http://www.concacaf.com/article/tic...usa-and-mexico-on-october-10-at-the-rose-bowl I feel this deserves its own thread because what CONCACAF is doing for the playoff is completely biased and should not be allowed. I'll assume that they're giving an equal ticket allotment to both teams' supporters groups, it better not be unbalanced. But they're also giving an allotment to the galaxy, which is wrong. If they reserve tickets for galaxy season ticket holders, then they should also for Xolos STH. So right there is a bias that will help fans of one team but not another. There are Mexican galaxy fans, but let's be frank, they're in the minority. And now, instead of just having a general sale, they will have a ticket lottery first to give buying rights to an unspecified number of fans. This lottery is completely unnecessary since the Rose Bowl holds 92,542 people. And since they plan a general sale afterwards anyway, it shows that this lottery may not be legit, and instead an effort to create a 50/50 crowd. The lottery applicants will have to give their name and location, who's to stop CONCACAF from eschewing Spanish surnames and Mexican locations? Why would they need a lottery for a venue that would not sell out so fast? Lotteries are held for events that will sell out quickly, which disadvantages those who can't buy tickets the second they are sold, those who can't sleep at the ticket booth, etc. That is not the case here, this isn't some N*SYNC concert. This statement by CONCACAF says it all: “One of our goals for this game was to make the Rose Bowl a representation of both passionate fan bases,” said CONCACAF Acting General Secretary Ted Howard. “The interest and demand for an event of this magnitude requires a process that allows for an opportunity for a fair and equitable distribution of tickets.” So they're basically admitting that they're rigging ticket opportunities. For those that will say this is a conspiracy theory, please explain why they would hold a lottery, yet still hold a general sale afterwards. And they're not disclosing how many people will win this lottery either. I'm ready to hear counterarguments from the usual suspects: us97, Unimane, Footsatt. The evidence is too clear that they are skewing this in a way that simply should not be allowed.
Well... ...I have no idea why LA Galaxy fans are being given preferred treatment. The MLS has nothing at stake in this game. Mexico draws huge in the USA thanks to a bunch of Americans that follow Mexico. The crowd in October will actually be 80% American - but 50-55% of those Americans support Mexico.
They aren't basically doing anything, they are flat out trying to get a 50-50 split, as they explicitly state. Of course, a pro-Mexican crowd was rigged the moment they said the match was in LA. Mexican fans will get their tickets through the US organization, as always happens.
Why are the tickets already available thru ReSellers? How the hell did they get them? http://m.ticketnetwork.com/tix/2611...j_RmllI1cpCxocAMGjT8kaAi1R8P8HAQ&gclsrc=aw.ds
I hope so, but it should just be a straight general sale, first come first serve. Aren't you guys embarrassed that CONCACAF is basically employing ethnic discriminatory techniques to help you out? It's ridiculous. It's such bs that they reserve tix for the galaxy but not the Xolos. Or for other MX fan club members in Cali. I hope that some of the usmnt fans there realize that they are there because of CONCACAF help, and that an equally qualified Mexico fan was denied simply because of a quota C'CAF was aiming for. Free handouts.
Ethnically discriminatory? Do you have some evidence that they are discriminating against Hispanic people trying to buy tickets? Please don't tell me that you are using your own speculative post above as evidence for this. Otherwise, I'm not bothered in the least that they are offering half of the tickets to the US fans and half to Mexican fans. That's the nature of having a one off playoff in a "neutral" place. I don't know how the LA Galaxy thing is working, if it's part of the half or what, but it won't matter much as there will be more Mexican fans than USA fans in LA anyway. I think you are really stretching your apparent posting philosophy of making the conclusion against whatever American position/team/identity/whatever, then determining the justification.
