No more offensive Cleveland logo

[laloesch]

 

Obviously talking about the team with the name "Vikings." Why would anyone name their team after a gang of murdering, thieving thugs who raped and pillaged innocent villages throughout northern Europe. The Vikings most likely also killed every Native American village they encountered when they visited North America. It makes no sense to honor and name a team after the Vikings and turn around and bitch and complain about the complimentary act of naming a team after Indians. 

 

Hardly.  Human beings throughout history have been doing unspeakable acts towards each other. 

 

Unfortunately, it is in our nature to kill and destroy one another and to fear those that we don't know.  Only the thin veneer of civilization and the threat of punishment keeps the most savage of us in check and sometimes that's not even enough.

 

It is unfortunate that such measures have to be taken but when you have seen first hand what human beings are capable of doing to each other in places such as Djibouti, Kabul and even here in the USA it will change your outlook on things.

 

I read up on the Cleveland Indians name on wikipedia.  Kinda interesting read.  I agree though with other posters that it time to change the logo although i don't think find the name Indians offensive. Washington Redskins on the other hand, that is offensive. 

 

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

[Tomj14]

 

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).  

So are you saying the current Indians didn't take the land from other tribes? I mean it is awful short sided to say last tribe that held the land is the rightful owner, when they took it from someone else?

Read history just about every place on earth has been taken over by other people.

[Vanimal46]

Joining this conversation late. If they decided to "phase" out the logo, why don't they do it right now?

 

I've never heard of racist logos getting a farewell tour...

[gunnarthor]

 

Joining this conversation late. If they decided to "phase" out the logo, why don't they do it right now?

I've never heard of racist logos getting a farewell tour...

I suspect it had to do with getting uniforms for next year and probably contracts with local providers/servicers. There's a lot of stuff out there that has contracted with the team that probably including using logos and such. But that's just a guess.

[slash129]

Joining this conversation late. If they decided to "phase" out the logo, why don't they do it right now?

 

I've never heard of racist logos getting a farewell tour...

I'm guessing compromise with a reason along the lines of "our 2018 marketing campaign is already well underway, and asking us to make a change this late in the game is going to affect us on the business side" ... That's all I can come up with ... It does become laughable, if applied to other situations (e.g. Can you imagine?"You can all continue hate crimes for the rest of the year. Get it out of your system. Then, you all need to stop doing that.")

[Vanimal46]

 

I suspect it had to do with getting uniforms for next year and probably contracts with local providers/servicers. There's a lot of stuff out there that has contracted with the team that probably including using logos and such. But that's just a guess.

 

 

I'm guessing compromise with a reason along the lines of "our 2018 marketing campaign is already well underway, and asking us to make a change this late in the game is going to affect us on the business side" ... That's all I can come up with ... It does become laughable, if applied to other situations (e.g. Can you imagine?"You can all continue hate crimes for the rest of the year. Get it out of your system. Then, you all need to stop doing that.")

 

I suppose marketing campaigns and all of that stuff plays into it. I'd think taking a short-term loss will benefit them more in the future... Just a measure of good faith since it's been an issue for years. 

 

And to piggy back off of slash's can you imagine?

Sept. 3rd 1945 in Berlin, Germany

 

"We promise to phase out swastikas by 1947. It's just, we ordered some new uniforms and neat hats that we don't want to go to waste."

[Craig Arko]

 

I suppose marketing campaigns and all of that stuff plays into it. I'd think taking a short-term loss will benefit them more in the future... Just a measure of good faith since it's been an issue for years. 

 

And to piggy back off of slash's can you imagine?

Sept. 3rd 1945 in Berlin, Germany

 

"We promise to phase out swastikas by 1947. It's just, we ordered some new uniforms and neat hats that we don't want to go to waste."

And they would have been right.

 

[KirbyDome89]

 

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).  

No, they just had their homeland invaded by England and spent countless years under foreign rule which culminated in bloody wars for independence. I'd say selective history is what falls flat. If you don't like the logo, that's one thing, but if we're going to use the past to point fingers then everybody is going to have a gripe. 

 

[gunnarthor]

 

What?

The right thing to do is to get rid of racist logos.

[ashbury]

If the narrative were true that in 1915 the name Indians was intended to honor a guy from 1897, the logo whose roots reside in 1932 and which was adopted in 1947 would look something more like this:

 

 

It doesn't, because it isn't.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Joining this conversation late. If they decided to "phase" out the logo, why don't they do it right now?

I've never heard of racist logos getting a farewell tour...

 

I would guess there is some logistics to it to be honest... but Cleveland has been quietly phasing out Wahoo for years... they finally decided to cut the cord. I really don't think we should be upset about that.

[diehardtwinsfan]

This subject really needs a middle ground. I hate subjects like this for that reason, as it's too easy to get painted into a corner that no one stands for and that is unreasonable.

