Wahoo …
Posted: October 17th, 2007 | Filed under: Cleveland, Essays | 161 Comments »
The Indians are one game away from the World Series, there’s mayhem and excitement and so much to write about. But for some reason, I’m motivated tonight to write about Chief Wahoo. I wouldn’t blame you for skipping this one … not many people seem to agree with me about how it’s past time to get rid of this racist logo of my childhood.
* * *
Cleveland has had an odd and somewhat comical history when it comes to sports nicknames. The football team is, of course, called the Browns, technically after the great Paul Brown, though Tom Hanks always says it’s because everything Cleveland is brown. He has a point.
You know, it was always hard to know exactly what you were supposed to do as a “Brown” fan. You could wear brown, of course, but that was pretty limiting. And then you would be standing in the stands, ready to do something, but what the hell does brown do (for you)? You supposed to pretend to be a UPS Truck? You supposed to mimic something brown (and boy does THAT bring up some disgusting possibilities?) I mean Brown is not a particularly active color.
At least the Browns nickname makes some sort of Cleveland sense. The basketball team is called the Cavaliers, after 17th Century English Warriors who dressed nice. Perfect. The hockey team, first as a minor league team and then briefly in the NHL, was called the Barons for reasons that seem to be lost to history and logic. Another hockey team was called the Crusaders. Another hockey team was the Lumberjacks. You get the sense that at some point it was a big game to try and come up with the nickname that had the least to do with Cleveland.
Nickname guy 1: How about Haberdashers?
Nickname guy 2: No, we have some of those in Cleveland.
Nickname guy 1: Polar Bears?
Nickname guy 2: I think there are some at the Cleveland Zoo.
Nickname guy 1: How about Crusaders? They’re long dead.
Cleveland’s baseball nickname history has its own crazy history. The baseball team was, for a year in 1890, called the Cleveland Infants. My best guess is they were named that for 16-year-old pitcher Willie McGill, who won 11 games that season, but I don’t know. Maybe they brought infants to the games. Maybe they had a deal where you could use your infant as a ticket into the game.
In other years, the baseball teams were called the Blues, the Bronchos and, of course, the Spiders. We’ll get back to the Spiders in a few minutes.
Then, from 1903-1914, they were known as the Cleveland Naps. This was after the great Napoleon Lajoie, who signed with the team as a free agent in 1903. II’m guessing it was in the contract that they name the team after him; I’m surprised Roger Clemens didn’t ask for this. Though Lajoie was a great player, you do have to admire a team that would name itself after a quick afternoon sleep.
Then, in 1914, the Naps lost 102 games, and Lajoie hit .258, 80 points below his career average. He was 39 then and clearly done (he did play two more mostly ineffective years in Philadelphia), and so Cleveland needed a new nickname. You know what’s coming. This is when legend and fact blur.
* * *
The way I had always heard it growing up is that the team, needing a new nickname, went back into their history to honor an old Native American player named Louis Sockalexis. Sockalexis was, by most accounts, the first native American to play professional baseball. He had been quite a phenom in high school, and he developed into a a fairly mediocre and minor outfielder for the Spiders (he played just 94 games in three years). He did hit .338 his one good year and apparently (or at least I was told) he was beloved and respected by everybody. In this “respected-and-beloved” version, nobody ever mentions that Sockalexis may have ruined his career by jumping from the second-story window of a whorehouse. Or that he was an alcoholic.
Still, in all versions of the story, Sockalexis had to deal with horrendous racism, terrible taunts, whoops from the crowd, and so on. He endured (sort of — at least until that second story window thing). So this version of the story goes that in 1915, less than two years after the tragic death of Louis Sockalexis, the baseball team named itself the “Indians” in his honor. That’s how I heard it. And, because you will believe anything that you hear as a kid I believed it for a long while (I also believed for a long time that dinosaurs turned into oil — I still sort of believe it, I can’t help it. Also that if you stare at the moon too long you will turn into a werewolf).
In recent years, though, we find that this Sockalexis story might be a bit exaggerated or, more to the point, complete bullcrap. If you really think about it, the story never made much sense to begin with. Why exactly would people in Cleveland — this in a time when native Americans were generally viewed as subhuman in America — name their team after a relatively minor and certainly troubled outfielder?
There seems to be some evidence now that the Indians were actually named that to capture some of the magic of the Native-American named Boston Braves, who had just had their Miracle Braves season (the Braves, incidentally, were not named AFTER any Native Americans but were rather named after a greasy politican named James Gaffney, who became team president and was apparently called the Brave of Tammany Hall). This version makes more sense, certainly. There’s also a theory that the name was chosen by a fan contest in the newspapers and you KNOW they weren’t honoring Louis Sockalexis.
We do know for sure they were called the Indians in 1915, and (according to a story written by author and NYU Professor Jonathan Zimmerman) they were welcomed with the sort of sportswriting grace that would follow the Indians through the years: “We’ll have the Indians on the warpath all the time, eager for scalps to dangle at their belts.”
Oh yes, we honor you Louis Sockalexis.
What, however, makes a successful nickname? You got it: Winning. The Indians were successful pretty quickly. In 1916, they traded for an outfielder named Tris Speaker. That same year they picked up a pitcher named Stan Covaleski in what Baseball Reference calls “an unknown transaction.” There need to be more of those. And the Indians also picked up a 26-year-old pitcher on waivers named Jim Bagby. Those three were the key forces in the Indians 1920 World Series championship. After that, they were the Indians to stay.
* * *
Chief Wahoo, from what I can tell, was born much later. The first Chief Wahoo logo seems to have been drawn just after World War II. Until then, Cleveland wore hats with various kinds of Cs on them. In 1947, the first Chief Wahoo appears on a hat. He’s got the yellow face, long nose, the freakish grin, the single feather behind his head … quite an honor for Sockalexis. As a friend of mine used to say, “It’s surprising they didn’t put a whiskey bottle right next to his head.”
Three years later, they changed the Wahoo logo — I suspect this is not because people thought it was racist (nobody really cared) but because they liked a newer, cleaner version of Wahoo. This new Wahoo was another grinning, slightly-smaller-nosed, one-feather Indian, only this time his face was all red. This is, more or less, the Chief Wahoo of today.
This is also the Chief Wahoo I grew up with, though it should be said that there was a time during my childhood when the Indians seemed more or less embarrassed by Wahoo. I never thought this was because of any PC sensibilities — I think they Indians were just so bad they were looking for a new start wherever they could find one. They started going back to trying various Cs on hats throughout the 1960s and 1970s, including the unforgettable “Crooked C” blue and red catastrophe of 1975. I have to find one of those hats.
Wahoo was around though — there was a giant Wahoo on Cleveland Municipal Stadium, you could see it from a half mile away. I know I wore lots of clothes with that grinning Wahoo on them. I had no problem doing that. I liked Wahoo. To me, he was funny. Then, that’s the point, isn’t it?
You know, I remember once walking through the Holocaust Museum, and seeing all of these horrifying caricatures of Jews that they would give to kids in 1930s Germany. I looked at these things in horror for a long, long time. You know why? The logos themselves weren’t so different from Wahoo. I’m not comparing anything but the style of logos — obviously, the Jewish caricatures were a billion-billion times more sinister. They were meant to raise an entire generation of Jew-haters. Wahoo is, I think, just a stupid sports logo.
But — and this is the point — those logos, like Wahoo, were of real people only they were cartoony and goofy and exaggerated and meant to make a child laugh. They did not LOOK much different.
* * *
Here’s a newspaper quote you might enjoy, taken from the same article I mentioned earlier:
“To insist that Native Americans be given equal rights with other citizens is one thing. To insist that their particular sensibilities entitle them to exercise a kind of sensorship is quite another.”
That’s the argument for Wahoo, isn’t it? The argument is that Native Americans are being too sensitive. What’s the big deal anyway? Chief wahoo doesn’t hurt anybody. Don’t Native Americans have much bigger problems to deal with than a logo on a baseball cap? Wahoo has been around for a long time, we don’t need censorship of our sports because a few Native Americans are marching, right?
Trouble is, that quote wasn’t about Native Americans. It was actually a quote taken from Washington Post in 1947, and you can replace “Native Americans” with Negroes. It was an editorial The Post wrote about how Little Black Sambo was a fun little storybook character, and anyone who took offense to this grinning, big-lipped abomination was just acting silly and politically correct.
Symbols do matter. The funny thing is, everybody really does understand this on both sides of the argument. The Confederate Flag doesn’t just matter to those who see it as a racist symbol. It also matters to those who put in on their trucks or state flags. Neo-Nazis spray paint swastikas on Synagogues — they know it matters. You could not put a Little Black Sambo statue on your front lawn and then say, “Oh, I just appreciate the artistry.”
Wahoo is an inherentry racist symbol. Nobody could really deny this. Nobody could look at that grinning mug and say, “No, it’s really a flattering portrayal of Native Americans, who were conquered, nearly wiped off the planet by our ancestors and then forced to live on reservations.”
The thing is, I think so many of us were raised to think of Indians as cartoon characters, as movie villains, as the Native American who had a tear in his eye because people kept dumping garbage all over this great land, that we have become desensitized. I heard someone doing a comedy bit on XM Radio about Native Americans and casinos and alcohol and how nobody should care anyway because they lost the wars, and though I’ve heard similar bits (and I think I have pretty tough comedy constitution), this particular one was so cruel, so mean-spirited, so wrong, that I realized there was probably no other group in America someone could say such awful things about without drawing the Kramer backlash.
The only reason Chief Wahoo is around is because Native Americans don’t have a strong enough voice in this country to put a stop to it. When Native Americans protested at the 1997 World Series, they were mostly laughed at. Three were arrested. Is this really the kind of country we want to be? And for what? To stand up for our inherent rights to enjoy a racist sports logo?
I love Cleveland. I love the Indians and I even love Wahoo in a weird way because it is such a part of my childhood. But it is not just time to get rid of Wahoo, it is way, way past time. I don’t think this is the biggest problem facing the world, or even the 5,4993,287th biggest problem facing the world. I don’t care about political correctness either. No. It’s just wrong. Very wrong.Get rid of it. The fewer wrong things in the world, better.
And it brings me all the way back to this … why can’t we just go back to calling the team the Spiders. That’s a great name, and it’s not taken by anybody in major sports. There’s history there. It actually fits Cleveland (believe me, there are more spiders in Cleveland than Native Americans — especially those creepy Daddy Long Legs that are like walking paperclips). And there are a million incredible logo and mascot possibilities.
Even if they don’t get rid of the Indians nickname (I think you might as well go all the way) it’s definitely time to bury Wahoo. This would be a good year to make it happen. The Indians are a game away from the World Series. There is some real joy happening. There is some real exciement. The Indians have a real chance to end the longest citywide sports drought in American sports. There are a lot of good feelings in the Cleveland air. It would be a good time to bury a logo that should never have been born to begin with.
Loading ...
Joe -
I have, in front of me, the book on the 1899 Cleveland Spiders (well, I’m a sucker for losing teams).
In it, Sockalexis is a sad figure, playing just a few games in his last futile attempt at big league stardom. He has one great day, but had troubles in the field, and had off field trouble. It implies that he was beloved if sober. In 1897, he was a fan favorite until he got a taste of the demon rum (he blamed his teammates) and from then on it was a struggle.
I don’t know about why they named the team the Indians, but there was some love for Sockalexis. If sober, he could really play the game. But he wasn’t sober very often.
Hallelujah! Rob Neyer also made some nice comments about this in his chat tonight. My favorite, “Let us assume for a moment that a team used the same image, but was called the Jews. That wouldn’t be offensive to you?”
I’m an anti-PC type of guy myself, Joe, and I couldn’t agree with you more on this one. Plus, the retro-uni possibilities with the Spiders are low-hanging fruit of the choicest kind.
Love your work here on this blog so far, BTW.
