Chief Wahoo in the Crosshairs

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by steve B

If you see people as people....... both are just happy guys doing their thing.*

If you see people as part of a certain group with whatever attaches to that.....well, I suppose they are stereotypes.

Until "we" can see people as people, we'll always have problems.

* Part of it is also that that as shown, there's also no historical context. In his time Al Jolson was ok. As were minstrel shows. It's only after that stuff became unpopular that it became negative. Who are the biggest collectors of most offensive stuff? Yep, usually someone from the group offended. Quite a puzzle there eh?

Steve B

Empty platitudes aside, there is no denying the intent behind portraying these people in the way they are depicted. And it wasn't hey, let's portray just a couple of happy dudes doing their thing. That's laughably naive. Why does historical context matter? We're not having this discussion in 1922. Obviously it was "ok at the time." That doesn't mean that image shouldn't be viewed as offensive TODAY. Which is the major point of contention here; one of those images is still in use today. If a team had a mascot in blackface I'm sure everyone would agree it would be inappropriate. So why is Chief Wahoo given a pass? Why is one ok and the other not?

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by dgo71

Empty platitudes aside, there is no denying the intent behind portraying these people in the way they are depicted. And it wasn't hey, let's portray just a couple of happy dudes doing their thing. That's laughably naive. Why does historical context matter? We're not having this discussion in 1922. Obviously it was "ok at the time." That doesn't mean that image shouldn't be viewed as offensive TODAY. Which is the major point of contention here; one of those images is still in use today. If a team had a mascot in blackface I'm sure everyone would agree it would be inappropriate. So why is Chief Wahoo given a pass? Why is one ok and the other not?

Chief Wahoo wasn't drawn maliciously. That's the difference.

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2017/0...to-offend.html

[steve B]

Originally Posted by dgo71

Empty platitudes aside, there is no denying the intent behind portraying these people in the way they are depicted. And it wasn't hey, let's portray just a couple of happy dudes doing their thing. That's laughably naive. Why does historical context matter? We're not having this discussion in 1922. Obviously it was "ok at the time." That doesn't mean that image shouldn't be viewed as offensive TODAY. Which is the major point of contention here; one of those images is still in use today. If a team had a mascot in blackface I'm sure everyone would agree it would be inappropriate. So why is Chief Wahoo given a pass? Why is one ok and the other not?

Yes, it is and deliberately so.

The point remains that until we collectively stop seeing race from either a positive or negative aspect there will always be problems. Human nature what it is I'm not exactly holding my breath waiting.

The bit of art was drawn for Cleveland Scene magazines cover in 2012. Should the artist not draw it since it's not 1922? As a magazine cover about the issue it makes a pretty solid statement. Without that context it's lessened. Context matters a lot.

Interestingly, the guy shown in the other picture later apologized for the facepaint and headdress, but not the team name or sweatshirt.
http://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/201...mbrace-change/

And what are we all to think of things like this?
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/...ostume-7802016

Overall, I think there are much bigger issues with the way Native Americans are treated to this day than a few sports logos.

Steve B

[dgo71]

I agree there are bigger issues but that wasn't what this thread was about. I have a hard time believing the tough issues will be addressed anytime soon if grown people aren't even willing to negotiate about a cartoon mascot. Not sure what point you're trying to make with the link to the native American in blackface. Are you suggesting one incident of bigotry cancels out another, or justifies another? And yes, the artist who drew the bobblehead image was making the sole point that one image is offensive and the other doesn't seem to be, and how silly that is. Simple as that. The artist didn't feel the need to cloud the real issue with tangential debates about historical context that serve only to direct the conversation away from the actual point. I don't agree that seeing people as people is the solution, although I understand the sentiment. The problem with that is it implies that everyone is the same. I think the solution lies in seeing our differences and accepting them, and not marginalizing a group because of them. As long as otherwise rational adults feel changing a sports logo is too heavy a price to pay to show respect to a different group of people though, I'm not holding my breath either.

[steve B]

So we'll remove a sports mascot so we don't have to see the poverty and other problems we have forced on them for a century or more. Yeah, that's a feel good moment.

While the eastern tribes mostly either moved, were killed off or went with being assimilated the central and western ones got totally clobbered and are still struggling today. Not all of them can start up casinos, unlike some eastern tribes that are for the most part pretty sketchy as still being tribes.

Maybe if we made sports teams with native american mascots pay a licensing fee? For pro teams a large one that would fund some needed improvements in their living conditions? And maybe a sliding scale of smaller fees for college and HS teams. That might be actual progress. And if the fee was big enough, it would effectively remove some of the mascots.

