By In Stuff

Wahoo

When I was a kid in Cleveland, there was an enormous Chief Wahoo sign on top of Cleveland Municipal Stadium. The sign was of Wahoo swinging the bat — his left leg was up in the air like he was Josh Donaldson — and below him it said CLEVELAND in all capital letters and Indians in cursive script.

I cannot even begin to describe how deeply I adored that sign.

Well, what did I know then about the history of Native Americans or the racism endured? All I knew was that sign meant baseball … that red-faced Chief Wahoo signaled that we were close to the ballpark, close to first pitch, and the anticipation was overwhelming. It got to the point where catching a glimpse of Chief Wahoo’s smile, no matter what time of year, triggered all those happy baseball feelings. It could be dead of winter, snow covering the grass, slush in the streets, the sky as gray as sadness, and I’d see Wahoo and everything would warm up for a moment.

Look there’s Chief Wahoo. Opening Day cannot be too far away.

I started this blog in 2007 … the third post I wrote, after two days of bland promotion for my new book, was about how it was time for Cleveland to get rid of Chief Wahoo. It was long past time. The logo was an embarrassment and discredit to the game. I wrote of the baffling and controversial history of the Cleveland Indians name, the less baffling but still controversial history of the Chief Wahoo logo, and came to only conclusion: Get rid of it. I have written some version of that story dozens and dozens of times since.

On Monday, finally, the Tribe announced that they would retire Wahoo as Cleveland’s official logo starting in 2019.

This is obviously the right thing to do; Wahoo is a grotesque caricature of a great American people and it is blatantly offensive. That is not what a baseball mascot is supposed to be. Wahoo is a relic from another, less enlightened time when Native Americans were often the focus of such insensitivities — throughout the 1930s and 1940s there was a comic strip called “Big Chief Wahoo,” which featured a naive “Injun” who said things like “Look. There. Horse.” There was a time when people found that stuff hilarious. That time is gone.

“The logo is no longer appropriate for on-field use in Major League Baseball,” commissioner Rob Manfred said, and in a few words he got the theme precisely right.

And yet, Cleveland.com is running a poll asking people if they would rather #DropTheChief or #KeepTheChief. As of mid-afternoon, #KeepTheChief was winning 90-10. There have been a counterwave since and the numbers have tightened, though #KeepTheChief still leads convincingly.

It is easy to see that split as a fight over political correctness or a sign of the contentious political landscape that divides us, and, yes, there’s probably some of that. But there’s some of this too: Chief Wahoo, for more than a half century, represented baseball in Northeast Ohio. It was the only Cleveland baseball logo (other than the marvelous crooked C). Chief Wahoo meant Rocky Colavito and Sudden Sam McDowell, Luis Tiant and the first African American manager in baseball history Frank Robinson, Brook Jacoby and Cory Snyder and Joe Carter and the lost hope of the 1980s, Jim Thome and Albert Belle and Manny Ramirez and the extraordinary hitting of the 1990s, Corey Kluber and Frankie Lindor and Terry Francona and the joyous baseball game of the last couple of years.

We didn’t choose the logo. It was passed on to us when we were young, and it got into our minds and hearts as baseball fans. We didn’t think racist thoughts when we saw it. We thought about how Rick Waits needed step up if the Tribe was going to contend. We didn’t see it as a symbol of the mistreatment and dehumanizing of Native Americans. We saw it and thought that maybe Sports Illustrated should have looked at Cleveland’s pitching staff before picking them to win the American League in 1987.

That is to say, there are deep emotions tied up with Wahoo, involuntary emotions surrounding first baseball games, emotions concerning fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, peanuts and fireworks. Yes, absolutely, no question about it, they should have gotten rid of Wahoo decades ago. But they didn’t. And so we connected with the logo. Yes, they are doing the right thing by getting rid of him now, absolutely, no question about it. That doesn’t mean people who are sad about it are without compassion or sensitivity.

