No more offensive Cleveland logo

[laloesch]

 

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).

 

Sure i can see how some see that and i get it.  You would then have to argue that Chief Noc-A-Homa the Braves mascot from the 1950's to 1986 was even more racist because it vividly depicted a native American making a war chant.  They even had a tepee in the outfield in old Milwaukee County Stadium that the Mascot inhabited during games and would come out and start the war chant among-st the fans as well as dance after home runs.  Their last mascot to play the role was a chief elder from the Eldawa Tribe in Michigan.    

I'm sure many long time Twins fans remember that chant.  Was that intended to be a racist display from the very beginning?  Probably not.  Just another example of how perceptions change with time. 

 

My point is that not every one interrupts such images as racist and even those that do have changed their opinions with time.  Some folks are much more sensitive to such matters (again there's nothing wrong with that), but perception is in the eye of the beholder and not everyone sees things exactly as you do (i'm using that figuratively).  

 

And regarding your reference to Joe Posnanski, even he can't definitively state why the team decided to name itself the Indians other then try to discredit the theory that one of its predecessors (the Spiders) had the first full blooded Native American player with conjecture arguments that they were trying to imitate the Boston Braves.   

[gunnarthor]

 

. 

 

My point is that not every one interrupts such images as racist 

You've tried to make this point a few times. It's a version of "I don't see color" that we always get dragged down into. It's not worth it. You've been given many sources on why Wahoo is an ugly racist caricature. There's really not much left to be said. 

 

At this point you can pretend Wahoo isn't racist. You would be wrong. You can pretend only overly sensitive people would perceive him as racist. You would also be wrong. You can cling to romanticized stories that he is a tribute to a Native American player (even though that story was created to explain the name of the team, not the creation of the mascot). Or you can figure out why he's so offensive.  

[Shaitan]

 

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. 

 

The context angle lives on in the baseball history books, museums, etc. Nobody is asking CLE to burn their history books, they're asking them to change hats.

 

 

 

 

[KirbyDome89]

 

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".

Racing isn't specific to just this issue but yes, I don't feel it isn't difficult uncover examples of individuals or groups reaching to find offense. Racing was also meant to say it's easy to claim offense. You have the moral high ground, and as a victim you now have a choice of whether to engage in discussion about whether X really is offensive or label any examination beyond your feelings as a personal attack, ignorant, racist, ect... 

 

Look no further than this very thread. It took all of a few pages before any poster who didn't outright condemn the logo was labeled as racist "supporters," and "knuckle draggers." Introspection and thoughtful discourse be damned right? 

 

"If I feel something is offensive, then it must be so, ergo it also must be removed or disallowed." If we're willing to ignore everything outside of current perception then that's the slope we're descending. 

 

I have zero issue with protest, I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Perhaps the issue is that we're too concerned about "some kind of result," rather than a positive result.  

[KirbyDome89]

 

The context angle lives on in the baseball history books, museums, etc. Nobody is asking CLE to burn their history books, they're asking them to change hats.

Changing hats wasn't what I was addressing...

 

I want no part of is a world where we're willing to ignore everything but current perception and make decisions based solely on feelings. 

[ashbury]

Racing isn't specific to just this issue but yes, I don't feel it isn't difficult uncover examples of individuals or groups reaching to find offense. Racing was also meant to say it's easy to claim offense. 

It sounds like you were wanting to bring in a wide range of issues to discuss all at once. I don't see a purpose to a thread-jack like that. The Cleveland logo topic seems complicated enough by itself.

 

I'm asking, with this specific issue, if are you saying that a decision to remove a logo, that has been the subject of discussion and debate since the early 70s, is really an example of "racing"? And that after all these decades, someone coming to a conclusion that a change is desirable is "reaching to find offense"?

[Shaitan]

 

Changing hats wasn't what I was addressing...

 

I want no part of is a world where we're willing to ignore everything but current perception and make decisions based solely on feelings. 

 

 

I don't think anybody has said that. This entire conversation is related to CLE's history and how it relates to today. 

[KirbyDome89]

 

I don't think anybody has said that. This entire conversation is related to CLE's history and how it relates to today. 

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

 

You did, and I disagree with the precedent it sets. 

[KirbyDome89]

 

It sounds like you were wanting to bring in a wide range of issues to discuss all at once. I don't see a purpose to a thread-jack like that. The Cleveland logo topic seems complicated enough by itself.

 

I'm asking, with this specific issue, if are you saying that a decision to remove a logo, that has been the subject of discussion and debate since the early 70s, is really an example of "racing"? And that after all these decades, someone coming to a conclusion that a change is desirable is "reaching to find offense"?

You're quoting me when I was responding to the idea that only modern perception is necessary to make decisions on issues like this. I disagree with that idea, and I've detailed why. 

