Indians/Guardians and the Topps History Police

[deweyinthehall]

I haven't collected Topps' new releases in a number of years, but I am now going through some to see what's out there.

Sorry if I'm late to the party on this one, but in doing so, I learned that where a player played for Cleveland in prior years on their 2022 cards, the team name on the back is ID'd as "Cleveland" - will it stay "Cleveland" on their 2023 release, or will it read Guardians?

I will say that I have absolutely no issue with the team changing its name, and I can certainly see where it was probably overdue (putting aside the quality, or lack thereof, of the new name and logo). Full stop.

But, this attempt to change history is insidious. Right or wrong, from 1915 through 2021, the Cleveland MLB club was called the Indians. Probably best that Topps didn't get renewed. Of course, the new kids on the block will probably be just as bad.

Terrible.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by deweyinthehall

Probably best that Topps didn't get renewed. Of course, the new kids on the block will probably be just as bad.

The new kids on the block (Fanatics) bought the old kids on the block (Topps), so while I expect we'll see some changes, it'll probably be more of the same.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

The new kids on the block (Fanatics) bought the old kids on the block (Topps), so while I expect we'll see some changes, it'll probably be more of the same.

And don't forget, the new kids on the block are also partially owned by MLB, who was party to and at least partially behind the push to see the name change in the first place.

So, wouldn't leaving the Indians name on cards going forward then make MLB look a bit hypocritical? Or how about when creating any heritage, throw-back or other type cards showing old, retired players, are they going to automatically scrub and remove old Cleveland player photos used to then airbrush out the Indians name on uniforms, or the Chief Wahoo images? Great question, and will be interesting to see what they end up doing.

And you can probably pose the same question in regard to future football cards of the Washington players.

[deweyinthehall]

Originally Posted by BobC

And don't forget, the new kids on the block are also partially owned by MLB, who was party to and at least partially behind the push to see the name change in the first place.

So, wouldn't leaving the Indians name on cards going forward then make MLB look a bit hypocritical? Or how about when creating any heritage, throw-back or other type cards showing old, retired players, are they going to automatically scrub and remove old Cleveland player photos used to then airbrush out the Indians name on uniforms, or the Chief Wahoo images? Great question, and will be interesting to see what they end up doing.

And you can probably pose the same question in regard to future football cards of the Washington players.

I don't collect football, but I had that same thought - any football collectors reading this? What do cards use as the team name prior to the Washington Football Club?

[packs]

The team is based in Cleveland. Hasn't that always been true?

[deweyinthehall]

Originally Posted by packs

The team is based in Cleveland. Hasn't that always been true?

Actually no - the club originated as a minor league team in Grand Rapids in the 1890s.

But, to the point I think you're trying to make - if Topps traditionally listed the Red Sox as merely "Boston", the Padres as "San Diego" and so forth, I wouldn't have a concern.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by deweyinthehall

Actually no - the club originated as a minor league team in Grand Rapids in the 1890s.

But, to the point I think you're trying to make - if Topps traditionally listed the Red Sox as merely "Boston", the Padres as "San Diego" and so forth, I wouldn't have a concern.

Yes, it's an inconsistency to play the PC game. We should do this to every team, few of them survive a PC check if one look to be offended.

The Trolley Dodgers is offensive to the mobile impaired.

The Padres are offensive to non-Christian identifying individuals.

The Giants are offensive to the vertically challenged.

The Reds are offensive to the colorblind.

The Astros are offensive because after their original was changed for not being PC, they named themselves for the space initiative, which was partially the work of former Nazi scientists.

The Texas Rangers (baseball team) are offensive because the Texas Rangers (law enforcement) were racist long ago.

The Pirates are offensive because pirates stole, murdered and raped people.

The Nationals are offensive because American nationalism is evil and racist.

Change all the team names, and remove these offensive words from the baseball cards. We shouldn't use the city names either though, many of those are offensive too. Step it up Topps, change the words before others do, be the leaders instead of the followers in improving the world.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by packs

The team is based in Cleveland. Hasn't that always been true?

Yes it is true since they joined American League back in 1901. As noted above, the team did actually come from elsewhere first.

I believe Dewey's point/question has to do with how in the past, cards would often refer to a team's name/nickname, and not just the name of the city itself, when giving some prior year or other biographical info about a player on the back of their card. His question would be along the lines of what are they going to do going forward if say they had a bio on the back of a card and mentioned something like how the player won the ROY award several years earlier, before they changed the team name from Indians to Guardians. Are they still going to list it as Indians, since that was the actual team name at the time, or will they now just use Guardians for everything? Or maybe they'll try to skirt and ignore the entire question by just referring to everything as Cleveland from now on that was prior to the name change. I threw in the added question then about using images of players from before the name change as well, and if they would alter and remove any instances of the Indians name or Chief Wahoo on the uniforms, or maybe just be sure to only use images/photos that don't show the Indians name or Chief Wahoo anywhere on them.

[todeen]

Personally, I'm glad they changed the name of the Indians and Redskins. And how they incorporate team names on cards is unimportant when compared to belittling an entire population of US Citizens. MLB took far too long to do what was right; it should have happened decades ago.

