No more offensive Cleveland logo

[IndianaTwin]

 

 

 

To me "Indian" as a mascot or nickname is about as offensive as "Scot" or "Quaker".  Same thing.  Pygmies is probably more offensive than all three...

 

Worth noting is that Wilmington and Earlham are both Quaker colleges, so they are self-identifying as such. 

[Dantes929]

 

It brings tears to my eyes what massive and monumental relief and good this will bring to the Native American community.  Clearly the good this will do for those folks is immeasurable.  They have suffered long enough!!

it brings tears to my eyes what massive and monumental grief and hardship it will bring to the Cleveland community to no longer be identified with caricatures of a race for which they have no connection whatsoever.   Clearly the harm they will have to endure as a result of not having the grinning Indian as a logo is immeasurable.    The suffering will be felt for the foreseeable future and beyond!

[KirbyDome89]

I understand the "it's a logo who cares if it gets changed," argument, but I think it misses the mark.

 

We have Indian communities (Idk if they're split or its 80% that are indifferent; both have been tossed out there) that clearly aren't decided on how they feel about the names/logos. If they come to some sort of consensus and want to sit down with Cleveland ownership I think that's a positive.

If Cleveland ownership voluntarily decides to move in another direction for branding then good for them.

If people aren't fans of the caricature logo I totally understand that. 

 

What I don't agree with is the social justice mob using pressure to push an agenda. I realize they're going to draw a lot of support on this issue, but for me this is a case where even if I agree with the end results I can't get behind the tactics used to arrive at that destination. 

[Monkeypaws]

 

If you're trying to point out something offensive about the swinging friar logo or the team name then you're going to have to explain it, because I don't see it. Padres were named for the Spanish friars (fathers) who founded San Diego. The logo doesn't depict an exaggerated racial caricature. I'm not aware of any controversy surrounding the team name, logo, or history.

Thrylos said: Also, I would suspect that some Catholics might object if their religion is used as a Mascot...

 

There's a Catholic mascot.

 

Funny.

[Riverbrian]

 

I look at a stat like 80% of Native Americans are not offended by the term Indian and 20% are and I wonder if that 20% is taking it all too seriously but I am a German whose family moved here a 100 years ago and give very little thought to any of my ancestors beyond my parents so I know I just can't relate to that kind of heritage ownership.   But what I REALLY don't understand is the other side of the coin.   If you are not Native American, or specifically a member of the Sioux tribe why would you take such issue with a sports team that stops using either as a mascot?    You really need to step back and just ask yourself.   "Why do I care".     My college changed its mascot and I gave it less than 5 minutes. thought.   The same would hold true for any of the teams I have played on or followed.    I am not a Crusader, a Raider, a Viking, a Redman or a Twin.    I love the Twins and like the history and reason for the name but even if it wasn't deemed culturally offensive I wouldn't spend any time protesting a change.     I kind of like names that draw on history or geographical significance but don't insist on it.   If the Golden Gophers changed their name to the Gray Squirrels how does that change any one's lives.  

 

What's wrong with people that they wrap themselves up with a stupid mascot so tightly.

 

Just felt like that needed to be said again.

 

I agree 99.9%

 

I don't want anybody touching the Viking Horns. 

 

 

Best Helmet in all levels of Football. 

[Craig Arko]

 

I agree 99.9%

 

I don't want anybody touching the Viking Horns. 

 

 

Best Helmet in all levels of Football. 

Despite the fact that historical Vikings did not wear horned helmets.

[Riverbrian]

 

Despite the fact that historical Vikings did not wear horned helmets.

 

What are you talking about?

http://kingfeatures.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/pr_hagar.gif

[LimestoneBaggy]

 

I've been living in Grand Forks since 1990. I've been handling the Public Address for the UND football team since around that time. Maybe 10 years plus of P.A. work with the UND basketball team and a couple of seasons with the hockey team. It was pretty close to two decades of screaming "Here Come Your Fighting Sioux" into the microphone for me. 

 

To me... It was simply the name of the team that I was proud of. 

 

Any hint of disrespect never entered my mind nor would I ever want it entering my mind. It was simply the name of the team. It was the debate that made me think about the possibility of respect or disrespect and the controversy made life miserable at times. 

 

Personally... I found the whole debate heartbreaking. 

 

The complications that arose were overbearing!