“The Cleveland Indians,” my friend Scott Raab wrote, “have a heritage to be proud of when it comes to sports and race. Larry Doby, Satchel Paige, Bill Veeck, Frank Robinson … they could have built a Doby statue before Thome’s, dumped the name and the cartoon and embraced that heritage by recognizing the reality, which has been clear for many years, that Chief Wahoo is, plain and simple, a relic of genocide.”

You ask: What does Scott Raab know?

I’ll tell you: Scott has a Chief Wahoo tattoo on his arm. He got in 1994 when Cleveland was in the midst of its most thrilling season in 40 years.

Wahoo had to go, it was inevitable, it was justice. And now what? Some will cheer. Some will angrily rebel, buy up Wahoo gear, wear it in defiance to make whatever point they want to make. More will move on, admit that (agree or disagree) Chief Wahoo had expired as a viable logo, and forget all about it while buying up merchandise with Cleveland’s new logo and the new look.

And a few of us will celebrate this long overdue day … but maybe we will quietly admit to ourselves that Chief Wahoo still sparks a bit of that childhood feeling. Is it OK to feel a little bit nostalgic about losing something that you grew to despise? I don’t know the answer to that but sometimes nostalgia comes whether you like it or not.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

77 Responses to Wahoo

  1. Dale says:

    And yet the hypocritical MLB and Dolans retain merchandising rights, so they can continue to rake in profits from this “oh so offensive” logo. Perhaps you should write about that on MLB.com. Oops, don’t wanna bite the hand that feeds you.

    • Ilangelus says:

      There is no denying that Joe has lost some of his independence when hired by MLB.com. Even though this is not the case, he certainly now tries to push the MLB agenda even if it goes against what he has written about most of his life. I still like his writing too much and enjoy his pieces but it’s certainly a small disappointment.
      About this issue, I’m not a US citizen and have never lived in the US so it’s hard for me to understand the complexities of the issues. Where I come from racism is not such a big part of life as it is in the US (there was no segregation, civil war, etc). Having said that I believe that Political Correctness is having a hugely negative impact on the American Society (at least on what I see through news outlet and Social media). Count me on the #keepthechief camp even if my reasons differ from most…

      • Berto says:

        “Having said that I believe that Political Correctness is having a hugely negative impact on the American Society (at least on what I see through news outlet and Social media).”

        Looking at life from an angle other than your own, and having empathy for others (as well as not being an insensitive jerk) are good things for American Society.
        Also, if we got rid of Political Correctness, the current PC critics would be screaming about how wrong it is that they are constantly told “God is a figment of dim-witted imaginations,” and how sick they are of having atheism shoved down their throats.

      • Rob Smith says:

        I’ve found that those that rail against political correctness essentially don’t want to be called out for racist, sexist and homophobic comments & attitudes. My grandmother, for example, didn’t understand the fuss about calling black people darkies. Those are the types of attitudes people don’t want uncovered, because in their minds, they don’t mean anything “bad” by those comments. But they’re revealing of what’s going inside of people.

        With Chief Wahoo, we can kind of dispassionately sit back and think, it’s no big deal. Why does anyone care? Or, we could imagine we’re a Native American, dealing with “Indian Stereotypes” and racism, and notice that Chief Wahoo literally has red skin (which Native Americans don’t really have) along with a toothy unintelligent looking smile that makes the character look like a simpleton. Then we might understand, or at least imagine why it’s an offensive caricature.

        • MikeN says:

          Yet you have no problem calling African Americans ‘black’.

          • moviegoer74 says:

            There is a social consensus that “black” is not an offensive term, just as “white” is not.

          • MikeN says:

            No, you are not paying attention. African American is the required term. Violations will not be treated as severely, but it is considered offensive to use ‘black’.
            It is so extensive, that I think it was Tom Brokaw who reported ‘… is the first African American from any country to win a medal in …’

          • ned says:

            I thought Negro was the right word for our black fellow Americans

    • Marc Schneider says:

      Does he have to write about every single injustice in the world. The article he wrote is the article he wrote. Period. He is not obligated to write whatever people like you want him to write. You could have said, ok, nice article but let’s recognize that . . . Instead you felt the need to attack Joe’s integrity. I guess it makes you feel holier than thou.