[...] Joe Posnanski wrote an interesting post today on Wahoo â?¦Here’s a quick excerptWahoo … October 17th, 2007 The Indians are one game away from the World Series, there’s mayhem and excitement and so much to write about. But for some reason, I’m motivated tonight to write about Chief Wahoo. I wouldn’t blame you for skipping this one … not many people seem to agree with me about how it’s past time to get rid of this racist [...]
Don, that’s a great post. You are right on, baby, it’s just wrong.
Let’s hope the Red Sox come back against the Spiders. You’ll also note that the Joy of Sox website has been using “Spiders” to refer to the team all through the playoffs.
http://joyofsox.blogspot.com/
/applaud
Lots of good points: it’s not my city but, FWIW, I agree.
One reason why the Spiders name might be a tough sell: 20-134.
Couldn’t agree more, Joe. I had the same reaction as you did at the Holocaust Museum: those images were meant to appear innocuous but obviously were not.
I have a better idea, why not just change the name to the Yankees…that way Lebron could wear his hat and no one would know who he was rooting for.
Good work, as always.
To go with the city’s tradition of naming the team after people associated with the team, I’ve been calling the team the Hafners. If I were a graphic designer, I’d try to adjust Wahoo to be a Pronk chariacature, but I don’t have the chops.
I also like the Script “I” that seems to echo Wahoo (to keep tradition) while still losing the racism.
But what do I know? I’m a Minnesota boy.
Joe,
I disagree 100%. If you go through life looking for things to be offended by you’ll find them at every turn. Why didn’t you address the Minnesota Vikings or the Fighting Irish in your attack on the Indians? I have Irish heritage and their mascot “offends” me. Isn’t it racist, too? In Houston they even had to change the name of the soccer team from ‘36ers (1836ers) to the Dynamo because some people were “offended” that 1836 was the year Santa Anna lost to the Texians. I’m not making that up!
Not all whites hated or viewed Native American Indians (It is the whole term. Native American is incorrect.) As someone born in the US, I’m also a “native American” and I have Native American Indian ancestry from my family’s roots in Oklahoma. The relationship between the tribes themselves was often violent and complex. A large number of town and county names in America are American Indian names or words in honor of the traits for which the tribes were admired. Chief Wahoo is no more racist than Yosemite Sam is to Anglos that are cowboys. Look at leaders like Sam Houston and his background if you want to see that the stereotype of the evil white man oppressor is the p.c. version of today’s history. I guess we need to all root for the Rockies now since how can we be expected to root for a team with a racist logo? Although, I supose we could be offended at the Rockies logo since the moutains are being spoiled by humankind and we are all killing Mother Earth, right?
Joe,
Well put. Every game this postseason as my friends and I have watched, there’s been at least one moment–the guys in redface in the stands, the cutout of the old Wahoo face taped up by a fan behind the plate–when we’ve been stopped cold, astonished that this is still accepted.
Oddibe, you’re intentionally missing a big point: take issue with their logos as you will, but the Irish and the Vikings were named by people who had some Irish or Viking heritage for an audience that shared that heritage. Unless you believe the Sockalexis story, there doesn’t appear to have been any Native American input at all in the story of the Cleveland Indians. They were named, and the caricature was created by, people who, on the other hand, were descended from the people who had spent the previous century attempting to destroy the group they were now caricaturing.
No matter how many tangential or inapplicable examples you bring up, the question remains one of power relationships and how those are reinforced and transmitted to new generations. Chief Wahoo is offensive and should go.
Hats!
http://www.dugout-memories.com/cleind.html
I’m rootin’ for the Rockies because they were named after a cartoon flying squirrel.
[...] on the Spiders October 17th, 2007 — Mr. Brannan A prominent voice from Cleveland seems to agree with me. Is he reading my blog??? Posted in [...]
Ah, you knew the old Notre Dame argument would show up. Weren’t most of the original students at Notre Dame Irish Catholic boys from Chicago? Therefore, they were naming the athletic teams after the dominant ethnic group on campus. Hardly racist, if they were giving the name to themselves.
I’m always fascinated by the angry defenses of these names by us white folks. Inevitably, people claim “I have some Indian blood in me, and I don’t find it offensive.” Unless you’ve lived on a reservation, are immediately distinguishable as a descendent of the original occupiers of this land, or check the Native American box when you’re given the choice, that argument doesn’t really work. Teams change uniform designs and color schemes all the time. What’s so difficult about just changing the name as well?
The only time Braves, Indians, etc. are acceptable is in cases like Haskell Indian Nations University, when they follow the Notre Dame rule: naming the teams after the people who (originally) populated them.
Bravo, Joe. I hope someone important is listening.
Yay, Joe! An excellent, right-on essay — though with one small tinge of naivete. You clearly haven’t ever felt impelled to endure a Rush Limbaugh broadcast, as I have: judging by his continued success, it’s still safe to say extremely vicious things about Muslims or Latinos. Though he’s in a partisan context; I don’t think San Diego’s next sports team could ever be the Fighting Wetbacks, and than goodness.
Back to Wahoo: the excellent Atom & His Package album Redefining Music contains a song on this topic called “If You Own the Washington Redskins, You’re a Cock”. To anyone who likes (or doesn’t mind) geeks with cheap synthesizers, I recommend it highly.
Oddibe (Formerly Kerfeld): the Minnesota Vikings come from a city founded and at-the-time dominated by Norwegian-Americans. The Notre Dame Fighting Irish represent a university that was, at the time, overwhelmingly made up of Irish-Americans. If most of the 1915 Cleveland Indians were Native-Americans — instead of, y’know, none of them — I think the issue would be treated very differently.
Joe,
The Cooperstown Cap Company has Cleveland hats, including a particularly grotesque model from 1948, at http://www.ballcap.com
I’m a lifelong Indians fan, and I’ve been hoping they’d change back to “Spiders” for YEARS. Even the horrifying thought that they might have some kind of webbing-style pinstripes that resemble Spiderman’s costume doesn’t faze me. I envision a cool, minimalistic cartoon spider logo, or maybe just a baseball caught in a web? My only regret is they might have to change the colors to black and gray or somesuch — I’m really used to the red and blue. It would be worth it though.
Well said, Joe.
@Oddibe (Formerly Kerfeld): to add to Brian B.’s points, history matters. The fact that “Indians” were the victim of genocide and forced relocation makes the representation of the group distinct from Cowboys, Irish, Vikings, etc. There is a power-difference between Indians and groups that are now assimilated into a White majority, and you can’t ignore that difference by complaining that people are being over-sensitive.
The bottom line for me: would I allow my kid to dress up as Chief Wahoo for Halloween? No way. Vikings, Pirates, Cowboys, Flying Squirrels, etc. all seem like fine costumes. How do you explain the Chief Wahoo image to your kids as justified today?
Oddibe, you neglect to point out that Native American “Indians” were systematically exterminated by, among others, descendents of the Vikings and Irish-Americans. It isn’t about ethnicity or offending minorities. It is about genocide. The issue needs to be portrayed that way. And Viciously.
If you rename the team the Spiders, then obviously the mascot must be named Boris.
In about 1976, I went to a restaurant outside Atlanta that was on a former plantation. I belive it was called Aunt Fannie’s Cabin and the menu was said to be based on the legendary cooking of Aunt Fannie herself, who was a slave. The evening’s choices were presented to the customers on a board hung around the neck of a young black man, who recited the selections in a sing-song, distracted voice. He was followed by an older black man who was our waiter. Every customer in the place was white and every employee in the place was black, and it made me more than a little uncomfortable, as if we were celebrating not just the food, which was delicious, but also the entire slaveholding era, which didn’t do much for our appetites. Perhaps we were being overly sensitive. If we had then been invited to an Atlanta Slaves baseball game, I think I would have opted out.
Just wanted to say that I agree with Mr. Posnanski’s essay. At least drop the Chief Wahoo logo.
Great, another PC schlock-fest by a white man who feels the need to feel offended by proxy for a group of people that he has no association with.
So what, we have to treat natives differently because of what YOUR ancestors did (not mine)? How long do we need to wear kid gloves because of the sins of your fathers? My grandfather was in Dachau and I was raised Orthodox Jewish from birth. If there were a team called the Cleveland Jews and their mascot had a big nose and a bag of pennies and a kipah, I wouldn’t be offended. I’d find it hilarious, and I bet you that Woody Allen, Mel Brooks and a whole bunch of other Jews would agree.
Now, it WOULD offend me if, say, one of the headlines was “Peralta’s misplayed grounder holo”cost” the Jews the game,” then I’d be offended, but last I checked, no sportswriter has talked about the Indians sending their opponents on a “trail of tears,” and the last time someone refferred to the Indians “scalping” another team was before Brown v. Board of Education.
So here’s the message Luke wants to send: “It’s okay to deride and trivialize the culture of successful people in the majority, but not okay to do the same thing to minorities.” So you want to make the Cleveland WASPs, then?
I expect most of you PC sticklers have a coronary when you see old re-runs of the Super Friends with Apache Chief. After all, he’s an incredibly offensive stereotype, isn’t he? But then again, so is Foghorn Leghorn, and no one seems to care about him. And of course, all of these concerns seem to suddenly pop up when the Indians are WINNING. No one cares if we offend people from the bottom of the division, eh?
Ridiculous. I figured you’d be above this sort of heavy-handed rhetoric, Joe. I find it so sad that we’ve become so soft that if someone tried to release Blazing Saddles in 2007, they’d be crucified and the movie would never see the light of day.
Oh, and you’re missing the point about the Kramer situation. I’ve heard vile, disgusting racial humor, and those comedians don’t get villefied, and rightfully so; it’s humor, it’s SUPPOSED to be vile at times, and if oyu don’t like it, you don’t listen.
Kramer, well, A. he wasn’t funny B. it wasn’t even a joke, it was just a rant and C. he wasn’t telling it as a routine, he was attacking a specific black individual, and that takes it out of the realm of comedy. Then it becomes personal, it’s meant only to hurt. If you start taking away our right to tell offensive jokes, well, then you’re bordering some dangerous territory.
the indian’s wahoo logo is racist. period end of story.
you may not like it, but thats just the fact.
thats all we talked about for the past few games when watching. even worse than the Sox untimely hitting is the fact that there are people in the stands w/ the wahoo’s and the dressing up like native americans.
if people want to just let ignorance rule, so be it. i think they are pretty lame and the idea of defending one wrong thing by trying to tie it to other things that may or may not be wrong is hilarious.
just accept that its a disgraceful logo and start to deal with it. its 2007, not 1915 or 1860 for that matter. it’d be nice if we could all agree on something so painfully obvious to just about everyone.
I love it when white people tell minorities what they should and shouldn’t be offended by. It’s just so evocative of the problem.
There’s a similar issue with the mascot Chief Illini, who is admittedly not as overtly racist. The white students and white school administration passionately tell the Native Americans that the mascot is meant to honor them, and yet the people who are being honored are the very ones who are protesting said mascot.
Also, I can promise you that the Washington Redskins will never change their name or logo as long as they are profitable.
Joe’s right, of course. But even if you disagree with him, let’s get selfish for a minute.
It’s time to end the Curse of Wahoo. Cleveland ain’t winning a Series until Wahoo goes. In a game where so many people are obsessed with superstition, luck and curses, why not take a step that’s pretty much guaranteed to win the team some needed positive karma?
Bring on the Spiders!
And Jim Haas–brilliant post on the Rockies. Now if they’d just ditch Dinger for Bullwinkle….
To be honest, I’m more offended by your comparison to Nazi Germany, trvializing images that were steeped in a mountain of hate-filled, anti-semetic rhetoric by comparing it to something as inconsequential as a baseball mascot. I guess I missed the part where any Native Americans at old Municipal had to wear little tomahawk patches on their shirts.
I guess I missed the part where any Native Americans at old Municipal had to wear little tomahawk patches on their shirts.