 

From the two tribes themselves being split on the subject. The Spirit Lake Tribe voted to keep the name, the Standing Rock Tribal council refused to let a vote take place.  The other complications, that beautiful arena being built, the NCAA pressure of sanctions, the lawsuits, the injunctions, the settlements, the donor base threats, the logo, the protests, the petitions and perhaps the most amazing thing of all... The North Dakota Senate passing a LAW that was subsequently signed by the Governor of North Dakota that the University be forced to keep the nickname despite the NCAA threatening to not allow home playoff games. 

 

While all of this was happening... Fine upstanding people who I respect were acting like losing the nickname was the end of the world. Fine upstanding people who I respect were acting like keeping the nickname was effecting the very future of the oppressed. Both sides of the discussion were embellishing the impact to express themselves at overly emotional levels.

 

There were times when I felt like the only sensible person in a 100 mile radius. 

 

Why was I sensible (debatable I know). I did my best to keep perspective.

 

It was simply the name of the team that I cheered for. Nothing more... Nothing Less.

 

I loved the nickname and was OK letting it go because it was the only way for the controversy to end and the controversy was turning good upstanding people completely upside down. 

 

Whenever someone tried to suck me into the debate and they tried... I responded the same way every time.

 

"50 years from now... nobody is going to care". Fighting Sioux will be a futurepedia entry that our great great grandchildren might find an interesting conversation starter at parties. "Did you know that UND used to be called the Fighting Sioux?". 

 

Chief Wahoo? 50 Years from Now... Nobody will care.

 

Life Goes On. 

 

You are not alone Brian....Go Hawks (or whatever team name they may be). 

[Craig Arko]

 

What are you talking about?

http://kingfeatures.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/pr_hagar.gif

Alternatively,

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horned_helmet

 

https://regia.org/research/warfare/helmet.htm

[Mike Sixel]

 

I understand the "it's a logo who cares if it gets changed," argument, but I think it misses the mark.

 

We have Indian communities (Idk if they're split or its 80% that are indifferent; both have been tossed out there) that clearly aren't decided on how they feel about the names/logos. If they come to some sort of consensus and want to sit down with Cleveland ownership I think that's a positive.

If Cleveland ownership voluntarily decides to move in another direction for branding then good for them.

If people aren't fans of the caricature logo I totally understand that. 

 

What I don't agree with is the social justice mob using pressure to push an agenda. I realize they're going to draw a lot of support on this issue, but for me this is a case where even if I agree with the end results I can't get behind the tactics used to arrive at that destination. 

 

what tactics? no on is violent. no one is doing anything other than saying change it on social media and other places.....so what tactics? what "social justice mob?"

[Tomj14]

 

Why would anyone be angry about a logo or even a team name? Would the Twins not be the same team if they changed logos? Oh, wait, they have changed hats, and uniforms.....and still you root for them......

My guess is because many people that cheers for a team, was proud of the team, and thought it the name was a great tribute to a group of people, are now being called racist, insensitive, bigots and may more names, and they don't like being called things they aren't or don't believe they are.

 

 

[Dantes929]

 

I agree 99.9%

 

I don't want anybody touching the Viking Horns. 

 

 

Best Helmet in all levels of Football. 

That is so funny.   I very nearly included that exact position in my post.   I was going to comment on the fact that I don't really care about the Vikings name or mascot but I like the helmet.   For boring hours during grade school I would trace and color in or even draw free hand a picture of that helmet.     I would be fine with the Minnesota Cool Helmet With Horns football team.    Minnesota CHWH for short.  Or Minnesota the Best Helmets.     Being attached to that makes as much sense to me as any other mascot or logo.

[Mike Sixel]

 

My guess is because many people that cheers for a team, was proud of the team, and thought it the name was a great tribute to a group of people, are now being called racist, insensitive, bigots and may more names, and they don't like being called things they aren't or don't believe they are.

 

Are they? Mostly I see stuff that says the logo is racist. Did the people of Ohio really think it was a great tribute, or are they attached to it because it is a logo of a team they root for? I kind of doubt the former is the case, but I could be wrong.

 

But none of that answers why people care about a logo.....the wolves have changed theirs, the Twins keep changing their hats and unis....what difference does it make to those that like the team if the logo changes? Like, I literally can't think of why it would matter at all, if it is the team people care about.

[KirbyDome89]

 

what tactics? no on is violent. no one is doing anything other than saying change it on social media and other places.....so what tactics? what "social justice mob?"

Seriously? Do you really believe that the social pressure applied by groups in media is benign?

[Tomj14]

 

Are they? Mostly I see stuff that says the logo is racist. Did the people of Ohio really think it was a great tribute, or are they attached to it because it is a logo of a team they root for? I kind of doubt the former is the case, but I could be wrong.

