Chief Wahoo in the Crosshairs

[KMayUSA6060]

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/ml...ef-wahoo-logo/

Rob Manfred can kiss my ass. Keep the Chief!

[packs]

Can you explain your position a little bit? I don't really know anyone who is in favor of the logo.

[clydepepper]

Have you ever noticed that such protests never occurred until either Cleveland or Atlanta made it to the World Series?

I do not recall hearing anything when Washington won the Super Bowl or when Chicago won the Stanley Cup.

From this one might assume that I am not sympathetic to Native Americans. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I guess the protests are aimed, naturally, at the biggest audiences.

Now, I have always viewed the Braves' 'representative figures' to be cast in a positive light. Additionally, I love my Chief Wahoo Cap and don't view it as racism.

However, I recognize that those who have blood connections may be offended. I would probably feel the same way if I had their heritage.

To sum up (finally, huh?), I am comfortable with the Caps I own and with the Teams I cheer for but I don't take any of their representative figures or portrayals for granted.

[mikemb]

My wife's side of the family has Native American bloodlines. I have no problem with any of the logos. We should be more concerned how we treat and have treated them than our sports teams logos. (Hope this was not political!)

Mike

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by packs

Can you explain your position a little bit? I don't really know anyone who is in favor of the logo.

Do you know any Native Americans offended by it?

I'm a big fan of Chief Wahoo. Simple as that. Most Cleveland fans are. We all grew up with the smiling cartoon.

I believe CBS did a study a couple years back that around 85-90% of Native Americans are NOT offended by the logo. So whose war is this? I won't answer that on this board, and will refrain from all political talk.

Here's something to think about. If Chief Wahoo is offensive, what about the Notre Dame Fighting Irish depicting a stereotypical leprechaun with red hair in an aggressive manner? What about the New York Yankees name potentially offending southerners? What about the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim offending people of non-Christian faith? The petty, offensive crap can go on and on if you let it.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by mikemb

My wife's side of the family has Native American bloodlines. I have no problem with any of the logos. We should be more concerned how we treat and have treated them than our sports teams logos. (Hope this was not political!)

Mike

Is your wife's family offended by Chief Wahoo?

[bn2cardz]

I don't see the problem with re branding. Many teams don't have their original names. Sometimes this comes with a city change (Expos to Nationals or Browns to Orioles), but there have been other reasons (Houston Colt .45s to Houston Astros or Devil Rays to Rays).

No one is going to stop following their favorite team because they changed logos/name. As long as they remain in the same city the fans will still be there.

[mikemb]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Is your wife's family offended by Chief Wahoo?

No, not at all.

Mike

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I don't see the problem with re branding. Many teams don't have their original names. Sometimes this comes with a city change (Expos to Nationals or Browns to Orioles), but there have been other reasons (Houston Colt .45s to Houston Astros or Devil Rays to Rays).

No one is going to stop following their favorite team because they changed logos/name. As long as they remain in the same city the fans will still be there.

So then why the need to rebrand in the first place? If fans will be fans no matter what, then why the need to rebrand? The 15% of the fan base that finds a name/logo offensive will still be fans, right?

[mikemb]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I don't see the problem with re branding. Many teams don't have their original names. Sometimes this comes with a city change (Expos to Nationals or Browns to Orioles), but there have been other reasons (Houston Colt .45s to Houston Astros or Devil Rays to Rays).

No one is going to stop following their favorite team because they changed logos/name. As long as they remain in the same city the fans will still be there.

I see no problem with re branding, but it should be the team's choice, not someone telling them to do it.

Mike

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Do you know any Native Americans offended by it?

I'm a big fan of Chief Wahoo. Simple as that. Most Cleveland fans are. We all grew up with the smiling cartoon.

I believe CBS did a study a couple years back that around 85-90% of Native Americans are NOT offended by the logo. So whose war is this? I won't answer that on this board, and will refrain from all political talk.

Here's something to think about. If Chief Wahoo is offensive, what about the Notre Dame Fighting Irish depicting a stereotypical leprechaun with red hair in an aggressive manner? What about the New York Yankees name potentially offending southerners? What about the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim offending people of non-Christian faith? The petty, offensive crap can go on and on if you let it.

Leprechauns are fictional/mythical creatures from Irish folklore they are not a people group. Also what version of the logo are you referencing with the red hair?
Yankee is a term for any American with Yankee Doodle being a song from the revolutionary war. Damn Yankee would be a more southern/northern term. Also the region of the country is not an inherent heritage.
Los Angeles Angels is a play on the city name. Just as San Diego Padres is (surprised you didn't bring that one up). They really would have to change the city name to remove the "offensive words".