Yes, celebrate our cultural differences, but under the skin for the most part we're all just people. We generally tend to want the same basic things and behave the same basic ways.

The Native American using blackface was included to point out the frustrating hypocrisy and double standards that exist across our entire society. Probably should have left it for its own post.

Steve B

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by steve B

So we'll remove a sports mascot so we don't have to see the poverty and other problems we have forced on them for a century or more. Yeah, that's a feel good moment.

I don't think the two things are mutually exclusive

Originally Posted by steve B

Maybe if we made sports teams with native american mascots pay a licensing fee? For pro teams a large one that would fund some needed improvements in their living conditions? And maybe a sliding scale of smaller fees for college and HS teams. That might be actual progress. And if the fee was big enough, it would effectively remove some of the mascots.

I think that's a fantastic idea.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by steve B

So we'll remove a sports mascot so we don't have to see the poverty and other problems we have forced on them for a century or more. Yeah, that's a feel good moment.

While the eastern tribes mostly either moved, were killed off or went with being assimilated the central and western ones got totally clobbered and are still struggling today. Not all of them can start up casinos, unlike some eastern tribes that are for the most part pretty sketchy as still being tribes.

Maybe if we made sports teams with native american mascots pay a licensing fee? For pro teams a large one that would fund some needed improvements in their living conditions? And maybe a sliding scale of smaller fees for college and HS teams. That might be actual progress. And if the fee was big enough, it would effectively remove some of the mascots.

Yes, celebrate our cultural differences, but under the skin for the most part we're all just people. We generally tend to want the same basic things and behave the same basic ways.

The Native American using blackface was included to point out the frustrating hypocrisy and double standards that exist across our entire society. Probably should have left it for its own post.

Steve B

There are two issues here.

One is funding, particularly public funding. Grade School Systems would probably ditch anything related to Native Americans in a heartbeat due to funding - no way can a licensing fee be justified in many cases for a mascot. Colleges would probably ditch it in most cases, barring Florida State and other schools that truly honor their Native American relationship. Pro sports need to become private entities that no longer fund anything related to their organizations with public money - yes that includes stadiums. Too much money involved with sports to be asking for public funds on top of all other revenue. However, I do agree that at the pro level, if they were to take public funding out of it, a licensing fee to use a Native American-related logo/mascot/name would be terrific. Donate it to the reservations, and bring awareness to the atrocity that is the reservation.

The other issue is where does the line get drawn? For Notre Dame, is someone going to require schools/teams send money to Irish-related charities to use an Irish-related logo/mascot/name? What about about the mascots/logos/names with American historical relations - Patriots, Minutemen, etc.? It's a bit of a slippery slope.


Otherwise, I think the idea is great.

[steve B]

The fee wouldn't need to be large depending on the organization. The Indians? Yeah, a BIG fee. A local High school that maybe has a team named after the local tribe? (Plenty of those in the northeast) Maybe $1 a year.

I was in a car club when Chrysler had a bit of a flap over trademarks. Every Chrysler related car club got a cease and desist over any trademarked anything they were using. Which was a major problem for the "Slant Six Club" and "New England Mighty Mopars" It got settled pretty quickly once the people from the "Hemi Owners Group" and a couple others where most of the members have a lot of money threatened to sue. In the end they were just being heavy handed about needing to actively license or protect trademarks so they wouldn't be lost, and pretty much everyone got a license for $1 a year to use any of Chryslers trademarks.

Steve B

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by steve B

The fee wouldn't need to be large depending on the organization. The Indians? Yeah, a BIG fee. A local High school that maybe has a team named after the local tribe? (Plenty of those in the northeast) Maybe $1 a year.

I was in a car club when Chrysler had a bit of a flap over trademarks. Every Chrysler related car club got a cease and desist over any trademarked anything they were using. Which was a major problem for the "Slant Six Club" and "New England Mighty Mopars" It got settled pretty quickly once the people from the "Hemi Owners Group" and a couple others where most of the members have a lot of money threatened to sue. In the end they were just being heavy handed about needing to actively license or protect trademarks so they wouldn't be lost, and pretty much everyone got a license for $1 a year to use any of Chryslers trademarks.

Steve B

I don't have a problem with the fee, but you need to take the tax payer money out of all sports, then. The difference between your two scenarios is the car companies are privately owned companies.

I also am not a fan of fundraisers to bring awareness to something. People are always looking to dip into somebody else's pocket. If you see something wrong, or want to bring awareness, speak up. Use your 1st Amendment Right, not my money.