 

But none of that answers why people care about a logo.....the wolves have changed theirs, the Twins keep changing their hats and unis....what difference does it make to those that like the team if the logo changes? Like, I literally can't think of why it would matter at all, if it is the team people care about.

The difference between the Wolves and Indians is huge, no one has told the people that the old logo is offensive and racist, thus if you like it you are both of those two things.

I could not give 2 rats arse what Cleveland does with their logo, was just trying to answer your question on why people get worked up.

Drive around MPLS and you will see every other block is Indian name and nobody cares.

 

Quick story, my friends and I had a fishing guide on Leach Lake, who happened to be Indian, the first day he had a Redskins hat on the second day he had a Chiefs hat on and one of my friends said I thought those were offensive, and he said he wears them with pride because after they take those names away the only way people will think of Indians is Meth heads and Casino's, and then he laughed, he added yea some of my friends find them offensive but I don't.

[Thrylos]

 

Worth noting is that Wilmington and Earlham are both Quaker colleges, so they are self-identifying as such. 

Donuts to dollars that not 100% of their students are Quakers, and some of the non-Quakers may object.

[Dantes929]

 

Are they? Mostly I see stuff that says the logo is racist. Did the people of Ohio really think it was a great tribute, or are they attached to it because it is a logo of a team they root for? I kind of doubt the former is the case, but I could be wrong.

 

But none of that answers why people care about a logo.....the wolves have changed theirs, the Twins keep changing their hats and unis....what difference does it make to those that like the team if the logo changes? Like, I literally can't think of why it would matter at all, if it is the team people care about.

When I was in Catholic grade school in the early 70's we had a guest speaker that was a Jew and talked about the history of her people and also talked about the racism and such.   I remember learning that to jew someone was offensive because it depicted a people that were money grubbing and unfair.   I had never made the connection between the word and the religion.    I wouldn't have even spelled it the same way.  To me it was just a great and descriptive word for negotiating and getting the better of a deal from someone and there is no substitute word that quite does the job.    

I guess my point is the Fighting Sioux is kind of a cool nickname with also cool mascot and logo's and like many sports names there is the comparison to war or battle and intimidation.  There is no other name that evokes quite the same imagery as the Fighting Sioux but I doubt its origin was to honor anyone.   If classes are mandatory teaching the history of the Sioux and why and how they are being honored then I am wrong.    If the name of  the sports team is the only thought ever given to them that is a different matter.    I guess the flip side to the result of all names being changed to more a benign nature is that without the sports teams named after them no one will think of them at all so it is a trade off of anonymity and apathy vs indignation about insensitivity.

[Riverbrian]

 

Alternatively,

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horned_helmet

 

https://regia.org/research/warfare/helmet.htm

 

If given the choice between Comics and Wikipedia for accuracy. I always choose the comics. 

[ashbury]

If given the choice between Comics and Wikipedia for accuracy. I always choose the comics. 

Oh. I thought Hagar was a documentary.

[Secondary User]

 

The point, for those who may struggle with logic, is that nobody names something as an insult. Naming a baseball team "Indians" is a great honor to Indians. It's showing them utmost respect to name something after them. 

 

For every person complaining about the name Indians, they better be equally complaining about the name Vikings and the crowd chant celebrating drinking out of a murdered opponent's skull (skol). You want offensive? That is offensive.

 

Utmost respect?  oh boy....

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Oh. I thought Hagar was a documentary.

That sounds horrible.

[Thrylos]

 

Are they? Mostly I see stuff that says the logo is racist. Did the people of Ohio really think it was a great tribute, or are they attached to it because it is a logo of a team they root for? I kind of doubt the former is the case, but I could be wrong.

 

Here is the story. 

 

The Indians started their lives as the Cleveland Spiders, then named the Cleveland Naps for Nap Lajoie.

 

After Lajoie retired in 1914, the Cleveland squad asked the BBWAA to vote for a new nickname for them.  They voted to name them the Indians, in honor of their early star Louis Sockalexis, a Native American.

 

Here is the response of one  of his ancestors on the recent news.

[Sam Morley]

 

Yeah, even among Native Americans you'll see a lot of split and indifference/ambivalence toward the name 'Indians.' At least from what articles I've read about it. 