There were no Native Americans at old Municipal, because Native Americans were practically exterminated from North America. That’s the point.
It is interesting how bringing up an issue like this instantly polarizes responses. Bully to the notion of dialogue! It’s much more fun to spout dogma, close my eyes, and rub my sweet things all over the party line! Yay for ignoring what other people say while waiting my turn to talk! There are flaws in Joe’s post. He is white. He is not a member of a Native American Tribe (though a good friend of mine, a woman covered in freckles and sporting naturally red hair, was a member of the Cherokee Nation, as her Grandmother was 100%; so, you never know based solely upon Joe’s milky complexion). He does sound a little PC. But, there is some serious conflation at work here in the comments, and more than a little shoddy rhetoric (the likes of which I keep reading elsewhere every time an issue of this nature is raised).
Yup, Michael Richards (nee Kramer) wasn’t delivering his “material.” He vented his spleen. But, you forget Steve, that this decision to rip the audience is also a comedic trope. Ever witnessed Don Rickles in action…? Harlan Williams, by chance…? This is why the rant is all the more uncomfortable: we aren’t sure initially if Richards is still trying to work the room, by “insulting” his audience. But Chief Wahoo isn’t a comedian. The Cleveland Indians franchise isn’t “performing” in this genre at all. Sure, MLB is entertainment. No doubt. But, when MLB “speaks” to its fans (either through spokespersons, commentators, press releases, commercials, etc), comedy is not the primary concern. Retiring #42 wasn’t a “bit” to generate laughs. As funny as Bud Selig may look and sound, he isn’t a comedian. The rules (as they apply to MLB, and as MLB applies them) are quite different. Read some of the press Rosanne Barr received when she attempted to joke during her stirring rendition of the National Anthem at old Jack Murphy Stadium, an all ages venue where folks attended to watch a sporting event (something that wouldn’t have been nearly as controversial if done on stage at the Laugh Factory, a 21+ nightclub, with a two drink minimum, where folks pay to hear jokes-some of which are rightly offensive). MLB isn’t a cartoon (featuring a character like Apache Chief), or a comedian (like Andy Kaufman), or an institution responsible for raising our children (like mommy and daddy are supposed to). MLB may use comedy, cartoons, and parental discretion in communicating with its fanbase, but these genres are of secondary, or even tertiary, concern at best. The precidents have been established: tell a feeble woman joke about Kim Ng in a public venue, you get fired. MLB doesn’t tolerate that type of humor. So why should it continue to tolerate Chief Wahoo?
And what, exactly, does saying “I’m Jewish, and some other famous people I know about are too, so I can safely say that I think they’d all agree (though I have no idea if this is actually the case) with me when I say that I wouldn’t care one whit if there were a team called the “Cleveland Jews and their mascot had a big nose and a bag of pennies and a kipah.” Great! How does this prove your point, exactly? A + B = C, thus: (A) I’m Jewish (and by birthright am the spokeperson for all things Jewish) and (B) some other people are too (who I’ll speak for without consulting them first) which proves that (C) I am right in claim that naming a team the Cleveland Jews is totally a good idea (in fact, Cleveland Jews = hilarious!) and you are wrong in saying that Chief Wahoo is offensive, though it pains you to say it, since you romanticize the image due to childhoos memories. Meh… My 18-year-old composition students could tear that line of reasoning to shreds. I’d suspect that Woody Allen, Mel Brooks, and a whole bunch of other famous folks (like Philip Roth & Saul Bellow, for instance; I know of their fame and can freely speak their exact sentiments too!) will have somewhat differing opinions and rationales. But what do I know? I’m not Jewish! So I can only speak for British/Irish/Scottish/Austrian/RandomlyInheiritedDNA folks from West Virginia who moved to Chicago, by way of Indiana, like me? If I haven’t lived it specifically, I can’t speak about it without being PC! Yay for narrow definitions!
The facts are: 1) We, Americans, did in fact kill a whole lot of the folks, known as Native American Indians because we named them that, who lived here before we did; 2) We took their land, especially great locations for trade like Cleveland; 3) We made fun of them for centuries, portraying them as savages, and wasting nearly a hundred years writing poetry about being afraid they’d taint our white souls (Hooray for American Literature I); 4) Chief Wahoo is a ridiculously rascist caricature, created for a baseball team, and having nothing to do with humor as such (which, of course, needs to be vile sometimes). Chief Wahoo is a symbol that stands for a region, its mores and beliefs, or, if not that, then some famous aspect of that region’s history. This is exactly like naming a team the Atlanta Slaves, and having some Little Black Sambo mascot image appear on all things Slaves. At least the Braves have some artifacts used by actual Native American tribes in their logo, though this is still a bit questionable, to be honest. It’s offensive. The logo should be changed. Why is that so hard to understand?
Out of the milliion and one other possibilities for team names which would be Cleveland appropriate, and not offensive to a prominant minority in America & its history, surely one can suffice. I don’t see Washington Bullets fans losing too much sleep over their name change. That was a PC move, to be certain. But it worked out just fine in the end. And if things are a little bit better as a result, then it’s a win-win situation.
As for you closing proclamation/conflation/defecation smeared information that, “If you start taking away our right to tell offensive jokes, well, then you’re bordering some dangerous territory.” I’d like to see you parse that rationale, as it applies to baseball mascots/team logos. The domino effect rhetorical strategy is always so charming. To say “If I can’t tell N****r jokes, our society will turn into an Orwellian nightmare,” was the perfect way to end your spiel, as it sums up the weird thinking evinced in your post perfectly.
As a closing thought: I’m still confused about the claim that if a newspaper ran a headline about the Cleveland Jews (a logo/name/mascot you’re all about) that read: “‘Peralta’s misplayed grounder holoâ€cost†the Jews the game,’” you’d rightfully be offended. So, it’s okay for the logo/name/mascot to be overtly racist, as long as we don’t talk about it? The decision to brand a baseball franchise in a racist manner is benign, but a throw away headline from a periodical that extends the metaphor isn’t? Please, break this down for me. I’m waiting with baited breath…
Well written thoughts here, that match my own. I’ve also thought the Spiders would be a great name.
As for 20-134…well, while the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s weren’t as bad, they were a lot longer.
ed
Steve, I don’t think Joe was making that comparison at all. And, if it matters to you, I’m Jewish.
Great, another PC schlock-fest by a white man who feels the need to feel offended by proxy for a group of people that he has no association with.
A group many of whose members have made it clear that they are offended.
we have to treat natives differently because of what YOUR ancestors did (not mine)?
Joe is Polish by descent. I’m an Ashkenazi Jew. I’m pretty sure we’re against going out of our way to pointlessly offend any group. There is no artistic good cause served by the Chief Wahoo logo. Nor would there be a good cause served by the, er, Cleveland Jews with their huge noses and bags of pennies. It would be an apter comparison if it were the Munich Jews or the Zagreb Jews, founded 1949 and still playing; have you tried asking Woody Allen if he thinks that would be hilarious?
(Doing a quick Google search: it’s very possible the mainstream media has learned not to talk about “scalping” in a Cleveland Indians context, but the blog world contains plenty of holdouts. It would be less of a live issue, I’m sure, if for example Native Americans didn’t still have the highest rate of racial poverty in the country, and didn’t have the highest rate of mysteriously-disappearing presidential votes in 2004, where entire reservations in swing states would troop to the polls, vote for city council and U.S. House, but apparently leave without registering an opinion on Bush v Kerry.)
here’s the message Luke wants to send: “It’s okay to deride and trivialize the culture of successful people in the majority, but not okay to do the same thing to minorities.†So you want to make the Cleveland WASPs, then?
Doubt he feels that way, but it’s odd you read his post and not mine, two prior, which specifies that the Vikings and Fighting Irish names were proud racial statements by locally-predominant ethnicities.
Anyone familiar with the song “Talking Hypothetical American Pastime Blues” by Hugh Blumenfeld? It raises most of the same points Joe does in his post, and uses many of the team name examples above, such as “Negroes” and “Jews.” And it’s funny.
Joe is right on this. I’m not overly worked up about it, but then I’m a white guy with no connection to either the team or N.A. heritage. The thing is, Native American’s ARE pissed about it. They have very little voice in this country, though, so many people can go around thinking that it’s just “PC libruls” who complain. And if a NA does complain, it’s “aw, go open a casino! *snicker*”
Like Joe says, there are lots of other wrongs in this world that rank above this one. But this isn’t difficult to understand.
If it was the “Cleveland Jews” there would be outrage. Not from Steve, apparently, but from many others.
Chief Wahoo does look like WWII-era propoganda, btw. I don’t know why that’s hard to see or believe, considering he seems to have been created around about 1947. Duh. Lots of stuff created in that timeframe was racist as hell. Much of it has been abandoned.
I’m an Indians fan thrilled by our success but slightly sheepish that Chief Wahoo is still grinning at me at the outset of every broadcast. I just left the University of Illinois, where we dumped our (far less offensive, but still inappropriate) mascot, and can’t believe that my hometown can’t do the same.
As for the “Cleveland Jews” comparison Steve made, I think it’s very different if people mock themselves. In your case, you cited prominent Jews that play off Jewish stereotypes. As for me, I’m of Appalachian Extraction, and will occasionally make jokes about hillbillies. But Chief Wahoo isn’t the product of Native Americans playing off Native American stereotypes. It’s a bunch of white people that got together and mocked Native Americans, shortly after nearly exterminating them. The obvious comparison, which has already been made, is if a Munich team in the 50s had been named the Jews. Would you appreciate the big nose then?
But really, where is the redeeming quality in Chief Wahoo? Other than fond memories (of which I actually have many), there’s nothing to really like about him. We can do so much better, whether it’s a spider or even just a stylish ‘I’.
As an aside, Joe, I’m just catching up on your posts, and couldn’t believe you have Chicago in the top 10 of the HCQ. Really? For all the moaning of Cubs fans, the Bulls had six championships in the 90s! They had the single most transcendent athlete of the last 50 years (okay, so that’s debatable, but the point remains). The Bears won the Super Bowl recently enough that most people remember it. And half the city enjoyed a World Series just two years ago (and the way the Cubs spend money, they’ll likely buy one soon enough). There is nothing in that city to complain about.
I love a good logical fallacy or 3 on a rainy day. Thank god for the comment section!
Also: Godwin!
Joe,
I think it’s an interesting and insightful (albeit recycled) commentary. Of course it’s offensive to Native Americans and, as a die-hard Tribe fan, I find it to be somewhat embarrassing. I would prefer they keep the name and use the “I” or the “C” as the logo.
(Btw, I recently bought the 1975 red and blue Tribe hat — it’s awesome and unoffensive and most definitely not a “catastrophe…but I digress)
But why write this now? The poster above who noted that no one gives a damn when the Indians are .500 or worse was right on. I’m offended that a wonderful, exciting, likeable team has to be vilified here because of it’s (ridiculous) logo. No, the players aren;t being attacked but it certainly deflects from an amazing playoff run. Can’t we just enjoy the Indians for this improbable stretch without having a discussion about the historical mistreatment of Native Americans?
Anyway, I’ll be cheering tomorrow night in my offensive jersey, hoping and praying my beloved Tribe can win the pennant, and finally win it all for Cleveland. Maybe next year the Tribe will only use the “I” or the “C” — but right now the Chief still is there and hope is in the air.
Go Tribe.
Just posted on AOL, so will not write everything I wrote there, but this has nothing to do with being PC, it has to do with not having racists images. I have been complaining about this for years, including the Redskins, which is the team I root for because they play in my city, but anyone with a brain has to know the term Redskins in racist, and an image of a big grinning redfaced Indian mascot is also if not racist, definitely offensive. They say they did a poll and 90% of native americans polled said they did not find Redskins offensive. I did a poll that was not selective as to which native americans I polled and it was the opposite, but even more, to the point where less than 10% said it was not offensive, but some did say they liked the team. Names like Warriors would work for most, but you gotta lose the stereotypical native american imagery.
