Chief Wahoo in the Crosshairs

[tschock]

Originally Posted by packs

Just curious if this image makes you uncomfortable. Obviously I can't tell you that your opinion is wrong, but I think images like this one sum up what I think:

You're asking the wrong person. It does NOT make me uncomfortable. But few things do. That is NOT to say this may be offensive or make others uncomfortable (to some, or many). Just that I don't claim to be the arbiter of when someone (or some group) should take offense or not.

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by tschock

You're asking the wrong person. It does NOT make me uncomfortable. But few things do. That is NOT to say this may be offensive or make others uncomfortable (to some, or many). Just that I don't claim to be the arbiter of when someone (or some group) should take offense or not.

Neither do I as I'm not much of a protester. However, IF someone did ask me I would give my opinion. I would probably say the MLB commish has some clout as it is his brand.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by tschock

Same question, different post. How about 1 person being offended?

I already answered this, let me go back at you. If only 1 isn't offended can you keep doing it? Let's face it, though, you are putting up a wicker man because there isn't just 1 person offended. I proposed a question that you are choosing to ignore because you can't continue to argue your side and confront the question at the same time. Or maybe there is a reason I can't think of.

What reason do you have to continue offending any percentage of people?

My child recently offended a friend at school by using the phrase "scaredy cat" because she was scared of something. This is a term that is used in our house freely including to describe ourselves when scared of something.

My advice to my daughter was "just refrain from using that phrase from now on so as not to offend her, she doesn't understand the context in which you use it."

I didn't say "lets take a poll of all your friends and if it is only 10% then don't worry how she feels"

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

Neither do I as I'm not much of a protester. However, IF someone did ask me I would give my opinion. I would probably say the MLB commish has some clout as it is his brand.

I totally agree.

[Tripredacus]

Originally Posted by tschock

Just curious for input from the 'taking offense on other's behalf' crowd. When is a symbol NOT offensive?

This is an interesting subject that is glossed over, a subject of how a human being thinks, outside of just baseball. When a person looks at something, their reaction to it reveals their own character, yet what we read in the news is actually people projecting their own beliefs as fact.

A logo cannot be "racist" in any way because racism is the act of limiting or excluding others of something based on perceived race. An image can be the symbol of racism, only if the symbol is used in proper context. Chief Wahoo is the symbol of a baseball team, and no where in their usage of it has it been used in such a way that has been detrimental to Native Americans or anything else. (For example, the Cleveland Indians never denied entry of Native Americans to games or to play on their team while using the logo.)

So until it can be proven that Chief Wahoo has been used as a symbol (by the Cleveland Indians) in a manner that has been detrimental to Native Americans, then any complaints about it are just opinion.

In reality, this isn't the 17th century anymore. People should look at Chief Wahoo and laugh. To think, we thought the New World was India! To think, we thought "Indians" had red skin! They don't, how silly/dumb we were many years ago.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Tripredacus

So until it can be proven that Chief Wahoo has been used as a symbol (by the Cleveland Indians) in a manner that has been detrimental to Native Americans, then any complaints about it are just opinion.

Originally Posted by "Excerpt from American Psychological Association"

"We know from the literature that oppression, covert and overt racism, and perceived racism can have serious negative consequences for the mental health of American Indian and Alaska native (AIAN) people. The discontinued use of American Indian mascots is a gesture to show that this kind of racism toward and the disrespect of, all people in our country and in the larger global context, will not be tolerated," said Dr. Lisa Thomas, APA Committee on Ethnic and Minority Affairs

http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources...n-mascots.aspx

[tschock]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I already answered this, let me go back at you. If only 1 isn't offended can you keep doing it? Let's face it, though, you are putting up a wicker man because there isn't just 1 person offended. I proposed a question that you are choosing to ignore because you can't continue to argue yourside and confront the question at the same time.

My child recently offended a friend at school by using the phrase "scaredy cat" because she was scared of something. This is a term that is used in our house freely including to describe ourselves when scared of something.

My advice to my daughter was "just refrain from using that phrase from now on so as not to offend her, she doesn't understand the context in which you use it."

I didn't say "lets take a poll of all your friends and if it is only 10% then don't worry how she feels"

Apologies if you already answered that. I missed it (or misunderstood). I'm not "choosing to ignore" what you said, but numbers ARE important.