 

Here's how I look at this:

 

If someone insults you perpetually for years, with no end in sight, and you've exhausted all of your means of fighting back, then A, your best defense is to feign indifference/ambivalence hoping they lose interest, or actually internalize a genuine position of indifference/ambivalence, which would be soul crushing, and B, if one day, in addition to continuing to insult you, they start asking you if you're offended by being insulted, and then they use your presentment of indifference/ambivalence as justification for continuing to insult you- well, that's some crazy, absurdist, Machiavellian, Catch-22 bull-honky, right there.

[ashbury]

Here is the story. 

 

The Indians started their lives as the Cleveland Spiders, then named the Cleveland Naps for Nap Lajoie.

That isn't the story. Those were two different franchises in two different leagues.

 

The Spiders of the National League were disbanded, after some monkey business with the owner also owning the St Louis Browns, and toward the end (1899) the best Spiders players were transferred to the latter team. Those Browns later took the name Cardinals (and a different team later took the name Browns in the AL), so whatever thread of continuity probably resides in St Louis, but mainly the Spiders just got squished as a franchise.

 

What became the Indians started in Grand Rapids MI and transferred to Cleveland in 1900, shortly before the American League took on its present name.

 

With that quibble out of the way... Joe Posnanski gave a nice look back at the whole issue we're discussing. My takeaway is that the moniker Indians derives more from a marketing ploy in 1897 than from a genuine desire to honor a player forever and ever, and became adopted by the later team mainly as a default in lieu of some better idea in 1915.

[Sam Morley]

To suggest that naming a professional or school sports team after a specific tribe, or a general Native American slur and/or 'nickname' is in any way meant to honor Native Americans is just as, if not more so, offensive/disrespectful as the name being used itself.

 

What Native Americans have experienced, at the hands of the U.S. government, its citizens, and its corporations, can be described by many standards as genocide. Many academics in the field argue, compellingly, that it is ongoing. It is nonsense for a culture to claim that in one, symbolic, act it honors another culture while simultaneously marginalizing and destroying it in every other action it takes toward that culture. 

 

"Hey, Native Americans, didn't you know it's an honor to you that the city of Cleveland, Ohio named its professional baseball team the "Indians"; can't you tell it's an honor by the way you've been treated in every other way by the U.S. and it's people? Can't you see how much we respect and honor you by how we stole and destroyed your land, killed you by the millions, disregarded treaties we made with you, rounded you up and relocated you onto undesirable land, took your children to boarding schools where your language, stories, ceremonies, and ways were extinguished? We have the best honor, let me tell you. Nobody has more honor for you than we do."

[slash129]

To further this point: I'm pretty sure the Timberwolves are on their 6th logo in the last 7 years. Or something damn close to that. I didn't see anyone lying in the street over any of those changes.

 

It ends up being about the principle of the thing, but the principles are all misguided. Our long-standing, demeaning treatment of Native Americans is long overdue for some reversal.

I can see your point of view with the misguided principles over a trivial mascot/logo, but I wouldn't use the middling Timberwolves as a comparison. Other than basically wasting Kevin Garnett's career, the team doesn't have much story. The Malik Sealy tragedy and Latrell Sprewell's starving kids are all I can come up with. Those logo changes were probably desperate attempts to get fans interested in something not so interesting. The Indians are storied, even if cursed. Timberwolves stories wouldn't sell out of the bargain bin at a used book store.

[drivlikejehu]

What a relief - now, Native American communities can move on from their annihilation and live happily ever after.

[Secondary User]

The whole "think of the Scots, Vikings, Fighting Irish, etc." bit falls flat on its face when you take into account that none of those groups had their homeland taken from them, herded onto reservations and to this day suffer systematic oppression that leaves them disadvantaged in our society.  If you want to honor a guy who played for the team in the early 1900s, then name the team after him, not a broad racial distinction (that is wrong, by the way.....they aren't from India).  

[Nine of twelve]

If you want to honor a guy who played for the team in the early 1900s, then name the team after him, not a broad racial distinction (that is wrong, by the way.....they aren't from India).

The Chicago Blackhawks were indirectly named for a leader of the Sauk nation, Black Hawk, who was a prominent figure in the history of Illinois.

[gunnarthor]

http://joeposnanski.com/wahoo/

 

Poz had a pretty good article on this, as always.  "Wahoo is a grotesque caricature of a great American people and it is blatantly offensive. That is not what a baseball mascot is supposed to be. Wahoo is a relic from another, less enlightened time when Native Americans were often the focus of such insensitivities — throughout the 1930s and 1940s there was a comic strip called “Big Chief Wahoo,” which featured a naive “Injun” who said things like “Look. There. Horse.” There was a time when people found that stuff hilarious. That time is gone."