Posted June 19, 201410 yr In light of the increasing pressure on the Redskins to change their name, if the Indians were forced to do the same, what would you prefer?
June 19, 201410 yr I would fight. We've already retired Chief Wahoo for no damn reason! The "Naps" would not go over in this day and age and if we're forced to give up "Indians" the "Tribe" can be considered just as offensive. Long live the Cleveland Indians, damnit!
June 19, 201410 yr It's my understanding that Chief Wahoo is the bigger problem and quite frankly I have no issue with replacing him. If we had to change the name...I'm really at a loss to what a good alternative might be.
June 19, 201410 yr Yeah. The name isn't the issue. It's Chief Wahoo. I get why people are offended.... even if it is a vocal minority, it is a sizeable enogh chunk of the Native American community to just let it go. No biggie. Judging by the devolving nature of the debate and the dumbing down of the rationale, I can only infer that a similarly sizeable chunk of the Chief Wahoo "supporters" are actually supportive mostly for the offensive elements of the logo and aren't truly invested beyond that. BTW, the move by the trademark office, whoever thought that up, brilliant. For or against it, you gotta give them credit for that move
June 19, 201410 yr I haven't heard anyone suggest we need to get rid of the name "Indians" except overreacting white people mad about "PC bullsh-t." I'd be happy to get rid of Chief Wahoo. He's embarrassing and pointless these days.
June 19, 201410 yr I haven't heard anyone suggest we need to get rid of the name "Indians" except overreacting white people mad about "PC bullsh-t." I'd be happy to get rid of Chief Wahoo. He's embarrassing and pointless these days. How is Wahoo embarrassing? Is it because he is a caricature? What is Chief Wahoo was redesigned?
June 19, 201410 yr I'm with the crowd. The name "Indians" isn't offensive (just geographically incorrect). Chief Wahoo is a racist caricature: http://www.newrepublic.com/sites/default/files/chief-wahoo-racist-offensive_0.jpg It's just as offensive as the many Mammie and Sambo dolls that were finally put to rest during the Civil Rights Movement. It's one thing to be tasteful and celebrate heritage but it's another to blatantly depict such foolishness with over-the-top facial stereotypes. MyTwoSense, you know better than that to defend that foolishness. "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
June 19, 201410 yr Should Italians be offended by the use of the Mario Brothers? How about when your pizza box has a caricature of a short Italian with a floppy hat and mustache? How about the Irish and the Notre Dame caricature of a leprechaun? On a side note, anyone see the Wendy's commercial where the people can't talk because their mouths are full, and the spokeswoman says, "Now I understand why Italians speak with their hands!"? Wendys should do a commercial where they say, "Eat here instead of your favorite Chinese restaurant because an hour later you won't be hungry!" How far can we take this?
June 19, 201410 yr I love Chief Wahoo, always have. When I was a kid growing up in the 70s, I never thought he was a representative of Native Americans, of which I knew from the commercial of the Native American man crying because of pollution. To me he was just a smiling cartoon, and people smiling in Cleveland at the time was rare. But, if it's time for him to go, I'm fine with it. I would like to see him "retired" I also would vote to change the name back to the Spiders, market them with web gems, spider man, etc.
June 19, 201410 yr Take the name from your minor league team that is themed to a boat////// Cleveland Clippers or Cleveland Edmund Fitzgeralds.. Columbus can go back to Redbirds or Jets or something that fits more than these landlubbers and ,.
June 19, 201410 yr There's nothing wrong with the name "Indians" nor with Chief Wahoo. Everyone just needs to get over themselves. I'd like to see an example of someone being racist against an American Indian or causing harm to one because of Chief Wahoo. When I see Wahoo, I think of one thing and one thing only: the baseball club in Cleveland
June 19, 201410 yr "Everyone just needs to get over themselves." I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. I'm not Native American, I'm not thinking of myself. But many Native Americans clearly don't like Chief Wahoo, as they've been protesting it for years. They seem to feel that it harms them. What does it hurt us to drop him?