Joe, that was a great read and very well done.
One last comment — the team name itself isn’t meant to mock anyone. Teams don’t choose names as jokes, they choose them to sound tough or at least somewhat intimidating. So, although Chief Wahoo is an insulting logo, the name “Indians” by a “bunch of white people that got together and mocked Native Americans” like the poster above said.
That should’ve been “wasn’t chosen by a bunch of white people that got together and mocked Native Americans.”
First off, Mel Brooks has publicly discussed his sensitivity toward anti-Semitism in a “60 Minutes” interview.
Woody Allen is also sensitive in this regard. Remember the “Did you eat yet?” “No, Jew” scene?
Finally, Notre Dame’s mascot is a leprechaun, not an offensive charicature of a stereotypical Irishman. And in sports, being described as “Fighting” is a compliment. Nobody wants to play for the “Notre Dame Cowards”.
Agree 100%. the team missed a wonderful opportunity when it moved into jacobs field not to concurrently re-brand as the Spiders. Alternatively the team could, without making any announcement, simply disontinue using chief wahoo, keep the name indians for a few years and then once wahoo goes it would only be a matter of time… phase out the wahoo logo then the name a few years later.
I think all of you are nuts that have a problem with the Indian. Let it go life is to short. Enjoy them winning and STOP BITCHING.
Excellent column, Joe!! You belted a Manny moon shot here!!!!
And yes, as mentioned by a poster above, I am now (for for the foreseeable future) calling the Cleveland baseball team the Spiders.
As a Sox fan, I do not like that Cleveland is 3-0 since I started, but I believe this is coincidence. :>)
Can we also work on that team from Atlanta also?
You have a good poiint that I am glad you put it out there…HOWEVER….Daddy long legs are not spders!!!! Only six legs and one body segament. In an event, I am sure there are still more spiders in Cleveland than Native Americans. Go Spiders!!!
I wrote about the history of the name last week and switched to Spiders on the 13th.
The people that think that Wahoo needs to go are ridiculous. It’s stupid to suggest that sports logos and mascots subjugate other cultures. These mascots are time honored traditions, and our forefathers came up with them, not to offend other cultures, but to embrace them. Team names were chosen for a reason, and obviously the Indians name was chosen because of the massive Native American influence in that part of the country at that time (Cuyahoga River, anyone? Sounds like an Indian name to me)! It should be looked at as an honor that Cleveland chose to honor its Native America heritage by naming their team the Indians. Absolutely no one is trying to offend anyone here! I think the Native Americans, and all of the squeaky clean conservatives that find this offensive, need to take a look back at the history of our national pastime and see the real reason that some of these things came to be!
FWIW, the Atlanta Braves eliminated “Chief Noc-A-Homa” over twenty years ago. That character had only a quarter-century or so history compared to sixty years of Chief Wahoo, but shouldn’t it be a relatively simple matter to change the team logo?
I imagine one could argue that a prominent team might realize a significant PR boost – with some savvy marketing scheme – for being the first of the long-time holdouts to change the offensive nickname. (The NFL team in our nation’s capital city should be the first to start.) And, oh, the opportunity to push shiny new logo gear onto the market and reap the profits.
i was at the series in 97 and stood at the plaza for sometime and never saw anyone making fun of the protesters..barons are named for the rich families that lived in cleveland at the turn of the century along east blvd which is now mlk rockefellars of standard oil and others…are you sure you are from cleveland the lumberjacks moved to cleve from pennsylvania…duh…..hence the yellow and black (uggg) colors..are you sure you are from cleveland? hey indian names and culture are all over greater cleveland with counties rivers towns streets all named after tribes they should be honored..so why not the indians? the chief stays unill enough natives come forth and say they dont want it then it will go its that simple
GET A LIFE! You bleeding hearts are the same morons who want “In God We Trust” removed. It is a MASCOT!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go hug a tree
Is it me, or is calling someone “PC” about the laziest GD argument you can make?
I think it would be great if you guys dropped Wahoo. I think it would be great if you switched to “Spiders.” But mostly, I think it would be great if you stopped beating the Red Sox.
They should definitely change their names to the Cleveland Caucasians!
http://www.shelflifeclothing.com/shirtpages/caucasians.html
I just find it weird that the people who claim the mascot doesn’t matter at all — who say “It is a MASCOT!!!!! Go hug a tree” and “I think the people who think Wahoo needs to go are ridiculous” and “I expect you PC sticklers have a coronary” — are the ones who sound vein-poppingly angry.
America, land of the Offended. Please, worry about staying off dope, feeding your kids and getting a job!
It’s amazing how ignorant people are when it comes to issues of racial sensitivity and the history of race-based images. For decades, white and black performers alike performed in blackface, representing hilarious, broadly drawn stereotypes of African-Americans, and very few people considered it racist or problematic because it was “just entertainment.” Now, performing in blackface is looked on as horrifically racist regardless of the context — and even talking about blackface and minstrelsy in historical terms can be very problematic.
I believe that for the purposes of discussion, the Chief Wahoo mascot should be separated from the name “Indians.” The latter, though problematic to some, is not inherently racist, and, in fact, could ostensibly be seen as a tribute to the races and tribes that were practically wiped off the face of the earth by European-American white settlers. The mascot, however, is patently offensive, a cartoon version of what white Americans in the 1940s thought would be a funny version of an imagined racial other. Chief Wahoo — even the name is offensive — represents no specific tribe or individual, but a caricature of a multitudes. Although this mascot has no “power” per se, and doesn’t “actively” promote racial agendas or violence against American Indians, it is not a symbol that anyone should be proud of. Swastikas were used by the Boy Scouts and other organizations for years before World War II but aren’t any more with good reason. Symbols and our ideas of race change over the years. There is nothing wrong with encouraging the Cleveland base ball club to get along with the times and remove Chief Wahoo as an official logo from all team apparel and merchandise. A small thing, perhaps, but the least we can do as baseball fans who actually care about something besides ourselves and our own narrow history.
RELAX already, why do people feel a need to represent peoples and cultures that they are not a member of??? Chief Wahoo is a CARTOON character, do you fail to realize that?? When did it become wrong to name a team anything?? This did not start with the Washinton NBA franchise, HOWEVER when the Bullets were pressured into changing their name to the Wizards, it marked the beginning of the Whining American (casual-fan,or simply NON-FAN) Sports debate, worry about you and yours. Everyone else can do the same, if something offends you, IGNORE it but leave these American Classics alone. Turn your interests in solving “problems” to the problems in our education system, or the welfare or social security systems, or something a little more PERSONAL to you and your family, but leave things in the sporting world as they lie.
Ha HA ha sounds like a bunch of red sox complaining…go tribe
What the hell are we suppose to do, change the names of many of our states, thousands of our couties and cities and probably millions of our streets in this country because they have Indian names. Get real idiots!!
Got a several trillion dollars to make all these changes
Joe,
This always seems to come up with the Tribe is winning. I assume you were just as vocal when they stunk, right? Uh huh.
Good grief, if you really as good a writer as some say, can’t you find anything more interesting, and more relevant, to write about at this exciting time for Cleveland and the Indians than this junk?
Oh, and one last thing. I grew up in Cleveland as well in the 1960’s when the Indians sucked. There were a few of us who proudly admitted to being Indians fans, who got straight-A tickets from the Plain Dealer and actually sat in those row ZZ seats at the old stadim. And none of us thought Chief Wahoo was funny. He was simply the symbol of the team. I don’t know any kid who thought it was a joke. You must’ve hung around a strange crowd.
So leave it alone, Joe. At least for now. If you really want to drum up (oh, sorry, was that racist?) some lame “drop the Chief” movement then at least have the class to wait until this run is over. Throwing this racist garbage out now just detracts from a great team supported by a great city that is well-deserving of a championship.
Here is what it will take to end the whole business.
Some fabulously wealthy individual appears to buy a sports team which is on sale–baseball, football, doesn’t matter. He’s got the cash, he’s got plans to make the team a winner, yada yada. The sale is approved.
Then, once the whole transaction is official, that new owner reveals himself to be Cherokee, or Navajo, or whatever, and announces that his team will be renamed the (City Name Here) N—–s, with its new logo the most offensive Sambo caricature you can find. When the league of course threatens to prevent him from making that change, he points to the nickname of Washington’s NFL franchise, and/or to Cleveland’s MLB team mascot/logo, and points out that as long as those are accepted and in place the league has no standing to forbid that name change, and that he is willing to expend lots of money in legal fees to sue their saggy posteriors off to prove his point.
Only then will there be change. Not until.
But “Spiders” would be unbearably cool.
Thank god the Indians are getting rid of script “I” I thought they were trying to do away with cheif wahoo. Thank god chief wahoo lives on. Go Tribe!
Its time to worry about some thing different! if the indians were not going to the world series ( after they win tommorow ) there would be no problem. Your causing a problem,thats not there! I wear Cleveland Indians stuff all the time. NOT once has anyone said it bothers them. I have native american in me and Im fine with it. so shove it! There are more than the indians that could be changed. look at all the high schools that are named with some kind of refrence to indians. Its better than sox! sox always stink! who did you talk to that said that there botherd by the logo or the name. are they even native american? Its time to grow up! name 10 indians you know personaly that live in the usa. if you can do that i will be surprised. There is worst things going on and your complaining about a logo or name. more people care more about sports than they do about old history that basicaly means nothing. seriusly what difference is it going to make if you change one name/logo when there are so many out there,who knows how many there are. You will never please everbody! Let it go! watch the news later ( besides sports news ) this is a minor, minor problem. Basicaly Joe needs to drop it and find something else to write about. this is a country that wanted to change are language and in some parts of the country ( i read on the news) a school wanted to put up some mexican flag above are own countries! Now complain about that. some thing somebody needs to complain about! we got our priorities wrong!drop it!
Why don’t you people grow up and care about something that really matters. You have your heads so far up your ass you have to pipe air into you so can breathe. We as a society have lowered ourselves to the lowest common denominator for way too long. It is a symbol of a warrior, someone who fights to win. ake a good look at ourselves when you write to get on the band wagon to get rid of Wahoo. More pressing problems in this world than this. Just shows how stupid and plain ignorant people are today.
I agree that Wahoo mocks Native Americans. The question is what do you replace Wahoo with? Perhaps a proud portrait of Sitting Bull?
Ya know, it’s just a symbol. People don’t see the logo and have a laugh at the expense of Native American Indians. They see it and think of the baseball team. I’ve been a lifelong Indians fan, and I’d hate for the logo to change. I apologize if that’s offensive or I’m insensitive.
Jacoby Ellsbury better look around baseball. its all foreigners! M-o-r-o-n!!!
ATOM AND HIS PACKAGE, “If You Own the Washington Redskins You’re a Cock”
I like sports
There are some things I force myself to miss
like I never met an athlete I like and hockey in Texas
when it comes to native American nickname teams
Even within the context of sports it’s awful and mean
and you’ll go wah wah wah you’re so PC
and i will say hey wait
my my my how have the table turns to be a fucking prick is a desirable trait
While we’re on the subject of changing team names there’s no jazz in Utah
and few lakes in LA
just this once give me the benefit of the doubt
the bullets became the wizards, too violent? get out
and you’ll go wa wa wa you’re so PC
and i will say hey wait
remind me again how it came to be
that being a stupid american is a desirable trait
wouldn’t it be offensive if we cheered
“rah rah rah” for the Carolina negroes
with a beat box cheer and a big foam afro
the Minnesota Vikings became the New York kikes
with dollar bills on their helmets cause thats what they’re like
ya know Atom, What about the Saints, Angels and the Padres too
ain’t that the same thing for Christians thats offending you?