 

• I think it's offensive to assume that the name "Indians" was meant to be belittling to a race of people. I think it's wise to actually compile evidence about these types of things before making accusations of racism. If Thrylos' post is true, that is a prefect example of it.
• I think it's offensive if the name Indians was chosen to belittle American Indians.
• I think the logo itself, while possibly not intended to offend, does offend. While it probably doesn't offend everyone, it offends enough people that it would be wise to stay away. I think Cleveland is making the right choice here in getting rid of it. It definitely exaggerates a racial characteristic.
• I think the concerns about slippery slopes are valid. Let's face it, there are a lot of names that could come under fire for a lot of things. As was noted here, Vikings weren't exactly good people. At some point, society needs to step away from the PC cliff. That's a slippery slow that one cannot crawl back up.
• I think it's possible to like the name and logo and not be a racist. I think it's offensive to assume or imply that racism is the reason for this. It is quite reasonable for people to disagree on controversial things. That doesn't make them racists.
• I think if we put aside accusations and actually have dialogue, we can do far to combat these issues than our current approach. I don't know if this story is true or not, but if it is, this man has accomplished more by himself than the entire PC movement.

[Craig Arko]

So it’s time to examine this elephant in this room.

 

That logo is just plain butt ugly. The city of Cleveland has a first rate symphony orchestra, some good opera and several fine art museums.

 

They deserve better than this aesthetic abomination.

[Secondary User]

 

So are you saying the current Indians didn't take the land from other tribes? I mean it is awful short sided to say last tribe that held the land is the rightful owner, when they took it from someone else?

Read history just about every place on earth has been taken over by other people.

 

There is just so much to unpack here

 

1) Yes, the human race has a dark history re: war/tribalism.  Maybe we don't glorify it and try to move forward.

 

2) This particular situation has extra layers to it.  Genocide, attempts to destroy their culture, and systemic issues that to this date still leave indigenous peoples disadvantaged.

[ashbury]

Moderator's note: on an explosive topic like this one, I feel as though the discussion has been gratifyingly constructive for the most part. But, as a reminder, please don't cross the line into insults, directed personally or to some unspecified group. I've had to clean up a few posts in this regard, and there will be no tolerance for further swipes at one another's character.

[Sam Morley]

 

Hardly.  Human beings throughout history have been doing unspeakable acts towards each other. 

 

Unfortunately, it is in our nature to kill and destroy one another and to fear those that we don't know.  Only the thin veneer of civilization and the threat of punishment keeps the most savage of us in check and sometimes that's not even enough.

 

It is unfortunate that such measures have to be taken but when you have seen first hand what human beings are capable of doing to each other in places such as Djibouti, Kabul and even here in the USA it will change your outlook on things.

 

I read up on the Cleveland Indians name on wikipedia.  Kinda interesting read.  I agree though with other posters that it time to change the logo although i don't think find the name Indians offensive. Washington Redskins on the other hand, that is offensive. 

 

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

 

So are you saying the current Indians didn't take the land from other tribes? I mean it is awful short sided to say last tribe that held the land is the rightful owner, when they took it from someone else?

Read history just about every place on earth has been taken over by other people.

 

 

What I've concluded from my own personal studies is that there is a difference between civilized and indigenous societies. Usually, the term 'civilized' is used in a positive connotation, probably because the people using it are members of a civilization. A civilization is based on a permanent settlement in a single geographic location. It requires the harvesting of natural resources in that geographic location to begin. As it depletes the natural resources within its immediate vicinity, which it always does, it has to extend its harvesting to further and further surrounding areas, especially as it grows and expands, which it always does. A result is wars between civilizations expanding closer to each others' territory, and competition for increasingly scarce resources and unpolluted spaces. 

 

By contrast, a definitive characteristic of indigenous societies, throughout history and around the world, is flexibility with the land it lives on. They tend to be nomadic, following game migration patterns, and their impermanence allows individual geographic spaces that they occupy seasonally to recover when they leave. Additionally, their mobile lifestyle is a contributing factor in keeping their population from growing to a size that would be overly demanding of the land. 

 

There are certainly competing historical theories about the nature and extent of indigenous tribal warfare. Some suggest that wars between tribes were most often far more akin to dangerous athletic competition between rivals than to the extreme and massive violence of wars between civilizations; and that death was a rare occurrence. Large, violent wars are made possible, in part, by large, expendable populations. Indeed, success in war demands a large, expendable population. When a population is small, like that of an indigenous society, the value of each individual member of that society to that society is far greater. The risk of large scale war would be too great, not to mention generally unnecessary. The diversity of subcultures and societies of indigenous people in America at the time of the arrival of civilized societies is evidence to me that they were not at war with each other- certainly not in the sense that civilizations make war with each other. 

 

The notion that human beings are innately greedy, murderous, and destructive is a misconception perpetuated by civilized societies in order to justify their continued existence. Greed, murder, and destruction are socially conditioned symptoms of civilization. Civilization as a social structure for human beings isn't even that old- it's mutant offspring, Industrial Civilization, is even younger. Human beings existed peacefully and successfully for millennia before the advent of civilization.