  2. MikeN says:

    They can get plaudits from a bunch of people who don’t care about baseball, while alienating fans. Worked great for the NFL.

  3. Nickolai says:

    It’s about damn time.

  4. Tom Flynn says:

    I understand the decision, and yet I, and a large number of Tribe fans, will continue to wear the Wahoo hat to the ballgames. We are tired of being instructed by sanctimonious, self-satisfied coastal elites of our many shortcomings. I imagine televised ballgames will be censored to make sure the offending logo isn’t shown. I imagine Jim Thome’s HOF plaque will either show the Block C, which he never wore, or not show a Cleveland Logo at all. The national purge of anything that might offend anyone will continue unabated. . . . And people wonder how Donald Trump got elected.

    • Matt says:

      Trump got elected because of people like you. People unwilling to change with the times and realize that racism is wrong. But go ahead and cry in your hat if it makes you feel better.

      • Tom Flynn says:

        No crying here Matt and I didn’t vote for Trump. Enjoy your inner glow of moral superiority.

        • Matt says:

          LOL you are the one getting bent out of shape over a racist logo. At least own it. Stop pretending you don’t care. You obviously do.

          • Ray says:

            And this is exactly why I’m glad the Chief is going. Every year it inspires hateful arguments about racism, PC sensitivity, and “coastal elites”. Can’t we just talk about baseball? Who wants a logo that brings out the worst in everyone. Let’s just change it and move on, already.

          • MikeN says:

            There is no moving on. The people complaining are not complaining because they find Wahoo racist. They are complaining because they like to complain. They have no interest in baseball. Max Kellerman is now calling for the Fighting Irish to be removed. This may be a clever rearguard action on his part against the removal of Wahoo. After Wahoo, Braves, Redskins, no doubt the Irish will be next. And I don’t think the big schools will be allowed their special exemptions to keep Seminoles and Fighting Illini. Perhaps whole states will have to be renamed.

          • MikeN says:

            They also need to change back to the Bullets.
            A C is not an inspiring team.
            Neither are Wizards.

          • Rob Smith says:

            As for comparing the Notre Dame fighting Irish vs. Chief Wahoo, they’re separate arguments. The Chief Wahoo argument stands on it’s own. Native Americans rightly find it racist. As for the “Fighting Irish”, and I’m saying this as an Irish American, it’s a really stupid argument. First, there’s no evidence that any significant number of Irish people are offended by the mascot. Second, it’s a Catholic institution that tends to be filled with Irish-Catholics. If anyone should be offended, it’s a significant number of Notre Dame alumni. It would be like if there was a Native American run college and they called themselves the Indians and had Chief Wahoo as their mascot. Outsiders might not like it, but in my view, they have a right to do it if they want. If they’re not bothered, why should anyone else be. This is what I was saying about arguments having to stand on their own. Because one can make a case for Chief Wahoo being a racist symbol, that doesn’t mean a case can be made that the Fighting Irish is a similarly racist symbol. I suspect Max Kellerman, as usual, is just trying to draw attention to himself. If Irish people were really offended, the school would have been boycotted by moneyed Irish Americans and it would have changed long ago.

          • Mr Fresh says:

            Here’s the thing.. i don’t believe I’ve heard a native American complain about Chief Wahoo. In fact, i seem to remember some stuidies were done and most of the Native Americans that responded were indifferent about it. Most actually LIKED the Indians as a name, but were more ambivalent about the logo. Unfortunately, I don’t have a source.. but i’m also not willing to accept a response that says Native American X didn’t like it, therefore it must go.
            ….
            I think like most everyone, Native Americans have bigger problems than a logo.

    • Tony Sachs says:

      So are you defending Chief Wahoo because people you hate don’t like it?