June 19, 201410 yr Should Italians be offended by the use of the Mario Brothers? How about when your pizza box has a caricature of a short Italian with a floppy hat and mustache? How about the Irish and the Notre Dame caricature of a leprechaun? I don't live in Cleveland and I'm not an Indians fan, so I'm not emotionally invested in Chief Wahoo. I agree with Bosco4789's assessment. Chief Wahoo is a caricature, which is by definition exaggerated and ridiculous, but I don't see anything particularly offensive in his portrayal (outside of his red coloring, which I think is somewhat forgivable since he's basically a 2-color logo utilizing the team's existing color scheme). Can someone break down what specifically the issues with the character are? Is it the eyes, the smile, the feather, or something else? Suppose you renamed the character, erased the part in his hair, and played with the color assignments so that he had white skin and a white feather with a red border. Still offensive? At some point he's just a guy that is smiling and wearing a headband. I guess what I'm asking is this: is there a way to resolve the concerns with this mascot without completely discarding a cherished and instantly recognizable logo?
June 19, 201410 yr BTW, the move by the trademark office, whoever thought that up, brilliant. For or against it, you gotta give them credit for that move Was thinking the same thing. Do you think that in the short term there will be an unintended consequence of a dramatic increase in Redskins products?
June 19, 201410 yr I love Chief Wahoo, always have. When I was a kid growing up in the 70s, I never thought he was a representative of Native Americans, of which I knew from the commercial of the Native American man crying because of pollution. I'm fairly certain that guy was Italian. I've always liked the logo but completely understand the criticism. I say retire Chief Wahoo. Bring him back only once in a while on certain occasions. It is a part of the team history.
June 19, 201410 yr "Everyone just needs to get over themselves." I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. I'm not Native American, I'm not thinking of myself. But many Native Americans clearly don't like Chief Wahoo, as they've been protesting it for years. They seem to feel that it harms them. What does it hurt us to drop him? It's a political victory for those who oppose the team logos. What that victory actually includes is up for debate.
June 19, 201410 yr I've always liked the Spiders. I mean who isn't scared of spiders? The only other college or pro that uses it is the University of Richmond. I mentioned it to Scott Raab (wrote the Whore of Akron) on Twitter and he didn't like it as we had the worst season in baseball history with that name - in 1899 we went 20-134.
June 19, 201410 yr Have to agree with the majority here. It is not the name, it is the image. Although, as person with native American ancestry, the image does not offend me personally I can see how and respect those who are offended by it. I'm down with the Spiders. Have been suggesting this for years
June 19, 201410 yr "Everyone just needs to get over themselves." I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. I'm not Native American, I'm not thinking of myself. But many Native Americans clearly don't like Chief Wahoo, as they've been protesting it for years. They seem to feel that it harms them. What does it hurt us to drop him? Agreed... I hate to hear moral relativist arguments like: don't the Fightin Irish or Trojans nicknames offend Irish and Greek peoples?... Please... This is 2014 and we know what's offensive and not offensive, and for people to pretend to act like they don't know what is hurtful, when the very group depicted has been complaining that it IS hurtful for, now, decades, totally disingenuous.
June 19, 201410 yr ^Exactly. That is what I meant by the dumbing down of the rationale. The Fighting Irish? Really? Over the past few months, I have asked several Irish people whether they are offended by the name or the logo. Not one said yes. One guy, an immigrant from Ireland, actually took offense that I bothered to ask. He said that he had heard that suggestion before and didn't understand it in the least. How about we try to find a comparable where offense truly is taken. No matter where you come down on this issue, you can't possibly suggest that there is a large segment who legitimately find Chief Wahoo to be offensive and hurtful.
