MLS in STL

urbanitas · PostAug 29, 2019#17262019-08-29T23:43+00:00

wabash wrote:
urbanitas wrote: Which is fine for a local club. I don't think it will fly on a major league level though.
Why not?

Don't get me wrong, it's great imagery and a great team badge. I'm just pointing out the symbolism, which the perpetually-outraged, bi-coastal media will also point out the second they see it.

In most iconography of Saint Louis, he is not holding his sword pointy end up. He is holding up the hilt of his sword as a crucifix, right? So, it is two things at the same time, a sword and a cross. This in turn symbolizes the expansion of Christendom, and conversion of non-believers, by faith, and if necessary, by the sword. Unfortunately, as with most of the crusades, they just skipped the former and went straight to the latter, especially in crusades to reconquer the Holy Lands from various Muslim sultans...

wabash · PostAug 29, 2019#17272019-08-29T23:56+00:00

I see that sort of alarmist view, but in reality having a logo with a saint on it just doesn’t seem far off from the Saints, Devils, Kings, Royals, Knights, Warriors etc... all of whom are major league teams. And those are the actual names of the teams, not just a symbol/logo which is also a symbol of the City.

So long as the most popular league in the nation has a team that’s named the Redskins, I think having a sainted king as a logo would pass muster.

urbanitas · PostAug 30, 2019#17282019-08-30T00:10+00:00

^You miss the point. The problem isn't that he is a Catholic saint. It is that he was a leader of Crusades, and the image rather obviously honors that.

I'm not sure it would make any difference, but maybe it would be more innocuous if they tweaked the image to have Saint Louis holding his sword pointy end up. Then, they could just say, eh, its just a knight...

sc4mayor · PostAug 30, 2019#17292019-08-30T00:12+00:00

^ I really just don't buy this. Considering the hullabaloo over the confederate statue in Forest Park and the mini controversy over the Christopher Columbus statue in Tower Grove Park I feel like any "national outrage" over the Apotheosis would have already happened by now. It's a statue that symbolizes the namesake of the city who was a French King that died in 1270 and was canonized in 1297. I don't think even the most outraged of people would even consider this a blip on their radar.

And for what it's worth, I've never associated this statue with crusades or converting Christians by the sword. In fact I've always associated the sword with Washington University engineering students lol. I've always just seen the statue as the guy the city is named after and I'd put good money on most people just seeing a crowned guy on horse and not knowing much more than that.

One could make the same outraged argument for the Arch and what it represents (depending on your point of view) and I don't see anyone calling for it to be removed from the region's iconography.

urbanitas · PostAug 30, 2019#17302019-08-30T00:22+00:00

sc4mayor wrote:One could make the same outraged argument for the Arch and what it represents (depending on your point of view) and I don't see anyone calling for it to be removed from the region's iconography.

Instead of the vague symbol of westward expansion that the Arch represents, a much better comparison to the statue of Saint Louis would be if St. Louis had erected a large statue of General Custer on the riverfront.'..

But anyway, so you really don't think anyone in the national media is gonna start asking questions when they notice that a new major league sports team logo has "some warrior guy holding a cross"? In this day and age, when people freak out over nativity scenes in public places? Hmm.

STLrainbow · PostAug 30, 2019#17312019-08-30T00:37+00:00

Remove the sword/cross and insert a bag of red hot riplets and boom. done.

urbanitas · PostAug 30, 2019#17322019-08-30T00:53+00:00

^Hmm. The Saint Louis RedHots?

Ooooo, I know...the Saint Louis Snoots!

framer · PostAug 30, 2019#17332019-08-30T01:21+00:00

Heck, just skip the sword. Less offensive, and it harkens back to the days when the sword was regularly stolen.

sc4mayor · PostAug 30, 2019#17342019-08-30T01:21+00:00

urbanitas wrote: ^So, you don't think anyone in the national media is ever gonna start asking questions when they notice that a new major league sports team logo has "some warrior guy holding a cross"? In this day and age, when people freak out over nativity scenes in public places? Hmm.

