No more offensive Cleveland logo

[mikelink45]

I wrote this blog about Indians and real Indians - http://twinsdaily.com/blog/1028/entry-9178-real-indian-ballplayers/   Yes there was a real Indian - not chief Wahoo - but Louis Sockalexis.  Indians accept being called Indians because that has been put on them since Columbus got lost.  Anyone born in the US is a Native American and the American public does not seem to want to use indigenous, or more importantly recognize that there were many nations on the continent and they were not all the same people.

 

Part of my ancestry goes back to Ogima Benisi Kwe, Anishanabe (as she would have said) but Chippewa in WI and Ojibwe in MN.  But the dominate nation and religion insisted that she had to have an English name so for signing papers she became Mary Ross.  There have been so many injustices done over the years that it is only right that we celebrate when these are corrected.  Now if only the damned Washington Football team would change it's racist name. 

[gunnarthor]

 

Racism is as much subjective as it is objective. Yes, it has a clear definition, but we're kidding ourselves if we think the wording can't be molded. It isn't hard to come up with examples of instances/events that are absolutely racist, and similarly instances/events that absolutely are not, but a grey area does exist. Obviously, this area is where it can become difficult to carry out a conversation. Subtlety and rationality are often abandoned in favor of hard line stances. 

 

I disagree with what you're defining as "support." I'd argue that you've stretched the meaning of that word. Does owning merchandise with the logo mean you support the logo, and in turn make you a racist? What if you've attended Indians games or provided profit for that organization in any way? Are other businesses, charities, and non-profits who work with the organization supportive of racism as well? You had no issue stretching my posts into 'support," for the logo when there clearly wasn't any. 

 

You're acting as though your perception is THE truth. You've drawn a line and decided that anybody who isn't 100% in step with your view is somehow an opponent of your stance. You've stretched the meaning of support to include everybody on what you perceive to be the other side of your line. You've appointed yourself arbiter, and you've justified personal attacks and misrepresenting/mislabeling any views that even remotely clash with yours because they fall onto the opposite side of the divide YOU created. 

 

I agree that equal weight doesn't deserve to be given to all ideas. I also agree that feelings shouldn't be spared in favor of facts, but it's disingenuous to act as though the divide you've constructed is in any way fair.

You don't need to get into the weeds on Chief Wahoo. There really shouldn't be a grey area here. He's unquestionably racist there is no arguing around that. Supporting the logo means either the person doesn't realize how racist it is or he does know and doesn't care. If it's the first one, then the person has remained willfully ignorant his whole life. If it's the second one, they are worse. Neither is a reason to keep the damn thing.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

 

People name their son "Charles" after a grandfather as an honor.

People name a bridge "Veterans Memorial Bridge" as an honor.

People name a road "Walter Mondale Drive" as an honor. 

People name a Metrodome "Hubert H. Humphrey" as an honor.

People name a school "Martin Luther King" as an honor. 

People name a NFL team "Vikings" as an honor. 

 

People name a MLB team "Indians" as an honor. 

 

intention and outcome are different things. I'm not necessarily onboard with the outcome for all of these.

 

There is an important distinction between proper names as an honor and classification or heritage names as an honor. What was once a "heritage" can become a "classification". I don't ever think of classification as an honor. classification is a quick solution to lumping people into buckets whether or not those people want to be in those buckets or agree with them. Are they necessarily "bad", no not always, but can be.

 

Where I might choose to become an army infantryman, serve my country in the theatre of battle, and become a veteran, I might have been drafted and resent that classification. The intention is to honor, but is to the people in those groups? Does the intention matter?

 

Do people "choose" to be Native American or American Indian? I'm not even really sure how to describe these people to get it right. All I know is, I would probably not find it an honor for someone to name a team "mathematically inclined white guys" or something like that. I never chose to be a "mathematically inclined white guy".  So I support the idea behind moving away from that type of mascot and team naming.

[Craig Arko]

 

 

Do people "choose" to be Native American or American Indian? I'm not even really sure how to describe these people to get it right. All I know is, I would probably not find it an honor for someone to name a team "mathematically inclined white guys" or something like that. I never chose to be a "mathematically inclined white guy".  So I support the idea behind moving away from that type of mascot and team naming.