If Topps wants to just state Cleveland on the back of a card, no one is going to be confused. Records and histories move with franchises. This is nothing different.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[packs]

I think you can say things like Feller played for Cleveland and it won’t trip anybody up. There’s only one franchise.

[Zach Wheat]

Topps History Police - why did I think of JollyElm? :>

[steve B]

Originally Posted by todeen

Personally, I'm glad they changed the name of the Indians and Redskins. And how they incorporate team names on cards is unimportant when compared to belittling an entire population of US Citizens. MLB took far too long to do what was right; it should have happened decades ago.

If Topps wants to just state Cleveland on the back of a card, no one is going to be confused. Records and histories move with franchises. This is nothing different.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

I have mixed feelings about it.
In some ways it's further erasing that population of American citizens (who in some ways are citizens of two nations (or more) on the same land. *

As one chief put it several years ago
"The day a sports team name is my peoples biggest problem will be a very happy day. "(may have the exact quote wrong, but it's pretty close)
------------------------

* In CT, the state couldn't prevent foxwoods casino because it was on land federally recognized as belonging to a tribe. As such it was not US territory!
The independent governor was very anti gambling. What he did do was use a very little used piece of the CT constitution that said he could make a treaty with a foreign nation. So he did, granting the tribe exclusive rights to have slot machines in CT for something like 5 million. The legislature wouldn't act because they had a defecit, and it was a bit of money. And just before the election the tribe publicly said they'd had a much better than expected year and gifted the state something like 40 million as a thank you for the treaty that effectively kept other casinos out of the state.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by steve B

I have mixed feelings about it.

In some ways it's further erasing that population of American citizens (who in some ways are citizens of two nations (or more) on the same land. *



As one chief put it several years ago

"The day a sports team name is my peoples biggest problem will be a very happy day. "(may have the exact quote wrong, but it's pretty close)

------------------------



* In CT, the state couldn't prevent foxwoods casino because it was on land federally recognized as belonging to a tribe. As such it was not US territory!

The independent governor was very anti gambling. What he did do was use a very little used piece of the CT constitution that said he could make a treaty with a foreign nation. So he did, granting the tribe exclusive rights to have slot machines in CT for something like 5 million. The legislature wouldn't act because they had a defecit, and it was a bit of money. And just before the election the tribe publicly said they'd had a much better than expected year and gifted the state something like 40 million as a thank you for the treaty that effectively kept other casinos out of the state.

About Native casinos, WA State (where I live) and ID State have had them for a long time! We have 5 within an hour of Spokane...or possibly more.

Our regional multi-state tribes recently co-sponsored a bill that ended the use of tribal mascots in our high schools. The only way to keep a mascot was to regain tribal authorization. Two schools with highly successful sports programs (multi national championships within the last decade - North Central HS in Spokane, and Kamiakin HS in Kennewick) failed to gain reauthorization. So maybe it's a regional thing. I know that ND Natives wanted to maintain their NCAA mascot but could not.

Our local MiLB team (Spokane Indians) has a partnership with our local tribe - the Spokane Tribe - and this partnership has been highlighted by Copperstown HOF. They are owned by George Brett and his brother. They also own the local WHL hockey team, the Spokane Chiefs. Our MiLB mascots are a salmon and a dinosaur. The have uniforms written in Salish. They have a museum walk in the stadium. They donate money to tribal causes - like saving local salmon populations.

When I think of the Cleveland Indians in comparison with my MiLB team they failed at promoting and respecting Native peoples.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[JustinD]

My first wife was native Chippewa, and as such my son is native and a member of the tribe as well. I can certainly see the benefit of reaching out to local tribes to establish relationships but not erasing Indian imagery in some misguided white savior move. I spent his childhood at tribal events to build his knowledge of culture with powwows and celebrating the traditions.

His tribe has a partnership with Central Michigan College as they are the Chippewas. I honestly have never personally heard anyone at the tribe discuss any concerns with mascots other than this older article here supporting them used positively when asked -

https://www.mlive.com/news/bay-city/...w_chippew.html

As an addendum to this article, the local school district was indeed forced to change their Warrior logo to the chagrin of the tribe in the end that took pride in that representation. The federal government threatened to withhold school funding for the mascot that they deemed offensive on behalf of the tribe who were financially donating to the sports program to support the mascot.

What I found shocking was this quote in a similar article on the mascot forced change from a press release by the Michigan Department of Civil Rights:

stated a press release from MDCR. “Continued use of American Indian mascots, names, nicknames, logos, slogans, chants and/or other imagery creates a hostile environment and denies equal rights to all current and future American Indian students and must therefore cease. ... Because there is now, for the first time, an objective showing that actual harm is resulting and that it disparately falls on American Indian students, there is no longer any need to question what the school, or what the ‘reasonable American Indian’ thinks about the mascot.”

Yep, that just shut down any American Indian that would disagree with their purity plan by disavowing their opinion because any “reasonable American Indian” would of course agree with them.

[packs]

Am I the only one who finds it ironic when people say things like "changing the team name erases Native American culture".

Erasing Native American culture has been government sanctioned since there was a government to put those policies into place. And Native American culture isn't derived from professional sports teams either. There are much more meaningful ways of protecting the culture.