Chief Wahoo in the Crosshairs

[KMayUSA6060]

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

Rob Manfred can kiss my ass. Keep the Chief!

[packs]

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

[KMayUSA6060]

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.

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.

[RedsFan1941]

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.

i am in favor of it. now you know.

[KMayUSA6060]

http://fox8.com/2017/04/13/medina-to...ant-to-offend/

[tschock]

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?

[packs]

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?

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by tschock

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?

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.

[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.

[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 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."

[clydepepper]

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.

[mikemb]

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

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by mikemb

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

Is your wife's family offended by Chief Wahoo?

[mikemb]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Is your wife's family offended by Chief Wahoo?

No, not at all.

Mike

[bn2cardz]

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.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

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.

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?

[mikemb]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

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.

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

Mike

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

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.

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.

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

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?

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.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

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.

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.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

Also the region of the country is not an inherent heritage.
.

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

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by mikemb

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

Mike

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.

[packs]

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

[Snapolit1]

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.

[packs]

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.

[PM770]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

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.

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.

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

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.

+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.