I'd jump all over 'mathematically inclined white guy.' Wouldn't even care if it was meant as an insult.

[Squirrel]

 

I'd jump all over 'mathematically inclined white guy.' Wouldn't even care if it was meant as an insult.

When I first read that in Sconnie's post, I had to go back and check who wrote that thinking, 'Wait, was this Craig's post?'

[Vanimal46]

Quite honestly, it doesn't matter what it was intended for or meant to be. It's how people perceive it today.

Exactly. I'm sure the Robert E. Lee park and statue were created to honor what he did in the Civil War. The perception today is this statue still exists to honor Confederate views. Many people feel it's disrespectful and want to see them go.

 

It's not a bad thing when perceptions change over time. That means we're growing as a society.

[Craig Arko]

 

When I first read that in Sconnie's post, I had to go back and check who wrote that thinking, 'Wait, was this Craig's post?'

Actually, rethinking this, 'Mathematically inclined Primate' seems a more apt description. Then we could use a Bonobo as our mascot.

[RedBull34]

I don't really feel that White Guy's = Indians.

 

I think calling them the Indians is about naming a team something like the Europeans or English or Irish.  None of those are offensive to me.  This is a statement about culture and geography more then anything.

 

Redskins would be like naming the team White Guys or even WhiteSkins.  This is a name about race.  It should probably be changed...

[Craig Arko]

 

I don't really feel that White Guy's = Indians.

 

I think calling them the Indians is about naming a team something like the Europeans or English or Irish.  None of those are offensive to me.  This is a statement about culture and geography more then anything.

 

Redskins would be like naming the team White Guys or even WhiteSkins.  This is a name about race.  It should probably be changed...

Excepting of course that Native Americans have nothing to do with India.

[RedBull34]

 

Excepting of course that Native Americans have nothing to do with India.

Anecdote: I taught a year on a reservation, and used the term Native American's exclusively to start.  The kids told me to stop, it was making them uncomfortable.  I still don't really know what to make of that other then the term Indian was actually the preferred label.

[Craig Arko]

 

Anecdote: I taught a year on a reservation, and used the term Native American's exclusively to start.  The kids told me to stop, it was making them uncomfortable.  I still don't really know what to make of that other then the term Indian was actually the preferred label.

Did you ask them?

[RedBull34]

 

Did you ask them?

They told me that Native American was too wordy, they liked the term Indian or Native (Never got comfortable with this one).

 

Obviously this is an anecdote and doesn't cover the whole Native American population, but it was a group of over 200 students.

 

They were also 12-15 for the most part as well, for whatever that means.

[laloesch]

 

You don't need to get into the weeds on Chief Wahoo. There really shouldn't be a grey area here. He's unquestionably racist there is no arguing around that. Supporting the logo means either the person doesn't realize how racist it is or he does know and doesn't care. If it's the first one, then the person has remained willfully ignorant his whole life. If it's the second one, they are worse. Neither is a reason to keep the damn thing.

 

What does supporting the logo mean to you?  Just asking.  What if the person doesn't really agree that it looks racist?  Does that automatically make them a supporter and racist?  When you look at Chief Wahoo why is it considered racist?  His big grin, his feather, the head band, the red skin color or just the fact that it's a caricature of a native American in a sport dominated by players and fans who are not native American?

 

Is the fighting Irish logo racist towards Irish people?  Why or why not?  What if it doesn't offend the average person?  Does that make them automatically racist because they don't feel it's a racist symbol? 

 

Again i'm just asking.  

[gunnarthor]

 

What does supporting the logo mean to you?  .  

At this point, supporting the logo means not wanting the logo gone. They might claim that they support it for "tradition" or whatnot or that they can't "see" how it's racist. The excuse doesn't matter.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Quite honestly, it doesn't matter what it was intended for or meant to be. It's how people perceive it today.

 

That's a large part, but I do think it's relevant what the name was born out of.  And it was born out of an era and a culture that mocked Native Americans openly and cartoonishly.  That matters too.

