Chief Wahoo in the Crosshairs
 

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/ml...ef-wahoo-logo/

Rob Manfred can kiss my ass. Keep the Chief!

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

Have you ever noticed that such protests never occurred until either Cleveland or Atlanta made it to the World Series?

I do not recall hearing anything when Washington won the Super Bowl or when Chicago won the Stanley Cup.

From this one might assume that I am not sympathetic to Native Americans. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I guess the protests are aimed, naturally, at the biggest audiences.

Now, I have always viewed the Braves' 'representative figures' to be cast in a positive light. Additionally, I love my Chief Wahoo Cap and don't view it as racism.

However, I recognize that those who have blood connections may be offended. I would probably feel the same way if I had their heritage.

To sum up (finally, huh?), I am comfortable with the Caps I own and with the Teams I cheer for but I don't take any of their representative figures or portrayals for granted.

My wife's side of the family has Native American bloodlines. I have no problem with any of the logos. We should be more concerned how we treat and have treated them than our sports teams logos. (Hope this was not political!)

Mike

Do you know any Native Americans offended by it?

I'm a big fan of Chief Wahoo. Simple as that. Most Cleveland fans are. We all grew up with the smiling cartoon.

I believe CBS did a study a couple years back that around 85-90% of Native Americans are NOT offended by the logo. So whose war is this? I won't answer that on this board, and will refrain from all political talk.

Here's something to think about. If Chief Wahoo is offensive, what about the Notre Dame Fighting Irish depicting a stereotypical leprechaun with red hair in an aggressive manner? What about the New York Yankees name potentially offending southerners? What about the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim offending people of non-Christian faith? The petty, offensive crap can go on and on if you let it.

Is your wife's family offended by Chief Wahoo?

I don't see the problem with re branding. Many teams don't have their original names. Sometimes this comes with a city change (Expos to Nationals or Browns to Orioles), but there have been other reasons (Houston Colt .45s to Houston Astros or Devil Rays to Rays).

No one is going to stop following their favorite team because they changed logos/name. As long as they remain in the same city the fans will still be there.

No, not at all.

Mike

So then why the need to rebrand in the first place? If fans will be fans no matter what, then why the need to rebrand? The 15% of the fan base that finds a name/logo offensive will still be fans, right?

I see no problem with re branding, but it should be the team's choice, not someone telling them to do it.

Mike

Leprechauns are fictional/mythical creatures from Irish folklore they are not a people group. Also what version of the logo are you referencing with the red hair?
Yankee is a term for any American with Yankee Doodle being a song from the revolutionary war. Damn Yankee would be a more southern/northern term. Also the region of the country is not an inherent heritage.
Los Angeles Angels is a play on the city name. Just as San Diego Padres is (surprised you didn't bring that one up). They really would have to change the city name to remove the "offensive words".

Native Americans are an actual set of people that are being stereotyped. Your comparisons aren't similar.



Putting words in my mouth. You even had the quote right there and you still got it wrong. I did not says "fans will be fans no matter what". I said they wouldn't lose fans, they may gain some though.

Those 15% that you claim are offended could potentially not be buying any Cleveland merchandise currently due to the logo or term "Indians".

Also you will not see me protesting any team's logo, but that doesn't mean I have to be hostile towards those that are. A little empathy and compassion can go a long way.

No it should be the owner of the overall brand. In this case that is MLB. Just because you own a McDonald's Franchise restaurant doesn't mean you no longer are held accountable to the Branding dictated by corporate.

I do know Native Americans who are offended by the logo and those same Native Americans would prefer Washington change their name as well.

Welcome to the age of PC. :(

1) I'm referring to the live mascot. The logo has "black" facial hair which is just a cover up to make it more PC. And the Irish are a group of people by the way, and so depicting the leprechaun in an aggressive manner, with all Irish traits, would technically be stereotyping the Irish. Not that I care, nor do I think anyone should, just saying.

2/3) Would rebranding in return lose fans though? And would they lose more fans, and sell less merchandise if they rebranded? I'd say there's a good chance. The block C doesn't sell as well as Chief Wahoo I don't believe.

You're saying that the rebrand would almost guarantee a stronger following, but I don't think it would. Like I said, most Indians fans like Chief Wahoo, and it's not like a Cubs fan is going to jump onto the Indians bandwagon all of a sudden.

Are they mostly Native American blood, or are they less than 20% Native American?

I never thought to ask.

To me, it makes a difference. If you're 1% Native American, I don't think you should be allowed to be "offended". Haha.

You're obviously not from any part of New England.
There are still plenty of places where even if your family moved there 100 years ago you're "from away"

Steve B

I never knew they approached Sockalexis' family to ask them about the logo, since he is often cited as the reason the team became the Cleveland Indians. In the interest of full disclosure, here is what the Sockalexis family stated:

Kenneth Paul in 1993, Sockalexis' oldest living relative at the time:

"Wahoo or Yahoo, it's more insulting than anything. I think they should change the whole thing to something else. It won't break my heart. It won't break anybody's." Paul's son, Kenneth Jr., has said of Chief Wahoo, "I wish they'd get rid of that smiling Indian head."

I wonder what he finds insulting about it. 1993 was before the Glory Days of the '90s Indians, and they still weren't a great team in '93. I wonder if that had anything to do with it.

I also wonder if there are any records of the Cleveland franchise asking Sockalexis himself what he thinks. After all, the Indians are rumored to be called the Indians because they signed the first Native American player.

I would think he's insulted at the depiction of a Native American. I think they adopted Chief Wahoo well after Sockalexis himself had died. The 1993 date is very important because in 1994, when the Indians were moving to Jacobs Field, they considered changing the logo. The quote from Sockalexis' family is from 1993, so likely during the time they were in discussions about replacing the logo.

Ah true. Chief Wahoo was adopted in the late '30s/early '40s.

Obviously sidetracked, but the Leprechaun is fictional IRISH myth. If the Irish have a fictional character then it would make sense that it may look Irish.

I never said a Cubs fan would switch, again you are missing the logic of what I am stating. I said anyone that would be a fan, but can't bring themselves to be so under the current name/mascot may be pulling back a little from association. I don't believe (obviously no facts to back up) changing will harm their team loyalty, I only believe it could strengthen it by anyone currently offended.


Again, though, I am not going to be protesting it. I just don't see any reason for the resistance.

To add to the conversation I think it would be interesting to see them reclaim the Spiders name. There is already built in history with the name.

Well, not me, but some people get really creeped out by spiders. My mom really hates them.

Much to her credit, when I was little she taught me about spiders as part of nature. We had some pretty big yellow and black garden spiders, and we caught grasshoppers in the field next door and tossed them into the web to see what the spiders did. I was in Jr High before she let on how scared she is of them.

Steve B

I'm surprised this hasn't been referenced yet:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.c7487b7a3bca

Ridiculous. Maybe we should have a team with a horrible stereotypical Jewish banker image with a big nose called the Greedy Bankers or a big fat Italian guy in a white tee shirt called the Gangsters. Maybe a German guy who looks like a Nazi. Yeah, obviously that wouldn't fly for a nanosecond.

The fact that US Indians who are on one of the very lowest socioeconomic rungs of our society and are basically struggling to put food in their kids mouths most days have other things to worry about hardly makes it right. Drove through Indian reservations in North Dakota last summer. Not surprised to hear American baseball mascots are not high on their list of worries.

To be fair that article only addresses a survey of 500 Native Americans. There are 5.2 million Native Americans in the US (2010 census). But even if you want to give it credence, the survey was only about the name of the Redskins. They didn't ask about how Native Americans feel about being portrayed in the Cleveland logo, which I think we should be able to agree is a less than flattering stereotype.

I have come to like the modern Indians logo, Chief Wahoo not the red C. Well I guess the red C is fine too, but it is kinda boring even when they used it in the 80s and had the block letter uniforms. There is just something about the whole color scheme they came up with in the mid 90s when they got good. The dark blue with Chief Wahoo and the red brim, the dark blue jerseys. It looks really nice.

The part I do not get is that people are on such a crusade about a team and how "they" think it is portraying a certain people, yet there is no big hubaloo about the actual problems those people have. It makes me wonder if the Redskins and Indians (and it would need to include the other team that use the name like Kingston and Springfield) and whatever other teams get their names and logos taken away, that no one will them remember these types of people.

It is these stories of these sports teams with their names and logos that keeps those stories alive. It might sound like a bad thing to say.

I don't notice a push to change the team name from Indians, people would just like them to stop using a stereotypical image of an Indian as the logo.

Yes, but if you get rid of Chief Wahoo, there's no point in the team name.

Isn't that the point? They are sports logos. The people that are supposed to be offended by these things greet it with a gigantic "meh", to an extremely large degree (90% is a massive majority in any poll of this nature). Some even like the name.

What do you mean? The Chiefs are the Chiefs without using a stereotype. The Braves are the Braves still despite doing away with their screaming Indian logo. Why can't the Indians do the same? If the point of calling themselves the Indians is to honor Native Americans, what end does using a stereotype image like that accomplish?

I thought that the use of the term "Redskins" was the most egregious offense of all sports names/logos. To now say it is the Chief Wahoo logo is goal post shifting.

Well this is a thread about the Chief Wahoo logo not the name of the Redskins and another poster posted that survey in this thread. I don't think it has anything to do with Chief Wahoo either. But I also think it's disingenuous to say that a poll of 1 percent of all Native Americans means that 90 percent of them feel the same way as less than 1 percent do.

I think it's definitely caused by national outcry more than local. I am not a fan of any of these teams and as a detroiter, unless the feline sjw's start complaints about using lions or tigers, I am pretty safe.

However, I don't need people to step in and tell me what is good for me or what I should believe. If any of the naming issues were of great concern to the world the teams would have changed already as people would have already voted with their wallets.

If you want change don't buy merch or tickets. If enough people do that change will come, if it doesn't then you must accept you are in minority on your issue.

My personal opinion and why I stay unconcerned with an Chippewa exwife and a son who is a tribal member. (Not that it makes me any expert, just context)

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.

I didnt read all the way through the thread or even what your comment was in response to; but this particular statement resonates with me. Sometimes the tone of those who are "anti-PC" certainly comes across as if people just cant even be bothered to treat people with respect or address someone in a simple manner they prefer to be addressed.


Aside from that, I think mascots with a heritage theme can be done and done so properly. Chief Wahoo is, simply put, a caricature. Caricatures based on heritage, in particular minority heritages; are on slippery ground. Caricatures based on heritage that are also NOT native and common to the heritage are just asking for trouble.

If you're gonna do it, do it right. Do it honoring a specific faction. Do it with the input of those particular people. Otherwise, you're just kidding yourself.

i am in favor of it. now you know.

Just curious for input from the 'taking offense on other's behalf' crowd. When is a symbol NOT offensive? What % of the 'offense intended' group must actually take offense at the symbol for the symbol to be classified as offensive?

I don't know the answer to that but I think you can see a stereotyped image and know that there is something about it that is problematic. Have you ever seen any of the old Pears soap advertisements? Or any of the original Darlie toothpaste ads?

So a big toothy smiling Indian is a "stereotype"? Odd that I haven't seen many of those other images. In fact, checking google for "smiling indian stereotype" the ONLY image that comes up in many pages that might relate to Native American 'offensiveness' is the Chief Wahoo image (or those making fun of it).

I don't know the answer to my own question either, but I don't purport to speak for a group that may OR MAY NOT be offended. I also don't dismiss out of hand a survey when it doesn't coincide with any preconceived ideas that I might have.

So how about this question. If 90% of the 5.2 million Native Americans said they did NOT take offense to Chief Wahoo, would YOU still claim that image is offensive to Native Americans?

If 520,000 people are offended, yeah, I'd say that's offensive.

In return I am curious for input from the defensive side. What reason do you have to continue offending any percentage of people?
The only reason I could think of is if no one within the offended group are a part of the depicted image. Sure there are people that are stating the Chief is offensive that aren't Native Americans, but this protest wasn't started by them. It was started by Native American groups and have just gained support from outsiders.

http://www.changethemascot.org/history-of-progress/
http://www.ncai.org/resources/resolu...ts-stereotypes
http://www.ncai.org/resources/ncai-p..._of_Racism.pdf

As I will keep stating I am not personally offended by the image. I have never even thought about it until recent years, but this open discussion got me thinking about it. The fact that there are some within the people group offended is reason enough, in my mind, to think about changing. We are not talking about an animal rights group that is offended by the depiction of a bird on a bat (Cardinals) and standing up in protest on behalf of a group that literally doesn't/can't care.
We are talking about a segment of Native Americans offended by a depiction of their own personal people group. My ignorance due to my own personal experience will never allow me to fully appreciate why they are offended by it, but I can fully appreciate that they are offended and they should have the right to chose how they are depicted.

Obviously the team/MLB can do what they want, but why continue to antagonize any people group even if it is just the minority. It just makes no sense to me.

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:

http://image.cleveland.com/home/clev...207-mmmain.jpg

+1

Who cares if they are offended are not. Marginalizing a group of people is either right nor wrong. It drips with irony that some of my best friends are bed-wetting socialists who fall all over themselves in an attempt to claim the Redskins is not a racist name. The percentages of Native Americans who find the name insensitive or not is 100% irrelevant.

How about 1 person?

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

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.

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.



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"

I totally agree.

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. :D

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

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.

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.

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

From that

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.

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. :confused: 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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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).

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.

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.

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...

http://i967.photobucket.com/albums/a...psk79voybn.jpg

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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. :D

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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....