      • Tom Flynn says:

        No, as I said, I understand the decision. If I were the Dolans, I would have insisted that MLB purchase the copyright as compensation. I have the same connections to the Chief that Joe elaborates. Dad saw the WS in 1948, my first game in 1962. Now take my grandchildren as often as I can afford. Many of us see that legacy, but acknowledge its problematic nature. Others simply see racism in black and white. So now, I’ll wear it to say a passive f*** you to people who like to instruct others on their moral failure.

        • Bookbook says:

          So, you’re making an extra effort to wear a racist symbol as a way of saying f*** you to those who think it would be better not to offend an entire group of people? I mean this in the nicest way possible, but I fear you missed not only the meaning of the golden rule, but also most of the lessons of kindergarten.

        • Rob Smith says:

          I imagine that dinner at your place must be a riot. My Dad is a little older than you, lived in Cleveland, and has some of those attitudes. But at least he tries to see why people are offended & adjusts if need b (even if he doesn’t fully agree) & doesn’t instead throw it in people’s faces. You may imagine yourself a hero of sorts, and I imagine for a time people will carry on with wearing the logo. But it won’t be long before you’ll look like Al Jolson in black face. It’s not going to hold up over time.

          • Marc Schneider says:

            Rob,

            I don’t disagree that Chief Wahoo is offensive. But what you don’t understand is that your tone of moral superiority really offends people, even those who largely agree with you. No doubt, some who argue against PC are doing so to hide their racism. I see that all the time. But others simply don’t like being hectored about how racist they are because they disagree with you. The question of whether something like Chief Wahoo is a racist symbol is not as cut-and-dried as you like to think. I’m pretty sure when people see that, they aren’t thinking, oh, there’s a true life representation of Native Americans. They are most likely thinking of a baseball player. That doesn’t make it right, but it doesn’t make them “Al Jolson in blackface.”

          • ned says:

            The Tribe..Friends of the Wigwam …this is an insane age ..does anybody remember why the Cleveland club was called the Indians in the first place?

        • ned says:

          The Tribe..Friends of the Wigwam …this is an insane age ..does anybody remember why the Cleveland club was called the Indians in the first place?

    • PS says:

      Inferiority complex much?

    • Karyn says:

      You’re the one making it personal. People said the logo has to go, not that Cleveland baseball fans are terrible people for feeling some attachment to it.

    • Dave says:

      Interesting responses to your comment. Sign of the times, I guess – everyone can pull a sentence out of context for argument.

      I have less emotions than you – but have several t-shirts (along with a few caps) with Chief Wahoo on them. I’ll continues to wear them, at least until they (like others) are to tattered.
      .
      Being a male caucasian, I’ve longed since accepted that I can only feel empathy to… American Indians (who named it American? I’m only distinguishing between those and Asian or Indian [sic] nationalities), Black Americans, aboused females of all races… bottom line, I simply **cannot** know what it’s like to live their lives or the biases thrown at them. But I can try to.
      .
      My biggest issue with your comment is the last sentence. We involve Trump way too much in our everyday lives – there’s another election this year – and he had **nothing** to do with this! (I’m pretty sure you agree. But bringing him into it – and admit it, *you* did – means accepting the consequences.)
      .
      My biggest *actual* issue is with the new commish and how he “forced” someone’s hand. Or maybe, why he did. Conspiratists have already questioned Dolan about if the 2019 All-Star Game was part of things. Nevermind that, why did he decide to pressure Dolan now? Truth is, **he’s** the “sanctimonious, self-satisfied coastal elite” you should be pointing at, not any liberal (or other) person trying to accept that the red, grinning, caricature is offensive to someone other than you.
      .
      Like I said, I’ll continue to wear those t-shirts and hats I bought 10-15 years ago. No reason not to. I have others too – the block “C”, “Indians”, “Cleveland”… I’m just hoping that whatever they wear on their uniforms in 2019 looks good, and that they continue to contend.