[laloesch]

 

At this point, supporting the logo means not wanting the logo gone. They might claim that they support it for "tradition" or whatnot or that they can't "see" how it's racist. The excuse doesn't matter.

 

But why is it racist?  

[laloesch]

 

That's a large part, but I do think it's relevant what the name was born out of.  And it was born out of an era and a culture that mocked Native Americans openly and cartoonishly.  That matters too.

 

See this makes sense to me when you explain it like this.  I can see why chief knockahoma of the Braves a much more offensive symbol because it's mocking a native american.

[TheLeviathan]

 

See this makes sense to me when you explain it like this.

 

For the record, I'm not sure how much better we've really gotten either.  But we were a bit more brazen about it in the past.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

I don't really feel that White Guy's = Indians.

 

I think calling them the Indians is about naming a team something like the Europeans or English or Irish. None of those are offensive to me. This is a statement about culture and geography more then anything.

 

Redskins would be like naming the team White Guys or even WhiteSkins. This is a name about race. It should probably be changed...

100% agreed. You can’t make blanket comparisons with people’s self identification. They are not the same. I was just trying to put the shoe on my own foot. I can never fully understand what another person goes through, but I can try to empathize.

[laloesch]

 

At this point, supporting the logo means not wanting the logo gone. They might claim that they support it for "tradition" or whatnot or that they can't "see" how it's racist. The excuse doesn't matter.

 

Some symbols are blatantly obvious but others not as much and it also depends on the person and their perceptions.  Some people are highly sensitive to such things and others not so much.  I also think explaining to others why it's a racist symbol rather than trying to guilt them into submission and silence by saying they are complicit because they don't 100% agree is flat out wrong and anti-productive to the goal of change.  This is a difficult issue no doubt.   

[TheLeviathan]

Wasn't "Indians" a blanket description that was used?  And then continued to be used even when we knew it to be false because we were too lazy/indifferent to change it?

[laloesch]

 

See this makes sense to me when you explain it like this.  I can see why chief knockahoma of the Braves a much more offensive symbol because it's mocking a native american.

 

Another example is Chief Joe from the early Bugs Bunny cartoons.  That to me comes across as very prejudice.  

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Is the fighting Irish logo racist towards Irish people? Why or why not? What if it doesn't offend the average person? Does that make them automatically racist because they don't feel it's a racist symbol?

Very good questions!

 

I have no idea! My personal opinion is logos and mascots depicting groups of people is a slippery slope. People are more complicated than a catch phrase can describe. I’m not sure what kind of “ism” label to put on it, or even if one is appropriate.

 

If Notre Dame decided to change their mascot, I’d support the change. There might be some historic context to the name that may or may not make it socially acceptable. Societies change.

https://www.nd.edu/features/whats-in-a-name/

[Craig Arko]

Let's gain a cosmic perspective. Or at least global.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfobAHbyztU

[KirbyDome89]

 

You don't need to get into the weeds on Chief Wahoo. There really shouldn't be a grey area here. He's unquestionably racist there is no arguing around that. Supporting the logo means either the person doesn't realize how racist it is or he does know and doesn't care. If it's the first one, then the person has remained willfully ignorant his whole life. If it's the second one, they are worse. Neither is a reason to keep the damn thing.

I've already said you can make a solid argument against the logo....

 

The issue is how you're using a broad definition of "support," to justify going after people. 

[ashbury]

(that is wrong, by the way.....they aren't from India).

It just occurs to me, that the mistaken notion by some 15th and 16th century voyagers that they had reached India when instead it was a western hemisphere landmass... is based on using a word "India" that probably wasn't in heavy use by the local residents of that Asian subcontinent. The word seems to have roots in what Persia called the area around one of the rivers, back in the day. Europeans wound up adopting the identifier India, but the locals seem to use variations on Bharat. Or at least, that's what a few minutes of googling tells me - I am not a linguist and I am confident that there are subtleties within subtleties in what I have just stated, not to mention outright mistakes. The point is, it's extremely complex and the misappropriation of names goes layers deep. But the common thread between this, and the Cleveland team's nickname, and Chief Wahoo, is a heavy vein of eurocentrism. That by itself makes me wary, when it's applied to someone other than the European migrants themselves.