My "1 person" example was the extreme case (obviously), but it was to make the point that there IS a difference between a small number of people taking offense to something, versus something being offensive to the larger group. Hence my original post to this discussion.

You daughter example is interesting, and a 1-to-1 association. Not 1-to-many, like Chief Wahoo. But by following your own logic and in conjunction with the Chief Wahoo discussion, shouldn't you have told her not to use this term anymore AT ALL because it might offend others besides her friend? That would be more in keeping with your position, OR AT LEAST, not implying my "1 person" was a straw man argument.

Again, it gets down to numbers (or trade offs). 1 person offended out of millions, that person needs to get over it. And in that extreme example, I hope you are not implying that the offending party change. That would be downright silly. But obviously at some point, if there is enough aggregate offense, then that symbol would be offensive to the aggregate as a whole.

That said... I don't have any defense for Chief Wahoo, nor was it ever my intent in to establish one. I don't care either way.

What I was trying to get to is when does a symbol IN AND OF ITSELF become an offensive symbol. And I'm not implying this in the Chief Wahoo case, but sometimes we are too quick to "take offense" these days.

[Section103]

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

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

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

[Bill77]

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

[Tripredacus]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources...n-mascots.aspx

From that

"American Indian mascots are harmful not only because they are often negative, but because they remind American Indians of the limited ways in which others see them. This in turn restricts the number of ways American Indians can see themselves."

This example isn't a direct relation. Again, people are projecting their own thoughts of a logo rather than what it is. The creator of the logo even can say how it was created and what it represents, and then another person looks at it and says that the creator is then wrong, solely because of what that person thinks. This plays into exactly what I was speaking of earlier and there is no relation to this and Chief Wahoo and the Cleveland Indians directly.

[steve B]

Well, here goes.


I think overall we as a country have become far too thin skinned. Nearly everything offends someone, and we've become both so easily offended even by stuff not directed at us, and so cautious of offending that I really wonder how we manage to do anything at all.

Here in Mass, we have a state lawmaker pushing a law that would ban any native American names or logos for school sports teams and maybe a few other things too. Of course she uses a letterhead design that includes the Massachusetts state seal, which has as a central figure............an Indian. Seriously, you can't make this nonsense up.

The Yankees logos offend me because I really don't like them. Maybe I should get a group together to get them to stop using those stupid pinstripes and confusing interlocked NY I mean in this day of alternate color hats, is that a Mets logo? Giants?
Of course, the team I like- the Red Sox could be subject to the same thing! I mean who wears red socks these days, and don't those socks represent the subjugation of women through laundry?

Can't a native American name or logo be used and taken in a positive way? Or must they all be somehow offensive?

Steve B

[pokerplyr80]

I'm not a big fan of all the pc bs that is so prevalent in today's society. But it is hard to imagine a more offensive team mascot than Chief Wahoo. I'm surprised he's lasted this long.

[Republicaninmass]

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


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

[packs]

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

[dgo71]

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

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Section103

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Bill77

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

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

Originally Posted by packs

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

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

Originally Posted by dgo71

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

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

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

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

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

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

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

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

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

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by dgo71

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

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

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

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

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

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

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

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

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

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

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

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

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

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by dgo71

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





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

1. You're right. I don't get a vote. But according to the polls, 85-90% of Native Americans don't find it offensive. So I get to keep Chief Wahoo.

2. Totally different situation. Essentially an ENTIRE race found those Negro League mascots offensive. They didn't have a say because they were being JUDGED by their SKIN COLOR. I'm not judging the Native Americans by their skin color. Skin color doesn't matter to me - character does.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by dgo71

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





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



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

This is where common sense would apply. Someone with common sense would realize that.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

1. You're right. I don't get a vote. But according to the polls, 85-90% of Native Americans don't find it offensive. So I get to keep Chief Wahoo.

2. Totally different situation. Essentially an ENTIRE race found those Negro League mascots offensive. They didn't have a say because they were being JUDGED by their SKIN COLOR. I'm not judging the Native Americans by their skin color. Skin color doesn't matter to me - character does.

But it's not different at all. Both of those bobblehead caricatures are stereotypical representations of a race that do not portray that race in a positive light. The only difference is you grew up with one and the other was considered to be in bad taste years before. Bigotry is bigotry, and trying to find a difference is beyond splitting hairs.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

This is where common sense would apply. Someone with common sense would realize that.

Sorry, I must not have common sense because apparently your magic line for what constitutes racism is a moving target.

