do you think these logos are racist?
they probably weren't up until like 2014i remember seeing them in mid-90s encyclopedia as a 6-7 y/o kid and thought those american sports team logos were very neat and for me as east-european they didn't make me think anything deprecating them induns, probably the oppositeapparently pointing to unique identifying traits of any ethnicity in heartful light has become a big no-no, all the brown people are sensitive, disoriented, perpetually helpless, economically, socially, culturally impaired victims forever, always needing helping hand even if they don't know, literal puppies, god forbid any one of them thinks otherwise. isn't that what you yanks call whitewashing?
>>370350i agree with you on thinking that these are the complete opposite of deprecating, especially the one on the left. these logos were never intended to offend and i think its absolute bullshit that some people would get offended by these.
if the owners were racist why would they pick it as the symbol to represent their team? whoever picked it probably thought indians were at least cool enough to be their mascot.
>>370354the made-up term is "culturally-insensitive". how do you argue with "academic expert" who receives fat paycheck, sense of importance and boosted presence in social media and journalistic media for conviction like that?
>>370348It's similar to the use of blackface in cartoons from the 30s and 40s. Not hard to see that nowadays it's a bit insensitive.
no and who cares
The logos themselves are not racist. They're stylized depictions of people and are not inherently disrespectful to those they portray. You might as well argue that any drawing of any person ever is racist.What is racist is how those images are used. They're used to sell or promote a product, and are very often paired with disrespectful content like stereotypical dances and body language, overplayed accents, "redskins" or "indians", and just an overall air of mockery toward the culture.The logos are fine, the branding is not. I think that's where a lot of people tend to get confused.
>>370374>overplayed accents, "redskins" or "indians", and just an overall air of mockery toward the cultureThat it's overplayed is probably the main reason people are annoyed by it, and it's honestly understandable and reasonable.Regarding the logos directly, the one on the right is really cartoonish and annoying while the left one seems respectful and perfectly fine.I would only consider changing the right one.
>>370348Depends on the color of YOUR skin, I suppose.
>>370348No. Is pic related?
>>370348No. People really need to learn what racist means and that it doesn't apply to every single fucking thing.
>>370414kinda, cause irish just like to fight don't they?>>370348the mascot is named chief whaoo, that's like atlanta Asians and the mascot name is emperor ching chong
>>370348The right looks like the Indian version of the "aww shiet" guy that gets posted here. No comment on the left.>>370648Viking is not a race though.
>>370358as a hispanic, I would fucking love this lol
>>370350I think it's that the Natives don't want to see their features monetized by people that slaughtered them and stole their land. First you eradicate my ancestors and history, then use them for a "neat design?" Hell no man, it doesn't work like that.
>>370929You’re blaming the descendants for the alleged crimes of their ancestors. That just doesn’t sit right with me at all and dare I say, racist to judge an entire group by the color of their skin?