 

Admittedly, I don't have a time machine. Neither am I going to attempt to source all of the material from which I have drawn my personal conclusions. I will say, that before I decided to investigate for myself, I had always assumed the ubiquity of violence in humanity throughout history. I was surprised to even discover alternate theories, and pleased to find them far more compelling than my old conditioned assumptions. 

 

Derek Jensen has an astoundingly comprehensive, well sourced, two volume work called Endgame that deals with civilization. 

[ashbury]

Derek Jensen has an astoundingly comprehensive, well sourced, two volume work called Endgame that deals with civilization. 

I took a look at what Wikipedia said in summarizing this work, but it omitted Jensen's position on Chief Wahoo.

[Sam Morley]

 

I took a look at what Wikipedia said in summarizing this book, but it omitted Jensen's position on Chief Wahoo.

 

I guess you'll just have to read the whole thing, then.

[ashbury]

I guess you'll just have to read the whole thing, then.

I already looked for it in my library's online catalog, but it's not available anywhere in the Boston Westmetro network. (BTW the first name is Derrick.)

[gunnarthor]

 

Moderator's note: on an explosive topic like this one, I feel as though the discussion has been gratifyingly constructive for the most part. But, as a reminder, please don't cross the line into insults, directed personally or to some unspecified group. I've had to clean up a few posts in this regard, and there will be no tolerance for further swipes at one another's character.

I think you have to be a bit careful there. Sometimes it's correct - and needed - to say that those who support a racist mascot are racists. Sure, it's not nice but ignoring that obvious (although somewhat painful) connection means that we give equal weight to ideas that really don't deserve them or silence truth because it's not nice.

[Sam Morley]

 

I already looked for it in my library's online catalog, but it's not available anywhere in the Boston Westmetro network. (BTW the first name is Derrick.)

 

Shoot. I'd recommend any of his books. A Language Older than Words is really good, and The Culture of Make Believe is specifically about some of the themes discussed in this thread- it's probably a more relevant referral than Endgame. Can't believe I spelled his name wrong. In a post espousing a alternate theory of history, I simultaneously espoused an alternate spelling of an author's name! Hopefully no one reads into it.  

[Squirrel]

I think you have to be a bit careful there. Sometimes it's correct - and needed - to say that those who support a racist mascot are racists. Sure, it's not nice but ignoring that obvious (although somewhat painful) connection means that we give equal weight to ideas that really don't deserve them or silence truth because it's not nice.

I don't disagree, but I think what we want to be careful of is how we, well, communicate the message we want to with one another. I don't believe referring to people as stupid or idiots or knuckle draggers accomplishes that. In fact, it might detract from moving people in the direction that you want as defensiveness sets in and we reach an impasse. I, personally, want to get past the impasse and live in a world where equality is the norm and not the exception because we refuse to examine the worst in ourselves. But name calling won't get us there. And neither will broad accusations and snap judgements made on a sports message board.

[KirbyDome89]

 

I think you have to be a bit careful there. Sometimes it's correct - and needed - to say that those who support a racist mascot are racists. Sure, it's not nice but ignoring that obvious (although somewhat painful) connection means that we give equal weight to ideas that really don't deserve them or silence truth because it's not nice.

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.

[Craig Arko]

Good Doctor Dawkins...

 

[Blackjack]

 

.    

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. 

What do you suppose Custer's last words were?? 

[Dantes929]

 

What do you suppose Custer's last words were?? 

Oh, sh&%!   or Oh, Fu#@ me!     Gotta be one of those.

[Squirrel]

Good Doctor Dawkins...

I don’t disagree with this either, one iota. There are plenty of opinions on this subject, and others, I simply don’t like, don’t agree with and think are flat out wrong. But there is still a big difference between disrespecting an opinion and an individual. If you can’t have a discussion without name calling you aren’t likely to change anyone’s opinions for the better and is not an effective strategy in a forum discussion such as this.

[ashbury]

Gotta be one of those.

 

Basically.

[Shaitan]

 

 

This subject really needs a middle ground. I hate subjects like this for that reason, as it's too easy to get painted into a corner that no one stands for and that is unreasonable.

 

• I think it's offensive to assume that the name "Indians" was meant to be belittling to a race of people. I think it's wise to actually compile evidence about these types of things before making accusations of racism. If Thrylos' post is true, that is a prefect example of it.
• I think it's offensive if the name Indians was chosen to belittle American Indians.

 

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

[mikelink45]

 

Interesting, and I can see how they would lose $$$ on sales of retro gear after the copyright expires. But I think they'd make up a huge chunk of that selling merchandise with the new name and logo.

They will make a ton of money - think about how all the professional leagues use retro uniforms and special uniforms - not to entertain, but to sell more jerseys and more merchandise.