Nope. Not one bit.

Partly because much of the nation’s national press doesn’t really consider MLS a true major league and also because even a big bad crusader from the 13th Century is probably on the lower end of most people’s lists of things to give a sh*t about.

It’s really all just opinion. Are there people out there that would find a reason to be angry about this? Apparently there are some. Enough to sway public opinion? I’m thinking probably not...that statue has been there since the World’s Fair.

There’s a football team named the Redskins that gets virtually no bad national press outside of a pithy blog post here or there. I don’t really see how a smaller market MLS team would garner that kinda of hate over a statue that up until the mid 60s was the symbol of the city.

Bart Harley Jarvis · PostAug 30, 2019#17352019-08-30T01:36+00:00

sc4mayor wrote:
urbanitas wrote: ^So, you don't think anyone in the national media is ever gonna start asking questions when they notice that a new major league sports team logo has "some warrior guy holding a cross"? In this day and age, when people freak out over nativity scenes in public places? Hmm.
Nope. Not one bit.

Additionally, it's not really an apples-apples comparison. The "freak out over nativity scenes in public places" is due to the separation of church and state. Separation of church and private enterprise generally does not elicit the same type of response. So lose the outrage.

Ebsy · PostAug 30, 2019#17362019-08-30T02:43+00:00

There are always gnostics lurking about.

dbInSouthCity · PostAug 30, 2019#17372019-08-30T02:50+00:00

ricke002 wrote:
sc4mayor wrote:
urbanitas wrote: ^So, you don't think anyone in the national media is ever gonna start asking questions when they notice that a new major league sports team logo has "some warrior guy holding a cross"? In this day and age, when people freak out over nativity scenes in public places? Hmm.
Nope. Not one bit.
Additionally, it's not really an apples-apples comparison. The "freak out over nativity scenes in public places" is due to the separation of church and state. Separation of church and private enterprise generally does not elicit the same type of response. So lose the outrage.

The games will be played at a “state” owned and partial tax payer funded facility

RockChalkSTL · PostAug 30, 2019#17382019-08-30T03:16+00:00

I could get behind Saint Louis Confluence.

I maintain, despite any religious or historical symbolism, that the Apotheosis would be a great logo for the club.

I will be disappointed if the team goes with colors that aren't associated with the city flag.

Bart Harley Jarvis · PostAug 30, 2019#17392019-08-30T03:29+00:00

dbInSouthCity wrote:
ricke002 wrote:
sc4mayor wrote:

Nope. Not one bit.
Additionally, it's not really an apples-apples comparison. The "freak out over nativity scenes in public places" is due to the separation of church and state. Separation of church and private enterprise generally does not elicit the same type of response. So lose the outrage.
The games will be played at a “state” owned and partial tax payer funded facility

And Catholic high schools play at public stadiums all the time, what's your point?

RuskiSTL · PostAug 30, 2019#17402019-08-30T09:10+00:00

St. Louis Browns. Name, logo, colors, take the identity wholesale. The small number of Browns fans keeping the memory alive will be gone in the next 20 years. It's the best and most fitting brand. Wait for a mascot to evolve organically. In the soccer world most teams originally just went by the color of their shirts (Manchester United Reds, Tottenham Lillywhites, Barcelona Blaugrana).

I mean honestly.....

urbanitas · PostAug 30, 2019#17412019-08-30T09:45+00:00

ricke002 wrote:
dbInSouthCity wrote:
ricke002 wrote:Additionally, it's not really an apples-apples comparison. The "freak out over nativity scenes in public places" is due to the separation of church and state. Separation of church and private enterprise generally does not elicit the same type of response. So lose the outrage.
The games will be played at a “state” owned and partial tax payer funded facility
And Catholic high schools play at public stadiums all the time, what's your point?