[packs]

You guys keep citing a poll about the Redskins to discuss whether or not Native Americans support the Chief Wahoo logo. That poll has nothing to do with Chief Wahoo. Also, as I pointed out, that poll only surveyed 500 Native Americans out of 5.2 million living in the US, or less than 1 percent of all Native Americans. A poll of less than 1 percent of a population could not possibly speak for any majority of that population.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by dgo71

But it's not different at all. Both of those bobblehead caricatures are stereotypical representations of a race that do not portray that race in a positive light. The only difference is you grew up with one and the other was considered to be in bad taste years before. Bigotry is bigotry, and trying to find a difference is beyond splitting hairs.

How are they portraying in a negative light? Both seem pretty happy, the guy on the left looks like he's dressed up for a nice outing maybe in the 20's when that style was "in" and the guy on the right is getting ready for a game.

If they were photoshopped to remove the color would there be any problem?

There are a LOT more things that are far more worth getting all worked up over.

Steve B

[packs]

That is an image of a person in black face. It is the same image that Al Jolson emulates in The Jazz Singer. Black face is not something I think African Americans think of positively.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by packs

You guys keep citing a poll about the Redskins to discuss whether or not Native Americans support the Chief Wahoo logo. That poll has nothing to do with Chief Wahoo. Also, as I pointed out, that poll only surveyed 500 Native Americans out of 5.2 million living in the US, or less than 1 percent of all Native Americans. A poll of less than 1 percent of a population could not possibly speak for any majority of that population.

Yep, because I think most would find "Redskins" to be way more offensive than Chief Wahoo. I'm borderline on the name "Redskins" but if Native Americans don't find it offensive, then I have no problem with it.

Right, as evident by last year's election. So here's a suggestion. Instead of having some social crusade to purge the world of "offensive" things that don't even effect you, why not go to the Indian Reserves and ask millions of other Indians about their opinion? Let them vote. Let them have a say. If they vote to get rid of it, then by all means, do away with Chief Wahoo. But if they overwhelmingly vote to keep it, or don't find it offensive, etc., then Chief Wahoo should stay.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by packs

Can you explain your position a little bit? I don't really know anyone who is in favor of the logo.

As highly opinionated and self assured as you are, why are you so terrified of posting your name here? Are you someone famous? Do you come from a well to do family? Are you hiding from someone? I have my enemies, but I'm certainly not afraid of posting my name on a vintage baseball card blog site. If your name has been posted here before, I apologize in advance, but I don't recall seeing it. Cliff Bowman

[packs]

What would you do with the information? We're having a casual conversation about a topic that hasn't gotten political, heated, or personal. Those are the rules for posting your name.

[Section103]

We can agree to disagree, but the notion that I have to be part of a group to find something offensive is nonsensical to me. Just pure nonsense. I find genocide offensive even if it's not my heritage being exterminated. Being offended is absolutely nothing more than recognizing something and saying "thats wrong". It doesnt have to be directed at me for me to bother noticing its wrong. And if it has to be directed at you before you bother noticing....well....

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by steve B

How are they portraying in a negative light?
Steve B

You really can't be serious, right?

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Yep, because I think most would find "Redskins" to be way more offensive than Chief Wahoo. I'm borderline on the name "Redskins" but if Native Americans don't find it offensive, then I have no problem with it.

Right, as evident by last year's election. So here's a suggestion. Instead of having some social crusade to purge the world of "offensive" things that don't even effect you, why not go to the Indian Reserves and ask millions of other Indians about their opinion? Let them vote. Let them have a say. If they vote to get rid of it, then by all means, do away with Chief Wahoo. But if they overwhelmingly vote to keep it, or don't find it offensive, etc., then Chief Wahoo should stay.

So the many images of Native Americans protesting the logo, that can be found by a simple Google search, aren't enough? The indigenous people who have already voiced their concerns don't count because they haven't met your arbitrary minimum requirement for offensiveness? You're just content with a poll that represents less than one quarter of one percent of the effected group of people? Cool, cool...

[Snapolit1]

The logos are one thing but that stupid 'effin tomahawk chop down in Atlanta is just the lamest thing in the entire sports world. 1000s of people standing up like idiots with dumb smiles on making some imiatation of a tomahawk chop and hooting. Uggh.

[clydepepper]

Lighten up Steve.