 

Oh, and back to this:

People name a MLB team "Indians" as an honor.

Teams are named for a variety of reasons, often to notarize local distinctiveness (Expos, Astros, Rangers, Senators, Brewers, Dodgers, Rockies), or even simply their laundry (Reds, Browns, Red Sox, White Sox).

 

One different kind of reason is to imply toughness. Are the Detroit Tigers named to "honor" tigers? No, it's to try and suggest bloodthirsty fierceness. Giants are formidable foes that you'd best run away from. Even Blue Jays are pesky critters when riled. Wild Indians were, well, wild and they put up a tough fight, for a while there at least, dontcha know.

 

Naming a team after a militarily defeated people may be aiming for an aura of toughness, but is at best a left-handed compliment, meaning no honor at all.

[gunnarthor]

 

Some symbols are blatantly obvious but others not as much and it also depends on the person and their perceptions.  Some people are highly sensitive to such things and others not so much.  I also think explaining to others why it's a racist symbol rather than trying to guilt them into submission and silence by saying they are complicit because they don't 100% agree is flat out wrong and anti-productive to the goal of change.  This is a difficult issue no doubt.   

Can you see how these images are racist? If not, you have no doubt seen articles that are titled "Chief Wahoo, most racist logo in sports, is done"; "The Indians, MLB are too late in removing the racist Chief Wahoo"; "Cleveland Indians to abandon racist chief wahoo logo next year".

 

Myself and others have linked articles by Joe Posnanski, a Cleveland native and probably the best sports writer in America. He has eloquently written about how racist Wahoo is.

 

So you've been given this information but you apparently still don't know? You think people are trying to guilt" people to see that Wahoo is racist? Isn't the answer Wahoo is racist because it would be hard to create a more racist mascot? I'm not sure that's anyone else's fault. You've been given the tools and refused to learn.  ("You" meaning the person you described in your post, not necessarily you, the writer of that post).

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Quite honestly, it doesn't matter what it was intended for or meant to be. It's how people perceive it today.

 

No sorry, I don't agree at all. Perhaps perception needs to be addressed, especially when people's perception is created off a reality that isn't at all realistic. That's how books get burned and history gets rewritten.

 

As I said prior, I find really bad assumptions to be offensive, especially when we as a collective claim to be the most educated generations the world has ever known. We have to get beyond the idea that reality is what we make of it. That isn't reality alt all. It is a recipe for disaster.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Quite honestly, it doesn't matter what it was intended for or meant to be. It's how people perceive it today.

 

 

Exactly. I'm sure the Robert E. Lee park and statue were created to honor what he did in the Civil War. The perception today is this statue still exists to honor Confederate views. Many people feel it's disrespectful and want to see them go.

It's not a bad thing when perceptions change over time. That means we're growing as a society.

I agree that perception can certainly change for the better over time. Things like black face or the comical intonation of Indian voices were once accepted norms, but it's understood today why they're offensive. We have grown as a society, but part of the that growth should be an improved ability to contextualize. We're very good at racing to point the finger at anything deemed offensive, but we're not good at hitting the brakes to think or discuss why or whether it actually is. 

 

For that reason I think intent is very important. The idea that everything should be viewed only through the perception of today without any underlying context is a slippery slope. Setting aside the argument of perception vs. reality, to me the idea of ignoring intent or context invites a "feels over reals," approach.

 

I think the park or statue can be a good example. We've evolved to realize that the confederate view of slavery was wrong in every way. IMO part of that evolution should be an ability to also realize that Robert E Lee was a huge part of the Civil War and by extension a huge part of American history, and as such we should be able to view a park or statue with his name in a historical context. 

 

 

[ashbury]

We're very good at racing to point the finger at anything deemed offensive

Racing? This "please remove Chief Wahoo" movement has been simmering since, what, like, 1970?

 

It seems to me that in many cases protest is acceptable only so long as it is both invisible and ineffective. Once some kind of result is achieved, we're "racing".