 

Racing refers to the ease with which offense is claimed and the moral high ground from which that position is defended. That has been omnipresent in this thread, and it unfortunately has been allowed to continue. If my comment on that is considered hijacking then slap the cuffs on. 

 

My feelings specifically regarding the logo have been made clear both in this thread, and to you via PM so I'm not sure what you're digging at here....

[TheLeviathan]

 

Changing hats wasn't what I was addressing...

 

I want no part of is a world where we're willing to ignore everything but current perception and make decisions based solely on feelings. 

 

What non-feelings should we consider for keeping it?

 

I'm genuinely asking.  Most of the "Keep it" crowd is based on sentiment from what I can see.

[KirbyDome89]

 

What non-feelings should we consider for keeping it?

 

I'm genuinely asking.  Most of the "Keep it" crowd is based on sentiment from what I can see.

I'm not part of the "Keep It," crowd. 

 

It's a response to the idea that only current perception matters when discussing these issues. I disagree. I think intent and context are extremely important as well. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm not part of the "Keep It," crowd. 

 

It's a response to the idea that only current perception matters when discussing these issues. I disagree. I think intent and context are extremely important as well. 

 

You seemed to use the term "non-feelings" derisively as if the side to remove it is devoid of reasons beyond emotions.  (Which implies the other side has non-emotional reasons as well) Otherwise I'm not sure what that comment adds to the discussion.

 

Some issues are largely emotional.  This one seems to be another one, driven mostly around sentiment vs. morality.  A matchup I tend to overwhelmingly favor "morality" in personally.

[KirbyDome89]

 

You seemed to use the term "non-feelings" derisively as if the side to remove it is devoid of reasons beyond emotions.  (Which implies the other side has non-emotional reasons as well) Otherwise I'm not sure what that comment adds to the discussion.

 

Some issues are largely emotional.  This one seems to be another one, driven mostly around sentiment vs. morality.  A matchup I tend to overwhelmingly favor "morality" in personally.

I've never used the term "non-feelings." I've stated that I'm not comfortable with the constraint that only feelings i.e. perception, is allowed when making decisions on issues like this. You'll have to explain to me how that viewpoint is derisive. If you're concerned about posts that ridicule I can't point you in the right direction. 

 

Agreed some are. I think morality has different meanings for different people, and some individuals aren't ok with another's morality being forced on them. 

[gunnarthor]

 

I'm not part of the "Keep It," crowd. 

 

It's a response to the idea that only current perception matters when discussing these issues. I disagree. I think intent and context are extremely important as well. 

If you think context and intent are important than you owe it to yourself to educate yourself on Chief Wahoo. Doing so would unquestionably show you that Chief Wahoo was racist from the start. You haven't done that, instead you are lobbing attacks at people who you disagree with. I'm not sure why you thought Chief Wahoo is the hill to die on but it's probably time to get off that hill.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I've never used the term "non-feelings." I've stated that I'm not comfortable with the constraint that only feelings i.e. perception, is allowed when making decisions on issues like this. You'll have to explain to me how that viewpoint is derisive. If you're concerned about posts that ridicule I can't point you in the right direction. 

 

Agreed some are. I think morality has different meanings for different people, and some individuals aren't ok with another's morality being forced on them. 

 

You said you don't want to base decisions "solely on feelings".  Implying there are non-feeling reasons to consider.  I asked you what those might be.  You didn't answer.  So I'll ask again:

 

What are these other factors we should consider so that we are not "solely deciding based on feelings"?

 

To your other point: I have no problem forcing the morality of "don't be racist" on racists.  I won't apologize for that.  I'm not sure why anyone should.

[KirbyDome89]

 

You said you don't want to base decisions "solely on feelings".  Implying there are non-feeling reasons to consider.  I asked you what those might be.  You didn't answer.  So I'll ask again:

 

What are these other factors we should consider so that we are not "solely deciding based on feelings"?

 

To your other point: I have no problem forcing the morality of "don't be racist" on racists.  I won't apologize for that.  I'm not sure why anyone should.

Yes, facts are non-feeling reasons, context is another non-feeling reason. Facts and context are based in reality. If somebody creates a painting and provides their intent for doing so, regardless of our modern perception of the work, it's original intent remains factual. The context i.e. time, individuals involved, location, political environment, ect.. at the time of that creation all remain factual. Perception does not always reflect reality. I have zero desire to see all of this shoved aside because of feelings. 

 

You could've found that response by simply reading previous posts but hopefully you find the above satisfactory....

 

The issue isn't fighting racism. It's who you call racist, the reasons you have for labeling another as racist, and the actions you believe are justified based on your label. 

