Welcome Guest!
Create an Account
login email:
password:
site searchwhere to watchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp
Message Board

BobcatAttack.com Message Board
General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events
Topic:  RE: No More Cleveland Indians

Topic:  RE: No More Cleveland Indians
Author
Message
ohiocatfan1
General User

Member Since: 9/6/2016
Post Count: 164

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: No More Cleveland Indians
   Posted: 2/8/2021 3:00:37 PM 
BillyTheCat wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
This world has lost its collective mind. Offended by a team name? Give me a break.


Another very valid approach to your opinion here is that you're very correct that team names don't matter a ton. And that that applies to both parties here.

So if you think it's absurd that a team name offends somebody, your own outrage about the change is equally absurd. Because it's a team name, which by your own logic just isn't that big of a deal.

From my perspective, the Indians name doesn't offend me personally. But I'm happy to take Native Americans at their word that they're offended, and have no problem with a name change. Because as you point out, it's just a team name.

Since it's not, in your mind, worth offense and doesn't matter a ton, there's a very easy high road that involves changing it because it does clearly offend some people.

It's very weird to me that your stance here is outrage that this meaningless thing could cause outrage. You're outraged, right? It's either meaningless or it's not. You seem to want it to be meaningless to the people it offends, while still insisting it carries enough meaning that changing it makes you angry.

Feels pretty hypocritical, but maybe I'm missing something.


You're wrong I'm not offended by the name change and never said I was. I just think changing the name is stupid.


Sure you do, being of a non-minority group what would you possibly understand about being offended?


Why do you assume I'm not a member of a minority group?



Your total lack of empathy, and if you are in a minority class, you clearly represent the 2% that does not feel the struggle today. Which in itself is sad.


If the struggle you refer to is having the Cleveland baseball franchise named the "Indians" that is sad.

Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 6,947

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: No More Cleveland Indians
   Posted: 2/8/2021 3:37:21 PM 
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
This world has lost its collective mind. Offended by a team name? Give me a break.


Another very valid approach to your opinion here is that you're very correct that team names don't matter a ton. And that that applies to both parties here.

So if you think it's absurd that a team name offends somebody, your own outrage about the change is equally absurd. Because it's a team name, which by your own logic just isn't that big of a deal.

From my perspective, the Indians name doesn't offend me personally. But I'm happy to take Native Americans at their word that they're offended, and have no problem with a name change. Because as you point out, it's just a team name.

Since it's not, in your mind, worth offense and doesn't matter a ton, there's a very easy high road that involves changing it because it does clearly offend some people.

It's very weird to me that your stance here is outrage that this meaningless thing could cause outrage. You're outraged, right? It's either meaningless or it's not. You seem to want it to be meaningless to the people it offends, while still insisting it carries enough meaning that changing it makes you angry.

Feels pretty hypocritical, but maybe I'm missing something.


You're wrong I'm not offended by the name change and never said I was. I just think changing the name is stupid.


Sure you do, being of a non-minority group what would you possibly understand about being offended?


Why do you assume I'm not a member of a minority group?



Your total lack of empathy, and if you are in a minority class, you clearly represent the 2% that does not feel the struggle today. Which in itself is sad.


If the struggle you refer to is having the Cleveland baseball franchise named the "Indians" that is sad.



Not at all, first the decision to rename the franchise was made by the owners and the owners alone. As mentioned by an earlier post the problem with Cleveland was not the name but rather their use of a stereotypical mascot that was highly offensive. The name Indians was/is a generic term, and not a specific term and though not liked by some is an accepted terminology. Your own fragilities serves to be your own issue, as has played out on many threads here of late.
Back to Top
  
ohiocatfan1
General User

Member Since: 9/6/2016
Post Count: 164

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: No More Cleveland Indians
   Posted: 2/8/2021 3:40:46 PM 
BillyTheCat wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
This world has lost its collective mind. Offended by a team name? Give me a break.


Another very valid approach to your opinion here is that you're very correct that team names don't matter a ton. And that that applies to both parties here.

So if you think it's absurd that a team name offends somebody, your own outrage about the change is equally absurd. Because it's a team name, which by your own logic just isn't that big of a deal.

From my perspective, the Indians name doesn't offend me personally. But I'm happy to take Native Americans at their word that they're offended, and have no problem with a name change. Because as you point out, it's just a team name.

Since it's not, in your mind, worth offense and doesn't matter a ton, there's a very easy high road that involves changing it because it does clearly offend some people.

It's very weird to me that your stance here is outrage that this meaningless thing could cause outrage. You're outraged, right? It's either meaningless or it's not. You seem to want it to be meaningless to the people it offends, while still insisting it carries enough meaning that changing it makes you angry.

Feels pretty hypocritical, but maybe I'm missing something.


You're wrong I'm not offended by the name change and never said I was. I just think changing the name is stupid.


Sure you do, being of a non-minority group what would you possibly understand about being offended?


Why do you assume I'm not a member of a minority group?



Your total lack of empathy, and if you are in a minority class, you clearly represent the 2% that does not feel the struggle today. Which in itself is sad.


If the struggle you refer to is having the Cleveland baseball franchise named the "Indians" that is sad.



Not at all, first the decision to rename the franchise was made by the owners and the owners alone. As mentioned by an earlier post the problem with Cleveland was not the name but rather their use of a stereotypical mascot that was highly offensive. The name Indians was/is a generic term, and not a specific term and though not liked by some is an accepted terminology. Your own fragilities serves to be your own issue, as has played out on many threads here of late.


The image of a mascot is cause for someone to get their panties all in a twist?

Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 6,947

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: No More Cleveland Indians
   Posted: 2/8/2021 4:32:54 PM 
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
This world has lost its collective mind. Offended by a team name? Give me a break.


