I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you want a sincere response. Here you go.

If our nation's cowboys have been systematically oppressed by the non-cowboys in political power and are hurt by their representation in logos with crude caricatures of them then certainly changing that logo would be a nice thing to do. Otherwise it's not causing any harm so it might as well be left alone. That is the standard I would propose for all of these cases -- not a double-standard, just a standard.

I am primarily Irish, so I'll go ahead and speak as a representative of that particular historically oppressed minority. Irish-Americans were already in power in Boston by the time that logo was created, and my guess is that's why it isn't upsetting to the community. It is a representation of their fan base rather than of some other minority group that could be caricatured for fun. Personally it bothers me that they pronounce it Seltics rather than Celtics, but at least the spelling of the name is fine.

If, on the other hand, you had an English soccer team in the 1800s named the Irish and using this mascot, that would be different with regards to the standard I mentioned in the first paragraph.

How about the CLEVELAND LAKE EFFECT with Snowflake cheerleaders and white pompoms everywhere?:)

If you thought the Indians were upset, wait until the concept of snowflakes in July sinks in with the goreables. :eek:

Come to think of it, this name change might be more appropriate for the Cleveland Browns???;)

Debatable. What happened to the Native Americans was atrocious, more violent, and blatant, but comparisons can be drawn. Between government overreach, regulations, land grabs, etc., "cowboys" have been forced to socialize to an extent. I would definitely argue that they cannot live today as they did some time ago, with the constant war on the 2nd Amendment/firearms, regulations on farming, taxes, and land grabs. Look no further than the Bundy's and their dispute with the government land grab. Like I said, it's not as broad, violent, or blatant, but comparisons are there. I identify more as a "country" person, with lots of my friends sharing that in common. None of us find the term "redneck" as offensive, and actually use it quite often ourselves, despite its intended derogatory origins/nature. Maybe we should choose to find it offensive and raise hell?

The point of bringing up the Cowboys', Celtics', and Notre Dame logos is if we look hard enough, we can find offense in all aspects of life, regardless of demographic size.

By the way, how was it ok for Bomani Jones, or whatever the hell his name is from ESPN, to wear a Caucasians shirt in response to Chief Wahoo?

From what I have read, the logo will still be available on merchandise in places like the team store, so it won't disappear completely.

I have mixed feelings on this one.

As a Libertarian, this seems to be an internal issue within the framework of major league baseball. If they feel the need to step in, that is a business decision and they are free to make it...letting any consequences be as they may based on free market forces (such as they are in America circa 2018 anyway). I am also all for any aggrieved group banding together of their own free will to try to have changes implemented that said group feels would be of benefit to them. More power to them.

As a person with some indigenous ancestry, I know that there are much larger issues facing the Native American population, much of which was forced upon them and has now metastasized into several generations of internal issues and generally poor decision making. I don't think it should be overly political to believe that offering sympathy and a hand up to them would be a good and humane idea for our fellow Americans. That said, if they feel that minor (in the grand scheme of things) issues such as this are worthy of their time and effort, I suppose I can get behind that. At the same time, with the myriad of other issues within their community, I also can't shake the feeling that some may be better served putting on their big boy and big girls pants and tackling some more important and fundamental issues to their longer term success as a people.

As a Pirates fan, we seem to change our logo about as often as a Kardashian rolls out a new product line. In that context, I can't really empathize with Cleveland fans who have had variations of the same logo for generations.

Basically I am all over the map on this one and have thoughts that both agree and disagree with pretty much everyone. Hell. I agree and disagree with my own thoughts on this.

Hope that clears this up for everyone then.

:rolleyes:

Or in tribute to the great passenger steamships that brought base ball fans to the shores of Lake Erie to watch the franchise in its early years, perhaps the Cleveland Steamers.

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

You just went there!!

Although the franchise certainly has earned that logo to be sure.

It’s not a perfect world. I doubt that all native Americans feel offended about this. I don’t think this helps native Americans with what they had happen to them. What if the renamed the team the Cleveland Natives and had a more friendly logo. That might be a more progressive move.

There are many many types of people that have these small racial issues that they put up with.
I’m a mixed person genetically I have Irish, Italian, and Romani ( gypsy ) on both sides.

Growing up I had to see kids come to school dress up a gypsys ! Would it be ok to see kids come to school dressed as Jews or Africans ? I think not !

I hear people say I got GYPED Alll the time which is very racist and it bothers me to hear it. But guess what, people say it like it’s nothing. Is it ok to say you got Jewed?