    • Randall says:

      Two quick things: 1. Yes, coastal elites do suck, although it doesn’t mean that their information should be discounted out-of-hand, just that it should be taken into consideration along with all the other information offered.
      2. You are perfectly entitled to wear your Wahoo hat whenever you go to a game or wherever else you like. You do, however, invite scrutiny and criticism, potentially, if you do so. I bought a block C hat two years ago and haven’t looked back. Moreover, while it’s your right to continue to wear that logo, the multi-billion dollar business that is the Cleveland Indians has determined that that is no longer a look that they wish to present to the world. Which is their right, and, frankly, a viewpoint I agree with.

      Then again, I wish they’d start using the Spiders name again, so I might be an outlier.

  5. Kris says:

    Joe,

    Nice touch as always. So being a life long Tribe fan, should the Tribe use a different surname instead of Indians? Maybe their luck could change also. I’ve always felt/said the New Browns should’ve selected a different surname instead of the old one. Out with the old. Curious as to your opinion on this.

    • Wes says:

      I grew up a Cleveland sports fan since that is where my Dad is from and I myself have struggled with Wahoo recently – it means Cleveland baseball to me but I get that is most likely offensive to a group of people and that makes me uncomfortable. On the flip side I don’t see as big an issue – if any – with the name. It’s not in the vein of Redskins, or Redman, etc where, to me at least, there is a more negative connotation in the name.

    • Mike C. says:

      Why not the Tribe? Cleveland Tribe. That’s what many fans call them already.

      • Bob says:

        No, no one calls them the Cleveland Tribe. We say “go tribe!” When weass strangers on the street, we ask how the tribe did today, say we’re going to the tribe game, or going to watch the tribe…but no self-respecting Ohioan has ever called them the Cleveland Tribe. I award you no points and may god have mercy on your soul.

  6. Shagster says:

    Crack! Another fine piece. Definitely an extra base hit. Nice photo to go with it.

  7. Edwin says:

    I applaud the decision and I agree with Joe here, this was long overdue. Next step: rename the team back to the Cleveland Spiders.

  8. Matthew Clark says:

    Joe, what an awesome conclusion! What a great question.
    Thank you for all the articles you have written about this issue. They do matter.

    Go Spiders!

  9. Brent says:

    The issue with pervasive PCness isn’t Chief Wahoo, it is where does it stop? A sports radio personality in Chicago said yesterday on the air, in all seriousness, that any symbol that offends even ONE person should not be used. Is that the standard? One person complains and we shouldn’t use a symbol. That’s a problem, especially if his standard is actually accepted by some sizable group of people. (of course, said personality is a fan of the Blackhawks (whose name and symbol surely is offensive to Somebody) and a graduate of the University of Kansas (whose sports teams play under the name of an American terrorist group), so I guess hypocrisy might be his strong subject)

    • Karl Weber says:

      So, Brent, when a logo that offends millions of people is finally abandoned after decades of controversy, you believe that this means we are entering an era in which nothing that offends even a single person will be permitted? Talk about a gigantic, illogical leap.

      • Brent says:

        That’s not what I said, and I actually agree with your last sentence, which was sort of the point of what I said. Chief Wahoo is offensive, but the line does not end there and I think where the line ends in some people’s minds would surprise a lot of people. Warriors, for instance, has been seen as offensive in some quarters, never mind that Warriors in no way refers to any particular group of people or even to indigenous peoples in general (after all Homer referred to Achilles, Hector et al as warriors 3 thousand years ago, so it really is no different than Spartans or Trojans). At some point, we, as a society, have to decide where the line is, we can’t just say, don’t use anything offensive to ANYbody.

        • Rob Smith says:

          While there will no doubt be some that go over the line in being offended, that’s not what we’re talking about here or what we’re normally talking about. The politically incorrect crowd use your argument to essentially say that we can’t bow to eliminating Chief Wahoo or the next thing you know, someone will be offended by red hair (or something similarly silly). Each issue needs to be taken for what it is. We can’t argue that silliness might occur if we eliminate a clearly racist caricature. Instead, we should agree with the decision and take on silliness should it occur (and I’m sure it will) in the future. A valid argument has to stand on it’s own.