 

[KirbyDome89]

 

If you think context and intent are important than you owe it to yourself to educate yourself on Chief Wahoo. Doing so would unquestionably show you that Chief Wahoo was racist from the start. You haven't done that, instead you are lobbing attacks at people who you disagree with. I'm not sure why you thought Chief Wahoo is the hill to die on but it's probably time to get off that hill.

Yes, it's me lobbing attacks....

 

If you need a refresher on my stance on the logo you can reread my earlier responses to you, or go through any number of other posts I've made in this thread....

[TheLeviathan]

 

Yes, facts are non-feeling reasons....

 

What facts are not present in this thread that need to be?  

 

I see plenty of links to the past and how this name and logo were picked.  If those links are insufficient, what else needs to be here?  If those links are sufficient what are you talking about?

[KirbyDome89]

 

What facts are not present in this thread that need to be?  

 

I see plenty of links to the past and how this name and logo were picked.  If those links are insufficient, what else needs to be here?  If those links are sufficient what are you talking about?

I'm going to stop you here before this becomes a complete misrepresentation. I never said anything about "links," and I never used the term "non-feeling." Those were constructed by you. 

 

The quote that you've taken issue with was my response to the idea that perception is the ONLY thing that matters. I disagree, and I've explained very clearly why I feel that is a slippery slope. 

 

If you feel the need to continue then lets at least stick to what I was talking about...

[ashbury]

I've never used the term "non-feelings."

But you did invoke "feels vs reals", which is inherently derogatory - such a phrase reserves for the speaker the clear-eyed view of reality. It's not a great deal better than certain terms you object to elsewhere. Let's keep it civil, even in the presence of perceived incivility by someone else.

 

[Shaitan]

 

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

 

You did, and I disagree with the precedent it sets. 

 

But you're taking my words about a hat and recontextualizing them about society as a whole. Talk about racing to conclusions.

 

If you want to stress context so much, let's consider that this is a decision by a corporation in Cleveland to make a branding change, not censorship of a piece of art or the destruction of a historical artifact. 

 

[gunnarthor]

 

Yes, it's me lobbing attacks....

 

If you need a refresher on my stance on the logo you can reread my earlier responses to you, or go through any number of other posts I've made in this thread....

I've reviewed some of your posts before replying. Your first post complained about "social justice mobs" and suggested Native Americans were split on the logo. Social justice mobs have remained a major theme in your posts. You had a strange post about Irish history. A "racism is subjective" post. Frankly, you haven't much opined on the logo except to say something like 'even if I did agree ... the social justice warriors ruined it.' And then these recent posts where you suggested that current perception doesn't matter, suggesting that the logo wasn't meant to be racist at some point.

 

I was going to go into this more but it's really just about beating a dead horse now and it's time for that to stop. The logo was racist. The team moved too slowly to get rid of it. It was designed at its inception to belittle a group of people who lacked power in our society. It was a disgrace. Arguing against any of that is simply factually (and morally) wrong. Jon Taylor wrote a pretty good piece on this in SI. I'll quote a little of his article but the entire thing is worth a read.  Emphasis added

 

"For the last seven decades, Wahoo’s leering grin has stared out at fans from the caps, jerseys and shirts of both the Indians and their fans. He has changed somewhat over time—if you can believe it, the original incarnation of Wahoo was even more grotesque— ....

 

There are two camps of thought on Wahoo. One is that the logo is a racist caricature that demeans an entire group of people who have been systematically oppressed for 400 years. The other consists of folks who insist that the logo isn’t racist because, well, they don’t think it is. But there is no argument here. Wahoo is racist, full stop.

Wahoo represents what fans see as the comfortable, quiet past—one where offensive depictions of an entire race were looked upon as good clean fun. To defend Wahoo reveals how bone deep the prejudice against Native Americans is in this country. Supporting a caricature so hopelessly outdated proves how the average American either doesn’t understand or doesn’t care about a historically marginalized populace. It’s simple, willful ignorance to claim Wahoo isn’t racist, but the logo still garners plenty of support among Indians fans."

 

Any arguments against removing Wahoo are not valid. There is no "oh, it wasn't racist when he was first drawn" (yes, he was). "It wasn't intended to be racist." (yes, it was). "It's not racist, it's colorful history or tradition." (No, it's always been demeaning). You shouldn't now make statements like "yes, I know the logo was racist but that's not what I was talking about. I'm not complaining about that, glad it's gone. I'm just complaining about those damn social justice warriors changing the perception/context etc."

[KirbyDome89]

 

But you did invoke "feels vs reals", which is inherently derogatory - such a phrase reserves for the speaker the clear-eyed view of reality. It's not a great deal better than certain terms you object to elsewhere. Let's keep it civil, even in the presence of perceived incivility by someone else.
 