Another very valid approach to your opinion here is that you're very correct that team names don't matter a ton. And that that applies to both parties here.

So if you think it's absurd that a team name offends somebody, your own outrage about the change is equally absurd. Because it's a team name, which by your own logic just isn't that big of a deal.

From my perspective, the Indians name doesn't offend me personally. But I'm happy to take Native Americans at their word that they're offended, and have no problem with a name change. Because as you point out, it's just a team name.

Since it's not, in your mind, worth offense and doesn't matter a ton, there's a very easy high road that involves changing it because it does clearly offend some people.

It's very weird to me that your stance here is outrage that this meaningless thing could cause outrage. You're outraged, right? It's either meaningless or it's not. You seem to want it to be meaningless to the people it offends, while still insisting it carries enough meaning that changing it makes you angry.

Feels pretty hypocritical, but maybe I'm missing something.


You're wrong I'm not offended by the name change and never said I was. I just think changing the name is stupid.


Sure you do, being of a non-minority group what would you possibly understand about being offended?


Why do you assume I'm not a member of a minority group?



Your total lack of empathy, and if you are in a minority class, you clearly represent the 2% that does not feel the struggle today. Which in itself is sad.


If the struggle you refer to is having the Cleveland baseball franchise named the "Indians" that is sad.



Not at all, first the decision to rename the franchise was made by the owners and the owners alone. As mentioned by an earlier post the problem with Cleveland was not the name but rather their use of a stereotypical mascot that was highly offensive. The name Indians was/is a generic term, and not a specific term and though not liked by some is an accepted terminology. Your own fragilities serves to be your own issue, as has played out on many threads here of late.


The image of a mascot is cause for someone to get their panties all in a twist?



Again, coming from someone with either no empathy or education on these issues. Yes the mascot was highly offensive caricature that contained every stereotype. Keep on being either naive of racist, illlet you pick.
Back to Top
  
ohiocatfan1
General User

Member Since: 9/6/2016
Post Count: 164

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: No More Cleveland Indians
   Posted: 2/8/2021 4:39:38 PM 
BillyTheCat wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
This world has lost its collective mind. Offended by a team name? Give me a break.


Another very valid approach to your opinion here is that you're very correct that team names don't matter a ton. And that that applies to both parties here.

So if you think it's absurd that a team name offends somebody, your own outrage about the change is equally absurd. Because it's a team name, which by your own logic just isn't that big of a deal.

From my perspective, the Indians name doesn't offend me personally. But I'm happy to take Native Americans at their word that they're offended, and have no problem with a name change. Because as you point out, it's just a team name.

Since it's not, in your mind, worth offense and doesn't matter a ton, there's a very easy high road that involves changing it because it does clearly offend some people.

It's very weird to me that your stance here is outrage that this meaningless thing could cause outrage. You're outraged, right? It's either meaningless or it's not. You seem to want it to be meaningless to the people it offends, while still insisting it carries enough meaning that changing it makes you angry.

Feels pretty hypocritical, but maybe I'm missing something.


You're wrong I'm not offended by the name change and never said I was. I just think changing the name is stupid.


Sure you do, being of a non-minority group what would you possibly understand about being offended?


Why do you assume I'm not a member of a minority group?



Your total lack of empathy, and if you are in a minority class, you clearly represent the 2% that does not feel the struggle today. Which in itself is sad.


If the struggle you refer to is having the Cleveland baseball franchise named the "Indians" that is sad.



Not at all, first the decision to rename the franchise was made by the owners and the owners alone. As mentioned by an earlier post the problem with Cleveland was not the name but rather their use of a stereotypical mascot that was highly offensive. The name Indians was/is a generic term, and not a specific term and though not liked by some is an accepted terminology. Your own fragilities serves to be your own issue, as has played out on many threads here of late.


The image of a mascot is cause for someone to get their panties all in a twist?



Again, coming from someone with either no empathy or education on these issues. Yes the mascot was highly offensive caricature that contained every stereotype. Keep on being either naive of racist, illlet you pick.


There it is. Page one straight out of the playbook. When you disagree with someone call them a racist.

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,923

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: No More Cleveland Indians
   Posted: 2/8/2021 5:27:08 PM 
ohiocatfan1 wrote:


The image of a mascot is cause for someone to get their panties all in a twist?



For somebody so sure they're a voice of reason and common sense, you sure are awfully willing to completely dismiss the context of history. It's unclear to me which part of common sense and reason insists that mascots consisting of racist iconography somehow exist in a vacuum. Which part of common sense involves completely dismissing historical context?

There were 10 million Native Americans living in North America when European settlers arrived. By 1900, there were 300,000. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that the iconography in the Indian's logo might have been just been the tip of the ol' racism iceberg, in this case.

So the fact that it's just a mascot is the very reason there's no rational argument in favor of keeping it. Because mascots don't matter, but genocides do.

By the way, I'm super excited for all of that common sense you keep touting to start showing itself in your posts. Should we be expecting it soon?







Last Edited: 2/8/2021 5:28:31 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 6,947

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: No More Cleveland Indians
   Posted: 2/8/2021 5:33:31 PM 
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
This world has lost its collective mind. Offended by a team name? Give me a break.


Another very valid approach to your opinion here is that you're very correct that team names don't matter a ton. And that that applies to both parties here.

So if you think it's absurd that a team name offends somebody, your own outrage about the change is equally absurd. Because it's a team name, which by your own logic just isn't that big of a deal.

From my perspective, the Indians name doesn't offend me personally. But I'm happy to take Native Americans at their word that they're offended, and have no problem with a name change. Because as you point out, it's just a team name.