    • heaveecee says:

      It is very clear that Chief Wahoo is a negative stereotype of a culture that has suffered greatly in North America. This isn’t about offending a particular group or jumping on the PC wagon. Not everything is a slippery slope. The Chicago radio guy is an extreme opinion, and Chief Wahoo has been called out for decades now. This is about world view and getting with the times as Joe explains. Chief Wahoo is an outdated and inaccurate stereotype. Chief Wahoo does not celebrate or honour a local heritage like perhaps the Black Hawks or Braves could be argued. Didn’t the Braves discard their “screaming/laughing Indian” logo years ago? I don’t see it on their merchandise anymore. Chief Wahoo may have been a joke at some point, but we are more self-aware and inclusive, so why should that image be encouraged and disseminated?

      • Bob says:

        I think you should do some research on the origin of the Blackhawks name before you try to use it as an example. Chief Black Hawk was an enemy combatant of the United States. Naming a team the blackhawks is the equivalent of naming them the Hitlers or Husseins or Bin Ladens… the military used the term because winners write history.

        • heaveecee says:

          It is a stretch to say he’s equivalent to Hitler, Bin Laden, but yes he fought against the US. I believe he’s been embraced as a hero of some sort standing up for his people and for the fact that Chicago is on or near Sauk lands. The name seems to be more in recognition or remembrance of him rather than a red skinned caricature of Chief Wahoo.

        • MikeN says:

          Yes, there are people who fought against America. Some of these millions of people were good people.
          It is possible to have respect for ones enemies. A Union general paid for Jefferson Davis’s bail.

  10. mpajak says:

    I hope the Indians win the World Series before I die. Growing up around Cleveland and being an Indians fan since the 60’s I too got excited seeing the big Wahoo sign. It meant I was at a baseball game (very special). I remember using the free tickets my sisters got for their straight A report cards. Winning the World Series is what counts. I would be just as happy with a logo of a peanut as a logo featuring Wahoo if the Tribe wins the Series. You can not lose sight of the goal. Growing up, I endured countless “jokes” from others because of my Polish heritage. People thought these jokes were funny, others thought themselves smarter, still others were mean and obnoxious. In general, it was not fun. If the Wahoo logo promotes or extends disrespect of others, why would anyone have trouble getting rid of the logo. Things change. Its high time the Indians change. And now maybe the Tribe will win the Series. I mean that is the goal.

    • Rob Smith says:

      Exactly. I remember the Polish jokes very well. First, of course, nobody was thinking about what a Polish person might think about them. Second, of course, people actually suspected that Polish people WERE really stupid. That’s not exactly a great way for large numbers of people to be thinking about millions of other people. Thankfully, I think, that type of thinking is mostly gone, but you’d no better than I about that. It’s been a long time since I’ve heard a Polish joke. But apparently Native Americans are not quite there yet. There’s still the Redskins and there is no sign of them giving up on that one.

  11. Curtis says:

    If the logo “is not appropriate for on-field use,” as the commissioner says, why are they allowing it for another year? This is what I don’t understand.

    I live in San Antonio. Back in the ’90’s, the Spurs theme was “Fast Breakin’ Fiesta” and the logo had all of these bright colors to reflect the Hispanic culture in these parts, and they had bright colors on some of the seats to make it look like confetti in the stands.

    Then one season, we came back, and the old black and silver was back, and it featured the Spur, as opposed to it being just the U in Spurs. Some people liked the fiesta, and others liked the stark black and silver. But the bottom line is that the team did it, sold a bunch of stuff with the new logos, and moved on with life.

    So why do we need to go through a whole year of the rebranding? Just do it. I don’t think it is inviting anticipatory grief for nostalgic Indians fans. The only answer that makes sense is they want to capitalize on selling a bunch of Wahoo stuff between now and then.

    My advice would have been to rip off the bandaid and move on.

    • Nickolai says:

      Totally agree, this does smack of short-term profiteering. The Indians have most likely already stockpiled a season’s worth of Wahoo-gear that they want to sell off, probably at elevated prices.

      If the logo is wrong, it’s wrong now. Why wait a year if not for money?