Native Americans are an actual set of people that are being stereotyped. Your comparisons aren't similar.

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

So then why the need to rebrand in the first place? If fans will be fans no matter what, then why the need to rebrand? The 15% of the fan base that finds a name/logo offensive will still be fans, right?

Putting words in my mouth. You even had the quote right there and you still got it wrong. I did not says "fans will be fans no matter what". I said they wouldn't lose fans, they may gain some though.

Those 15% that you claim are offended could potentially not be buying any Cleveland merchandise currently due to the logo or term "Indians".

Also you will not see me protesting any team's logo, but that doesn't mean I have to be hostile towards those that are. A little empathy and compassion can go a long way.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by mikemb

I see no problem with re branding, but it should be the team's choice, not someone telling them to do it.

Mike

No it should be the owner of the overall brand. In this case that is MLB. Just because you own a McDonald's Franchise restaurant doesn't mean you no longer are held accountable to the Branding dictated by corporate.

[packs]

I do know Native Americans who are offended by the logo and those same Native Americans would prefer Washington change their name as well.

[pclpads]

Welcome to the age of PC.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

Leprechauns are fictional/mythical creatures from Irish folklore they are not a people group. Also what version of the logo are you referencing with the red hair?
Yankee is a term for any American with Yankee Doodle being a song from the revolutionary war. Damn Yankee would be a more southern/northern term. Also the region of the country is not an inherent heritage.
Los Angeles Angels is a play on the city name. Just as San Diego Padres is (surprised you didn't bring that one up). They really would have to change the city name to remove the "offensive words".

Native Americans are an actual set of people that are being stereotyped. Your comparisons aren't similar.

Putting words in my mouth. You even had the quote right there and you still got it wrong. I did not says "fans will be fans no matter what". I said they wouldn't lose fans, they may gain some though.

Those 15% that you claim are offended could potentially not be buying any Cleveland merchandise currently due to the logo or term "Indians".

Also you will not see me protesting any team's logo, but that doesn't mean I have to be hostile towards those that are. A little empathy and compassion can go a long way.

1) I'm referring to the live mascot. The logo has "black" facial hair which is just a cover up to make it more PC. And the Irish are a group of people by the way, and so depicting the leprechaun in an aggressive manner, with all Irish traits, would technically be stereotyping the Irish. Not that I care, nor do I think anyone should, just saying.

2/3) Would rebranding in return lose fans though? And would they lose more fans, and sell less merchandise if they rebranded? I'd say there's a good chance. The block C doesn't sell as well as Chief Wahoo I don't believe.

You're saying that the rebrand would almost guarantee a stronger following, but I don't think it would. Like I said, most Indians fans like Chief Wahoo, and it's not like a Cubs fan is going to jump onto the Indians bandwagon all of a sudden.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by packs

I do know Native Americans who are offended by the logo and those same Native Americans would prefer Washington change their name as well.

Are they mostly Native American blood, or are they less than 20% Native American?

[packs]

I never thought to ask.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by packs

I never thought to ask.

To me, it makes a difference. If you're 1% Native American, I don't think you should be allowed to be "offended". Haha.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

Also the region of the country is not an inherent heritage.
.

You're obviously not from any part of New England.
There are still plenty of places where even if your family moved there 100 years ago you're "from away"

Steve B

[irv]

http://www.chathamdailynews.ca/2016/...me-controversy

[packs]

I never knew they approached Sockalexis' family to ask them about the logo, since he is often cited as the reason the team became the Cleveland Indians. In the interest of full disclosure, here is what the Sockalexis family stated:

Kenneth Paul in 1993, Sockalexis' oldest living relative at the time:

"Wahoo or Yahoo, it's more insulting than anything. I think they should change the whole thing to something else. It won't break my heart. It won't break anybody's." Paul's son, Kenneth Jr., has said of Chief Wahoo, "I wish they'd get rid of that smiling Indian head."

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by packs

I never knew they approached Sockalexis' family to ask them about the logo, since he is often cited as the reason the team became the Cleveland Indians. In the interest of full disclosure, here is what the Sockalexis family stated:

Kenneth Paul in 1993, Sockalexis' oldest living relative at the time:

"Wahoo or Yahoo, it's more insulting than anything. I think they should change the whole thing to something else. It won't break my heart. It won't break anybody's." Paul's son, Kenneth Jr., has said of Chief Wahoo, "I wish they'd get rid of that smiling Indian head."