I said that only considering perception sets up a "feels over reals," scenario.

 

It does.

 

If you're only consideration is perception you're prioritizing feelings over facts. Nowhere did I imply that a "clear eyed view," was reserved for me;  you're attributing that without foundation. 

 

Are we seriously going to pretend that referring to a scenario where feelings are given priority over reality as "feels over reals," is somehow on the same level as directly calling other posters "knuckle draggers?" C'mon.... 

 

I'm all for keeping it civil, so lets make sure the courtesy is returned... 

[KirbyDome89]

 

But you're taking my words about a hat and recontextualizing them about society as a whole. Talk about racing to conclusions.

 

If you want to stress context so much, let's consider that this is a decision by a corporation in Cleveland to make a branding change, not censorship of a piece of art or the destruction of a historical artifact. 

DHTF

 

"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."

 

YOU

 

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

 

Theres actually no mention of a hat. Must not be an attempt by me to recontextualize then huh....

The overarching point of the OP had to do with how these issues are discussed and dealt with by society as a whole. You gave a response that was applicable to dealing with these issues in society. I responded to you. 

[KirbyDome89]

 

I've reviewed some of your posts before replying. Your first post complained about "social justice mobs" and suggested Native Americans were split on the logo. Social justice mobs have remained a major theme in your posts. You had a strange post about Irish history. A "racism is subjective" post. Frankly, you haven't much opined on the logo except to say something like 'even if I did agree ... the social justice warriors ruined it.' And then these recent posts where you suggested that current perception doesn't matter, suggesting that the logo wasn't meant to be racist at some point.

 

I was going to go into this more but it's really just about beating a dead horse now and it's time for that to stop. The logo was racist. The team moved too slowly to get rid of it. It was designed at its inception to belittle a group of people who lacked power in our society. It was a disgrace. Arguing against any of that is simply factually (and morally) wrong. Jon Taylor wrote a pretty good piece on this in SI. I'll quote a little of his article but the entire thing is worth a read.  Emphasis added

 

"For the last seven decades, Wahoo’s leering grin has stared out at fans from the caps, jerseys and shirts of both the Indians and their fans. He has changed somewhat over time—if you can believe it, the original incarnation of Wahoo was even more grotesque— ....

 

There are two camps of thought on Wahoo. One is that the logo is a racist caricature that demeans an entire group of people who have been systematically oppressed for 400 years. The other consists of folks who insist that the logo isn’t racist because, well, they don’t think it is. But there is no argument here. Wahoo is racist, full stop.

Wahoo represents what fans see as the comfortable, quiet past—one where offensive depictions of an entire race were looked upon as good clean fun. To defend Wahoo reveals how bone deep the prejudice against Native Americans is in this country. Supporting a caricature so hopelessly outdated proves how the average American either doesn’t understand or doesn’t care about a historically marginalized populace. It’s simple, willful ignorance to claim Wahoo isn’t racist, but the logo still garners plenty of support among Indians fans."

 

Any arguments against removing Wahoo are not valid. There is no "oh, it wasn't racist when he was first drawn" (yes, he was). "It wasn't intended to be racist." (yes, it was). "It's not racist, it's colorful history or tradition." (No, it's always been demeaning). You shouldn't now make statements like "yes, I know the logo was racist but that's not what I was talking about. I'm not complaining about that, glad it's gone. I'm just complaining about those damn social justice warriors changing the perception/context etc."

I believe that twice now I've told you there is a strong argument against the logo....

 

Spare me your off base paraphrasing of my posts, and your opinions on what I should and shouldn't say...

 

You've been given an enormous amount of leeway to make your stance clear, and you've done a fantastic job of muddling what I said. Congrats. I don't think there's anything left to go over at this point. 

 

[glunn]

Moderator note -- please don't make discussions personal. Attack the ideas, not the poster.

[dbminn]

Cliff Corcoran at Hardball Times just posted an article about the sources of all MLB nicknames. Good hot stove read. 

[Tomj14]

 

 

 

At this point you can pretend Wahoo isn't racist. You would be wrong.

Can a logo be racist without changing the meaning of racist?

I get that it can be offensive and other adjectives similar but I don't see how a logo can be racist, I believe what you are actually saying is that the Cleveland Indians organization are racists for branding their team with this logo.

One of the twins logos is a caricatures of two overweight white guys, some might find that offensive (not me).

Maybe the solution is not allow teams to have logos, or the logo has to be initials of the city or state.

[laloesch]

 

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.

 

http://cleveland.indians.mlb.com/cle/history/cle_history_overview.jsp

[ashbury]

http://cleveland.indians.mlb.com/cle/history/cle_history_overview.jsp

What's your takeaway on this?