June 19, 201410 yr ^On top of that, no one has the right to say "it isn't offensive" to a particular group that is offended by such an image. If Irish Americans were offended by the Fighting Irish, Italian Americans offended by Super Mario Bros., or the Trojans were offending Greek Americans, no one has the right to say "the hell they don't!" It is their representation and they have the justified right to be offended. We've heard this argument before in the 60's with the Song of the South and even by Indians players (Larry Doby comes to mind). It isn't new, it's 2014. "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
June 19, 201410 yr On a side note, anyone see the Wendy's commercial where the people can't talk because their mouths are full, and the spokeswoman says, "Now I understand why Italians speak with their hands!"? Wendys should do a commercial where they say, "Eat here instead of your favorite Chinese restaurant because an hour later you won't be hungry!" But I do get hungry an hour after eating Wendy's unlike the other fast food joints. So they might get in trouble for that.
June 19, 201410 yr I'm with the crowd. The name "Indians" isn't offensive (just geographically incorrect). Chief Wahoo is a racist caricature: http://www.newrepublic.com/sites/default/files/chief-wahoo-racist-offensive_0.jpg It's just as offensive as the many Mammie and Sambo dolls that were finally put to rest during the Civil Rights Movement. It's one thing to be tasteful and celebrate heritage but it's another to blatantly depict such foolishness with over-the-top facial stereotypes. MyTwoSense, you know better than that to defend that foolishness. That is why I asked if it was redesigned would be appropriate.
June 19, 201410 yr What Would You Re-Name the Cleveland Indians? I would neither change the Indians name or their logo. The number of people offended by it is not significant enough for me to care.
June 19, 201410 yr What Would You Re-Name the Cleveland Indians? I would neither change the Indians name or their logo. The number of people offended by it is not significant enough for me to care. So you acknowledge that there are indeed people offended by it. What number of people would it take for you to care? Which poll or other evidence are you relying on to come to your conclusion?
June 19, 201410 yr So you acknowledge that there are indeed people offended by it. I never claimed otherwise. What number of people would it take for you to care? Which poll or other evidence are you relying on to come to your conclusion? Somewhere between 1 and 10 million. You find me a source indicating definitively what percentage of Indians are offended and want it changed. Then maybe I'll change my tune. Until that happens, all I hear is a ridiculously loud vocal minority comprised mostly of white people telling me it's offensive, and "it's 2014 and I should know better." :roll:
June 19, 201410 yr This pretty much sums up my opinion (not an Indians fan anyway, so I have no real say). I don't see any difference in the logos below.
June 19, 201410 yr It doesn't really matter, the Indians have slowly been phasing out chief wahoo for the last five to ten years, anyways.
June 19, 201410 yr This pretty much sums up my opinion (not an Indians fan anyway, so I have no real say). I don't see any difference in the logos below. The only difference is about 100 years of history and desensitization. Field a sports franchise called the New York Jews and make the comparison again in 2114. See if your mind makes the connection between the caricature and religion as it does now. Spoiler alert: it won't.
June 19, 201410 yr Somewhere between 1 and 10 million. You find me a source indicating definitively what percentage of Indians are offended and want it changed. Then maybe I'll change my tune. Until that happens, all I hear is a ridiculously loud vocal minority comprised mostly of white people telling me it's offensive, and "it's 2014 and I should know better." :roll: Most of the protesters, speakers, etc. I have seen on the subject have been Native American. There is an annual protest. I remember them dating back to the first opening day at Jacob's Field, along with the abuse they received by the passers-by. Besides, that 1 to 10 million is a little arbitrary, no? Did you consider there are only about 3 million people who identify as such? Is the roll of the eyes really necessary? It takes away from any substantive point you were trying to make and is rather juvenile IMO.
June 19, 201410 yr The New York Maccabees might make more sense... I really don't see a problem with Chief Wahoo. It's not like they are portraying him in a bad way. Maybe he could be replaced with some area indian fetish like some kinda bird.
June 19, 201410 yr you cant put the nyjew hat up against the modern chief wahoo. you gotta compare it to the 1940s wahoo, which looks exactly like it. so really the tribe has come a long way since then as they are only offending one culture now instead of two. oh and btw that sf hat is too orange it needs to be more yella. *spits tobacco*
June 19, 201410 yr How about the Cleveland Fighters? Kind of has a nice ring to it. It does seem silly to rename the team. Get rid of that Chief Wahoo for good. It's pretty bad.