Well, Mexican culture is authentically American, so no, I'm not against anything American. The evidence is... 1. They openly state they want a 50/50 crowd. 2. They announce a completely unnecessary lottery for 30% of the tickets. 3. They have not explained why this lottery is happening. If it's going to be a random lottery, then there's a chance it benefits Mexico. So if they want 50/50, then this is a risk detrimental to their goals. But if they will rig it in favor of Caucasian applicants, then it helps towards the 50/50. Make your conclusion based off of that. If you think the lottery will be legit, then please explain why they would have it at all. It's so plainly obvious what is going on. Sadly, it doesn't seem that anyone is willing to step up and force CONCACAF transparency to make sure the lottery is 100% random, and not just a way for them to toss out Hispanic names and Mexican locations. Which is terrible, the Mex Fed should have a Monty Burns type team of lawyers at the ready for cases like these. And I sincerely hope that the galaxy allotment comes out of the 30% for usmnt fans. It better, but I doubt we'll find out.
So, again, all supposition and your conspiracies at work, nothing concrete, right? No evidence of throwing out Hispanic names or rigging it in favor of white people, so I'm not buying just yet.
You're worried about less than 50% of the fans of a Mexico game in L.A being Mexican supporters? As a Canadian, I thought L.A was a home game for Mexico always?
You contradicted yourself right here:Yes, there's more Native American influence, in many respects, than in American society, but Mexican culture certainly isn't "authentic" American culture. That's what makes us more American than you, we actually have American blood and you don't. Mexican culture is authentically American, more so than white-usa culture. More hogwash from you:"Besides, no one, not even Mexicans themselves, call themselves Americans (Except to get get pissy with Americans.), so you knew what I was getting at." We do, either by nationality or continent. You don't know much at all. Answer the question in your personal opinion, why would C'CAF have this lottery at all?
No, you don't. I'm around Hispanic people a lot in my work and personal life. Not a single person has ever referenced themselves as American. You are full of crap. Also, if I want something authentically "American", in the context you are suggesting, then I'm heading to the Cherokee reservation or somewhere that's actually authentic, not the "we're more Indian than you" false definition. Hell, my wife is more Native American than, at least, 90% of Mexican people. Of course, I was born here and lived my entire life (outside of a short volunteer stint) as an American, so I'm pretty sure I'm "authentic", in the strictest sense, as well. But, what, no more nonsense conspiracy theories about the evil people of CONCACAF?
Probably part of their theory that everyone has a 50/50 shot at a ticket and will result in an equal split of fans. It won't, but I surely won't care, as I don't now, either way.
We do, you obviously hardly talk to those Hispanics. You're the one full of crap. Does your Hispanic wife not call herself American? And what ethnicity is she anyhow. Please go there in the neighborhoods, not casinos, so you can see what your people have done to them. We're more American than you, nothing false about that. Not really, bruh, those white genes kinda block that. This is dumb, everyone co-signs that the lottery will be rigged. But whatever, if you guys need handouts to get more heads in there, it's an embarrassment for yall. If it was a straight general sale, it'd be 90/10 or even 95/5.
Hey Guys I got an email today. Mexican Team supporters can purchase their tickets now. Did any one else get the confirmation?
1. Because she's more American than you. 2.You said your lineage here goes back to the 1600s. so yes it was your peeps. And you do not know more about native Americans than I, I can assure you of that. 3.Yes we are, you are wrong. 4. I've argued with one of your peeps who insisted natives were not American, they were just pests to the settlers, so that's probably where you get that notion from, which is sad, and a direct cause of your people's imposition upon them. Labeling people who don't even know India exists, as Indians, what a f'in joke. 4.Everyone meaning everyone who is aware of this bs lottery. Go read the MX thread of this game.
1. She's more Peruvian than me, not American. 2. No, you don't. I actually focused on Native American (and African-American) history and wrote my Master's thesis on Native American boarding schools, or one, in particular. Unless, you've spent years digging through the archives on the subject, like me, then I don't think so. 3. Yes, you do. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge about Native Americans knows that they consider themselves a part of something more sophisticated than a simple uniform group of people, just as they wouldn't in Africa. Sure, there's the concept of Pan-Indianism, but that's not their identity, to them. 4. I'm not surprised to discover that you found one idiot who confirmed your worldview and decided they were the norm instead of the vast majority who wouldn't even conceive of people as "pests". God forbid you ever characterize white people as normal humans beings instead of some nonsense caricature. By the way, the people who labeled the people Indians were bankrolled and supported by the Spanish. That's your peeps, not mine. 5. (Yes, this is the number that comes after 4, in case you were wondering.) Ah, yes, that reservoir of sanity and knowledge that is BSMX. I stand firm with my critique.
