Chief Wahoo in the Crosshairs

[packs]

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

[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.

[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.

[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:

[bravos4evr]

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).

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?

because middle class suburuban white leftists know what's best for all of us, and if you disagree? well they will try and ruin your life, or call you racist or sexist until they shout you down with their tyrannical fascistic rubbish.

[Big Six]

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 why isn’t this offensive?

Stereotypical, aggressive, ape-like depiction of the Irish. And you’d be hard pressed to find any Irishman who would want Notre Dame (or any other institution using the logo) to change it. This is such a typical target for many in today’s PC environment to focus on. “Offensive” images...let’s get rid of them because if they go away, we solve the problem. Would love to know what those fighting this fight are doing to help Native Americans who have been screwed by this country since before it was a country. What a fake and disingenuous effort. Ugh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[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.

[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?

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by tschock

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

I already answered this, let me go back at you. If only 1 isn't offended can you keep doing it? Let's face it, though, you are putting up a wicker man because there isn't just 1 person offended. I proposed a question that you are choosing to ignore because you can't continue to argue your side and confront the question at the same time. Or maybe there is a reason I can't think of.

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

My child recently offended a friend at school by using the phrase "scaredy cat" because she was scared of something. This is a term that is used in our house freely including to describe ourselves when scared of something.

My advice to my daughter was "just refrain from using that phrase from now on so as not to offend her, she doesn't understand the context in which you use it."

I didn't say "lets take a poll of all your friends and if it is only 10% then don't worry how she feels"

[Tripredacus]

Originally Posted by tschock

Just curious for input from the 'taking offense on other's behalf' crowd. When is a symbol NOT offensive?

This is an interesting subject that is glossed over, a subject of how a human being thinks, outside of just baseball. When a person looks at something, their reaction to it reveals their own character, yet what we read in the news is actually people projecting their own beliefs as fact.

A logo cannot be "racist" in any way because racism is the act of limiting or excluding others of something based on perceived race. An image can be the symbol of racism, only if the symbol is used in proper context. Chief Wahoo is the symbol of a baseball team, and no where in their usage of it has it been used in such a way that has been detrimental to Native Americans or anything else. (For example, the Cleveland Indians never denied entry of Native Americans to games or to play on their team while using the logo.)

So until it can be proven that Chief Wahoo has been used as a symbol (by the Cleveland Indians) in a manner that has been detrimental to Native Americans, then any complaints about it are just opinion.

In reality, this isn't the 17th century anymore. People should look at Chief Wahoo and laugh. To think, we thought the New World was India! To think, we thought "Indians" had red skin! They don't, how silly/dumb we were many years ago.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Tripredacus

So until it can be proven that Chief Wahoo has been used as a symbol (by the Cleveland Indians) in a manner that has been detrimental to Native Americans, then any complaints about it are just opinion.

Originally Posted by "Excerpt from American Psychological Association"

"We know from the literature that oppression, covert and overt racism, and perceived racism can have serious negative consequences for the mental health of American Indian and Alaska native (AIAN) people. The discontinued use of American Indian mascots is a gesture to show that this kind of racism toward and the disrespect of, all people in our country and in the larger global context, will not be tolerated," said Dr. Lisa Thomas, APA Committee on Ethnic and Minority Affairs

http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources...n-mascots.aspx

[Tripredacus]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources...n-mascots.aspx

From that

"American Indian mascots are harmful not only because they are often negative, but because they remind American Indians of the limited ways in which others see them. This in turn restricts the number of ways American Indians can see themselves."

This example isn't a direct relation. Again, people are projecting their own thoughts of a logo rather than what it is. The creator of the logo even can say how it was created and what it represents, and then another person looks at it and says that the creator is then wrong, solely because of what that person thinks. This plays into exactly what I was speaking of earlier and there is no relation to this and Chief Wahoo and the Cleveland Indians directly.

[Cliff Bowman]

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.

As highly opinionated and self assured as you are, why are you so terrified of posting your name here? Are you someone famous? Do you come from a well to do family? Are you hiding from someone? I have my enemies, but I'm certainly not afraid of posting my name on a vintage baseball card blog site. If your name has been posted here before, I apologize in advance, but I don't recall seeing it. Cliff Bowman

[packs]

What would you do with the information? We're having a casual conversation about a topic that hasn't gotten political, heated, or personal. Those are the rules for posting your name.

[Section103]

We can agree to disagree, but the notion that I have to be part of a group to find something offensive is nonsensical to me. Just pure nonsense. I find genocide offensive even if it's not my heritage being exterminated. Being offended is absolutely nothing more than recognizing something and saying "thats wrong". It doesnt have to be directed at me for me to bother noticing its wrong. And if it has to be directed at you before you bother noticing....well....

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by Section103

We can agree to disagree, but the notion that I have to be part of a group to find something offensive is nonsensical to me. Just pure nonsense. I find genocide offensive even if it's not my heritage being exterminated. Being offended is absolutely nothing more than recognizing something and saying "thats wrong". It doesnt have to be directed at me for me to bother noticing its wrong. And if it has to be directed at you before you bother noticing....well....

+1
Defined as "empathy."