no

Would this be ok?

Would Kid Wallinski be ok or would it have to Kid Joe?

The mascot is looked upon fondly and I doubt anybody is dumb enough to think that this is a typical indian.

F Troop must have really scarred some people...

well you cant call the team native americans that just wont work. hmm, now i would love to change it to the cleveland polish boys, but thats just going down the same path isnt it? pierogies? go cleveland redhawks?! walleyes? carp?! lakers? oh thats taken in the nba. umm, rustbelters? northcentralers? comebacks? plums?

It might just be the Amtrak 90 minute IPA talking, but AJ93's "Mendos" graphic was the most literal internet-induced LOL I've had in a quite some time.

why do we need a mascot? The brand is Cleveland, and the logo is the blue "C". If we need to qualify the brand Cleveland, I would suggest "Cleveland United" or "Cleveland Republic" or "Cleveland Nation" I do not want to get hung up on a mascot, but I would like to emphasize that the location Cleveland is all about pride, unity and a power that is derived from both.

Bring back the baseball Browns? How about the Stars, Oilers, Refiners, Cliffs, or Cranes? I like the Cleveland Clippers, but that is taken.

 

Cleveland Abolitionists?

 

They could be The Cleveland Hot. :) Boooooo

 

The Cleveland Blizzards? buzzards?

 

Best for last...The Cleveland Steamers.

Unlike the Redskins, the Cleveland Indians' name is fine. Their logo is not.

 

What about the Atlanta Braves?  Is that name offensive?

 

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.

Well I feel really stupid.  About an hour after I posted this missive, I'm reminded by my better half why Native Americans were referred to as Indians.  I will now shut up and go back to my ignorant existence.

^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.

 

Minor side point, but the Trojans weren't the Greeks, they from Asia Minor.  If they really existed.

The 1946 version of the logo as well as the current one both remind me of Bugs Bunny, with that same wide grin. According to Wikipedia, Bugs made his first appearance in 1940, though a rabbit appeared a few years earlier. So, I guess it's possible that Chief Wahoo was influenced by Bugs, who is one of the most popular animated characters ever. 

 

 

Unlike the Redskins, the Cleveland Indians' name is fine. Their logo is not.

 

What about the Atlanta Braves?  Is that name offensive?

 

I don't see why.  There is nothing offensive about naming your team after a particular group.  Most American Indians I have heard talk about the subject, actually take it as an honor.  The perceived intent is totally different.

I would change the name to the Cleveland Guardians, and the logo and artwork would be based upon/inspired by the Guardians of Traffic.

^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.

 

Minor side point, but the Trojans weren't the Greeks, they from Asia Minor.  If they really existed.

 

But it's Greek to me! ;)

 

You are correct...if they really existed...

How dare you make poor spiders into a mascot! These important creatures eat disease-causing mosquitos and, though they cannot speak, they have rights too!

I would change the name to the Cleveland Guardians, and the logo and artwork would be based upon/inspired by the Guardians of Traffic.

 

Actually, I like that a lot.

"Guardians" reminds of "chaperones" like its 1950 or something. The "Spiders" sounds kindof cool, if a change must be had. But ultimately, believing there is no wrongful/harmful intent with the current name, I'd prefer to keep the name, "Cleveland Indians".

I'm still struggling with the point of this topic.  Is there any contention surrounding the name?

How about the Cleveland Indians?

 

That would be pretty cool if they did those crazy Bollywood dance routines out on the field.

If we're looking for something fearsome and terrifying and also local to the area, how about the Cleveland Geese?  Loathsome formation-flying monsters.

 

That would be pretty cool if they did those crazy Bollywood dance routines out on the field.

 

Or this. :-D

I would change the name to the Cleveland Guardians, and the logo and artwork would be based upon/inspired by the Guardians of Traffic.

 

Actually, I like that a lot.

 

 

 

Edit: or that could be our MLS team if we ever get one!

Actually, the Guardian kind of looks like an Indian with his feathers blowing in the wind  :-D.