When there’s a Jesus Christ mascot shooting crucifixes
they nailed to a cross dying to save the team
you’ll be right, you’ll be right
but until then
you’re… not… right
so
what’s your take on Washington redskins
what’s your take on the Cleveland Indians
If most of the Native Americans “were practically exterminated from North America.” Then who exactly is offended? Other than self-rightous, guilty feeling white men, who really cares then? It’s not up to you, me, or anyone else to tell someone what does and does not offend them. If YOU have a problem with Wahoo, then, either change teams, or learn to live with it. If the few remaining Native Americans have a problem with it, then why not leave it up to them to solve it, just like anyone else?
Round and round we go again, with immeasurable venom spilled over something that, in the grand scheme of things, should not be so difficult to change.
Let’s be honest – it’s the commercial logo of a commercial enterprise that just happens to play baseball. No other enterprise in any field of business would be allowed to do business under a sign like that – just look at the nonsense around the Proctor & Gamble logo over something far sillier. Besides, changing the logo is, in a strictly economic sense, a rebranding opportunity that should allow the team to make a fortune selling the new logo hats, jerseys, etc. There are no real obstacles to the change, except perhaps the MLB approval process for this sort of thing, and every economic incentive to do so.
The individuals saying “It’s just a logo, get over it” should, I think be asking themselves a similar question – if it’s just a logo, why should they care if it changes? No one’s going to come to their houses and forcibly confiscate their old-logo t-shirts and hats, and if the change offends them so much, they’re free to root for another team.
“I’m X and I wouldn’t be offended if a team were named after my ethnicity” is an interesting argument to make, but hardly one that carries any real weight. After all, it’s easy to bandy in hypotheticals, but make it happen in real life and who knows what your actual response would be. And, of course, it’s always easier to be calm and collected, and to congratulate yourself for being coolly rational when it’s someone else’s ox getting gored.
Personally, I think the logo should go, for multiple reasons. It is a racial caricature of a sort that has long since been unacceptable in every other aspect of our society. It is a lightning rod for criticism that takes away from what should be the focus of the season – the play on the field. And, to be blunt, it’s goddamned ugly, and doesn’t make me want to wear anything that’s adorned with it.
But ultimately, I think the logo is only going to change when it costs the team enough money to make an alteration worthwhile against the inevitable know-nothing backlash that they “caved”.
skott Says:
October 17th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
“the indian’s wahoo logo is racist. period end of story.
you may not like it, but thats just the fact.
thats all we talked about for the past few games when watching. even worse than the Sox untimely hitting is the fact that there are people in the stands w/ the wahoo’s and the dressing up like native americans.”
Aaron H says:
Okay but who said anything bad about the Native Americans in the first place.Im part native american and im glad that were being honnord by somebody! who honors the native americans besides the sports teams? do you ever honor them? i’ve been to high school games and kids dress up as indians because there school name has something to do with indians! its not there racisist or anything there cheering for there team!Its harmless! .its every where! again how do any of you honor our native americans. nobody i know ever honors the native americans! heck if i remember correctly there are holloween costumes that are indian costumes. i never see anyone complaining about that! Lets start there with changing things! But we wont cause we dont want to make are kids suffer a day! boo whooo! who wants to dress up like Pocahontas anyways! who care? realy!
if everyone wants to idolize us natives do it in a powow like everyone else! if you want to root for us root for us in a court room not a stadium. if you want me to feel like i am a mascot to some corperate america keep chief yahoo and humpty dumpty singing their songs. i dont mind that we are portraid on ball caps or helmets or even mortor cycles, i just think if you are going to go that far might as well go all the way & take our image off cigarettes too. why let the buck stop at the stadium shops, everything w/ a N.A. logo (owned by non-N.A.) needs to be pulled. if the almighty dollar went back to a no name reservation out in tim-buck-too from the stadium, i might be comfortable. or maybe give a share of the team to a N.A. something but ya, theres my 2 cents.
Since “In God We Trust” was added randomly in 1956 to seperate America from “godless Communists,” and, as Teddy Roosevelt himself said:
My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege…It is a motto which it is indeed well to have inscribed on our great national monuments, in our temples of justice, in our legislative halls, and in building such as those at West Point and Annapolis — in short, wherever it will tend to arouse and inspire a lofty emotion in those who look thereon. But it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements
it would seem to me that it’s not the worst idea ever to remove God from money. And “under God” was also added to the Pledge in the ’50s, as a result of the cold war, and fears of those atheistic communists. So, perhaps that too could go the way of the worm. But maybe it’s just that my bleeding heart keeps staining the few dollars I’ve got left, leaving me with thoughts of blood money…
In any case, I hope Cleveland destroys the friggin Red Sox, then steamrolls the Rockies! I am so bleeding bored of the Red Sox…
GO TRIBE!!!!
I will preface this by stating that I am an Illinois alumnus for both my BS and MD. My ex-wife and son are Cherokee and my current wife is Oneida. I work primarily on numerous reservations such as Ojibwa, Lakota, Crow, and now Navajo.
When I attended the University of Illinois, Chief Illiniwek was not viewed as a ‘mascot’, but rather a symbol. In order to serve as Chief, an individual had to learn a Native American Indian dance, but moreso, had to symbolize the school. This meant appearing at grade schools to encourage education, appearing at elderly care homes, as well as numerous community events, while maintaining acedemic standards.
The activists who ‘complained’ about the Chief are not members of the Illini tribe. There are no known living members. In my discussions with my family as well as many of the Native Americans that I am priveleged to work with and serve, the primary response they give is that inappropriate characterizations of Native Americans is repugnant, but that removal of appropriate honoring of their cultures constitutes racism itself and the further attempt to further marginalize them and ultimately erase their culture. I have been asked when the State of Illinois will be forced to change its name since it also was named for the Illini tribe.
All this said, I do find the antics of the characterizing of Native Americans disgusting. This includes the image of Chief Wahoo and the Tomahawk Chop of the Braves. The Florida Seminoles are allowed their symbol simply because of a financial arrangement with the Seminole tribe. Most of these issues unfortunately are not morally decided or racially decided but economically so. The NCAA overstepped by changing Marquette from the Warriors to the Golden Eagles and similarly by threatening Illinois with sanctions if the Chief didn’t disappear from our children (which includes Native American children). The reservations that I have worked at have huge interest in basketball through high school which then often disappears in college. There are few symbols to look up to.
Warriors is a valid positive characterization and is the term Braves. It is HOW these impressions are given that is important. I am not sure if this fits, since I am not African American, but I think that while a team would be disgusting to call itself the Anywhere Slaves, the idea of the Anywhere Zulus might be appropriate with a logo that was appropriate – perhaps a spear. Remember, the Zulus gave the British all they could handle in the late 1800’s.
Political Correctness should encompass appropriate images and history. I am part Irish, but a leprachaun is not the only symbol of Ireland. I would not necessarily appreciate Sinn Fein logos, but having a symbol of the warrior Cuchulain would possibly be inspiring.
Enough diatribe – it comes down to perception. When we elevate a symbol, we honor it. When we degrade it, then we should all feel ashamed.
Doc
It’s a shame that a group of people have nothing better to do then go after something like a patch on the side of a uniform. How does this really offend anyone? It’s a symbol on a uniform, how in the world is this hurting anyone? Americas Game, seems to me, this isn’t America when people go after something so harmless. And why is the ” Race ” card always braught into things?! As long as people keep playing the ” Race ” card, there will always be race issues. I think Chief Wahoo is cool and he needs to stay. This group of racist card players need to use their time on ( Important) issues. Before you know it, we’ll have to remove the Dolphin off the helmets of the Miami Dolphins. Whats this world coming to?
Im sorry I dont think that there is anything wrong with the mascot for the cleveland Indians. THe way that we think today is absured. Just because there is a red faced grinning Indian as their mascot doesnt mean we are racist or unjust. and is sure doesnt mean that our forefathers were stupid..
Full disclosure: I am an Irish-American, Cleveland Indians fan who likes the name Indians but could take or leave the logo. I personally don’t find it racist, but I’m not attached to it either.
1. Just because a subset of people are Irish, or “Viking”, doesn’t automatically give them a free pass to be racist, even towards themselves. That’s foolish. If a small group of black people decided to field a team called the Niggers and use Sambo as the mascot, I think quite a few people would be shocked and offended. “Fighting Irish” is a stereotype – REGARDLESS of who picked it as a logo/mascot. The Irish were second class citizens right there along with the Native Americans for 100 years and there are some pretty nasty drawings of them out there too.
2. Simply being a member of a group does not give you the authority to declare something as definitively racist towards that group. You can be offended personally, but no single person speaks for a group of people. People CAN disagree within their own groups on these topics.
3. The idea that the Wahoo logo is racist is slightly weird to me. What is it depicting exactly that is so offensive? That “Indians” smile, have one feather and red skin? It’s anachronistic and the intent is likely to depict a competitve warrior.
4. Why would anyone want a goofy, smiling “warrior” as your logo? Wouldn’t you want a more repsectable representative, one worthy of being a warrior?
5. If the logo was less cartoonish and more realistic/historical, would that still be offensive?
Anyway I am not attempting to settle the discussion, just throw in my two cents. If I had a vote, I’d be fine with getting a new logo. But I’d rather like to keep the name. You can turn the whole thing on it’s ear and actually honor the culture (instead of making it silly).
I barely want to dignify Steve’s post with a response, but this is just totally absurd:
So here’s the message Luke wants to send: “It’s okay to deride and trivialize the culture of successful people in the majority, but not okay to do the same thing to minorities.†So you want to make the Cleveland WASPs, then?
You logic is nonexistent. The latter doesn’t entail the former at all.
You’re being reactionary, plain and simple. You can’t possibley CARE as much as you pretend too. And the offended definitely DO CARE as much as they seem to. Why can’t we just do the thing that does the least harm to the most people.
Fucking uncivil is what it is.
If you can look at a caricature and see something racist, maybe it’s time to look in a mirror and try to determine where those thoughts emanate from and why………..
I lived near the Blackfoot Indian Reservsation in Montana for 30 years. The name of the high school team….The Indians. The most prevalent sports artifacts seen year in and year out….you got it……Cleveland Indians hats and shirts. If the greatest Native American Warriors of all time aren’t offended by the Tribe’s logo, why should anybody else care. This is baseball…..”There’s no crying (or whining) in baseball. Unless you’re a Redsox fan.
Just read Quondeaux’s post and I feel like I am in alignment with him more than anything else i have read on here. Nice post.
What a load of bull. The Cleveland Indians are hardly the only team with a similar name; many American sports teams at all levels have been named “Indians,” “Braves,” “Warriors,” and the like. The reason for this is that Americans found qualities to admire in Indian warriors, and wanted their athletes to emulate those qualities. Lots of American institutions, including the Boy Scouts, adopted Indian lore and symbols.
The examples repeatedly used by the protestors–the lack of teams named “Negores” and “Jews”–actually proves the point. When sports teams were being named, those groups, unfortunately, were not held in high esteem, and no one thought of naming teams after them.
And Chief Wahoo is not meant to demean or insult, the way Nazi caricatures of Jews were. Chief Wahoo is meant to be enjoyable. Saying that Chief Wahoo is “racist” because Indians don’t really look that way is akin to saying Charlie Brown is “racist” because white people don’t look that way.
with all the BS in pro sports with drugs,money,cheating you pic the most stupid waist of time i can think of,.. put it to a VOTE you jerk. stop thinking you speak for everyone for gods sake!
not everyone is a self centered self absorbed person who has to complain about everything that “might” be offensive to someone you haven’t even met!
put it to a freaking vote you big baby!
grow the hell up too.
Furious Hambone, where do you want me to send your “Most Rambling, Pedantic Comment” award? Do you have a PO Box, perhaps?