Since it's not, in your mind, worth offense and doesn't matter a ton, there's a very easy high road that involves changing it because it does clearly offend some people.

It's very weird to me that your stance here is outrage that this meaningless thing could cause outrage. You're outraged, right? It's either meaningless or it's not. You seem to want it to be meaningless to the people it offends, while still insisting it carries enough meaning that changing it makes you angry.

Feels pretty hypocritical, but maybe I'm missing something.


You're wrong I'm not offended by the name change and never said I was. I just think changing the name is stupid.


Sure you do, being of a non-minority group what would you possibly understand about being offended?


Why do you assume I'm not a member of a minority group?



Your total lack of empathy, and if you are in a minority class, you clearly represent the 2% that does not feel the struggle today. Which in itself is sad.


If the struggle you refer to is having the Cleveland baseball franchise named the "Indians" that is sad.



Not at all, first the decision to rename the franchise was made by the owners and the owners alone. As mentioned by an earlier post the problem with Cleveland was not the name but rather their use of a stereotypical mascot that was highly offensive. The name Indians was/is a generic term, and not a specific term and though not liked by some is an accepted terminology. Your own fragilities serves to be your own issue, as has played out on many threads here of late.


The image of a mascot is cause for someone to get their panties all in a twist?



Again, coming from someone with either no empathy or education on these issues. Yes the mascot was highly offensive caricature that contained every stereotype. Keep on being either naive of racist, illlet you pick.


There it is. Page one straight out of the playbook. When you disagree with someone call them a racist.



No, your words actually demonstrate that. I really could care less you chose to be on the wrong side of history here. Free county and you are free to parade your ignorance.
Back to Top
  
Joe McKinley
General User



Member Since: 11/15/2004
Post Count: 448

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: No More Cleveland Indians
   Posted: 2/8/2021 5:51:05 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:


The image of a mascot is cause for someone to get their panties all in a twist?



For somebody so sure they're a voice of reason and common sense, you sure are awfully willing to completely dismiss the context of history. It's unclear to me which part of common sense and reason insists that mascots consisting of racist iconography somehow exist in a vacuum. Which part of common sense involves completely dismissing historical context?

There were 10 million Native Americans living in North America when European settlers arrived. By 1900, there were 300,000. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that the iconography in the Indian's logo might have been just been the tip of the ol' racism iceberg, in this case.

So the fact that it's just a mascot is the very reason there's no rational argument in favor of keeping it. Because mascots don't matter, but genocides do.

By the way, I'm super excited for all of that common sense you keep touting to start showing itself in your posts. Should we be expecting it soon?




Anyone with the discipline and interest to read state/federal legislation, legislative debate records at both levels, court proceedings and decisions, contracts with private firms and newspaper accounts of the time will understand exactly what happened in the 1830s with the Eastern indigenous tribal nations in the South.

Choctaw, Creek, Seminole and Cherokee nations were forced into treaties which were often manipulated and ignored. Attempts at assimilation were blocked by court decisions. Rights which were to accrue to individual members of these nations were manipulated and money was stolen. Many were swindled. The relocation costs in today's dollars would've cost roughly $1 trillion. Even so, the moves were bungled with people exposed to disease and hunger.

The effort to legally take these lands was also related to the business interests of the slave labor model and social hierarchy. This was and is not a southern states issue alone. Financial interests in New York and manufacturers in New England also benefitted. Further, the northern states didn't have a superior moral position because of the way most indigenous nations were treated earlier in history.

It is our history. We don't often own it, but if we chose to do so and did more to honestly address the lasting impact of these policies/actions we would have a more just and more perfect union.

Last Edited: 2/8/2021 6:07:31 PM by Joe McKinley

Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 6,947

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: No More Cleveland Indians
   Posted: 2/8/2021 6:21:33 PM 
+1 Joe
Back to Top
  
Pataskala
General User

Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 7,461

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: No More Cleveland Indians
   Posted: 2/8/2021 10:47:31 PM 
A couple of interesting reads about the treatment of tribes in Oklahoma:

https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entr...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/28/half-la... /

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the tribes.

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/09/889562040/supreme-court-ru...


We will get by.
We will get by.
We will get by.
We will survive.

Back to Top
  
JSF
General User



Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 5,637

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: No More Cleveland Indians
   Posted: 2/9/2021 12:01:02 AM 
ohiocatfan1 wrote:

There it is. Page one straight out of the playbook. When you disagree with someone call them a racist.



False dichotomy, five yard penalty, repeat the down.


"Loyalty to a hometown or city is fleeting and interchangeable, but college is a stamp of identity."- Kyle Whelliston, One Beautiful Season.

My blog about depression and mental illness: https://bit.ly/3buGXH8

Back to Top
  
bobcatsquared
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 3,232

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: No More Cleveland Indians
   Posted: 2/9/2021 1:23:58 PM 
Joe McKinley wrote:
Anyone with the discipline and interest to read state/federal legislation, legislative debate records at both levels, court proceedings and decisions, contracts with private firms and newspaper accounts of the time will understand exactly what happened in the 1830s with the Eastern indigenous tribal nations in the South.

Choctaw, Creek, Seminole and Cherokee nations were forced into treaties which were often manipulated and ignored. Attempts at assimilation were blocked by court decisions. Rights which were to accrue to individual members of these nations were manipulated and money was stolen. Many were swindled. The relocation costs in today's dollars would've cost roughly $1 trillion. Even so, the moves were bungled with people exposed to disease and hunger.

The effort to legally take these lands was also related to the business interests of the slave labor model and social hierarchy. This was and is not a southern states issue alone. Financial interests in New York and manufacturers in New England also benefitted. Further, the northern states didn't have a superior moral position because of the way most indigenous nations were treated earlier in history.

It is our history. We don't often own it, but if we chose to do so and did more to honestly address the lasting impact of these policies/actions we would have a more just and more perfect union.


Thanks for the post, Joe. While reading it, I couldn't help but be reminded of a verse from White Man's World:

I'm a white man living on a white man's street
I've got the bones of the red man under my feet
The highway runs through the burial grounds
Past the oceans of cotton

No, this is not from Tupac Shakur (his is White Man'z World). Instead, it's my favorite song from perhaps the best singer/songwriter going today, Jason Isbell.

Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 6,947

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: No More Cleveland Indians
   Posted: 2/9/2021 3:50:52 PM 
bobcatsquared wrote:
Joe McKinley wrote:
Anyone with the discipline and interest to read state/federal legislation, legislative debate records at both levels, court proceedings and decisions, contracts with private firms and newspaper accounts of the time will understand exactly what happened in the 1830s with the Eastern indigenous tribal nations in the South.

Choctaw, Creek, Seminole and Cherokee nations were forced into treaties which were often manipulated and ignored. Attempts at assimilation were blocked by court decisions. Rights which were to accrue to individual members of these nations were manipulated and money was stolen. Many were swindled. The relocation costs in today's dollars would've cost roughly $1 trillion. Even so, the moves were bungled with people exposed to disease and hunger.

The effort to legally take these lands was also related to the business interests of the slave labor model and social hierarchy. This was and is not a southern states issue alone. Financial interests in New York and manufacturers in New England also benefitted. Further, the northern states didn't have a superior moral position because of the way most indigenous nations were treated earlier in history.

It is our history. We don't often own it, but if we chose to do so and did more to honestly address the lasting impact of these policies/actions we would have a more just and more perfect union.


Thanks for the post, Joe. While reading it, I couldn't help but be reminded of a verse from White Man's World:

I'm a white man living on a white man's street
I've got the bones of the red man under my feet
The highway runs through the burial grounds
Past the oceans of cotton

No, this is not from Tupac Shakur (his is White Man'z World). Instead, it's my favorite song from perhaps the best singer/songwriter going today, Jason Isbell.



+1
Back to Top
  
ohiocatfan1
General User

Member Since: 9/6/2016
Post Count: 164

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: No More Cleveland Indians
   Posted: 2/10/2021 1:17:09 PM 
Joe McKinley wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:


The image of a mascot is cause for someone to get their panties all in a twist?



For somebody so sure they're a voice of reason and common sense, you sure are awfully willing to completely dismiss the context of history. It's unclear to me which part of common sense and reason insists that mascots consisting of racist iconography somehow exist in a vacuum. Which part of common sense involves completely dismissing historical context?

There were 10 million Native Americans living in North America when European settlers arrived. By 1900, there were 300,000. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that the iconography in the Indian's logo might have been just been the tip of the ol' racism iceberg, in this case.

So the fact that it's just a mascot is the very reason there's no rational argument in favor of keeping it. Because mascots don't matter, but genocides do.

By the way, I'm super excited for all of that common sense you keep touting to start showing itself in your posts. Should we be expecting it soon?




Anyone with the discipline and interest to read state/federal legislation, legislative debate records at both levels, court proceedings and decisions, contracts with private firms and newspaper accounts of the time will understand exactly what happened in the 1830s with the Eastern indigenous tribal nations in the South.

Choctaw, Creek, Seminole and Cherokee nations were forced into treaties which were often manipulated and ignored. Attempts at assimilation were blocked by court decisions. Rights which were to accrue to individual members of these nations were manipulated and money was stolen. Many were swindled. The relocation costs in today's dollars would've cost roughly $1 trillion. Even so, the moves were bungled with people exposed to disease and hunger.

The effort to legally take these lands was also related to the business interests of the slave labor model and social hierarchy. This was and is not a southern states issue alone. Financial interests in New York and manufacturers in New England also benefitted. Further, the northern states didn't have a superior moral position because of the way most indigenous nations were treated earlier in history.

It is our history. We don't often own it, but if we chose to do so and did more to honestly address the lasting impact of these policies/actions we would have a more just and more perfect union.


I disagree with none of that. But I'm still trying to figure out how a baseball team in northern Ohio nicknamed the Indians is so terrible. Seems like "what can I be offended by today".

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,923

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: No More Cleveland Indians
   Posted: 2/10/2021 1:51:18 PM 
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
Joe McKinley wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:


The image of a mascot is cause for someone to get their panties all in a twist?



For somebody so sure they're a voice of reason and common sense, you sure are awfully willing to completely dismiss the context of history. It's unclear to me which part of common sense and reason insists that mascots consisting of racist iconography somehow exist in a vacuum. Which part of common sense involves completely dismissing historical context?

There were 10 million Native Americans living in North America when European settlers arrived. By 1900, there were 300,000. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that the iconography in the Indian's logo might have been just been the tip of the ol' racism iceberg, in this case.

So the fact that it's just a mascot is the very reason there's no rational argument in favor of keeping it. Because mascots don't matter, but genocides do.

By the way, I'm super excited for all of that common sense you keep touting to start showing itself in your posts. Should we be expecting it soon?




Anyone with the discipline and interest to read state/federal legislation, legislative debate records at both levels, court proceedings and decisions, contracts with private firms and newspaper accounts of the time will understand exactly what happened in the 1830s with the Eastern indigenous tribal nations in the South.

Choctaw, Creek, Seminole and Cherokee nations were forced into treaties which were often manipulated and ignored. Attempts at assimilation were blocked by court decisions. Rights which were to accrue to individual members of these nations were manipulated and money was stolen. Many were swindled. The relocation costs in today's dollars would've cost roughly $1 trillion. Even so, the moves were bungled with people exposed to disease and hunger.

The effort to legally take these lands was also related to the business interests of the slave labor model and social hierarchy. This was and is not a southern states issue alone. Financial interests in New York and manufacturers in New England also benefitted. Further, the northern states didn't have a superior moral position because of the way most indigenous nations were treated earlier in history.

It is our history. We don't often own it, but if we chose to do so and did more to honestly address the lasting impact of these policies/actions we would have a more just and more perfect union.


I disagree with none of that. But I'm still trying to figure out how a baseball team in northern Ohio nicknamed the Indians is so terrible. Seems like "what can I be offended by today".



Genocide. It's the genocide that adds offense.

Again, use some of the common sense you keep claiming you're a fan of. A group of people were killed en masse and treated terribly for hundreds of years.

And now that same group of saying "maybe the baseball/football teams with a history of racist logos/names could be renamed?" and you're complaining that they're too sensitive.

So, to summarize:

There's you, who is upset a baseball team name is changing.

And there's a group of people who underwent a century long genocide saying they don't want a very public, racist reminder of that history.

And you think they're just out looking for something to get offended by? You acknowledge the stakes don't matter, and are still upset.

That's the very definition of looking for a reason to be offended. The hypocrisy is hilarious.
Back to Top
  
ohiocatfan1
General User

Member Since: 9/6/2016
Post Count: 164

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: No More Cleveland Indians
   Posted: 2/10/2021 2:09:32 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
Joe McKinley wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:


The image of a mascot is cause for someone to get their panties all in a twist?



For somebody so sure they're a voice of reason and common sense, you sure are awfully willing to completely dismiss the context of history. It's unclear to me which part of common sense and reason insists that mascots consisting of racist iconography somehow exist in a vacuum. Which part of common sense involves completely dismissing historical context?

There were 10 million Native Americans living in North America when European settlers arrived. By 1900, there were 300,000. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that the iconography in the Indian's logo might have been just been the tip of the ol' racism iceberg, in this case.

So the fact that it's just a mascot is the very reason there's no rational argument in favor of keeping it. Because mascots don't matter, but genocides do.

By the way, I'm super excited for all of that common sense you keep touting to start showing itself in your posts. Should we be expecting it soon?




Anyone with the discipline and interest to read state/federal legislation, legislative debate records at both levels, court proceedings and decisions, contracts with private firms and newspaper accounts of the time will understand exactly what happened in the 1830s with the Eastern indigenous tribal nations in the South.

Choctaw, Creek, Seminole and Cherokee nations were forced into treaties which were often manipulated and ignored. Attempts at assimilation were blocked by court decisions. Rights which were to accrue to individual members of these nations were manipulated and money was stolen. Many were swindled. The relocation costs in today's dollars would've cost roughly $1 trillion. Even so, the moves were bungled with people exposed to disease and hunger.

The effort to legally take these lands was also related to the business interests of the slave labor model and social hierarchy. This was and is not a southern states issue alone. Financial interests in New York and manufacturers in New England also benefitted. Further, the northern states didn't have a superior moral position because of the way most indigenous nations were treated earlier in history.

It is our history. We don't often own it, but if we chose to do so and did more to honestly address the lasting impact of these policies/actions we would have a more just and more perfect union.


I disagree with none of that. But I'm still trying to figure out how a baseball team in northern Ohio nicknamed the Indians is so terrible. Seems like "what can I be offended by today".



Genocide. It's the genocide that adds offense.

Again, use some of the common sense you keep claiming you're a fan of. A group of people were killed en masse and treated terribly for hundreds of years.

And now that same group of saying "maybe the baseball/football teams with a history of racist logos/names could be renamed?" and you're complaining that they're too sensitive.

So, to summarize:

There's you, who is upset a baseball team name is changing.

And there's a group of people who underwent a century long genocide saying they don't want a very public, racist reminder of that history.

And you think they're just out looking for something to get offended by? You acknowledge the stakes don't matter, and are still upset.

That's the very definition of looking for a reason to be offended. The hypocrisy is hilarious.


First of all I'm not even remotely upset that a baseball team name is changing. I just think the entire "offended" thing is stupid.

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,923

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: No More Cleveland Indians
   Posted: 2/10/2021 2:36:46 PM 
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
Joe McKinley wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:


The image of a mascot is cause for someone to get their panties all in a twist?



For somebody so sure they're a voice of reason and common sense, you sure are awfully willing to completely dismiss the context of history. It's unclear to me which part of common sense and reason insists that mascots consisting of racist iconography somehow exist in a vacuum. Which part of common sense involves completely dismissing historical context?

There were 10 million Native Americans living in North America when European settlers arrived. By 1900, there were 300,000. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that the iconography in the Indian's logo might have been just been the tip of the ol' racism iceberg, in this case.

So the fact that it's just a mascot is the very reason there's no rational argument in favor of keeping it. Because mascots don't matter, but genocides do.

By the way, I'm super excited for all of that common sense you keep touting to start showing itself in your posts. Should we be expecting it soon?




Anyone with the discipline and interest to read state/federal legislation, legislative debate records at both levels, court proceedings and decisions, contracts with private firms and newspaper accounts of the time will understand exactly what happened in the 1830s with the Eastern indigenous tribal nations in the South.

Choctaw, Creek, Seminole and Cherokee nations were forced into treaties which were often manipulated and ignored. Attempts at assimilation were blocked by court decisions. Rights which were to accrue to individual members of these nations were manipulated and money was stolen. Many were swindled. The relocation costs in today's dollars would've cost roughly $1 trillion. Even so, the moves were bungled with people exposed to disease and hunger.

