivalent strawman.  Wow.

Can we stop blaming millenials for everything. I get it, avocado toast is expensive... so was the Mortgage Crisis - we caused one of the two.

 

Additionally, my @cle_news poll is winding down...

 

"Should the Indians have removed Chief Wahoo"

 

136 votes - Yes (31%)

 

303 votes - No (69%) .... Nice.

^ No, we cannot stop blaming Millennials for everything because us Gen Xers were blamed for everything when we were younger by the boomers. The boomers were blamed for everything by the Greatest Generation (although they did have a point) You will do the same to the next generation. Get used to it, it is a right of passage.

Except we're blamed for the problems you made soooo, maybe own up to your own issues first instead of blaming people for things that happened when they weren't even adults?

^ No, we cannot stop blaming Millennials for everything because us Gen Xers were blamed for everything when we were younger by the boomers. The boomers were blamed for everything by the Greatest Generation (although they did have a point) You will do the same to the next generation. Get used to it, it is a right of passage.

 

I'm all for hazing, but I'd rather y'all just give me a wedgie, shove me in a locker, or sell me a non-existent elevator pass. Passing blame was alright in the 60's, 90's, and early 2000's because we weren't hemorrhaging cash as a country. 

Except we're blamed for the problems you made soooo, maybe own up to your own issues first instead of blaming people for things that happened when they weren't even adults?

 

That is not how it works. You have to take it, accept it, then pass it down to the next generation. THen they will be bitter, but there reward is that they can then shit on the generation after that. Its the circle of life.

Plus everyone knows that the Boomers are the absolute worst ever. 

^Nonetheless, back to Indians talk.

I mean Gen Z is eating Tide Pods...so....

Getting back on topic, I think the one thing that irritates those who don't have an issue is that it is just a symbol and that symbols do not make up who they are. They see a symbol for what it is, just a logo, nothing more nothing less.

 

It seems as if the left places extra value on symbols and feels they represent more than they actually do.

Really??? The left places extra value on the symbol.  Who are the one crying about "muhhhh heritage"?  That seems to place some extra value on the symbol.

That is more nostalgia whereas it seems the left gets more personally wrapped up in symbols.

Getting back on topic, I think the one thing that irritates those who don't have an issue is that it is just a symbol and that symbols do not make up who they are. They see a symbol for what it is, just a logo, nothing more nothing less.

 

It seems as if the left places extra value on symbols and feels they represent more than they actually do.

 

If that were true, then why did folks on the right get so upset by Black athletes kneeling during the national anthem.

 

Answer: they felt that act of kneeling represented more than it actually did.

^^ Valuing a symbol as part of "your tradition" is placing a lot of value on something.  I don't know why this is a left and right thing anyway.