June 19, 201410 yr Most of the protesters, speakers, etc. I have seen on the subject have been Native American. There is an annual protest. I remember them dating back to the first opening day at Jacob's Field, along with the abuse they received by the passers-by. Besides, that 1 to 10 million is a little arbitrary, no? Did you consider there are only about 3 million people who identify as such? I agree it's arbitrary. Do you concede change for 1 person or all of them? Where do you draw the line between, or is there even a line?
June 19, 201410 yr FWIW, we haven't won a World Series since Chief Wahoo became our logo. ^I stand by my original point, which I thought was made with all due respect to both sides. To me, there is a sizeable enough chuck of the population which is offended that it warrants changing the logo volitionally. It is much more than a thousand for sure, even if it doesn't approach 1 million. But I would bet, if you included not just people who are personally offended but also people who find the logo offensive, the number would be well above your 10 million. I hope that is a reasonable explanation of my position and doesn't come across as me being on a.... what did you call it before editing your post..... high horse (i.e. arrogant)?
June 19, 201410 yr I found this in a barn recently and it looks similar to the old Pontiac car logo. However, I think it would make a great logo for the Cleveland Indians. IMHO it conveys an image of strength and nobility, and loses the goofiness of Chief Wahoo.
June 19, 201410 yr ColDayMan said, "I'm with the crowd. The name "Indians" isn't offensive (just geographically incorrect). Chief Wahoo is a racist caricature:" Why do you say it is geographically incorrect? Unless the history books have been re-written, Indian tribes were all across North America. I'm fine with keeping the name and I don't see a down side to retiring Chief Wahoo. They will eventually develop an iconic logo that sells the brand well and is not deemed offensive.
June 19, 201410 yr Unlike the Redskins, the Cleveland Indians' name is fine. Their logo is not. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 19, 201410 yr ColDayMan said, "I'm with the crowd. The name "Indians" isn't offensive (just geographically incorrect). Chief Wahoo is a racist caricature:" Why do you say it is geographically incorrect? Unless the history books have been re-written, Indian tribes were all across North America. I'm fine with keeping the name and I don't see a down side to retiring Chief Wahoo. They will eventually develop an iconic logo that sells the brand well and is not deemed offensive. I'm pretty sure he was referencing the fact that people believed they had reached India when landing in North America. Thus calling the Native Americans "Indians" was geographically incorrect. He's not saying that there were no Native Americans/Indians in Cleveland.
June 19, 201410 yr I'm pretty sure he was referencing the fact that people believed they had reached India when landing in North America. Thus calling the Native Americans "Indians" was geographically incorrect. He's not saying that there were no Native Americans/Indians in Cleveland. ^This. "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
June 19, 201410 yr Most of the protesters, speakers, etc. I have seen on the subject have been Native American. There is an annual protest. I remember them dating back to the first opening day at Jacob's Field, along with the abuse they received by the passers-by. Besides, that 1 to 10 million is a little arbitrary, no? Did you consider there are only about 3 million people who identify as such? I agree it's arbitrary. Do you concede change for 1 person or all of them? Where do you draw the line between, or is there even a line? I think it should probably be related to how specific the potential offense is. If it's "just" 1 million Native Americans out of 3 million, that's a pretty good percent, and why would they care what non-Native Americans think. Hell, If the team name was the Cleveland Mendos and the mascot was a silly picture of you, I'd be willing to see it changed on your say so alone.
June 19, 201410 yr Hell, If the team name was the Cleveland Mendos and the mascot was a silly picture of you, I'd be willing to see it changed on your say so alone.
June 19, 201410 yr I give this thread just a few more hours before it's locked down... The Chief Wahoo logo is racist because it is a caricature of American Indians, playing up the stereotypes of reddish skin tone, feathered headdresses, and prominent noses and brow ridges. And it's done in a way as to be 'cute,' so as to create an entire image of a culture and people in one image that is not representative of the diversity of tribes that were located all over northern Ohio (and the US as a whole). Clear enough?
Create an account or sign in to comment