EVERYBODY uses fathers

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.

 

If it was 1 million out of 3 million, then yes it would be significant.  And yes, I would probably change my tune. From what I've seen though the push to change the mascot is predominantly media driven, despite the handful of Native Americans that show up to the home opener every year (1 game!).

 

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.

 

That's mighty white of you. But I am not sure it would bother me. :-D

 

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.

 

Nice! I heard that a lot growing up. Happens with an odd name that rhymes.

To be clear, Chief Wahoo is not a mascot.  It is a logo.  Not even the Indians are dumb enough to parade about a mascot of Chief Wahoo during the games.  That's why we have Slider.

White Castle is out of Columbus

I am not sure C-Bus wants to own up to that sin

To be clear, Chief Wahoo is not a mascot.  It is a logo.  Not even the Indians are dumb enough to parade about a mascot of Chief Wahoo during the games.  That's why we have Slider.

 

That's another reason the Indians made a conscious effort to remove the remainder of Chief Wahoo's body from any licensed products.  They used to have images of the bat swinging Chief ala Municipal Stadium on a number of products.

 

We use caricatures every day in our lives.  One can't believe that the chief is offensive if he doesn't accept that any other caricature is offensive to someone.  That's the tipping point.  No more caricatures in commercial products.

 

As for the name, the team was respectfully named after a player.

 

 

We use caricatures every day in our lives.  One can't believe that the chief is offensive if he doesn't accept that any other caricature is offensive to someone.  That's the tipping point.  No more caricatures in commercial products.

 

That's what I would characterize as a "I'm taking my ball and going home" attitude.

No, not really.  One can't quantify the number or % of those offended is all I'm saying.  If one believes its offensive, then who is he to judge if a person of Irish descent is or is not offended by the Lucky Charms Leprechaun?  Isn't it just better to do without any caricatures?

^No.  If for no other reason, a Leprechaun is a mythological creature, not an ethnicity.

 

And Freedom of Speech is still in very much play here.  There is no way you could simply do away with all caricatures.  Political satirists use them all the time, in very offensive ways.... to the individual politician (not a group of people, typically).  Even with Chief Wahoo, this is simply a public pressure campaign.  There is no law which would give even the most offended American Indians standing to sue in court on this issue.  It would be just like if some company came up with a slogan or logo insulting to our troops and ran with it as part of an anti-war campaign.  They would suffer the public backlash as well, despite having every right under the Constitution to do so.  The Patent office could use the same maneuver it did with the Redskins relative tot the slogan or logo, but the company would still be free to use it. 

^^This type of argument always cuts both ways though. If you can't draw lines, it means either nothing is OK, or everything is OK.  So if you think the Chief is OK, and we can't draw lines, does that mean every racial characiture is OK?

Its a mythical creature which identifies with only a specific ethnicity.  One would be hard pressed to prove that it did not refer to the Irish.

^Yes, but only the Leprechaun-Irish.  And polls are out on what % of them are offended.

I view the older logo as far worse/offensive and an actual caricature of native americans. Chief Wahoo on the other hand appears to be more of just a fictional character which follows the team colors. Personally I sort of wish they ditch the Chief just because i'm personally not into silly logos and prefer the block C.

 

I view the older logo as far worse/offensive and an actual caricature of native americans. Chief Wahoo on the other hand appears to be more of just a fictional character which follows the team colors. Personally I sort of wish they ditch the Chief just because i'm personally not into silly logos and prefer the block C.

 

I know it's historic, but I personally hate the block C.  I'd prefer a classy script C (which is probably why I always liked the "feather I," and was sorry to see that phased out.)

 

I also agree that few people find the Indians name to be offensive, and that Wahoo needs to go.  I don't see any real reason to change the name, but I looooove the Guardians idea.  I can imagine all the silly scoreboard animations they could make with a golem-like Guardian hitting a ball out of the park or whatever.

Personally I sort of wish they ditch the Chief just because i'm personally not into silly logos and prefer the block C.