I wonder what he finds insulting about it. 1993 was before the Glory Days of the '90s Indians, and they still weren't a great team in '93. I wonder if that had anything to do with it.

I also wonder if there are any records of the Cleveland franchise asking Sockalexis himself what he thinks. After all, the Indians are rumored to be called the Indians because they signed the first Native American player.

[packs]

I would think he's insulted at the depiction of a Native American. I think they adopted Chief Wahoo well after Sockalexis himself had died. The 1993 date is very important because in 1994, when the Indians were moving to Jacobs Field, they considered changing the logo. The quote from Sockalexis' family is from 1993, so likely during the time they were in discussions about replacing the logo.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by packs

I would think he's insulted at the depiction of a Native American. I think they adopted Chief Wahoo well after Sockalexis himself had died. The 1993 date is very important because in 1994, when the Indians were moving to Jacobs Field, they considered changing the logo. The quote from Sockalexis' family is from 1993, so likely during the time they were in discussions about replacing the logo.

Ah true. Chief Wahoo was adopted in the late '30s/early '40s.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

1) I'm referring to the live mascot. The logo has "black" facial hair which is just a cover up to make it more PC. And the Irish are a group of people by the way, and so depicting the leprechaun in an aggressive manner, with all Irish traits, would technically be stereotyping the Irish. Not that I care, nor do I think anyone should, just saying.

2/3) Would rebranding in return lose fans though? And would they lose more fans, and sell less merchandise if they rebranded? I'd say there's a good chance. The block C doesn't sell as well as Chief Wahoo I don't believe.

You're saying that the rebrand would almost guarantee a stronger following, but I don't think it would. Like I said, most Indians fans like Chief Wahoo, and it's not like a Cubs fan is going to jump onto the Indians bandwagon all of a sudden.

Obviously sidetracked, but the Leprechaun is fictional IRISH myth. If the Irish have a fictional character then it would make sense that it may look Irish.

I never said a Cubs fan would switch, again you are missing the logic of what I am stating. I said anyone that would be a fan, but can't bring themselves to be so under the current name/mascot may be pulling back a little from association. I don't believe (obviously no facts to back up) changing will harm their team loyalty, I only believe it could strengthen it by anyone currently offended.


Again, though, I am not going to be protesting it. I just don't see any reason for the resistance.

To add to the conversation I think it would be interesting to see them reclaim the Spiders name. There is already built in history with the name.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

Obviously sidetracked, but the Leprechaun is fictional IRISH myth. If the Irish have a fictional character then it would make sense that it may look Irish.

I never said a Cubs fan would switch, again you are missing the logic of what I am stating. I said anyone that would be a fan, but can't bring themselves to be so under the current name/mascot may be pulling back a little from association. I don't believe (obviously no facts to back up) changing will harm their team loyalty, I only believe it could strengthen it by anyone currently offended.


Again, though, I am not going to be protesting it. I just don't see any reason for the resistance.

To add to the conversation I think it would be interesting to see them reclaim the Spiders name. There is already built in history with the name.

Well, not me, but some people get really creeped out by spiders. My mom really hates them.

Much to her credit, when I was little she taught me about spiders as part of nature. We had some pretty big yellow and black garden spiders, and we caught grasshoppers in the field next door and tossed them into the web to see what the spiders did. I was in Jr High before she let on how scared she is of them.

Steve B

[PM770]

I'm surprised this hasn't been referenced yet:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.c7487b7a3bca

[Snapolit1]

Ridiculous. Maybe we should have a team with a horrible stereotypical Jewish banker image with a big nose called the Greedy Bankers or a big fat Italian guy in a white tee shirt called the Gangsters. Maybe a German guy who looks like a Nazi. Yeah, obviously that wouldn't fly for a nanosecond.

The fact that US Indians who are on one of the very lowest socioeconomic rungs of our society and are basically struggling to put food in their kids mouths most days have other things to worry about hardly makes it right. Drove through Indian reservations in North Dakota last summer. Not surprised to hear American baseball mascots are not high on their list of worries.

[packs]

To be fair that article only addresses a survey of 500 Native Americans. There are 5.2 million Native Americans in the US (2010 census). But even if you want to give it credence, the survey was only about the name of the Redskins. They didn't ask about how Native Americans feel about being portrayed in the Cleveland logo, which I think we should be able to agree is a less than flattering stereotype.