You say that, as a Jew, I can’t speak for the Jewish community as a whole, and of course, you’re right. You also seemed to completely miss the point, that there are a plethora of Jewish comedians who make their living by doing nothing but knocking Judaism and other Jews. And of course I’ve heard of Don Rickles; the difference is, Don Rickles is funny, and he doesn’t attack the audience just because he’s frustrated and needs some quick shock laughter (a la Kramer), but becuase it’s his shtick. If you go to a Rickles show, you’re EXPECTING to be ripped on, that’s the point of his act. Michael Richards doesn’t regularly do that (never mind the fact that he’s not that good of a comedian). But then why can a small group of native protestors speak for the native american community as a whole? Even worse, why can a bunch of WHITE activists speak to the needs of the native american community? Because YOU agree with their stance so you’re able to accept their logic? By the way, ff Woody Allen or Mel Brooks were actually offended by the Cleveland Jews, I’d see it as being pretty hypocritical, since they made a lot of money capitalizing on Jewish stereotypes.
And, of course, none of this matters when the Indians are in the gutter, because we all know things are only offensive when they are associated with first place teams.
Here’s the point: For every native you find that is offended by Wahoo, I can find one that isn’t. Everything in the world can possibly be offensive to someone, and if we capitulated to everyone’s wishes, we’d have a bland, whitewashed world with nothing of any real substance left in it.
Get rid of Wahoo if you want, I have no real attachment to the logo, and I wear my crooked C hat most of the time anyways. But keep your over-sensitivity to yourselves, and let the actual group that is MALIGNED take care of it.
As someone above said, it’s perfect that white people get to tell minorities what they should and shouldn’t be offended by.
Luke:
No, that’s exactly what it entails. If you use the treatment of Native Americans as the reason why Chief Wahoo shouldn’t exist and the Notre Dame leprachaun should, then you’re saying it’s okay to trivialize the majority because, hey, they won’t care, they’re the more powerful and influential group.
So the outcome of things should be based on who CARES more? That’s what lets PACs rule this country, a small group of people who are hyper-focused on one issue or group of issues are so easy to cater to that politicians will always target them first. Great logic there, it just matters who cares the most.
[...] Posnanski of the Kansas City Star, possibly the best active sportswriter in America, puts it this way on his blog. I love Cleveland. I love the Indians and I even love Wahoo in a weird way because it [...]
Montana Guy:
My father worked on a Navajo reservation, and they always asked him for Indians gear, but of course, all native americans hate Chief Wahoo and the Indians, so that can’t possibly be true.
We all know that the protestors outside of Jacobs Field on opening day represent all native americans by proxy, so let’s jettison Wahoo!
Do you need some cheese with that whine? None of my Native American friends could care less. Go pick on the Kansas City Chiefs. Take the stone out of your own eye!
Hmm, last I checked there weren’t huge numbers of people who found the Minnesota Vikings team name, logo, or mascot offensive, but if there were I would hope their concerns would be addressed.
As for the Fighting Irish, I don’t know ANY Americans of Irish descent who don’t love that little leprechaun a little bit! Keep in mind the leprechaun mascot is NOT an unflattering depiction of an Irish person – it’s a cartoon of a magical creature from Irish legend. If the Cleveland Indians switched out Chief Wahoo for a cartoon Coyote figure mascot that incorporated some knowledge and symbolism of an American Indian mythology, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Obviously I’m in favor of retiring Wahoo. Enjoy him as a collectible relic of a bygone racist era, the way we enjoy antique table lamps of Moors and Chinamen, or old racist lawn jockeys and salt and pepper shakers. Let’s NOT enjoy him as a contemporary corporate mascot. SHOCKING to see those fans at the game dressed up in “redface.”
White guilt is an incredibly powerful thing, I’m glad I don’t suffer from that particular affliction.
If one views Chief Wahoo side-by-side with a (widely accepted as offensive) blackface caricature, such as was done at this blog (http://cardboardgods.baseballtoaster.com/archives/844154.html), I don’t see how one can argue that the Cleveland logo isn’t offensive.
Steve Says: October 18th, 2007 at 2:19 am, “let the actual group that is MALIGNED take care of it.” With that kind of thinking, small groups of non-powerful people always get trampled because they don’t have the resources to take care of it. By the way Steve, I’m curious how you are concluding which people that argue for changing the logo are “white people … tell[ing] minorities what they should and shouldn’t be offended by” are non-white.
First of all, the S.I. article indicated that 83% of Native Americans supported the use of Native American mascots. The interpretation of these data is problematic primarily because the researchers are unwilling to reveal details of their survey methodology, despite frequent questioning by investigators. I do not know that many traditional Native Americans that would respond to a magazine survey by phone.
Second of all, Fryberg (2003, Study 2) demonstrated that Native American youth presented with stereotypical Native images (i.e., Chief Wahoo, Pocahontas) experienced a decrease in self-efficacy and self-esteem compared to those not exposed to Native images. Additionally, in a group of Native American college students, Fryberg (2003, Study 4) found that students exposed to popular Native mascots demonstrated lower achievement-related expectancies compared to those not exposed.
Third, scientific research has also suggested that Native American images are not associated with positive feelings (Chaney & Burke, 2007). This study has been done three times, and it has been consistently found that Caucasian people have negative attitudes toward Native American people, as well as Native American mascots compared to Caucasian mascots (e.g., Celtics, Vikings).
I am not sure who on here truly identifies with the Native American culture, but these images have been found to not be the positive representations that you speak of, as shown by SCIENTIFIC data. The data speaks for itself,
And, for the record, please bring me a Celtic or Viking who is offended by their mascot. People, it is not the same situation at all. There are no Vikings, and there are no Celtics that exist in present day. There are, however, Native Americans that DO exist and live today. So please, do not compare this situation to Pirates, Celtics, Vikings, or Buccaneers. Again, bring me a Pirate who is offended by this and who is an oppressed minority group member in this country.
… and which are non-white.
Gee, Joe, you just had to go drag this old saw out from under a well deserved rock. It seems the only time it surfaces is when the Indians are winning. Perhaps you’ve still got a grudge about the Little Bighorn. Or perhaps some of the thrashings your ancestors got in the midwest a 100 years prior to that, although, come to think of it, your ancestors were probably still living in squalor over in Europe at the time.
I’ve never heard of you until I stumbled across your “blog” while looking up something else, and it reminds me of why I don’t read blogs or watch 24 news channels…the mindless prattle about things that don’t really matter in life are numbing to what little intelligence I have left after 60 years on this earth…and now you’ve gone and gotten my blood pressure up about something I never think about.
I have three words of advice for you, “get a life.” I have one and it doesn’t involve stirring up controversy where it’s not necessary, productive or welcome. And now I’m going to go out into my garage, fire up my Indian Chief, and go for a ride on this beautiful fall evening.
Which people are white?
Rob Neyer, Joe Posnanski, and PostmanE who all posted articles/commentaries about this issue on major (well, this site isn’t as major) sports sites today. All three are very white.
As for the hundreds and hundreds of commentors between the three articles, I have no idea how many are actually natives, but I think it would be fair to say that very few actually are.
Of course we should protect the rights of minorities, but it doesnt mean we have to always walk on eggshells lest we might offend some group of people. Someone in the AOL comments made a great comparison about italian caricatures on pizza boxes and the like, why aren’t those offensive? How about Mario, and the Sopranos? When Italian-American groups protest those, most people simply laugh at them, call them hyper-sensitive, but when Chief Wahoo gets brought up, then if you don’t agree it’s racist, well you’re a goddamn bigot.
Researcher:
I can show you a bunch of Italian-Americans who are offended by shows like the Sopranos, the italian-american caricatures affiliated with pizza places, Mario, etc. Italian-American groups have vocally protested the “mobster” image typically associated with the Italian community.
Why don’t you go spearhead that cause as well? Is it because the people who are offended are white, so their feelings are less important?
“Throwing this racist garbage out now just detracts from a great team supported by a great city that is well-deserving of a championship.”
Much agreed. That’s why the Indians should retire the logo: it distracts from the accomplishments of these fine players, and keeps a casual fan like me from being able to get behind the team. I ALMOST HAD TO ROOT FOR THE YANKEES !
“If most of the Native Americans “were practically exterminated from North America.†Then who exactly is offended? “
Students of history. People of consicence. Casual fans of the game. Some descendants of Native Americans. Some descendants of their oppressors. Many, many people.
“People don’t see the logo and have a laugh at the expense of Native American Indians. They see it and think of the baseball team. “
I don’t see it and have a laugh OR think of the ball team. I see it and get a little sick. Perhaps you don’t. And of course there are many more important things.
“If you can look at a caricature and see something racist, maybe it’s time to look in a mirror and try to determine where those thoughts emanate from and why.”
From my knowledge of history and from my sense of decency, thank you very much!
Coincidentally, Vernon Bellecourt died the other day, and his obit ran in today’s NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/sports/17bellecourt.html?_r=1&ref=obituaries&oref=slogin
(I present that without stating agreement or disagreement on his stance on various topics.)
thatbob:
If you saw a native on a reservation wearing Indians gear, would you tell him that he should be ashamed of himself, take off the chief wahoo hat and rally with you to eradicate this menace?
Or would you only say that to a white man wearing chief wahoo gear?
Click on my name to read another interesting discussion of the subject from Minneapolis, which went through a period of time when the newspaper there didn’t use some “Indian nicknames.” One of the interesting things to me is that a majority of people here and on that blog are having this conversation civilly and with a minimum of stupid overstatement.
Here’s the link: http://www.startribune.com/blogs/sinker/?p=208#comments
Hmm. Steve good point. Unfortunately, I do not have all hours of the week to research everything. My career is not based on Native mascots being the only problematic situation in this country. Maybe, since you seem so educated, should conduct empirical examinations of that subject yourself.
A few issues:
Someone in the link JamieQuirky posted made reference to the entire debate over Chief Wahoo, the Redskins and etc. being a smokescreen that diverts from more important issues. I have to agree to some extent.
Also, the Seminoles get to use their name because they pay for the privelege. Would there be as many protestors if a cut of the Tribe’s profit went to the Natives?
SIDF SIDF Go to hell!!! maybe we should remove the pix of the white woman being massacred by two Indians at the Athenaeum in Hartford CN Anything for s stupid cause GO TO HELL Stanford’s mascot is a stupid tree and the name the Cardinal
Researcher:
Sure, let’s have little italian-american kids play Sonic 3 and Super Mario World, and see which ones have better self esteem afterwards. We can pay for it with some money siphoned off from the Darfur relief effort.
Hey Steve, I am all for exploring the affects of stereotypical images on children’s self-perception. I am just curious why you do not just stay on the topic at hand, and you are pulling your own feelings regarding your heritage into this at all times. I thought this was a Native mascot issue–not a general discussion about every single thing wrong with this country.
Again, I do not doubt there are other groups existing that feel this way about certain images (e.g., Mario), but what I am saying, is what I know about NATIVE images, how they are truly perceived in scientific studies, and the affects on Native American people’s perception of themselves and their culture. Why the defensiveness–I am not even talking about your issues.
And, Steve, please forgive me for being ignorant about the history of italian-americans in the US, but I was not aware that more of them were killed by Caucasians than Jewish in the Holocaust. This issue stems back for Native Americans for hundreds of years, and I know from historical documents and extensive research that Native Americans have yet to accumulate a solid voice in this country, despite the genocide that fell upon them.
I feel we are side-stepping the issue at hand here, and my initial point was about these mascots.
But that’s the thing, why narrow the focus to one group of people? Is it because a team that has the logo is close to the World Series?
It’s not like my example (the Italian-Americans) is some sort of out-of-left-field hypothetical, there ARE Italian-American groups that have issues with images like Mario.
I can’t really comment on the studies done with Native children because I haven’t studied them, so I’ll take your word for it.
But what do you mean my heritage? I’m Jewish, not Italian-American, and I haven’t commented on my Judaism for a while. I only bring it up because of Joe’s analogy, which I feel is flawed and, were I hyper-sensitive, a tad offensive.