      • Rob Smith says:

        When you’re solving problems you need to get to the root causes. In this case, if pressure was being applied to get rid of Chief Wahoo & the main resistance from the team was that they had millions of dollars in unsold merchandise…. the obvious way to solve the issue is to allow time to sell the merchandise. That takes away the root issue that prevents the solution from being made. Of course, there’s some cynicism there that you are objecting to. And, you’re not wrong. But I don’t blame baseball for striking that deal. The year will pass quickly, then 5 years, then 10 and it will not even be in the rear view mirror any longer. They’re looking farther out in the future & this gets them where they want to be.

    • Brent says:

      I presume this year’s uniforms were already made and are in the process of being shipped to the Indians right now

  12. Rich says:

    I don’t know the reason for keeping it a year but it’s not to sell merchandise. They will continue to sell it beyond 2019. Chief Wahoo is being removed from the uniforms and field only.

    Geez, what a bunch of sanctimonious,judgmental blowhards. The moral superiority is suffocating. This is why I usually don’t read the comments to Joe’s excellent writing.

  13. […] just because of “tradition” is crazy. Joe Posnanski, a lifelong Cleveland sports fan, wrote this excellent piece about having conflicted feelings about Chief Wahoo’s […]

  14. invitro says:

    I’m curious what the Indians’ players think. The ones who voted unanimously to wear the Wahoo logo in the 2016 playoffs (and probably again in 2017), if I have that correct.

  15. invitro says:

    Lots of people need to lighten up about this issue. I wonder how many people here agree with BOTH the following two statements:
    – The loss of the Wahoo logo is not going to make my life significantly worse (or better).
    – If the Indians had kept the logo, it wouldn’t have made my life significantly worse (or better).

    • Mark Daniel says:

      Good point. But everything is a major issue these days. Sometimes it’s important stuff, but most of the time it’s stupid, meaningless stuff, and most of the time it seems to be what idiots of no consequence say on twitter.

    • MikeN says:

      No, I don’t agree. My opinion is that the forces going after Wahoo will not stop there, and they will go after things I do care about. For example, not having Dukes of Hazzard reruns on TV.

  16. […] Joe Posnanski writes about Chief Wahoo from the perspective of a fan who grew up with the symbol: […]

  17. […] Joe Posnanski writes about Chief Wahoo from the perspective of a […]

  18. KnucklesTheClown says:

    Its a cartoon mascot. Even the cartoons that are “white” are over the top goofy. The fat padre, white twins guys shaking hands. Joe has to write this article and have this opinion or his media card gets taken away.

  19. Frank says:

    Shouldn’t we be more concerned about the Brewers name? Alcohol is a much more significant problem. After all, the Washington Bullets changed their name.

  20. Dano says:

    I am not even an Indians fan, although I wouldn’t be upset if they won a World Series, as long as it isn’t against the Cubs, and I have liked their hats (Wahoo, not C) for quite some time. I am not a racist, I didn’t vote for Trump but I am not crazy about teams changing names and logos either. If there was some consensus that Indians/Native Americans didn’t like Chief Wahoo, I’d be for it. But there isn’t. The vast majority of those who favor dumping the logo are interested in doing such because they think someone may or should be offended by it. If it’s so offensive to Native Americans, why aren’t more Native Americans upset by it?

  21. […] or superiority. This is the message of sportswriter and native Clevelander Joe Posnanski, who writes about the mascot (while emphatically praising its demise): “We didn’t choose the logo. It was […]

  22. […] Despite Cy Kluber, I never want to pick Cleveland to win the Central—more often than not I don’t trust their offense, or, when they do win, their odds of repeating, just because winning a division twice is hard (unless you’re the Dodgers)—but in 2018, when the Tigers are truly not an option, the Twins may regress (without a full season of Polanco and with or without a full season of Sano), the Royals are older and worse, and the White Sox will probably not be that improved that soon, I don’t know who else I WOULD pick.  Plus, you know, Wahoo’s gone. […]

  23. […] Joe Posnanski writes about Chief Wahoo from the perspective of a fan who grew up with the symbol: […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *