Clan Chief Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Mebbe this has been posted. I got it from my BMW riding buddy. http://motorbikewriter.com/indian-motorcycle-tribe-named/ Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eraserhead Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 things that make you go hmmmmmmmm.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Mark Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Checking now. I knew it was coming, didn't know it was this soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micmac Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Good! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallRider Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 (edited) And just which "elders" did Polaris consult with? Which of the many tribes or First Nations did they consult? Not that I'm trying to stir up shit or pick fly shit out of pepper, but what dumb ass reporter/writer makes an incomplete statement like that? Are we to infer that there is one group of "elders" for all Native Americans and First Nations? I've got my rider's group, and it's "infamous" . . . I wish Polaris all the luck in the world, but been there, done that. That's why I'm an IIRA member. Now . . . Edited February 27, 2014 by TallRider 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micmac Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 "Are we to infer that there is one group of "elders" for all Native Americans and First Nations"? You mean like an Al Sharpton for Indians? I never understood how he got elevated to spokesman for all African Americans. I might have to make a call and see if they consulted with the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians and see if they got permission from the Chiefs. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msilver Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Bloggers... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K2V2 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 It's nice to have options. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 figure they are trying to get away from lackluster performance and image of IRG (Indian Riders Group).....bet will be Arrowhead Indian Riders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabRat Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Interesting take Brock. Time will tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Dunemann Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 I don't know if Tribe would be the best description of a group, to me there are many Tribes within a nation, it is obvious on this site alone much less comparing one group to another. We are more like the Indian Riding Nation consisting of many tribes, like family some may not get along, but like family too stand beside each other when needed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Mark Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 We already got a name. Indian riders as a whole been referred to as 'The Tribe', and the factory has been referred to as "The Wigwam" since Hendee and Hedstrom were running the show. Indian Motocycle advertising used to refer to it, in fact: "Ride with the Tribe." And "Arrowhead Riders Group" ain't happening. Corporate has officially banned any Native American imagery or references to Native American culture on officially sanctioned gear or in advertising, due to some 1990's federal law about not offending Native Americans. This is direct from Steve Menneto. They say the warbonnet is trademarked and doesn't count. Sounds like splitting hairs to me. The Iron Indian Riders logo, for example, would not be allowed. Neither would MG's Indian maiden posters. Which is pretty damn funny, considering the names of the bikes: "Chief", "Scout", "Warrior", "Brave", "Arrow", etc. Go figure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micmac Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 At least they ain't like the Washington "Redskins" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msilver Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 At least they ain't like the Washington "Redskins" Second that!! Better to tread lightly and not disrespect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 fuck all that...we have 49ers, Chiefs, Fighting Irish, Tarheels, Scots, Crusaders, Steelers, Saints, Knickerbockers, Oilers, Cowboys, Huns, Blackhawks, etc, etc, etc.... Every race, profession or culture in the nation and world has been touched at one time or another. You dont see the Scots or Tarheels or Fighting Irish or 49ers being pussies about their name or a stereotype (all of which are based in some truth) being used for team mascots. Give me a fucking break. I read a couple weeks ago where a catholic or christian college removed the name Crusaders from their mascot and team names after it being that for almost 100 years...because it might offend a muslim somewhere in the world. Give me a fucking break...... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabRat Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Amen Brock! Enough of this PC bullshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Dunemann Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Take away the tradition, create their own history, teach the parts they want you to know with the spin they want, and before long, who will know who Crusaders, Warriors etc. are??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabRat Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Exactly - Control the language, control the history, control the education and you control the people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallRider Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 "Give me a fucking break." "Enough of this PC bullshit." Please explain to me why "Redskin" isn't a racial slur. I get the other team names - "49ers", "Chiefs", "Fighting Irish", "Tarheels", "Scots", "Crusaders", "Steelers", "Saints", "Knickerbockers", "Oilers", "Cowboys", "Huns", and "Blackhawks": "Forty-niners" referring to the gold rush; "Chiefs" could have been the "Mules", "Royals" or "Stars" before Hunt decided on "Chiefs" for iconic reasons if not political ones; "Tarheels" refers to the pitch or tar from North Carolina pines; "Fighting Irish" - came from some sports writers affectation (both "Tarheel" and "Fighting Irish" originally being derogatory in their origin and later more acceptable); Scots - pretty intuitive origin there; Crusaders - referring to the religious wars during the 11th through 13th centuries; "Steelers" referring to the Pittsburgh steel industry; "Saints" being selected by the fans and the franchise was awarded on November 1, All Saints Day; "Father Knickerbocker" was a symbol of New York and was a reference to the pants original Dutch settlers wore; the "Oilers" actually had an oil derrick on their helmets - no confusing where that name came from; the "Cowboys" were originally the "Steelers", then became the "Rangers" before finally "Cowboys"; "Huns" referring to the fifth century Hunnic empire (remember Attila?); and "Blackhawks" (originally "Black Hawks") was originally chosen by the owner who was in the "Blackhawk" Division named after the Illinois Sauk leader in the late 18th century . But "Redskin". Seriously? "Redskins" is at least derogatory if not a racial slur. I can't imagine being on the Suquamish or Makah or Red Lake reservations and saying "Hey - 'Redskin' " to somebody at the longhouse and not walking away missing a few teeth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Dunemann Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 And our local High School was forced to change their name from The Warriors, and this is a slur?? Redskin/ Warrior etc are only Slurrs if the white man uses it! We try too hard to be politically correct, it is not a slur in these forms a slur is when they are used in the wrong contex. Sadly those who use a name in respect have been treated the same as those who disrespect! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallRider Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Charlie - I'm not addressing "Warrior" - only "Redskin"; don't match or confuse the two, just as I didn't equate the other team names (with, perhaps, the exception of "The Fighting Irish") as being racial slurs. I'm speaking specifically to "Redskin". When used by a white - yes, it's a slur. Go over to the Leech Lake or White Earth reservations and use "Redskin" . . . see what kind of reception you get even when you use the term in what you think is the most respectful of contexts; I don't think you can soften the insult with context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabRat Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 The team was named to honor their Native American coach and was not considered to be a racial slur. Here is a link to a good paper outlining the origin of the red skin name. Once again, when you control the language, change it's meaning, you pervert history. http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabRat Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 (edited) When used by a white - yes, it's a slur. See, that's where your problem is - you automatically assume its racist because one race uses the term. That's bullshit. You are automatically assuming that all whites are racist. Edited March 1, 2014 by LabRat 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Dunemann Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Understand, and that may be to the Indian the most sensitive of terms, however you can go to those reservations and hear these words among them. And there are other words with other races, not saying it's right, but it all comes down to sensitivity and respect. Often people are too sensitive and too often people are too disrespectful. I got into a discussion one time with a Mille Lacs reservation member about the use of the words Warrior and Chief's, the drift was that is their heritage. However, the conversation began when that same person, was working with a printing/ design agency to create a newsletter, The headlines on their Newsletter was about their Homecoming King and Queen?? Not that I cared it wasn't being disrespectful but isn't that our heritage? Just sayin, it is about respect, and the context. Where do we stop? You can forbid people from using the words, it makes more sense to educate them instead. Which brings us back to the original discussion, our History isn't about what happened and why, it tends to be more about how we want things to be viewed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallRider Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 "our History isn't about what happened and why, it tends to be more about how we want things to be viewed." (emphasis mine) Charlie . . . we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree . . . I view history as being exactly about what happened and why, because without understanding that, our view of the present will always be skewed. And with that . . . . . . time to do something productive - like ride. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.