Okay, so then isn’t this focus on the mascots (btw, technically, Slider is the Indians mascot, Chief Wahoo is a logo) taking away from the focus on the REAL issues regarding Native Americans, like the fact that they have a very small voice in the government when compared to other minorities?
To me, it’s like when the United Nations passes a resolution that doesn’t really deal with the problem, but deals with a very small part of it, so instead of continuing their debate, they rubber stamp a weak resolution just so they get something done.
If we are going to use this as a springboard to deeper issues, well….then why not focus on those deeper issues? Let Chief Wahoo be a stepping stone towards substantial dialogue, not the issue itself; too many people make Chief Wahoo out to be the primary issue, and I feel that’s missing the point.
Okay, since you want to get technical, I know that the Braves are the actual team name, and Wahoo is the logo for that team. Now we are just getting nit-picky.
I do not know your ethnic background, nor do you know mine. I took the assumption that you were italian-american since you brought it up. Sorry, did not read ALL your posts on this page.
It would be great to side-step what you think is a minor issue, such as Wahoo, and get to the bigger picture. However, it is called bottom-up processing when we have to start out small occasionally to make a difference in the world.
You can take my word for the research because I am in the scientific community–I am a psychologist, and it is my job to review the literature. All other posts on here are just public opinion. You can take what I have reported at face value and check it out yourself.
But if starting out small is what matters, well, that’s already happened. The precedent has been set. How many schools have been forced to change their names from various Indians tribes, Redskins, etc.? Too many for me to even remember, but Miami of Ohio is a local one, Stanford is another one, Marquette, there are a lot of other examples. Chief Illiniwek is gone, as well.
So, if we’re working from the bottom-up, the first steps have already been taken. If the Indians don’t change, is that going to somehow halt the process of addressing the real, important issues in the Native community? Obviously people are more open to the idea that these things could possibly be offensive, since many teams HAVE changed their names. So where do we go from here?
Your lack of seeing the picture astonishes me. First, the article/blog above is talking about Wahoo…not the Indians.
Yes, it matters if teams one by one change the logo, because it demonstrates that people do actually recognize the significance of this issue, even if it means one team at a time. You should really get some knowledge about this area of study instead of citing personal opinion all the time.
By the way, I do not see how it is even your issue to argue, as you are not Native American yourself, and have absolutely no right to voice it, given that it does not effect you in the least.
Plus, not sure you are aware of the issues of the Native community at all. Sounds like a white person who thinks they know something about Native issues and culture.
Chief Wahoo and the Indians have to be discussed together, that’s the point; he’s the logo of the Indians. You can’t just remove the team from the equation. The ONLY reason this is being discussed now is because the Indians are so close to the World Series. Joe is only talking about it because he grew up an Indians fan. You DO see that, right?
Anyway, why is it Joe’s issue to discuss? Is he Native American?
Is Rob Neyer? Is PostmanE? Are you? How many of the commenters on this page are Natives?
How exactly am I citing personal opinion? I said that many teams HAVE changed their names. That’s not an opinion, it’s a fact. YOUR opinion is that it is somehow important that EVERY team changes their names. My opinion? It isn’t important at all, and it’s only distracting from the real issues.
Of course, since you seem to love being bogged down in the tiny, insignificant, pedantic little details, go ahead, dive right into it, and ignore the real issues.
And it affects me more than it affects you; I’m an Indians fan, with a ton of Indians gear, so on a superficial level, yes, it definitely affects me. How does it affect you? How does it affect Joe? How does it affect most of the people on this page?
A bad assumption on your part, Researcher. I know a great deal about the Hopi, with whom I have had a lot of contact, and also the Navajo, due to their close proximity to the Hopi (though the two groups weren’t always very friendly).
I’m not an expert in the area, but I’m not some rube who derives his knowledge of Natives from “Dances With Wolves.”
Well, to start off, I am Native American. I am a member of the Missisippi Choctaw tribe. I am involved in the Native community with various projects for health prevention, mental health treatment, cultural preservation, and ceremonies. I also have worked in the Native community for years, with research and mental health (clinically).
I think I have every right to speak on this issue for several reasons. I worry about my future children and what they will think about their own culture. I am also extremely offended that my facial features, ancestors, tribal rituals, and history are made a mockery on the court or field.
It is important to the preservation and dignity of Native people that these mascots, ALL of them, be removed. One is great, and it gets us one step closer to recognition of the problem. Why am I voicing my opinion? Because this is being discussed right now (Indians, Wahoo), and I have the scientific knowledge and cultural right to speak about my race.
That is great you have contact with those cultures, but let those who ARE the race being discriminated against have the larger voice about the issue that mostly affects them. I see so many posts from people who say they are Native and do not mind, but I am Native, and I DO mind. I think those who are Native and are seriously concerned about the dignity of their race should be able to speak above those that bought a hat. To say that it affects you more than me is a disgraceful comment to make, and I think that is what is precisely wrong with the arguments of those who want to keep these discriminating figures in the popular media.
But again, I do not even have to have an opinion, that is why there is SCIENCE.
First of all, this isn’t a scientific issue. It’s an ethics issue, one side claiming tradition and the status quo and the other claiming what in their eyes is the correct moral imperitive, what “should” be done, what is the “decent” thing to do, etc. Research about the effects of Chief Wahoo on Native children is fine, but this isn’t a scientific issue when you boil it down, and I don’t think it should be treated as such.
I guess that’s where we vary wildly. I don’t worry that my children will see a Woody Allen movie and think that all Jews are whiny and neurotic, and I don’t really care if people mock my nose or my dark, curly hair.
It’s an ethical issue; we all have a “right” to speak on it.
Why is your opinion more valid than the native who says he is not offended by Chief Wahoo and doesn’t care one way or another?
And again, it’s not a strictly scientific issue, the fact that you have such strong feelings about it should make that obvious. It’s an issue that stirs up a lot of emotional backlash, some of it valid, some of it…not so much.
But I will tell you this; as a kid, I never even thought of Chief Wahoo as an offensive stereotype until people shoved it in my face and told me I should be offended by it.
Well, that is where I disagree. I am not one to speak on how the Jewish community feels about their portrayal in popular media, for I have no experience in that particular group.
Science is what we base most of the information we receive on health concerns, medicine, prevention, and treatment. Most public issues are conveyed through a research-oriented forum, although some not as valid as others.
If we have scientific data that either supports or rejects an issue that is of such debate, why should that not be a motivator in forming an educational opinion?
I am going to sleep now due to the fatigue this debate has brought on
Keep paying attention to sports talk shows and the like, for I hear it is not too long before those, like me, will be on there presenting more than just personal opinion. Research in this area is picking up attention, and maybe more will be able to hear about the implications of these images through science than just those upset about their beloved team name.
I’m a die-hard, I mean really DIE HARD Yankees Fan, and my hatred of the racist Chief Wahoo Logo has got me actively rooting for the Red Sox (well, for THIS round, anyway. Go Rockies?) This time around I have to be anonymous with my comment since I work for a major sports team. Now, about those Washington REDSKINS…
What is a Yankee? A Red Sock?A Brave?A Brewer?A Red?A Redskin? and why are the Indians only offensive when they are one away from a World Series-or in it? Nobody cares when they are losing. I agree with Charlie Big Canoe!! I could not have said it better myself!! I live in Cleveland and I’m PROUD to be an Indians fan.
Researcher,
I can not deny your rights as a Native American any more than I can deny my roots in Italian, Irish, and Lithuanian roots. My son is also Cherokee through his mother and through that bond, I teach him his heritage. He lives in Illinios, named after the Illini Native American Tribe. I honor their history every day, not just football Saturdays. I hope he will one day too.
If you have a positive impression for 14 year old boys and girls of Native culture and Spirit to emulate, then please tell me. Chief Illiwek was a source of inspirasion for me. I have over 1000 children in my ER a year with no direction in life. The message should be to honor a heratige, not bury it.
For your notice, I have served across the road from Little Big Horn. I served our country, Native Americans, but mostly, my patients. I served in foreign countries and at Katrina as the only doctor for 6000 people. Are they “stupid” because they didn’t leave….? Or did most people care more about image than reality.
I will agree that ‘Human Mascots’ may be inappropriate, but don’t confuse this with an honest impression of historic symbolism and respect.
Doc
Here’s why Spiders works better than Indians for everyone, really — hot babes. Either they can show up for the games in tight Spiderwoman costumes, or they can go all Kiss of the Spider Woman, or super-gothy Black Widow.
Because let’s face it — if we’re going to go PC here, we might as well get some titty out of it. That way, everybody wins!
I find it sadly funny how indignant proponents of keeping Native American names and logos get.
Awww, they’ll have to give up the logo they loved as a kid. All for a people that endured a 500 year-long genocide. Hundreds of MILLIONS of native people were killed in this hemisphere – ALL of us living here now should meditate upon that now and then. Kind of like the way we expect Germans to reflect on THEIR genocide. (Yeah, logo-supporters, I know neither you nor your ancestors didn’t kill any Natives yourselves).
So much pain endured by fans who just want to have their old logos. So much agony. I truly feel for you.
Doc,
I do not see how a white person dressed in Native ritualistic clothes and dancing around a football field is teaching about culture. Let’s have actual Native Americans teach that.
And please remember, this is sports, not actual teachings of cultural acceptance.
Additionally, although some symbols of Natives seem more realistic than others, that does not take away for the cartoonish caricatures that exist with goofy grins, red faces, and war paint.
You seem to have more defense about your work as a doctor and serving our country, which really does not seem to have a platform here. This issue really does not have anything to do with Katrina, nor do I find the question of “are they stupid”relevant to the discussion at hand.
I find it sad that we have come to the point in our narrow view of culturalism to say it is acceptable for these Native mascots to exist because that is how the culture stays alive. One domain in which the use of Native mascots has been deemed particularly problematic is the educational environment. Baca (2004) argued that Native Americans attending schools with Native American mascots may find themselves in racially hostile environments, affecting students’ self-esteem and achievement expectancy, as well as denying Native American students full participation in the educational process. Indeed, some parents and children find these mascots offensive and degrading, which Baca sees as a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Interestingly, Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race in federally funded programs (including public schools) and also prohibits schools from creating or tolerating racially hostile educational settings (Trainor, 1995).
Fryberg (2003) has presented data that reveal important findings regarding the impact of Native mascots on Native Americans. First, Fryberg (2003, Study 2) demonstrated that Native American youth presented with stereotypical Native images (i.e., Chief Wahoo, Pocahontas) experienced a decrease in self-efficacy and self-esteem compared to those not exposed to Native images. Additionally, in a group of Native American college students, Fryberg (2003, Study 4) found that students exposed to popular Native mascots demonstrated lower achievement-related expectancies compared to those not exposed. Fryberg’s results suggest that the use of stereotypical Native American images by schools may produce environments that affect Native American students’ self-esteem and achievement expectancies, potentially inhibiting their full participation in educational programs.
Regardless of the perceived intent, the continuation of Native American mascots assigns Native Americans to an allegorical or symbolic form of cultural citizenship, which prevents Native Americans from enjoying full participatory citizenship in society.
Therefore Doc, if you are insisting on choosing your side of the fence, at least choose it by having educational knowledge about the relevant social issues. One cannot deny scientific research, and I have not yet seen a empirically supported study that deems these images are positive for Native people.
I’m an American of Irish descent whose grandfather loved Notre Dame. When I was a kid, I thought the logo was funny. When I got older and read about the diaspora and the famine and the subhuman treatment the Irish got from the English and Americans, it wasn’t so funny anymore. The fighting Irish … yeah, we just get drunk and fight, huh? Isn’t that the stereotype?* So no, I don’t think their mascot is “cute,” and I don’t think that Chief Wahoo is appropriate, either, but it’s not up to me to change it.