Do I lose sleep over this ? No, if it all stopped tomorrow would my life be better . Nope.

Forget about the Irish and Italian side of my family. It’s very common for people say something about either one as well. But it seems that only a select few get to the PC world protect them.

As someone with native American blood, who has a bunch of older relatives who grew up with the person it all came from, I can tell you that not one of them are offended by these logos. They are proud of their family history. As many have mentioned with the Notre Dame symbol, these same people are half Irish and they have never been offended by that symbol, or the mascot, or the Celtics. They just don't get offended by team logos, especially not ones from a long time ago and they certainly aren't going to sit there and be told what offends them. If those people who grew up with that history and have twice as much Native American blood as I do don't care, then why should I try to find something that isn't there. The Indians and the Fighting Irish aren't sitting there spreading hate with those symbols and common sense people realize that.

I know where the names came from from for the teams and the history behind the symbols, so it doesn't bother me. Of course, no one in my family wakes up ready to find out what someone tells them to be offended over each day, so maybe those people with no ammo in the conversation should listen to those who do.

I personally don't care what they decide to do with it. Teams change logos all of the time. They could have changed it and not even given a reason.

Makes no difference to me if 0.01% or 99.9% of group XYZ agrees with a logo or not. Public opinion polls are poor indicators of what's right or wrong.

What is a good indicator of what's right or wrong? Just because you say it is?

You are 100% right on this. It bothers me to no end when African American comedians mock white people and it's totally ok. I think that reverse racism is part of the reason that so many white men are angry at the PC Police. But that shouldn't blind us to the fact that it's not cool to make fun of other cultures...especially those with the ugly history that the native Americans have. They don't have the Jesse Jackson's of the world fighting for them, but it doesn't make them any less worthy of the same considerations as we give African Americans.

With societal issues, what's right or wrong is also a personal opinion. Typically changes take place when the majority of society decides to change it.

Now, a small minority of people are trying to make changes for the majority and if you don't agree with them you are vilified and condemned.

I would love to find the data that supports the majority of Cleveland, MLB fans or the US want to make this change or are offended by it.

Time for a card. I give you George Stovall, right-handed first baseman and the handsomest devil to ever don the Naps' grays.

I'd scan and post some of the old anti-Irish cartoons, but I'd probably be banned.

My personal opinion is that the logo is wrong. The powers that be (for whatever reason) agree.

That one is actually rather tame compared to some I have in old magazines.

Still looking for answers to the following (reference post #79 for the image)...

I don't own any of those magazines myself, but I took a history class on Irish immigration to the U.S. (from a professor who was an Irish immigrant to the U.S.), and I saw quite a few that semester that I would say make the one I posted look rather tame.

I suspect that's because you're assuming that it's either the color or the shape, or at least because your wording is instructing people to choose one or the other. There's no reason that you can't have an image more than one of whose features is offensive to a particular group.

If it's not the color OR the shape, then what's offensive about it?

A stunning percentage of white Americans had no problem at all with the barriers put in place for decades to block black folks from voting. A clear majority of whites also thought that it was perfectly fine that white and black people couldn't marry. In fact could serve jail time for it. Just a-ok with it. Clear majority of whites couldn't possibly see what the issue was. Couple of trouble makers kicked up some crap (probably "snowflakes" in today's parlance) and had the laws changes. Always a small group of troublemakers trying to impose "their subjective beliefs" on others. Thankfully.

To your way of thinking, though, the Cowboys are largely responsible for what happened to the Indians, no?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd scan and post some of the old anti-Irish cartoons, but I'd probably be banned.

I'm almost full Irish and it wouldn't bother me one bit. I know what my ancestors went through when they arrived here. They were (almost) the lowest of the low at one time. But the Irish have a great sense of humor; almost morbid at times.

I suppose capitalization is clearer than italics. The answer you're looking for is "the color AND the shape."

Whoa whoa whoa. You can't have "AND" in there, when they are completely different logos. The modern Chief Wahoo is "red" and the vintage Chief Wahoo sports a shape and skin color that is commonly seen with other, more realistic Native American-inspired logos, for example the Chicago Blackhawks and Washington Redskins, neither of which have much controversy (or any at all) around their logos.

My two cents, glad to see it removed. These discussions are meant to be complicated and nuanced, and it's something we need way more of, instead of the sensationalism-driven shouting match you see on the news. The way I see it, it's the least that can be done, given the history of how the Natives were treated from Columbus onward. It's not going to do much, but it's the right thing to do and it helps just a little bit.

I generally believe that those who see this as a pc issue or as something irksome to their livelihood are most likely coming from a place where you have the privilege to see it like that. For many minorities, the effects of oppression are experienced daily, where it smacks you in the face. It's not subtle. More importantly, it's ingrained within the history and the institution of the country itself, where to this day this oppression persists. Take for example, housing value appropriation.

But this is not to say that if you're a middle class middle aged white male, your life isn't hard. That's not what Black Lives Matter or protesters who point out Chief Wahoo are trying to do. It's about exposing the actual history behind how things came to be in this country, and when you consider that history and see what brought it to this point, it is important to expose it and point it out, so that we do something about it to change it for the better. Because I honestly think if people could see that story, they'd be happy to help improve things.

Ok, I’ll play Kyle.

I looked at both the modern and vintage logos. As a run of the mill white dude, they do not OFFEND me, per se. The impression I get, however, from those logos is that Native Americans, (no, wait, Indians) are ugly, goofy, clowns not to be taken seriously. They seem to marginalize, and not honor, people of Native American descent like my wife, whom I find to be beautiful.

In my opinion, I don’t think it’s wrong to reference Native American tribes like the Blackhawks or Seminoles so long as the visual expression truly honors the people and does not portray an unflattering caricature.

You have made two points worth repeating.

1) Because more than one logo exists it isn't possible for one of them to have more than one feature that is offensive. Got that, everyone?

2) The two logos below sport the same shape and skin color. Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

The Cleveland Clovis People
 

I love it

I don't want to wade into this divisive debate, but I tend to agree with this point of view. Not that I profess to have any special philosophical or moral insight into this topic, and am a Nordic-American from the Midwest.

To be honest, I've found the lame mascots to be such as the Lions and Tigers in Detroit-- not only are there no lions and tigers in Michigan (sans Zoo), but they lack imagination. And, of course, there are the now geographical oxymorons such as the Los Angeles Lakers and Arizona Cardinals, which aren't lame so much as funny.

Or Utah Jazz...

The Cardinals, Jazz and Lakers have character due to their curiousness. I like those due to that.

I'm a U of Wisconsin alum, born and raised in Wisconsin, and saw just one badger in the wild my whole time there. Though if you read the history, the Badgers didn't directly come from the animal but from 1800s miners who badger-like dug holes.

My dad was a Minnesota alum and I'd tease him about the wimpy gopher mascot. "You have to have a manly mascot, like a badger or a wolverine." Though at least they have a lot of gophers in Minneapolis, and I suppose that large group of them could beat you up.

Ok so it's the simple fact that it's a caricature that bothers you?

1) Goodness. I was asking a question regarding what is actually offensive about the modern Chief Wahoo, using the old Chief Wahoo as a measuring stick since it has a different shape and skin color. All I've ever heard is the red color being the issue.

2) The Blackhawks = similar skin color to vintage Chief Wahoo. The Redskins = similar shape to vintage Chief Wahoo, particularly in the nose. So where's the outrage over those other logos?


Here's an interesting article on the subject. Yenyo, the Indian interviewed, says that this isn't far enough, that it should be removed immediately along with the nickname "Indians".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.0dd79c5c2364

nevermind

xxx

As predicted, this has done nothing but go off the rails.

I don't know why, especially today, we give any credibility to anyone in Hollywood. With the sh*t that has gone on there, especially lately, why anyone from that industry has any credibility is sad.

When Leonardo DiCaprio was up here filming The Revenant, we had a wind go through here over the Rockies called a "chinook". With it comes warm winds from the Pacific, and warms up our winter days, giving us tempertures into the 50's and 60's (F). This guy goes on to post how he's finally seen Global Warming up close. While his campaign to stop green house gas emissions, and to save the environment are admirable, he still flies around on his private jet using fuel that would otherwise not be emitted into the atmosphere.

Now lately on MSN, there is an article on the size of his yacht. How does he possibly power that?

I'm not here to defend or protest Global Warming; I get a bit rankled when Hollywood types spew their ignorant opinions (Jane Fonda too) and then leave a larger environmentally damaging footprint than the average person.

xxx

First of all, a big thank you to your grandpa for his service.

Second of all, he doesn't look like the Indians in the Seminoles', Blackhawks', Redskins', etc., logos, either. So where's the outrage over those?

Third of all, many people LOVE Chief Wahoo for his friendly smile. I've never heard it or him described as "goofy-assed".

xxx

xxx

Can't. Doesn't look like your father, grandfather, or great grandmother. ;):rolleyes:

I think they look like everything you've posted. I think there's a wide variety of what Native Americans look like, much like black people don't look the same, white people don't look the same, etc.

I guess I just have the ability to look at a caricature - something I've had done on myself and haven't been offended by - and separate it from reality and anything offensive. This goes back to my original post in this thread, which mentions how little credit you who oppose Chief Wahoo are giving those who like Chief Wahoo. Do you think we look at the logo and say, "look at that red-skinned Indian right there; boy does he sure make Native Americans look weird"? Hell no. Actually, I've never associated the color of Chief Wahoo to mean anything more than someone chose the color red because a red/white/blue color scheme is easy. As far as the shape, I was born in '94; when I was little Chief Wahoo was an easy logo to love as a kid because he's smiling and cartoonish. Never once did I think all Indians shared all of the features of Chief Wahoo.

I once read an analysis of the carbon footprint left by Al Gore, it was hysterical.

Kyle, I love your passion for your team man, but it's a logo. They aren't moving your team to Baltimore. As mentioned previously, teams change logos all the time. You can love your team and still acknowledge that the caricature is insulting to a group of people whose land was taken, whose ancestors were slaughtered, and who were discriminated for centuries. This isn't about correctness, it's about common decency and respect for fellow Americans of a different heritage. My god, you have a fellow board member telling you it hurts him. Isnt that more important than a stupid logo?

It's NOT supposed to be what real Indians look like. It's called a caricature, see below.

Do you think sailors really look like Popeye?
Did cavemen really looked like Fred Flintstone?

We all know who this is supposed to be, I don't even have to say the name. Do you really, honestly think he finds it offensive?

http://aaacaricatures.com/wp-content...Caricature.jpg

This discussion has really gotten ridiculous.

And this is where the rules on the board prohibit further discussion. I can't go much further without getting political, which is where this discussion is at, so this is what I will end with.

I do not believe I have said anything disrespectful regarding Native Americans, or the fellow board member's heritage/family. I believe we are having a debate on a sports forum regarding a sports logo. If the logo is meaningless, why is it a big deal to those who want to get rid of it, since it's apparently stupid for me to care about a stupid logo? The same passion for those who want to get rid of it is shared by those who want to keep it. If I went through life worrying about everything little thing someone might take offense to, or what they might consider to be a microaggression, why leave my house? I know what my beliefs and morals are. I know the nature of my intentions. Believe me, if I was trying to be hurtful or disrespectful, you would know. I just think as a society we've become too soft, too quick to feel offended and react in favor of those who are offended. I'm sick and tired of being told how to think, what to believe, and what is or isn't morally right, when I know how to think for myself and I'm confident in the good nature of my beliefs and morals. I'm also sick and tired of society trying to erase history over some sort of guilt they feel.

Watch it bub. Don't be rippin' on my Jungaleers. I'd rather be a Tiger than a Packer any day. Now if that's not the dumbest mascot ever, I don't know what is. :D

Attachment 304065

I never said that so no.

Walter Veach
 

+10000000 - Any and all Hollywood "activists" should really just stay silent and go away. Most of their thinking is that if they play to the greater good, everyone will like them and buy their entertainment making them rich beyond there dreams.. its not really that they care its a marketing ploy..

As for Leo, not only does Leo fly around in his $50 million dollar jet that seats 18, he usually only has a couple of people with him... his efforts on global warming are admirable though he should practice what he preaches. And that aircraft burns about 2500 gallons of fuel coast to coast... and he is not the only one in the Hollywood crowd doing that so... take their posturing for what its worth...

Sorry for the hijack...

The controversy over the Redskins name is actually quite robust.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.c174493f604e

Haven't read through this thread in its entirety but just skimming through it I'm surprised by the amount of irrelevant political talking points have been thrown in (why is there a whole page talking about climate change in a thread purportedly about a baseball team logo????)

Well..... a lot of hot air is being released discussing it elsewhere I'm sure.

That's about the name, not the logo. It was mentioned that a supposed issue with the Chief Wahoo logo is that it isn't what Native Americans look like. The Redskins logo doesn't look like all Native Americans either, which is the point I was trying to make. Their name is an entirely separate issue.

Two reasons for me:

1. It was in reference to Jane Fonda doing the tomahawk chop, and why we give the Hollywood folks any credence in (almost ) any discussion.

2. In a small way, to attempt to deflect the discussion and limit the vitriolic comments going back and forth among us.

Hope this clarifies for you.

Opinion: I’m fairly sure the Indians name and mascot were designed to be a good thing and not designed to be offensive. Just because some take offense to it doesn’t necessarily mean it should be removed. What’s the ultimate goal? Remove the charicarure, then I’m sure next will be the Indians name, correct? Where does the political correctness stop? If I was an Indians fan I’d be upset about it that’s for sure.

I’m sure some people are offended that I go to church or that the church exists. That’s fine; I’m still going...

????!!!
 

What does your going to church have to do with the Indians logo?? That is the weirdest and worst argument I've seen yet in this train-wreck of a thread.

Your analogy is ridiculous. No one could care less whether you go to church or not.

But if you got your church to adopt a slogan like "Atheists-goin'-to-Hell" and a logo that portrayed atheists as badly as Chief Wahoo portrays Native Americans, and then sold caps and T-shirts with that logo to every member of the church, then you would be doing something that was offensive to a particular group of people, and they would be reasonable in asking you to stop doing it. Why is that so hard to grasp?

Are you sure about that or was little thought put into it t begin with? Why wouldn't you remove it "just b/c some take offense"? Its not about PC, its just about respect.

I'm in the camp of remove the logo and keep the name.

You two keep throwing around words like "offensive" and "respect", but only when it fits your ideals. As a veteran, Kaepernick kneeling for the national anthem offends me and a large group of the population and we think it's disrespectful, but people like you defend his right to do so.

I realize the situations are totally different, but they're also the same in that he's (Kaepernick) doing the very same thing (offending and disrespecting) to a group of people that you're claiming Chief Wahoo does. Native Americans only represent 2% of the population. Do you think more than 2% of the population is disrespected and offended by Kaepernick kneeling?

So David, removing the logo is offensive and/or disrespectful to you? Please explain.

Re-read my posts. I have made my opinion well known.

So Steven, you think Kaepernick has the right to offend and disrespect a large percentage of the population?

Ive never commented on that and this thread isn't about that. Don't put words into my mouth. You have no idea of my military background, experience or anything else. And quite frankly, its none of your business.

Why don't you ask the creator of Chief Wahoo, who passed just this past December. The logo was literally created to show happiness and inclusion into the Cleveland community.

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

As arrogant as you are, it's not about YOU!

Let me try this another way. Why does Kaepernick have the right to offend and disrespect, but Chief Wahoo doesn't?

You asked me a direct question asshole and I answered. Ive also watched you spread your conservative BS on n54 for a long time not willing to listen to others opinions without being attacking and personal. You're an embarrassment to anyone that calls themselves an American and at some point you need to learn that others opinions matter as well and that doesn't mean you have to agree with them.

Typical of your side. Call names when you can't use logic. Have a good night, snowflake.

ANd have fun struggling with your own insecurities buttercup.

Easy there bud.

Now, back to one of your posts. Did you see what the creator of Chief Wahoo said about the original intentions?

Big difference between caricaturing an individual public figure and a whole group/race.

I respectfully disagree with your opinion.

Also, it sounded like, in another of your responses, that you think conservativism is not your cup of tea (you chose to use different phraseology); why don’t you respect their views and values? “It’s just about respect”, correct?

Sure :D

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/LsbBfVYeqTM/hqdefault.jpg

Would anybody care if the New York Jets or the Pittsburgh Penguins wanted to change their logos? It wouldn't elicit a peep from anyone. Companies change their logos all the time to make them more current or to improve their look.

I'm not personally offended by Chief Wahoo. Fact is, I don't care one way or the other if it stays or goes. But it's kind of old-fashioned and could definitely stand an updating. But because changing it touches on subjects like racism and political correctness, it's gotten everyone in a dizzy. It's just another sign of what's wrong with America today. The logo is just a minor part of it.

This thread has turned into a cesspool and I hate all the insulting, especially the word snowflake. Now that I find offensive. Doesn't anyone know how to have a dialogue anymore?

I also want to say Kyle May wrote one of the funniest lines I've seen on the board in a long time: "Is the Phillie Phanatic insulting to the lethargic?" Now that's a classic!

Social media has made intelligent dialogue an almost impossible proposition.

Thank you, thank you. Argue with humor, and always keep em laughing. :cool:

sad
 

delete......please remove Leon ......

Can we please end this thread now?

I wish I wrote that line.:o But you're right, sometimes we all just need to lighten up a little. And we'll all get along better, too.

This.

Just turn the logo into a silhouette of Louis Sockalexis in a batting pose and we can all be happy :)