Chief Wahoo in the Crosshairs

[Republicaninmass]

My high school was the "pioneers" certainly could have issues with that one.


My alma mater, Amherst, named after the first guy to use biological warfare against the natives. Where does it stop?

[packs]

I don't understand the PC argument really. To me it isn't a matter of political correctness, if it was then people would be saying the team should be renamed the Cleveland Native Americans. The issue to me is that Chief Wahoo is an outdated stereotype and not really necessary at all to the team. They lose nothing by adopting the Cleveland C.

[dgo71]

Teams change logos all the time and nobody cares but as soon as it is suggested a team change a logo because it may be insensitive people get up in arms about it. My question to those who are so staunchly against a change would be, why does the idea of a change upset you? You stand to lose nothing yet some seem infuriated by the idea of showing sensitivity to a group of people they aren't a part of. What is it about showing basic human compassion that bothers you so much?

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Section103

Numbers are important, but there are no easy answers and that alone should not hinder a discussion. If 1 person is offended, that's not enough. But is there a magic number or a magic percentage? I dont think there is. I dont think 50% is the magic number.

And who should be included? The entire population or only specific portions? If 100% of the Native Americans are offended but nobody else is, is that enough or too low because its below the magic % threshhold? Should only Native Americans be included? If Im offended, does that not count as well? And what about those who arent "real" Native Americans - you know, those whose bloodlines are less than whatever arbitrary % someone thinks it should be. Do they count?

Yes - real questions to consider. No real easy answers from any side.

That magic number is called common sense when it comes to something offensive. If about 30-40% of Native Americans are offended, I will be more willing to take their side with this change.

If you're offended, but don't have any Native American relationship, then no, you don't count. Why? Because it's not your battle. It's not your job to put words in the mouths of others.

For results, see an earlier post with a link to a study that shows around 85-90% of Native Americans are not offended.

Originally Posted by Bill77

Well Chief Wahoo has come a long way since the 40's, but maybe he has a little farther to yet to go.

Actually, wouldn't the previous logo be more acceptable? Isn't one of the biggest issues with Chief Wahoo right now his red skin - which by the way, I think could be more in correlation with the fact that the Indians changed their color scheme to a more Red/White/Blue theme?

Originally Posted by packs

I don't understand the PC argument really. To me it isn't a matter of political correctness, if it was then people would be saying the team should be renamed the Cleveland Native Americans. The issue to me is that Chief Wahoo is an outdated stereotype and not really necessary at all to the team. They lose nothing by adopting the Cleveland C.

Part of it has to do with the political landscape in this country, with one group of people targeting the other group's rights. I won't go into details, as I'm trying to leave politics out of this (even though it's a political issue by nature).

Originally Posted by dgo71

Teams change logos all the time and nobody cares but as soon as it is suggested a team change a logo because it may be insensitive people get up in arms about it. My question to those who are so staunchly against a change would be, why does the idea of a change upset you? You stand to lose nothing yet some seem infuriated by the idea of showing sensitivity to a group of people they aren't a part of. What is it about showing basic human compassion that bothers you so much?

1. We lose the lovable mascot that we've grown up with and have loved, cherish, and we lose the identity of the Cleveland Indians. So to say, "we lose nothing," is pretty damn ignorant.

2. The numbers I've seen show that 85-90% of Native Americans don't care about Chief Wahoo and/or don't find it offensive. So where is the push coming from? The group of non Native Americans pushing for this, which is the large majority behind this movement, are exactly that - NOT Native Americans. So why do they get to speak for all Native Americans? Your statement is hypocritical and contradicting.

3. I have basic human compassion. Doesn't mean I'm thin skinned and find Chief Wahoo to be offensive. I don't find much to be offensive at all, actually.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

1. We lose the lovable mascot that we've grown up with and have loved and cherished. So lose the identity of the Cleveland Indians. So to say, "we lose nothing," is pretty damn ignorant.

2. The numbers I've seen show that 85-90% of Native Americans don't care about Chief Wahoo and/or don't find it offensive. So where is the push coming from? The group of non Native Americans pushing for this, which is the large majority behind this movement, are exactly that - NOT Native Americans. So why do they get to speak for all Native Americans? Your statement is hypocritical and contradicting.

3. I have basic human compassion. Doesn't mean I'm thin skinned and find Chief Wahoo to be offensive. I don't find much to be offensive at all, actually.

What's ignorant is complaining about losing a "lovable" logo that is hurtful to others. You keep saying people who aren't Native American can't say it's racist, yet you seem to think that qualifies you to say it isn't. Talk about contradictory and hypocritical... Not to mention your last point, claiming you have human compassion but since you're not thin skinned and don't get offended easily, everyone else should just get over it? That's looking at things solely from your individual perspective, kinda the opposite of basic human compassion.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by dgo71

What's ignorant is complaining about losing a "lovable" logo that is hurtful to others. You keep saying people who aren't Native American can't say it's racist, yet you seem to think that qualifies you to say it isn't. Talk about contradictory and hypocritical... Not to mention your last point, claiming you have human compassion but since you're not thin skinned and don't get offended easily, everyone else should just get over it? That's looking at things solely from your individual perspective, kinda the opposite of basic human compassion.

I don't believe it's racist, no. I'm also not speaking for others. That's the difference. I'm speaking for myself, and myself only. I'll let the Native Americans speak for themselves.

Not being offended easily doesn't mean I don't have human compassion. It means I have my beliefs, and stick to them. It means I am accountable for myself, and myself only. It means if I see something that is violating my beliefs, I will step up and take a stand. If a person is getting beaten senselessly, I will step in and take a stand. If a baseball team wanted to adopt a Negro League mascot (now THOSE were offensive), I would step up and take a stand. But something that hasn't been a problem for YEARS, YEARS(!), and I don't see as a problem because I don't see anything offensive about it, I'm going to sit here and enjoy it. Is that ok with you, comrade?

Edit: And part of my belief system is, using common sense when applying this, majority rules. As I stated earlier, if 30-40% of Native Americans find it offensive, I will be ok with a change. Sorry if that logic is less than basic-human-compassionate to you.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

I don't believe it's racist, no.

Well apparently you don't get a vote. I assume you're not Native American, so your opinion must not count. But basically, you're just like...

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

But something that hasn't been a problem for YEARS, YEARS(!), and I don't see as a problem because I don't see anything offensive about it, I'm going to sit here and enjoy it. Is that ok with you, comrade?

For years nobody said anything, doesn't mean people weren't offended by it. But you basically just reiterated my point, YOU aren't offended so YOU don't see it as a problem. Super compassionate of you.

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Edit: And part of my belief system is, using common sense when applying this, majority rules. As I stated earlier, if 30-40% of Native Americans find it offensive, I will be ok with a change. Sorry if that logic is less than basic-human-compassionate to you.

Edited for your edit: Well first, 30-40% isn't a majority. So what you call common sense is really just arbitrary nonsense. So 29% of the people are offended, get over it. 30% though, well we need to do something about that! That's asinine.