We shouldn’t belittle strong feelings about wartime events, even if most people have forgotten or never knew about them.
For instance, it’s been over 90 years since the siege of Verdun, but I still won’t have a Krupp mortar in the house.
I don’t care how long it’s been since they let my people go, I still won’t wear Egyptian cotton.
Not exactly…
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_n21_v217/ai_15461911
And it appears I was incorrect, this celebration wasn’t designed to throw the stink off the strike, but to throw the stink off the impending strike (and the first year of the wild card).
The assertion that the 1869 Cincinnati Red Stockings were the first professional baseball team (not the first major league team; no one would characterize anything before 1871 as a “major league”) dates back long before 1994. In 1969 MLB celebrated the “100th anniversary of professional baseball”.
I understand that the claim isn’t 100% accurate; as your linked article points out, the distinction between professional and amateur, for both players and teams, is a continuum. But the important thing is, the claim isn’t new. The only thing new is the attempted debunking of the claim as historians research other teams from the 1860’s.
Interesting that 1969 was also a year that featured radical realignment of the playoffs (it was the first year of divisional alignments).
I see what you’re saying about the Red Stockings being the first professional team, it’s the selective recognition of it that makes me think no one really cares until they can be outraged over it.
Exactly.
I knew someone would march in and compare this to 9/11, and i’m glad someone beat me to pointing out the stupidity of the comparison.
And my family still marks the day when a Neanderthal tribe attacked our settlement in northern France and we had to relocate to the next valley.
Because of this I’ve boycotted Geico for their caveman commercials.
He’s got a point; pitchers on American baseball teams are supposed to come from the Dominican Republic, not the heathen Orient.
That reminds me, who says “Oriental” anymore, much less prints it? I’m half-surprised he didn’t call Matsuzaka a Chinaman… although that isn’t the issue here.
Or, as T Herman Zweibel likes to type it, a “China-Man”.
Good thing it wasn’t the Yankees playing…
“It’s an A-bomb from A-Rod!!!”
Shrubbery based combat is an old Japanese tradition, hence the warrior code known as bush-ido.
OK, so I stole that.
Winner.
We are the samurai who say ni! We demand… two shrubberies!
(Ni can mean ‘two’ in Japanese. Sorry for the nerdy joke :o)
As for the OP, it’s one thing to be sensitive to other people’s hatred, however irrational it may be, but it’s a different thing entirely to accept it being printed, especially in an article about fucking baseball. Totally uncalled for is what that is.
Even on review it kind of amazes me that they did that. It’s easy to write an article about how baseball has changed without making WWII digs at Japan and ‘jokes’ about how Matsuzaka is a furriner and the Emperor doesn’t like baseball. Were they afraid of editing Bisher or something? Was he yelling at them to get off his lawn?
Uh, rug merchants? Antique vase dealers?
He wasn’t talking about rugs and vases, he was talking about a region. You don’t hear that much anymore.
I know, I was being sarcastic. Pointing out that most people only use the term to apply to things, rather than people, nowadays.
Only an idiot would have misunderstood that!
Ah, shit. :smack:
I actually think its rather sad that Oriental has fallen out of favor when describing people, specifically if you’re referring to someone of the region with the Oriental type of eyelid- Asian is too broad, covering everything from Indians to Filipinos.