I don't see this as biased at all. Trying to have a 50/50 split happens all the time. The only thing I see as unusual is giving tickets to LA Galaxy fans. That makes no sense to me.
1. And she's also more American than you. 2. Yes I do. Anyone can claim to be a scholar here, I call BS. 3.You are not a spokesman for natives. You don't know how they think. Regardless, natives, which includes most Mexicans, are more American than caucasians. 4.Hey man, there are too many in your community who are caricatures. The biggest caricature, Trump, has loads of followers. Doesn't bode well for your kind. Well, I disagree with that label and I'm not the only one. 5.It's better than the usmnt section.
1. She isn't 2. You can call BS, but I'm not giving back my MA after rummaging through the BIA 75 files at the Chicago Archives for a year and I can go pick up a copy of my thesis on "Acculturation and Accommodation at the Tomah Indian Industrial Boarding School" whenever I want. 3. I'm not a spokesperson on American Indians, I'm an expert on their history. If you don't believe what I'm saying, then go talk to them. I have. 4. "My kind"? You are full of these stupid idioms and sweeping negative generalizations that you are almost a caricature yourself. Trump is an idiot and most people think he's an idiot. Sure, he has a certain moronic part of the population all riled up, but so did Palin and succession of other fools. If you want to follow these tools and pretend they represent the norm, then be my guess, but you'd be wrong to think they are, in any way, the be all, end all. American Indian is the generally preferred term since the Conference of Indians in America held in 1977 in Geneva, Switzerland.
1.She is. 2.It's BS. 3.So have I. I've hung with some who did not like your people very much. Nonetheless, you can't agree that "indian" is an appropriate label. This is not India. It's a bs term from an Italian who didn't know where he was. It needs to be eradicated when referring to true Americans, which is us. "American Indian" or "Native American"? | Follow the Stories ...
Did you even read your link? Here's Russell Means' take on the name: In his 1998 essay "I Am An American Indian, Not a Native American!", Russell Means, a Lakota activist and a founder of the American Indian Movement (AIM), stated unequivocally, "I abhor the term 'Native American.'" He continues: It is a generic government term used to describe all the indigenous prisoners of the United States. These are the American Samoans, the Micronesians, the Aleuts, the original Hawaiians, and the erroneously termed Eskimos, who are actually Upiks and Inupiaqs. And, of course, the American Indian At an international conference of Indians from the Americas held in Geneva, Switzerland, at the United Nations in 1977 we unanimously decided we would go under the term American Indian. "We were enslaved as American Indians, we were colonized as American Indians, and we will gain our freedom as American Indians and then we can call ourselves anything we damn please." And, reaffirming my point of "Anyone with a modicum of knowledge about Native Americans knows that they consider themselves a part of something more sophisticated than a simple uniform group of people, just as they wouldn't in Africa. Sure, there's the concept of Pan-Indianism, but that's not their identity, to them." there is the following , also in that article. In the end, the term you choose to use (as an Indian or non-Indian) is your own personal choice. ... Very few Indians that I know care either way. The recommended method is to refer to a person by their tribe, if that information is known......... It's true that they are both from Europe, but their people have very different histories, cultures, and languages. The same is true of Indians. The Cherokee are vastly different from the Lakota, the Dine, the Kiowa, and the Cree, but they are all labeled Native American. So whenever possible an Indian would prefer to be called a Cherokee or a Lakota or whichever tribe they belong to So, I appreciate you doing the leg work to validate what I already know and told you. You might want to readjust your responses to my statements that you thought were so erroneous.
I never said no one thought like Mr. Means, but it's not a 100% unanimous POV. It varies from person to person: The Biggest Misnomer of All Time? - Visual Thesaurus American Indian versus Native American - Infoplease Native American name controversy - Wikipedia, the free ... I sure as hell will never call my Mexica ancestors "indian". They were never in India, they have nothing to do with India, they are American as am I. And all other Mexicans, whether they're u.s. citizens or not.
And, America is another term created by an Italian. Your ancestors, which are probably mostly Spanish anyway, would have never called themselves American, as I noted above and you dismissed, or anything like the idea that they were part of what became an American continent.