Indians to remove chief Wahoo stating in 2019

[packs]

People often bring hyperbole into these things but I don't see how this could negatively impact anyone. Nor do I see much more room in sports for something like this to occur, perhaps outside of the Red Skins. So I don't really understand the "what's next?" point of view. There's nothing arbitrary about the decision.

[bbcard1]

Originally Posted by packs

People often bring hyperbole into these things but I don't see how this could negatively impact anyone. Nor do I see much more room in sports for something like this to occur, perhaps outside of the Red Skins. So I don't really understand the "what's next?" point of view. There's nothing arbitrary about the decision.

I am increasingly finding it difficult to care about what anybody does.

[Rookiemonster]

I agree packs but also the name Indians would have to be changed. Also the name of the Yankees comes from a derogatory term for the Dutch in the north.
Getting in to other sports would open more of this up( like the red skins) maybe we should start call the teams 1-2-3 etc .

[Orioles1954]

About time. If the logo is supposedly no big deal then there shouldn't be any problems in changing it.

[packs]

That's what I mean though, Yankees and Indians are not the same as a logo made to stereotype a group of people. Nothing about indians by itself is offense, and there certainly isn't anything offensive about Yankee. But when you pair the image of an indian with stereotypical features, you're creating something that is offensive to people.

[timn1]

That logo is an embarrassment. It’s hard to even imagine a more uncomplimentary image of an “Indian” than that face is.

Originally Posted by packs

That's what I mean though, Yankees and Indians are not the same as a logo made to stereotype a group of people. Nothing about indians by itself is offense, and there certainly isn't anything offensive about Yankee. But when you pair the image of an indian with stereotypical features, you're creating something that is offensive to people.

[rainier2004]

Wow, all these great ideas about what should be done representing an entire group of people that were suppressed and destroyed. Native Americans were treated like pure garbage for a long time. Many Native Americans fought for and defended this country during WW1 w/o citizenship and basic rights we take for granted.

This conversation isn't about the Irish who were also oppressed for a long time...

That logo is so bad, so stereotypical and just condones making fun of certain groups. Polish are ok to make fun of...dumb polocks right?

How about if the organization actually reached out with the local tribes like previously mentioned? Why not? Why not respect others and change to evolve of society?

FSU has done some things to reach out to the Seminole Nation...just doesn't seem that complicated to me. Just be respectful, that's something we haven't always done in the past and does not quantify a reason to not do it in the future.

[Dewey]

Caricatures of historically oppressed peoples are bad form. Good riddance to Chief Wahoo. To desire these caricatures gone is not "pc," it is being a decent human being. Cartoonish depictions of oppressed people do not arise in a vacuum. They are often rooted in explicit or implicit bias. Removing the caricature does not end the disadvantage of the group, but is a form of not kicking a man when he's down. If you can't or don't want to help a guy up, at least don't kick him. Not a great moral advance, but at least it is something.

Team names/mascots that refer to people groups and reflect them in a strong, dignified way are fine by me. But caricatures are not that.

Our images matter. That say something, whether intended or not. This is a move in a healthy direction. The town of Whitesboro, NY learned the lesson. Why not the Indians?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

People often bring hyperbole into these things but I don't see how this could negatively impact anyone. Nor do I see much more room in sports for something like this to occur, perhaps outside of the Red Skins. So I don't really understand the "what's next?" point of view. There's nothing arbitrary about the decision.

The "what's next" point of view means what's next in society, not just the sports world.

For someone who advocates Freedom of Speech (as you certainly did in the Colin Kaepernick thread defending his right to kneel), you sure don't mind limiting the speech of others.

[packs]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

The "what's next" point of view means what's next in society, not just the sports world.

For someone who advocates Freedom of Speech (as you certainly did in the Colin Kaepernick thread defending his right to kneel), you sure don't mind limiting the speech of others.

This part of the hyperbole I was talking about. Limiting speech how? You can wear any shirt you want with the logo on it. You can wear all the hats you want. The baseball team just won't be using the logo as their official logo anymore. What does that have to do with free speech or taking rights away from people?

[Marckus99]

Great.
And now the world has been cured of all its ills.
Just like that.

[Rookiemonster]

I also feel a way a about a name to this day the negro leagues. While it was named this a pointvin history where is was considered acceptable is still hard to say in 2018. I remember talk Baseball with a coworker and saying it without thinking then he made a face and I was like oh snap. And looked around to see a few confused faces .

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by Marckus99

Great.
And now the world has been cured of all its ills.
Just like that.

Of course not. Just a tiny, teeny step in the right direction.

[Aaron Seefeldt]

It could also be a marketing thing.

Change the logo, sell more shirts, hats, etc. With all the success of the Indians the last 2 years, they might be looking for a new way to boost sales.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Next...

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Next...

Good for you. At least now we all know