Los Rojos

[Tony Cloninger]

Originally Posted by Vottomatic

Geez. This is an English speaking country.

Please learn to read and speak the native language. This isn't Mexico.

I was born in South America. Came here when I was about 9-10. Learned english within 3 months and speak with no accent. My mother speaks five different languages, was a history teacher, but here did a different line of work, as she was in her early 30's and could not afford to go back to school.... they both had to work and just work in order to buy a house 6 years later.
It still took her a year to master the language and my father as well....at least a year, and watching tv and working with people. They both have accents.

We went to a diner one time about 3 years after being in this country. We spoke Spanish while waiting to have our oder taken. The server never came to us...we had to ask for one 20 minutes later. She heard us talking Spanish....and decided she was not going to deal. S


Still today it sticks out in my mind... 30 years later, how embarrassed I was at 13.... to speak Spanish or have my parents speak Spanish ...beacuse of the looks we would get. It was like that for a few years and I got over it by the end of high school. So we have my parents who come here....NOT having 1 family member here...and only one contact, learning a whole new language and culture, but having to be embarrassed for still speaking their first language beacuse English is the only language here?

I think you should learn the language as much as possible....but it is not easy for a lot, and those who do not try, that is on them to deal with but not to be made to feel like garbage for not doing so.

Let's see how hard or easy it is for you to do the same when you to another country and they tell you to quit speaking english and learn their language.

[RedEye]

Originally Posted by Always Red

I've discussed uniforms many times with Randy over the years; he's a traditionalist, that's all, and I know he will not be a happy man until the Reds are wearing these gorgeous beauties again:

This, again, is not the grounds for the debate that we are having here. Or at least trying to have.

No one, as Patrick B. wrote earlier, is arguing that individuals can't have their own aesthetic tastes.

[Always Red]

Originally Posted by RedEye

This, again, is not the grounds for the debate that we are having here. Or at least trying to have.

No one, as Patrick B. wrote earlier, is arguing that individuals can't have their own aesthetic tastes.

Respectfully, RedEye, I think you are trying to push this debate in another direction, one that no one really wants to go on this forum.

I posted that pic because I have been on many uniform threads in the past with Randy, and that's the uniform I know he prefers, the one he loves, the one we both grew up with. Some here are trying to paint things differently. And some are trying to provoke him.

[mdccclxix]

How often do the Yankees change their uni's? I don't know. Seems like never. When you want to create a monoculture of fandom, you also hope it breeds loyalty and solidarity and familiarity and trust and pride, etc. I can see the advantage of never changing. Of course winning helps. Changing uni's all the time does seem to be indicative of a franchise in flux, a bit desperate perhaps, gimmicky. When things are going well, everyone wants to be under the tent, so why change the message? It could actually hurt things. Meanwhile, teams like Oregon have embraced new uni's for every game or whatever. Again, though, are the Ducks the Trojans? No. So, yeah, there would be a real appeal to picking the BRM unis, and sticking with'm.

Edit: I think the Reds newest uni's made an attempt at looking backward where the past was better, and they were greeted well by fans.

[RedEye]

Originally Posted by mdccclxix

How often do the Yankees change their uni's? I don't know. Seems like never. When you want to create a monoculture of fandom, you also hope it breeds loyalty and solidarity and familiarity and trust and pride, etc. I can see the advantage of never changing. Of course winning helps. Changing uni's all the time does seem to be indicative of a franchise in flux, a bit desperate perhaps, gimmicky. When things are going well, everyone wants to be under the tent, so why change the message? It could actually hurt things. Meanwhile, teams like Oregon have embraced new uni's for every game or whatever. Again, though, are the Ducks the Trojans? No. So, yeah, there would be a real appeal to picking the BRM unis, and sticking with'm.

Edit: I think the Reds newest uni's made an attempt at looking backward where the past was better, and they were greeted well by fans.

Interestingly enough, the word "Yankees" is also synonymous in many other cultures for American philistines who insist on monoculture.

[Chip R]

Originally Posted by mdccclxix

How often do the Yankees change their uni's? I don't know. Seems like never. When you want to create a monoculture of fandom, you also hope it breeds loyalty and solidarity and familiarity and trust and pride, etc. I can see the advantage of never changing. Of course winning helps. Changing uni's all the time does seem to be indicative of a franchise in flux, a bit desperate perhaps, gimmicky. When things are going well, everyone wants to be under the tent, so why change the message? It could actually hurt things. Meanwhile, teams like Oregon have embraced new uni's for every game or whatever. Again, though, are the Ducks the Trojans? No. So, yeah, there would be a real appeal to picking the BRM unis, and sticking with'm.

Edit: I think the Reds newest uni's made an attempt at looking backward where the past was better, and they were greeted well by fans.

What's good for one franchise may not be so good for the other. An argument can be made that the uniforms get recruits to Oregon. Logically choice of a college shouldn't be made because of a uniform but we are talking about 17 year old kids here.

The Yankees don't have to change uniforms all the time because they have that history and tradition. They also play in the largest market in the country so it's not like they have to go out and reinvent themselves all the time. Other franchises don't have those advantages and have to change from time to time to appear new and different. That's especially the case when the product on the field isn't good. With a franchise like the Reds, you can say that the uniforms were the best in the 70s and that's great but it's really only traditional to you. Why not the uniforms of the 30s or 40s? Because it's not the uniforms we grew up with - except for RFS.

Personally, I prefer white at home and dark on the road for all teams. I don't like watching a game when both teams are wearing the same color jersey. The Sunday/day game jersey of the Reds is nice as is the Los Rojos jersey but I would rather those be worn on the road and whites only at home.

[mdccclxix]

Originally Posted by Chip R

What's good for one franchise may not be so good for the other. An argument can be made that the uniforms get recruits to Oregon. Logically choice of a college shouldn't be made because of a uniform but we are talking about 17 year old kids here.

The Yankees don't have to change uniforms all the time because they have that history and tradition. They also play in the largest market in the country so it's not like they have to go out and reinvent themselves all the time. Other franchises don't have those advantages and have to change from time to time to appear new and different. That's especially the case when the product on the field isn't good. With a franchise like the Reds, you can say that the uniforms were the best in the 70s and that's great but it's really only traditional to you. Why not the uniforms of the 30s or 40s? Because it's not the uniforms we grew up with - except for RFS.

Personally, I prefer white at home and dark on the road for all teams. I don't like watching a game when both teams are wearing the same color jersey. The Sunday/day game jersey of the Reds is nice as is the Los Rojos jersey but I would rather those be worn on the road and whites only at home.

I agree that the Reds have felt compelled to change because of the pressure to sell shirts and put the past behind them. Meanwhile, it moves the ball for people that would root for their team no matter what. In some sense, deep down, do we really want to be marketed to in order to root for a team? No. I think that's Randy's point. For the Reds, it's beyond the point where they could say "This is who we are and always will be", and going back the BRM jersey's would sort of seem pathetic as well, but if it was stuck to people would start to understand it and gravitate that way. Meanwhile, winning is imperative. Do I care hardly at all about the Los Rojos? No. (Should just be Rojos though) Do I think it would've been cool to stick with a look at any point over the last 50 years? Yes. Do I have any idea what kind of coin the Reds could make either way? No.

[RedEye]

Originally Posted by Always Red

Respectfully, RedEye, I think you are trying to push this debate in another direction, one that no one really wants to go on this forum.

Respectfully, I don't know about that. Have you read the other posts? Quite a few people have expressed opinions similar to mine without trying to get to the grounding assumptions in the rhetoric. It's important to consider the power of the words we use in our culture. "Tradition", IMO, in most cases bears a relationship to intolerance of change. That's not always a nefarious connection, but it can be one. Calling someone else's traditions or attempts to establish or make way for them "unnecessary" is problematic in the same light.

Yes, I have adopted an insistent stance here; some might say shrill. If so, I apologize. But that's because I don't feel as if certain posters have recognized a basic point I'm making. I've tried hard to be diplomatic and polite and I've never called Randy a bigot (though, to be fair, he has accused me of being a "screaming bigot caller" or something like that). Rather, I've pointed out that some of the claims he's making are intolerant of difference.

If the mods tell me to shut up, I will. Until then, though, I'll assume that I'm free to express my opinions here about the topic at hand.

[WildcatFan]

RedEye, your name in Spanish is Ojo Rojo.

So that's a fun thing about this thread.

[RedEye]

Originally Posted by WildcatFan

RedEye, your name in Spanish is Ojo Rojo.

So that's a fun thing about this thread.

Should I change it? If I get enough votes for that, i will. I actually like that better than my current moniker, which is one of those "gosh, I can't think of a good name to use but this forum looks like an interesting place to be a member" names. I hope it doesn't have any negative connotations in Spanish that I'm not aware of...

EDIT: I think this is an appropriate place for me to sign off from this thread. God knows I've made my point. Or at least a kept trying until someone suggested I change my name! If it keeps going without my interventions, I'll rejoin tomorrow.

[Roy Tucker]

I think we're like baby ducks.

When they are hatched, the first living thing they see, they say "mama". If its a duck or an elephant, it doesn't matter.

Same thing with Reds uniforms. The day (or month or season) you become a fan,you are imprinted with that uniform as the way its supposed to be. For me, its the '64 Reds. All other are imposters and, one could say, unnecessary.

Now, everyone get off my lawn.

[Caveat Emperor]

Originally Posted by WildcatFan

I'm holding out until we get one in Canadian.

REDS, EH?

[RANDY IN INDY]

Originally Posted by RedEye

I have no problem with your aesthetic taste. White, grey, red, whatever. You go with whatever floats your boat.

But you still haven't really recognized my point about the word "unnecessary." The way you are using it, it means something that players need on the field. By that rationale, they probably don't need half of the stuff they wear. They probably need a ball and a bat and gloves to play, but kids have been playing baseball for decades in the street with far less in terms of attire.

As Patrick, Kal and I have argued, you get into far more difficult waters when you start arguing that somehow having shirts that recognize the languages of other groups are "unnecessary." All I've read you say on that point so far is that there is no reason for other groups to have shirts that "speak" to them or their worlds. That's why this thread keeps going on and on and on.

Maybe you need to take a step back and realize that maybe you have not recognized the way that I have used the word, "unnecessary," and have tried to manipulate my words into something very nasty that I never intended. With that, I truly am done with this thread, and with you.

By the way, looks like I'm not the only one that dislikes the jersey. From Uni-Watch:

"New alternate jersey for the Reds: “Couldn’t hate it more,” says Cincy’s own David Sonny. “Take an ugly softball top in solid red, replace the classic wishbone-C with a generic chest-wide wordmark completely devoid of any ties to the Reds history, and you get the ugliest uniform the Reds have had since the vests with black sleeves.”

"You know what it looks like? A red road Dodgers jersey. Criminal."

This comment makes the most sense of all:

"But I agree with Dave Sonny that the Reds’ Hispanic jersey is stylistically uninspired and that it is devoid of any connection to Reds’ history. They could have done a version of the C-Reds wishbone-C logo with the word “Rojos” in place of “Reds”."

[KittyDuran]

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

REDS, EH?

Rouges, Quoi?

[RedEye]

Originally Posted by RANDY IN INDY

Maybe you need to take a step back and realize that maybe you have not recognized the way that I have used the word, "unnecessary," and have tried to manipulate my words into something very nasty that I never intended. With that, I truly am done with this thread, and with you.

Dear Randy, I just tried to private message you on this with an "olive branch" of sorts -- but it said your inbox was full. Clear it and I'll be happy to correspond about this off list more. I'm not here to make enemies.

Anyway, I feel I have multiple times taken the "step back" you advocate in this actual thread. I have acknowledged your intended meaning of the word "unnecessary" and pointed out its implications. Sadly, my point seems to still fall largely on deaf ears.