 

The Swinging Padre, the Two Twins and the Smilin' bird of Baltimore are silly but they are all awesome!

^Yes, but only the Leprechaun-Irish.  And polls are out on what % of them are offended.

 

Actually, there was a poll on this.  The Leprechauns are offended for the reason that the cereal characiture makes them looks like a bunch of pansies who can't protect a box of cereal, let alone a pot of gold.  They much more preferred the image portrayed by the movie "Leprechaun", even if it was one of the worst films ever made.

Saw this on a TP FB page

I thought the TP might be offended by the name New England Patriots..... especially since it's been co-opted by 'dem Boston libral commies.

They were also saying that nobody would want the name Washington which is weird since he's like kinda one of those founder guys???

Native American group planning $9 billion lawsuit against the Indians

 

A Native American group is planning to file a $9 billion federal lawsuit against the Cleveland Indians and their "offensive" Chief Wahoo logo, according to CBS Cleveland. The suit is expected to be filed next month.

 

Here's more from CBS Cleveland:

 

"Robert Roche, a Chiricahua Apache and director of the American Indian Education Center, is planning to file a federal lawsuit in late July against the Cleveland Indians organization. Roche, who is also the leader of the group People Not Mascots, says the lawsuit will challenge that the team's name and Chief Wahoo logo are racist.

 

'We're going to be asking for $9 billion and we're basing it on a hundred years of disparity, racism, exploitation and profiteering,' Roche told WEWS-TV. 'It's been offensive since day one. We are not mascots. My children are not mascots. We are people.'"

 

Local supporters of the Chief Wahoo logo say it is only a small minority of people who are offended by the logo.

^When you file a lawsuit seeking unrealistic damages, how can that be taken seriously and how does it come across as anything but publicity whoring? Especially in light of the recent Patent Office's ruling on the Redskins? Wouldn't the cause be better served by a justifiable position of changing the name and damages that are financially achievable? The team for sale is worth only between a 1/2B and 1B. Most estimates say they earn around $20M a year, and that is with revenue sharing. $9B in damages?

I thought the courts made the attorneys justify their monetary claims before anything got going in the courtroom.

^When you file a lawsuit seeking unrealistic damages, how can that be taken seriously and how does it come across as anything but publicity whoring? Especially in light of the recent Patent Office's ruling on the Redskins? Wouldn't the cause be better served by a justifiable position of changing the name and damages that are financially achievable? The team for sale is worth only between a 1/2B and 1B. Most estimates say they earn around $20M a year, and that is with revenue sharing. $9B in damages?

 

Co-defendant: Johnny Manziel

I thought the courts made the attorneys justify their monetary claims before anything got going in the courtroom.

 

No.  But the other side can request an "itemization of damages" through discovery.  The lawsuit itself will simply contain a prayer for relief, and with respect to damages, some courts 'cap' your ability to recover at the amount requested in the complaint.  That is why you see lots of prayers for relief stated as "compensatory damages in excess of $25,000" to avoid that problem.  In many courts however, the amount of punitive damages must be stated more specifically.

On a related note, saw this on another site:

 

According to PFT (Pro Football Talk), Linda Blackhorse, the plantiff in the U.S. Patent case against the Redskins has informed the Kansas City Star that the Chiefs should change their name because she finds it offensive.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/26/plaintiff-in-redskins-patent-case-urges-chiefs-to-change-their-name/

Is this a Superman thing?

 

I'm still struggling with the point of this topic.  Is there any contention surrounding the name?

 

it seems to be more about the chief wahoo logo than the name. i don't really get that either tho, because the indians have been steadily fading the wahoo image out in favor of the block or script 'C' for quite awhile now. serms like it would become a non-issue soon. unless its the name?

 

When the Redskins fall the Indians are next. It doesn't matter if they're phasing it out. It's their official statement that they are not actually doing that. A lie for the whiney bigot set, but an official statement none the less. They may just run out of time.