The effort to legally take these lands was also related to the business interests of the slave labor model and social hierarchy. This was and is not a southern states issue alone. Financial interests in New York and manufacturers in New England also benefitted. Further, the northern states didn't have a superior moral position because of the way most indigenous nations were treated earlier in history.

It is our history. We don't often own it, but if we chose to do so and did more to honestly address the lasting impact of these policies/actions we would have a more just and more perfect union.


I disagree with none of that. But I'm still trying to figure out how a baseball team in northern Ohio nicknamed the Indians is so terrible. Seems like "what can I be offended by today".



Genocide. It's the genocide that adds offense.

Again, use some of the common sense you keep claiming you're a fan of. A group of people were killed en masse and treated terribly for hundreds of years.

And now that same group of saying "maybe the baseball/football teams with a history of racist logos/names could be renamed?" and you're complaining that they're too sensitive.

So, to summarize:

There's you, who is upset a baseball team name is changing.

And there's a group of people who underwent a century long genocide saying they don't want a very public, racist reminder of that history.

And you think they're just out looking for something to get offended by? You acknowledge the stakes don't matter, and are still upset.

That's the very definition of looking for a reason to be offended. The hypocrisy is hilarious.


First of all I'm not even remotely upset that a baseball team name is changing. I just think the entire "offended" thing is stupid.



Yeah dude, I'm aware of your stance. You've posted it 6 times. I'm pointing out why and how your stance is far stupider that Native American groups being offended by the name Indians.

And you know that. Which is why you're so insistent you don't care about this at all, even though you came into this thread -- a thread that hadn't had a post in a month -- to say this:

ohiocatfan1 wrote:

This world has lost its collective mind. Offended by a team name? Give me a break.


And now, because you know you can't actually defend your stance here on logical grounds, you're deflecting by insisting you don't care. Because if you cared, you'd have to justify your opinion. And clearly you can't actually do that. Because it's a stupid opinion.

So yeah, man. I get it. You don't really care that the world's "lost it's collective mind", and it doesn't upset you. You just came here to dredge up this dormant thread and post about it a whole bunch because you don't care about it at all.

The reality is that you think this is an example of PC Culture run amok, and you don't like PC Culture, so you came into this thread to try and stir sh*t up, like you've been doing on this site for the last few weeks. But pretty much immediately in you realized you couldn't actually win this argument or justify your purely emotional response to this whole thing. You were the very first person to here to care about this. You started this conversation. So that you're now insisting you don't care is just a testament to how stupid your opinion here is.

If you're gonna try and start an argument about PC culture run amok or whatever, at least pick an example of PC culture running amok. There are plenty of them. I know why you feel the way you do on the subject. This just isn't an example of that. The choice the Indians and Redskins made is perfectly reasonable and long overdue. The only person here "looking for a reason to be offended" is you.

Last Edited: 2/10/2021 2:38:57 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

Back to Top
  
cc-cat
General User

Member Since: 4/5/2006
Location: matthews, NC
Post Count: 3,155

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: No More Cleveland Indians
   Posted: 2/10/2021 2:39:28 PM 
As mentioned above, the name, and more so the caricature logo is offensive and inappropriate. "Get over it" - "no big deal" - "oh no, someone's offended" - really?

What if the Pittsburgh Pirates logo was a pirate manhandling a woman with her blouse torn? What if the Atlanta Brave's logo was a brave holding up a scalp (even though it was a practice they were taught be European settlers). What if the SD Padres logo was a grinning clergy standing behind a young boy with his hands resting on the young lads shoulders and moving down to his chest. How about Notre Dame's logo being a drunk leprechaun with a beer in one hand and a potato in the other? "They're just caricatures of the team's mascot. No big deal. Been used for decades and people are offended? Get over it."

None of those logos exist because their ownership had the understanding and appreciation that they would be offensive. Shame on Indian ownership for allowing it to take this long (shows the dismissive view our country has always had of Native-Americans). Kudos too the ownership for taking action now.
Back to Top
  
ohiocatfan1
General User

Member Since: 9/6/2016
Post Count: 164

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: No More Cleveland Indians
   Posted: 2/10/2021 2:40:36 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
Joe McKinley wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:


The image of a mascot is cause for someone to get their panties all in a twist?



For somebody so sure they're a voice of reason and common sense, you sure are awfully willing to completely dismiss the context of history. It's unclear to me which part of common sense and reason insists that mascots consisting of racist iconography somehow exist in a vacuum. Which part of common sense involves completely dismissing historical context?

There were 10 million Native Americans living in North America when European settlers arrived. By 1900, there were 300,000. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that the iconography in the Indian's logo might have been just been the tip of the ol' racism iceberg, in this case.

So the fact that it's just a mascot is the very reason there's no rational argument in favor of keeping it. Because mascots don't matter, but genocides do.

By the way, I'm super excited for all of that common sense you keep touting to start showing itself in your posts. Should we be expecting it soon?




Anyone with the discipline and interest to read state/federal legislation, legislative debate records at both levels, court proceedings and decisions, contracts with private firms and newspaper accounts of the time will understand exactly what happened in the 1830s with the Eastern indigenous tribal nations in the South.

Choctaw, Creek, Seminole and Cherokee nations were forced into treaties which were often manipulated and ignored. Attempts at assimilation were blocked by court decisions. Rights which were to accrue to individual members of these nations were manipulated and money was stolen. Many were swindled. The relocation costs in today's dollars would've cost roughly $1 trillion. Even so, the moves were bungled with people exposed to disease and hunger.

The effort to legally take these lands was also related to the business interests of the slave labor model and social hierarchy. This was and is not a southern states issue alone. Financial interests in New York and manufacturers in New England also benefitted. Further, the northern states didn't have a superior moral position because of the way most indigenous nations were treated earlier in history.

It is our history. We don't often own it, but if we chose to do so and did more to honestly address the lasting impact of these policies/actions we would have a more just and more perfect union.


I disagree with none of that. But I'm still trying to figure out how a baseball team in northern Ohio nicknamed the Indians is so terrible. Seems like "what can I be offended by today".



Genocide. It's the genocide that adds offense.

Again, use some of the common sense you keep claiming you're a fan of. A group of people were killed en masse and treated terribly for hundreds of years.

And now that same group of saying "maybe the baseball/football teams with a history of racist logos/names could be renamed?" and you're complaining that they're too sensitive.

So, to summarize:

There's you, who is upset a baseball team name is changing.

And there's a group of people who underwent a century long genocide saying they don't want a very public, racist reminder of that history.

And you think they're just out looking for something to get offended by? You acknowledge the stakes don't matter, and are still upset.

That's the very definition of looking for a reason to be offended. The hypocrisy is hilarious.


First of all I'm not even remotely upset that a baseball team name is changing. I just think the entire "offended" thing is stupid.



Yeah dude, I'm aware of your stance. You've posted it 6 times. I'm pointing out why and how your stance is far stupider that Native American groups being offended by the name Indians.

And you know that. Which is why you're so insistent you don't care about this at all, even though you came into this thread -- a thread that hadn't had a post in a month -- to say this:

ohiocatfan1 wrote:

This world has lost its collective mind. Offended by a team name? Give me a break.


And now, because you know you can't actually defend your stance here on logical grounds, you're deflecting by insisting you don't care. Because if you cared, you'd have to justify your opinion. And clearly you can't actually do that. Because it's a stupid opinion.

So yeah, man. I get it. You don't really care that the world's "lost it's collective mind", and it doesn't upset you. You just came here to dredge up this dormant thread and post about it a whole bunch because you don't care about it at all.

The reality is that you think this is an example of PC Culture run amok, and you don't like PC Culture, so you came into this thread to try and stir sh*t up, like you've been doing on this site for the last few weeks. But pretty much immediately in you realized you couldn't actually win this argument or justify your purely emotional response to this whole thing. You were the very first person to here to care about this. You started this conversation. So that you're now insisting you don't care is just a testament to how stupid your opinion here is.

If you're gonna try and start an argument about PC culture run amok or whatever, at least pick an example of PC culture running amok. There are plenty of them. I know why you feel the way you do on the subject. This just isn't an example of that. The choice the Indians and Redskins made is perfectly reasonable and long overdue. The only person here "looking for a reason to be offended" is you.



Wow. Thin skin much?
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,923

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: No More Cleveland Indians
   Posted: 2/10/2021 2:51:57 PM 
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
Joe McKinley wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:


The image of a mascot is cause for someone to get their panties all in a twist?



For somebody so sure they're a voice of reason and common sense, you sure are awfully willing to completely dismiss the context of history. It's unclear to me which part of common sense and reason insists that mascots consisting of racist iconography somehow exist in a vacuum. Which part of common sense involves completely dismissing historical context?

There were 10 million Native Americans living in North America when European settlers arrived. By 1900, there were 300,000. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that the iconography in the Indian's logo might have been just been the tip of the ol' racism iceberg, in this case.

So the fact that it's just a mascot is the very reason there's no rational argument in favor of keeping it. Because mascots don't matter, but genocides do.

By the way, I'm super excited for all of that common sense you keep touting to start showing itself in your posts. Should we be expecting it soon?




Anyone with the discipline and interest to read state/federal legislation, legislative debate records at both levels, court proceedings and decisions, contracts with private firms and newspaper accounts of the time will understand exactly what happened in the 1830s with the Eastern indigenous tribal nations in the South.

Choctaw, Creek, Seminole and Cherokee nations were forced into treaties which were often manipulated and ignored. Attempts at assimilation were blocked by court decisions. Rights which were to accrue to individual members of these nations were manipulated and money was stolen. Many were swindled. The relocation costs in today's dollars would've cost roughly $1 trillion. Even so, the moves were bungled with people exposed to disease and hunger.

The effort to legally take these lands was also related to the business interests of the slave labor model and social hierarchy. This was and is not a southern states issue alone. Financial interests in New York and manufacturers in New England also benefitted. Further, the northern states didn't have a superior moral position because of the way most indigenous nations were treated earlier in history.

It is our history. We don't often own it, but if we chose to do so and did more to honestly address the lasting impact of these policies/actions we would have a more just and more perfect union.


I disagree with none of that. But I'm still trying to figure out how a baseball team in northern Ohio nicknamed the Indians is so terrible. Seems like "what can I be offended by today".



Genocide. It's the genocide that adds offense.

Again, use some of the common sense you keep claiming you're a fan of. A group of people were killed en masse and treated terribly for hundreds of years.

And now that same group of saying "maybe the baseball/football teams with a history of racist logos/names could be renamed?" and you're complaining that they're too sensitive.

So, to summarize:

There's you, who is upset a baseball team name is changing.

And there's a group of people who underwent a century long genocide saying they don't want a very public, racist reminder of that history.

And you think they're just out looking for something to get offended by? You acknowledge the stakes don't matter, and are still upset.

That's the very definition of looking for a reason to be offended. The hypocrisy is hilarious.


First of all I'm not even remotely upset that a baseball team name is changing. I just think the entire "offended" thing is stupid.



Yeah dude, I'm aware of your stance. You've posted it 6 times. I'm pointing out why and how your stance is far stupider that Native American groups being offended by the name Indians.