The Tomahawk Chomp, which, honestly, originated at Florida State, is fun when the Braves are rallying.

What was very, very lame was them orchestrating a 'final chop' after the last game at Turner Field. That game was a great 1-0 pitchers' duel between Teheran and Verlander, but the 'celebration activity' that followed was very, very lame...seeing Hank Aaron was the only great part of it.

On the other hand, EVERYTHING about the opening game at SunTrust Park was great!...including thousands of foam tomahawks in unison when the Braves started winning the game.

If it were not for the Tomahawk Chop, you never would have heard that hilarious report of a truckload of the foam tomahawks overturning and stopping yet more traffic in Atlanta...now, that was funny!

[steve B]

Originally Posted by dgo71

You really can't be serious, right?

If you see people as people....... both are just happy guys doing their thing.*

If you see people as part of a certain group with whatever attaches to that.....well, I suppose they are stereotypes.

Until "we" can see people as people, we'll always have problems.

* Part of it is also that that as shown, there's also no historical context. In his time Al Jolson was ok. As were minstrel shows. It's only after that stuff became unpopular that it became negative. Who are the biggest collectors of most offensive stuff? Yep, usually someone from the group offended. Quite a puzzle there eh?

Steve B

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by steve B

If you see people as people....... both are just happy guys doing their thing.*

If you see people as part of a certain group with whatever attaches to that.....well, I suppose they are stereotypes.

Until "we" can see people as people, we'll always have problems.

* Part of it is also that that as shown, there's also no historical context. In his time Al Jolson was ok. As were minstrel shows. It's only after that stuff became unpopular that it became negative. Who are the biggest collectors of most offensive stuff? Yep, usually someone from the group offended. Quite a puzzle there eh?

Steve B

Empty platitudes aside, there is no denying the intent behind portraying these people in the way they are depicted. And it wasn't hey, let's portray just a couple of happy dudes doing their thing. That's laughably naive. Why does historical context matter? We're not having this discussion in 1922. Obviously it was "ok at the time." That doesn't mean that image shouldn't be viewed as offensive TODAY. Which is the major point of contention here; one of those images is still in use today. If a team had a mascot in blackface I'm sure everyone would agree it would be inappropriate. So why is Chief Wahoo given a pass? Why is one ok and the other not?

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by Section103

We can agree to disagree, but the notion that I have to be part of a group to find something offensive is nonsensical to me. Just pure nonsense. I find genocide offensive even if it's not my heritage being exterminated. Being offended is absolutely nothing more than recognizing something and saying "thats wrong". It doesnt have to be directed at me for me to bother noticing its wrong. And if it has to be directed at you before you bother noticing....well....

+1
Defined as "empathy."

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by dgo71

Empty platitudes aside, there is no denying the intent behind portraying these people in the way they are depicted. And it wasn't hey, let's portray just a couple of happy dudes doing their thing. That's laughably naive. Why does historical context matter? We're not having this discussion in 1922. Obviously it was "ok at the time." That doesn't mean that image shouldn't be viewed as offensive TODAY. Which is the major point of contention here; one of those images is still in use today. If a team had a mascot in blackface I'm sure everyone would agree it would be inappropriate. So why is Chief Wahoo given a pass? Why is one ok and the other not?

Chief Wahoo wasn't drawn maliciously. That's the difference.

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2017/0...to-offend.html

[steve B]

Originally Posted by dgo71

Empty platitudes aside, there is no denying the intent behind portraying these people in the way they are depicted. And it wasn't hey, let's portray just a couple of happy dudes doing their thing. That's laughably naive. Why does historical context matter? We're not having this discussion in 1922. Obviously it was "ok at the time." That doesn't mean that image shouldn't be viewed as offensive TODAY. Which is the major point of contention here; one of those images is still in use today. If a team had a mascot in blackface I'm sure everyone would agree it would be inappropriate. So why is Chief Wahoo given a pass? Why is one ok and the other not?

Yes, it is and deliberately so.

The point remains that until we collectively stop seeing race from either a positive or negative aspect there will always be problems. Human nature what it is I'm not exactly holding my breath waiting.

The bit of art was drawn for Cleveland Scene magazines cover in 2012. Should the artist not draw it since it's not 1922? As a magazine cover about the issue it makes a pretty solid statement. Without that context it's lessened. Context matters a lot.

Interestingly, the guy shown in the other picture later apologized for the facepaint and headdress, but not the team name or sweatshirt.
http://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/201...mbrace-change/

And what are we all to think of things like this?
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/...ostume-7802016

Overall, I think there are much bigger issues with the way Native Americans are treated to this day than a few sports logos.

Steve B

[dgo71]

I agree there are bigger issues but that wasn't what this thread was about. I have a hard time believing the tough issues will be addressed anytime soon if grown people aren't even willing to negotiate about a cartoon mascot. Not sure what point you're trying to make with the link to the native American in blackface. Are you suggesting one incident of bigotry cancels out another, or justifies another? And yes, the artist who drew the bobblehead image was making the sole point that one image is offensive and the other doesn't seem to be, and how silly that is. Simple as that. The artist didn't feel the need to cloud the real issue with tangential debates about historical context that serve only to direct the conversation away from the actual point. I don't agree that seeing people as people is the solution, although I understand the sentiment. The problem with that is it implies that everyone is the same. I think the solution lies in seeing our differences and accepting them, and not marginalizing a group because of them. As long as otherwise rational adults feel changing a sports logo is too heavy a price to pay to show respect to a different group of people though, I'm not holding my breath either.

[steve B]

So we'll remove a sports mascot so we don't have to see the poverty and other problems we have forced on them for a century or more. Yeah, that's a feel good moment.

While the eastern tribes mostly either moved, were killed off or went with being assimilated the central and western ones got totally clobbered and are still struggling today. Not all of them can start up casinos, unlike some eastern tribes that are for the most part pretty sketchy as still being tribes.

Maybe if we made sports teams with native american mascots pay a licensing fee? For pro teams a large one that would fund some needed improvements in their living conditions? And maybe a sliding scale of smaller fees for college and HS teams. That might be actual progress. And if the fee was big enough, it would effectively remove some of the mascots.

Yes, celebrate our cultural differences, but under the skin for the most part we're all just people. We generally tend to want the same basic things and behave the same basic ways.

The Native American using blackface was included to point out the frustrating hypocrisy and double standards that exist across our entire society. Probably should have left it for its own post.

Steve B

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by steve B

So we'll remove a sports mascot so we don't have to see the poverty and other problems we have forced on them for a century or more. Yeah, that's a feel good moment.

I don't think the two things are mutually exclusive

Originally Posted by steve B

Maybe if we made sports teams with native american mascots pay a licensing fee? For pro teams a large one that would fund some needed improvements in their living conditions? And maybe a sliding scale of smaller fees for college and HS teams. That might be actual progress. And if the fee was big enough, it would effectively remove some of the mascots.

I think that's a fantastic idea.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by steve B

So we'll remove a sports mascot so we don't have to see the poverty and other problems we have forced on them for a century or more. Yeah, that's a feel good moment.

While the eastern tribes mostly either moved, were killed off or went with being assimilated the central and western ones got totally clobbered and are still struggling today. Not all of them can start up casinos, unlike some eastern tribes that are for the most part pretty sketchy as still being tribes.

Maybe if we made sports teams with native american mascots pay a licensing fee? For pro teams a large one that would fund some needed improvements in their living conditions? And maybe a sliding scale of smaller fees for college and HS teams. That might be actual progress. And if the fee was big enough, it would effectively remove some of the mascots.

Yes, celebrate our cultural differences, but under the skin for the most part we're all just people. We generally tend to want the same basic things and behave the same basic ways.

The Native American using blackface was included to point out the frustrating hypocrisy and double standards that exist across our entire society. Probably should have left it for its own post.

Steve B

There are two issues here.

One is funding, particularly public funding. Grade School Systems would probably ditch anything related to Native Americans in a heartbeat due to funding - no way can a licensing fee be justified in many cases for a mascot. Colleges would probably ditch it in most cases, barring Florida State and other schools that truly honor their Native American relationship. Pro sports need to become private entities that no longer fund anything related to their organizations with public money - yes that includes stadiums. Too much money involved with sports to be asking for public funds on top of all other revenue. However, I do agree that at the pro level, if they were to take public funding out of it, a licensing fee to use a Native American-related logo/mascot/name would be terrific. Donate it to the reservations, and bring awareness to the atrocity that is the reservation.

The other issue is where does the line get drawn? For Notre Dame, is someone going to require schools/teams send money to Irish-related charities to use an Irish-related logo/mascot/name? What about about the mascots/logos/names with American historical relations - Patriots, Minutemen, etc.? It's a bit of a slippery slope.


Otherwise, I think the idea is great.

[steve B]

The fee wouldn't need to be large depending on the organization. The Indians? Yeah, a BIG fee. A local High school that maybe has a team named after the local tribe? (Plenty of those in the northeast) Maybe $1 a year.

I was in a car club when Chrysler had a bit of a flap over trademarks. Every Chrysler related car club got a cease and desist over any trademarked anything they were using. Which was a major problem for the "Slant Six Club" and "New England Mighty Mopars" It got settled pretty quickly once the people from the "Hemi Owners Group" and a couple others where most of the members have a lot of money threatened to sue. In the end they were just being heavy handed about needing to actively license or protect trademarks so they wouldn't be lost, and pretty much everyone got a license for $1 a year to use any of Chryslers trademarks.

Steve B

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by steve B

The fee wouldn't need to be large depending on the organization. The Indians? Yeah, a BIG fee. A local High school that maybe has a team named after the local tribe? (Plenty of those in the northeast) Maybe $1 a year.

I was in a car club when Chrysler had a bit of a flap over trademarks. Every Chrysler related car club got a cease and desist over any trademarked anything they were using. Which was a major problem for the "Slant Six Club" and "New England Mighty Mopars" It got settled pretty quickly once the people from the "Hemi Owners Group" and a couple others where most of the members have a lot of money threatened to sue. In the end they were just being heavy handed about needing to actively license or protect trademarks so they wouldn't be lost, and pretty much everyone got a license for $1 a year to use any of Chryslers trademarks.

Steve B

I don't have a problem with the fee, but you need to take the tax payer money out of all sports, then. The difference between your two scenarios is the car companies are privately owned companies.

I also am not a fan of fundraisers to bring awareness to something. People are always looking to dip into somebody else's pocket. If you see something wrong, or want to bring awareness, speak up. Use your 1st Amendment Right, not my money.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

I don't have a problem with the fee, but you need to take the tax payer money out of all sports, then. The difference between your two scenarios is the car companies are privately owned companies.

I also am not a fan of fundraisers to bring awareness to something. People are always looking to dip into somebody else's pocket. If you see something wrong, or want to bring awareness, speak up. Use your 1st Amendment Right, not my money.

While I'm not a fan of taxpayer money for the current crazy stadiums, I don't see why you'd have to remove all taxpayer money from all sports.

School bands license music unless they buy sheet music and perform it almost exactly as written.
http://www.halftimemag.com/features/...licensing.html

The same goes for plays if I'm not mistaken.

So what would be different about paying a fee to license a logo.

Not as a way to bring awareness, but as a way for the tribes to make a bit of money.

I'm totally with you on the awareness fundraisers. The first time it really clicked for me was when a bunch of musicians, some pretty big names were doing a concert to save Walden Woods a then privately owned bit of forest near Walden Pond that the owner wanted to develop. I heard the lineup and that they were trying to raise 7 million. And it dawned on me that some of those performers could simply write a check and get it done.

Steve B

[KMayUSA6060]

Somewhat relevant here.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.d138d749cf77

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Somewhat relevant here.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.d138d749cf77

Wow, you beat me to it by a few seconds. I was just about to revive this thread and post the same thing. Very relevant and sets precedence for the Redskins by ruling that a ban on offensive names is unconstitutional.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Wow, you beat me to it by a few seconds. I was just about to revive this thread and post the same thing. Very relevant and sets precedence for the Redskins by ruling that a ban on offensive names is unconstitutional.

In my opinion, good for the Supreme Court. No matter your opinion on the matter, there is a lawful/unlawful line that needs to be upheld.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Whatever. . . .sure many folks on Indian reservations are happy they are inundated with alcohol on their reservations and have astonomical alcoholism rates . . . still doesn't make it a good thing.

Somehow we've gotten to a point where caring about other people being treated decently is a vice.

hyperbolic bull$hit quotes like this are why everyone is getting sick to death of a certain side's mamby pamby identity crap.

Remember back in the 80's when christian groups complained about TV programs being too violent or sexy and the response was "you have a dial on your TV use it" well, you have a choice of sports team to support, make your choice and let the rest of us make ours. Your opinion means nothing, being offended is nothing but a whine for attention and an attempt to make everyone do your bidding like a foot stomping toddler.