Very few Christian schools have religious symbols or images on their sports uniforms, equipment, or game banners anymore, mostly for that reason, and pressure from state high school athletic associations. Also, unlike a professional sports team, they don't get any direct financial benefit from playing in said public stadium. So...what's your point?

DogtownBnR · PostAug 30, 2019#17422019-08-30T13:26+00:00

It is crazy how PC this Country has become. I mean come on, this is out of hand. The St. Louis statue is a fine symbol of our city, regardless of what the PC police say. If you want to complain about the statue and it being used in a crest, then it should be removed and we should change the name of the City. No more St. Louis….

dbInSouthCity · PostAug 30, 2019#17432019-08-30T13:49+00:00

DogtownBnR wrote: It is crazy how PC this Country has become. I mean come, this is out of hand. The St. Louis statue is a fine symbol of our city, regardless of what the PC police say. If you want to complain about the statue and it being used in a crest, then it should be removed and we should change the name of the City. No more St. Louis….

You’re right, I shall start the signature collection to petition for the city name change- as of Jan 1 2021 we will be St.Allah ( which if you think about is just st.god) so maybe City of Muhammad the Prophet

kipfilet · PostAug 30, 2019#17442019-08-30T14:24+00:00

I already posted this in the previous page, but I'll post it again:
https://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblo ... -greatness
There are already people who are apparently bothered by both the statue and the name of the city itself. The above article was written in January 2018.

dbInSouthCity · PostAug 30, 2019#17452019-08-30T14:29+00:00

kipfilet wrote: I already posted this in the previous page, but I'll post it again:
https://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblo ... -greatness
There are already people who are apparently bothered by both the statue and the name of the city itself. The above article was written in January 2018.

That’s Umar trolling. That’s what Umar does

flipz · PostAug 30, 2019#17462019-08-30T14:59+00:00

DogtownBnR wrote: It is crazy how PC this Country has become. I mean come on, this is out of hand. The St. Louis statue is a fine symbol of our city, regardless of what the PC police say. If you want to complain about the statue and it being used in a crest, then it should be removed and we should change the name of the City. No more St. Louis….

I think it would be hard to find a symbol that is truly inoffensive. Maybe we can use a neutral numerical system and change it to "City 1". Would be very authoritarian Soviet anyway to change city names to something in vogue.

sc4mayor · PostAug 30, 2019#17472019-08-30T15:10+00:00

kipfilet wrote: I already posted this in the previous page, but I'll post it again:
https://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblo ... -greatness
There are already people who are apparently bothered by both the statue and the name of the city itself. The above article was written in January 2018.

Thanks! I was trying to find that article yesterday, but for whatever reason I kept remembering it as a PD piece. Umar already tried to stir the pot on the Apotheosis and it garnered about as much attention as a fart in the wind. People desperate to be offended are going to be able to find something no matter the subject matter.

dbInSouthCity · PostAug 30, 2019#17482019-08-30T15:13+00:00

sc4mayor wrote:
kipfilet wrote: I already posted this in the previous page, but I'll post it again:
https://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblo ... -greatness
There are already people who are apparently bothered by both the statue and the name of the city itself. The above article was written in January 2018.
Thanks! I was trying to find that article yesterday, but for whatever reason I kept remembering it as a PD piece. Umar already tried to stir the pot on the Apotheosis and it garnered about as much attention as a fart in the wind. People desperate to be offended are going to be able to find something no matter the subject matter.

You seem to be offended by the piece and that this topic offends people

sc4mayor · PostAug 30, 2019#17492019-08-30T15:29+00:00

^ I'm just amused that a statue that has been a part of the city's iconography for the better part of 100+ years is suddenly a sore subject. Save the outrage for something important.

dbInSouthCity · PostAug 30, 2019#17502019-08-30T15:35+00:00

I’m not outraged, not offended by it but I will now also forest park to put up a statue of Muhammad next to it to highlight our strong Bosnian Muslim history

MLS in STL

Choose Display Mode