[Tripredacus]

I have come to like the modern Indians logo, Chief Wahoo not the red C. Well I guess the red C is fine too, but it is kinda boring even when they used it in the 80s and had the block letter uniforms. There is just something about the whole color scheme they came up with in the mid 90s when they got good. The dark blue with Chief Wahoo and the red brim, the dark blue jerseys. It looks really nice.

The part I do not get is that people are on such a crusade about a team and how "they" think it is portraying a certain people, yet there is no big hubaloo about the actual problems those people have. It makes me wonder if the Redskins and Indians (and it would need to include the other team that use the name like Kingston and Springfield) and whatever other teams get their names and logos taken away, that no one will them remember these types of people.

It is these stories of these sports teams with their names and logos that keeps those stories alive. It might sound like a bad thing to say.

[packs]

I don't notice a push to change the team name from Indians, people would just like them to stop using a stereotypical image of an Indian as the logo.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't notice a push to change the team name from Indians, people would just like them to stop using a stereotypical image of an Indian as the logo.

Yes, but if you get rid of Chief Wahoo, there's no point in the team name.

[PM770]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

The fact that US Indians who are on one of the very lowest socioeconomic rungs of our society and are basically struggling to put food in their kids mouths most days have other things to worry about hardly makes it right. Drove through Indian reservations in North Dakota last summer. Not surprised to hear American baseball mascots are not high on their list of worries.

Isn't that the point? They are sports logos. The people that are supposed to be offended by these things greet it with a gigantic "meh", to an extremely large degree (90% is a massive majority in any poll of this nature). Some even like the name.

[packs]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Yes, but if you get rid of Chief Wahoo, there's no point in the team name.

What do you mean? The Chiefs are the Chiefs without using a stereotype. The Braves are the Braves still despite doing away with their screaming Indian logo. Why can't the Indians do the same? If the point of calling themselves the Indians is to honor Native Americans, what end does using a stereotype image like that accomplish?

[PM770]

Originally Posted by packs

To be fair that article only addresses a survey of 500 Native Americans. There are 5.2 million Native Americans in the US (2010 census). But even if you want to give it credence, the survey was only about the name of the Redskins. They didn't ask about how Native Americans feel about being portrayed in the Cleveland logo, which I think we should be able to agree is a less than flattering stereotype.

I thought that the use of the term "Redskins" was the most egregious offense of all sports names/logos. To now say it is the Chief Wahoo logo is goal post shifting.

[packs]

Well this is a thread about the Chief Wahoo logo not the name of the Redskins and another poster posted that survey in this thread. I don't think it has anything to do with Chief Wahoo either. But I also think it's disingenuous to say that a poll of 1 percent of all Native Americans means that 90 percent of them feel the same way as less than 1 percent do.

[JustinD]

I think it's definitely caused by national outcry more than local. I am not a fan of any of these teams and as a detroiter, unless the feline sjw's start complaints about using lions or tigers, I am pretty safe.

However, I don't need people to step in and tell me what is good for me or what I should believe. If any of the naming issues were of great concern to the world the teams would have changed already as people would have already voted with their wallets.

If you want change don't buy merch or tickets. If enough people do that change will come, if it doesn't then you must accept you are in minority on your issue.

My personal opinion and why I stay unconcerned with an Chippewa exwife and a son who is a tribal member. (Not that it makes me any expert, just context)

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by PM770

Isn't that the point? They are sports logos. The people that are supposed to be offended by these things greet it with a gigantic "meh", to an extremely large degree (90% is a massive majority in any poll of this nature). Some even like the name.

Whatever. . . .sure many folks on Indian reservations are happy they are inundated with alcohol on their reservations and have astonomical alcoholism rates . . . still doesn't make it a good thing.

Somehow we've gotten to a point where caring about other people being treated decently is a vice.

[Section103]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Somehow we've gotten to a point where caring about other people being treated decently is a vice.

I didnt read all the way through the thread or even what your comment was in response to; but this particular statement resonates with me. Sometimes the tone of those who are "anti-PC" certainly comes across as if people just cant even be bothered to treat people with respect or address someone in a simple manner they prefer to be addressed.


Aside from that, I think mascots with a heritage theme can be done and done so properly. Chief Wahoo is, simply put, a caricature. Caricatures based on heritage, in particular minority heritages; are on slippery ground. Caricatures based on heritage that are also NOT native and common to the heritage are just asking for trouble.

If you're gonna do it, do it right. Do it honoring a specific faction. Do it with the input of those particular people. Otherwise, you're just kidding yourself.

[RedsFan1941]

Originally Posted by packs

Can you explain your position a little bit? I don't really know anyone who is in favor of the logo.

i am in favor of it. now you know.