And you know that. Which is why you're so insistent you don't care about this at all, even though you came into this thread -- a thread that hadn't had a post in a month -- to say this:

ohiocatfan1 wrote:

This world has lost its collective mind. Offended by a team name? Give me a break.


And now, because you know you can't actually defend your stance here on logical grounds, you're deflecting by insisting you don't care. Because if you cared, you'd have to justify your opinion. And clearly you can't actually do that. Because it's a stupid opinion.

So yeah, man. I get it. You don't really care that the world's "lost it's collective mind", and it doesn't upset you. You just came here to dredge up this dormant thread and post about it a whole bunch because you don't care about it at all.

The reality is that you think this is an example of PC Culture run amok, and you don't like PC Culture, so you came into this thread to try and stir sh*t up, like you've been doing on this site for the last few weeks. But pretty much immediately in you realized you couldn't actually win this argument or justify your purely emotional response to this whole thing. You were the very first person to here to care about this. You started this conversation. So that you're now insisting you don't care is just a testament to how stupid your opinion here is.

If you're gonna try and start an argument about PC culture run amok or whatever, at least pick an example of PC culture running amok. There are plenty of them. I know why you feel the way you do on the subject. This just isn't an example of that. The choice the Indians and Redskins made is perfectly reasonable and long overdue. The only person here "looking for a reason to be offended" is you.



Wow. Thin skin much?


I'm not the one pretending not to care. That's you. I'm firmly on team "there's no reason for sports mascots to be racist." Passionate about it, even. Why? Because I'm actually a fan of common sense and logic.
Back to Top
  
JSF
General User



Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 5,637

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: No More Cleveland Indians
   Posted: 2/10/2021 8:08:37 PM 
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
I disagree with none of that. But I'm still trying to figure out how a baseball team in northern Ohio nicknamed the Indians is so terrible. Seems like "what can I be offended by today".


I don't know where you're from. I'm from Northeast Ohio and my family had season tickets in the 90s. I've been to Jacobs Field at least a hundred times. There was a protest of the name and the mascot at every game. Every one, right in front of the gates. Native Americans have been protesting it for decades. By writing it off as people being offended and having no grounds for doing so, you're simply denying people their basic dignity.

Quote:
Wow. Thin skin much?


You know, I find it interesting that we argue the point and you argue the people.


"Loyalty to a hometown or city is fleeting and interchangeable, but college is a stamp of identity."- Kyle Whelliston, One Beautiful Season.

My blog about depression and mental illness: https://bit.ly/3buGXH8

Back to Top
  
Pataskala
General User

Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 7,461

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: No More Cleveland Indians
   Posted: 2/10/2021 9:58:51 PM 
JSF wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
I disagree with none of that. But I'm still trying to figure out how a baseball team in northern Ohio nicknamed the Indians is so terrible. Seems like "what can I be offended by today".


I don't know where you're from. I'm from Northeast Ohio and my family had season tickets in the 90s. I've been to Jacobs Field at least a hundred times. There was a protest of the name and the mascot at every game. Every one, right in front of the gates. Native Americans have been protesting it for decades. By writing it off as people being offended and having no grounds for doing so, you're simply denying people their basic dignity.

Quote:
Wow. Thin skin much?


You know, I find it interesting that we argue the point and you argue the people.


And there are still people of Native American ancestry living in Ohio. My mom was part Ottawa. Although my family doesn't make a big deal of its Native American heritage, there certainly are some in Ohio who do. There's a group that every Columbus Day parades from the COSI area to City Hall to protest the holiday because Christopher Columbus enslaved Native Americans. Some may be ok with the Indians, but others have objected about the name. Plus, at last report the Cleveland Indians are a major league team that travels all around the country plus Canada and gets national attention through TV broadcasts and sports network coverage. So they're not just "a baseball team from northern Ohio." They represent the city of Cleveland and the entire state.


We will get by.
We will get by.
We will get by.
We will survive.

Back to Top
  
ohiocatfan1
General User

Member Since: 9/6/2016
Post Count: 164

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: No More Cleveland Indians
   Posted: 2/11/2021 8:08:06 AM 
JSF wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:
I disagree with none of that. But I'm still trying to figure out how a baseball team in northern Ohio nicknamed the Indians is so terrible. Seems like "what can I be offended by today".


I don't know where you're from. I'm from Northeast Ohio and my family had season tickets in the 90s. I've been to Jacobs Field at least a hundred times. There was a protest of the name and the mascot at every game. Every one, right in front of the gates. Native Americans have been protesting it for decades. By writing it off as people being offended and having no grounds for doing so, you're simply denying people their basic dignity.

Quote:
Wow. Thin skin much?


You know, I find it interesting that we argue the point and you argue the people.


I guess I'm just not as woke as other people.
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,923

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: No More Cleveland Indians
   Posted: 2/11/2021 11:05:42 AM 
ohiocatfan1 wrote:


I guess I'm just not as woke as other people.


I think it's less your level of wokeness, and more about your inability to apply common sense and logic consistently.
Back to Top
  
ohiocatfan1
General User

Member Since: 9/6/2016
Post Count: 164

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: No More Cleveland Indians
   Posted: 2/11/2021 11:18:25 AM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
ohiocatfan1 wrote:


I guess I'm just not as woke as other people.


I think it's less your level of wokeness, and more about your inability to apply common sense and logic consistently.


I feel the same way.

Back to Top
  
Showing Replies:  26 - 50  of 100 Posts
Jump to Page:  < Previous    1 | 2 | 3 | 4    Next >
View Other 'General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events' Topics
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



Copyright ©2021 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties