Chief Wahoo in the Crosshairs

[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?

[tschock]

Originally Posted by 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?

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?

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by tschock

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.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by dgo71

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

How about 1 person?

[packs]

Originally Posted by tschock

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).

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:

[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.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by tschock

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?

because middle class suburuban white leftists know what's best for all of us, and if you disagree? well they will try and ruin your life, or call you racist or sexist until they shout you down with their tyrannical fascistic rubbish.

[nolemmings]

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/j...f-fame-plaque/

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/j...f-fame-plaque/

He must be a middle class suburban white leftist. Well, maybe upper class given his salary.

[Big Six]

Originally Posted by 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?

So why isn’t this offensive?

Stereotypical, aggressive, ape-like depiction of the Irish. And you’d be hard pressed to find any Irishman who would want Notre Dame (or any other institution using the logo) to change it. This is such a typical target for many in today’s PC environment to focus on. “Offensive” images...let’s get rid of them because if they go away, we solve the problem. Would love to know what those fighting this fight are doing to help Native Americans who have been screwed by this country since before it was a country. What a fake and disingenuous effort. Ugh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[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.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

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

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

[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 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.

[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

[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.

[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!