[KMayUSA6060]

http://fox8.com/2017/04/13/medina-to...ant-to-offend/

[tschock]

Just curious for input from the 'taking offense on other's behalf' crowd. When is a symbol NOT offensive? What % of the 'offense intended' group must actually take offense at the symbol for the symbol to be classified as offensive?

[packs]

I don't know the answer to that but I think you can see a stereotyped image and know that there is something about it that is problematic. Have you ever seen any of the old Pears soap advertisements? Or any of the original Darlie toothpaste ads?

[tschock]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't know the answer to that but I think you can see a stereotyped image and know that there is something about it that is problematic. Have you ever seen any of the old Pears soap advertisements? Or any of the original Darlie toothpaste ads?

So a big toothy smiling Indian is a "stereotype"? Odd that I haven't seen many of those other images. In fact, checking google for "smiling indian stereotype" the ONLY image that comes up in many pages that might relate to Native American 'offensiveness' is the Chief Wahoo image (or those making fun of it).

I don't know the answer to my own question either, but I don't purport to speak for a group that may OR MAY NOT be offended. I also don't dismiss out of hand a survey when it doesn't coincide with any preconceived ideas that I might have.

So how about this question. If 90% of the 5.2 million Native Americans said they did NOT take offense to Chief Wahoo, would YOU still claim that image is offensive to Native Americans?

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by tschock

So how about this question. If 90% of the 5.2 million Native Americans said they did NOT take offense to Chief Wahoo, would YOU still claim that image is offensive to Native Americans?

If 520,000 people are offended, yeah, I'd say that's offensive.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by tschock

Just curious for input from the 'taking offense on other's behalf' crowd. When is a symbol NOT offensive? What % of the 'offense intended' group must actually take offense at the symbol for the symbol to be classified as offensive?

In return I am curious for input from the defensive side. What reason do you have to continue offending any percentage of people?
The only reason I could think of is if no one within the offended group are a part of the depicted image. Sure there are people that are stating the Chief is offensive that aren't Native Americans, but this protest wasn't started by them. It was started by Native American groups and have just gained support from outsiders.

http://www.changethemascot.org/history-of-progress/
http://www.ncai.org/resources/resolu...ts-stereotypes
http://www.ncai.org/resources/ncai-p..._of_Racism.pdf

As I will keep stating I am not personally offended by the image. I have never even thought about it until recent years, but this open discussion got me thinking about it. The fact that there are some within the people group offended is reason enough, in my mind, to think about changing. We are not talking about an animal rights group that is offended by the depiction of a bird on a bat (Cardinals) and standing up in protest on behalf of a group that literally doesn't/can't care.
We are talking about a segment of Native Americans offended by a depiction of their own personal people group. My ignorance due to my own personal experience will never allow me to fully appreciate why they are offended by it, but I can fully appreciate that they are offended and they should have the right to chose how they are depicted.

Obviously the team/MLB can do what they want, but why continue to antagonize any people group even if it is just the minority. It just makes no sense to me.

[packs]

Originally Posted by tschock

So a big toothy smiling Indian is a "stereotype"? Odd that I haven't seen many of those other images. In fact, checking google for "smiling indian stereotype" the ONLY image that comes up in many pages that might relate to Native American 'offensiveness' is the Chief Wahoo image (or those making fun of it).

Just curious if this image makes you uncomfortable. Obviously I can't tell you that your opinion is wrong, but I think images like this one sum up what I think:

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Ridiculous. Maybe we should have a team with a horrible stereotypical Jewish banker image with a big nose called the Greedy Bankers or a big fat Italian guy in a white tee shirt called the Gangsters. Maybe a German guy who looks like a Nazi. Yeah, obviously that wouldn't fly for a nanosecond.

The fact that US Indians who are on one of the very lowest socioeconomic rungs of our society and are basically struggling to put food in their kids mouths most days have other things to worry about hardly makes it right. Drove through Indian reservations in North Dakota last summer. Not surprised to hear American baseball mascots are not high on their list of worries.

+1

Who cares if they are offended are not. Marginalizing a group of people is either right nor wrong. It drips with irony that some of my best friends are bed-wetting socialists who fall all over themselves in an attempt to claim the Redskins is not a racist name. The percentages of Native Americans who find the name insensitive or not is 100% irrelevant.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by dgo71

If 520,000 people are offended, yeah, I'd say that's offensive.

How about 1 person?

[tschock]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

What reason do you have to continue offending any percentage of people?

Same question, different post. How about 1 person being offended?