*I should mention that I’m a Michigan alum and fucking depise ND and their coach, I suppose, in the interest of full disclosure. And go Spiders!
Haha! The Cleveland WASPs! That’s hilarious. Why hasn’t this happened yet?
Well put, JoePo. I’m not in favor of changing the club’s name, but I agree that it’s long past time to scrap the Chief Wahoo logo. Frankly, I’m amazed it hasn’t already happened.
I’m disappointed by some of the venom directed towards Joe in the above comments, and I’d be surprised if everyone who commented actually read the article. Joe doesn’t come across as a PC crusader by any means, but instead he lays out an excellent, logical, and calm case as to why the Chief Wahoo logo should be buried. You’re certainly free to disagree, but at least do so respectfully.
I have to nominate “Your causing a problem,thats not there!” as the greatest sentence of all time.
Go Spiders.
I am an ex-Clevelander. When I was a kid, in the 40-50s, I sold hot dogs, peanuts, cracker jacks, etc. at the baseball games. I believe cure for all the gripes of the name: “INDIANS”; would be, simply DUH: PERFORM “PLASTIC SURGERY”;Da DAH AND (DRUM ROLL):make him TRIM&GOOD_LOOKING.
That will work for me. GO INDIANS, BEAT THE RED SOX
None of the opponents of Indian team names address the central point: team names are given to people or animals or objects that the fans of the team have respect for and want their team to be associated with. Yes, there was bloody conflict between Americans and Indians, but there also was an admiration for the Indians. This is quite different from the way other colonizing groups regarded the indigenous population: the English don’t have sports teams named after the Welsh or the Scots, much less Zulus or other residents of the former Empire, the Japanese don’t have sports teams named after the Ainu, the Australians don’t have sports teams named after Aborigines, etc.
As for Notre Dame, umbrage at the Fighting Irish name is, if possible, even more ridiculous than umbrage at Chief Wahoo. Apart from Fr. Sorin, all the presidents of Notre Dame have had Irish ancestry; they were hardly discriminating against themselves by adopting the nickname.
I can’t support bringing back a name that once put on the field the most pathetic team ever. I know, it wasn’t their fault, it was the ridiculous rules governing team ownership, but cmon, we’d be mocked relentlessly about the 1899 team.
Why change the name, anyway? It seems most people either have a problem with Chief Wahoo, or a problem with the team name of the Redskins. Few people protest the name Indians, and few people protest the Redskins logo.
Good discussion here. I’m heavily in favor of doing away with Wahoo and the Indians name altogether. Redskins, ‘Noles, Braves, Chiefs, et cetera should also go, as far as I’m concerned.
Aside from logos and mascots, some of the posts about fan behavior also raise interesting questions. To wit: Why doesn’t the Jacobs Field management kick anyone out who shows up in redface? Never been to a game there myself, but every stadium I’ve ever been to is very meticulous about enumerating all the things they reserve the right to throw you out for. They focus on physically harmful stuff, like throwing objects, getting in fights, etc. But they also reserve the right to “eject” you for obscene behavior, including profanity, t-shirts with inappropriate messages, etc. How does redface not fit in this category? Also, would the anti-PC posters on this group defend THAT behavior, a personal choice by present-day individuals on their own behalf, not just an old-time logo handed down by previous generations?
All that said, I will adopt and grudgingly root for the Indians in the World Series against the Rockies, largely because I see no baseball tradition in Denver and hate the way the high elevation there turns the sport I love into a pinball game with home runs. (Don’t give me any crap about putting baseballs in humidors.) Shallow and inconsistent, I know. I plead guilty; cart me off now. But I think my heart is in the right place. Mostly.
Chief Wahoo Rocks! Go Tribe!
All the P.C. whiners who look for things to be offended by should just move on to something else. If you succeed in censoring Chief Wahoo as you are so bent on doing, you will simply find something else to be offended by. Just move on to that next thing right now. Many of us love Chief Wahoo for simple image-appeal reasons that carry none of the racist or misanthropic overtones you put forth as justification for censorship. He is simply a very appealing and happy image. Get over it, please.
Well said, Marshall. Chief Wahoo is supposed to be fun. And he is.
Go Fighting Whites!
http://www.cafepress.com/fightinwhite
Steve, so far after reading your bullshit, i get the impression you are a loner with WAY too much time on your hands, dreaming up shit to whine about, acting like you ARE the morals and the speaker for everyone.
so far all your bullshit has done is piss off a lot of people, the poll you lost.
so will you now just STFU and find something worthy to get pissed at?
Drugs and sports would be top of the list if you ask me!
sports stars and the law is another one.
if you want to start an issue, start one that matters instead of flapping your pie hole about things you have no freaking clue about!
waste of time and effort.
stop looking for a cause when there is so much that really can be bitched about.
idiot!
I can’t contribute anything to the discussion about Wahoo that hasn’t already been said.
But I will say that I went to the University of Richmond, and Spiders is a GREAT idea for a mascot.
I know this is incredibly late for this thread, but I find it quite interesting that the people saying “get over it its just a logo” or “cartoon” or “sports mascot” are so intent on the image remaining. I mean if its just a cartoon, then why not change it? also- stop attacking joe for bringing this up now- change comes when more people are paying attention. honestly i would love to root for the spiders, but i cannot be a fan of the indians or the braves.
http://www.buy.com/prod/american-needle-cleveland-indians-1975-cooperstown-cap/q/loc/17250/200300711.html
What people miss is that the name wasn’t chosen to be funny, or to put down the team or Native American Indians. The name was supposed to imply that the team was supposed to have the positive qualities of the Indian. Since those probably include being agqressive, scalping, attackers, you may think it’s the wrong choice, but that’s different.
Seeing Wahoo as a logo, much like the Chicago Bears orange and blue bear head, what about reversing the red and blue on the logo?
I am a third generation Cleveland fan and a tree-hugging liberal. I’ve found it hard to embrace Wahoo, but am always glad the Indians have never dressed a masoct to dance “the warpath” or made him animated on the scoreboard. I think they have treated him with dignity, or as much is possible. I despise the fans that wear red face and feathers, just silly.
I wonder though what reversing the colors would do?
I fully understand your point towards how Chief Wahoo isn’t exactly the most uplifting characiture of the Native American population. And yes as far as it goes that symbol, while unique to Cleveland, isn’t defining to the city. But the named, The Cleveland Indians, is.
Here comes the primary point. Where as Chief Wahoo could be viewed as some twisted dark humor comical joke of our baseball fore-bearers the name of the Indians has come a long way. We certainly won’t name them the Cleveland Native Americans, that could possibly be a worse viewing. Redskins is taken and that is far more of a classic slur. And we’re not going to name them after a cliche’d and romantic variety of their actions, such as a war path, scalping, or slapping bears. In the Indians I do see the hopeful strength of what their name entails. History, endurance, versitility, vitality, strength, intelligence, community, and yes struggle, and yes strife, disappointment, and defeat. Of being cheated and over-taken. While the symbol that isn’t even an idolized mascot of the team should go the name needs to stay. I will always love the Cleveland Indians no matter what the face of them is. And no matter what it is changed to they will always be the Indians to me.
Perhaps in the end tolerance needs to see eye to eye to reality. The reality being no Cleveland Indians fan means to disrespect another culture, nor their history or current resolves. And the tolerance being it’s time to remove Chief Wahoo. Just be careful how far you let your lines get pushed, or sooner or later artistice impersonation, i.e. the design behind Chief Wahoo, will get laid to rest. Along with all forms of cartoons and graphic literature.
[...] and state by state. Plus, this borders on POLITICS. My husband, who just recently brought up the Chief Wahoo topic, has reminded me to stay away from POLITICS. [...]
The real reason the Tribe lost:
God hates Cleveland sports
*SIGH*
Chief Wahoo is not an inherently racist symbol. Chief Wahoo is a cartoon. He should be no more offensive to real American Indians than “The Bird” is to real Baltimore orioles, the “Philly Phanatic” is to real fans from Philadelphia, “Mister Red” is to real baseballs, “Bugs Bunny” is to real rabbits, and the “San Diego Chicken” is to real chickens. After all, these are not accurate representations either! Are these cartoons offensive? Should they be deemed “inappropriate,” “biased,” or even (gasp!) “hateful”? Of course not, how silly! (Wait ’til the starfish community catches a glimpse of Patrick from “Spongebob Squarepants.” I don’t want to be within a mile of that angry mob!)
The knee jerk reactionaries will undoubtedly say, “Well, YOU may not think that Wahoo should be offensive but the fact that Native Americans are offended remains.” True. They are still offended, and that’s too bad that they are willing to go through life being offended by a silly cartoon. As an American with Irish ancestry, am I to be offended by the depiction of my heritage on Lucky Charms boxes, South Bend campuses, and March 17th? Surely I could be. You’d think we were just a bunch of balding, fighting, raging alcoholics who wear green all the time, who all have red hair, who all seem to have an obsessive compulsion to wear a derby hat, and who are all very short, skinny, gangly, and somewhat uncoordinated.
To use the term “racist” to describe a team logo is to imply that there is a broad conspiracy in the front office to actively demean the group. It implies that they actually mean to subjugate a particular group of people. Ask yourself why they would develop their marketing strategies around a group of people they actively seek to put down (many of whom are potential customers and, thus, sources of revenue). Ask yourself what they stand to gain from propagating a message of hate. After all, team owners have a great deal of their own money invested in their franchise.
I would urge the American Indian community to remember that teams do not name themselves for cultures and ethnic communities for which they do not have a great deal of respect and admiration. They look for team names associated with pride, strength, and virility. There have been exactly ZERO teams named the “Pansies”, the “Nancy Boys”, the “Sissies”, or the “Broccoli Spears”. They choose “Indians”, “Braves”, “Ragin’ Cajuns”, “49ers”, “Fightin’ Irish”, “Trojans”, and many others because they are groups associated with positive qualities. Geez, who wants to root for the “Latent Apathetics”? I would also urge them to not seek fault or intent where there clearly is none. Indians fans are proud to associate themselves with the Native American community – even if it’s only through a silly baseball team. We’re proud of that name and we’re proud of the silly logo.
Ugh. I couldn’t leave that last post (from Kevin from Ohio in Virgina) as the final comment on this topic.
Its true. I don’t believe I’ve ever heard an oriole complain about the mascot. I don’t know but, maybe, its because the orioles weren’t subjected to genocide? Or, maybe, its because their birds?
Wahoo is a caricature with a history of racism behind it. Shouldn’t we discourage such things?
Get rid if the Tribe, get rid of the Browns, and the Cavs.
Cleveland Sports free Town!
“As a friend of mine used to say, “It’s surprising they didn’t put a whiskey bottle right next to his head.â€
That one made me laugh out loud, late at night in a quiet house with family members sleeping.
If you’re arguing that it’s not racist you’re not Native. I am (proud Ojibwa) and it’s offensive. I’m not going shaking angry nor is anyone I know but it’s offensive to US. If it’s not offensive to you angry white right wing blog commenter, sorry, it is to me. So please, stop.
[...] I’ve made clear my feelings on the Cleveland Indians’ logo, Chief Wahoo, before. It’s racist. It’s dumb. And it’s like rubbing salt into the considerable wounds of the many proud Native American cultures we white folks raped and pillaged on our way to building the wealthiest society in the history of the world. We’ve screwed over Native Americans enough, right? Do we really need to cling to a racist sports mascot? (For a far more eloquent take, visit the estimable JoePo’s archives.) [...]
[...] [1] Cleveland Frowns: The Curse of Chief Wahoo [2] Wahoo … ” Joe Posnanski [3] Chief Wahoo should go – Cleveland Lifestyles ‘ Living, Food, Health … [4] MLB [...]
Haven’t heard any complaints about Wahoo in a while.
I guess racism just doesn’t matter when it comes from a last place team, right? How typical. How droll.
Steve won! Go Steve! King of the blog!