Chief Wahoo in the Crosshairs

[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.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

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

I totally agree.

[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.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Nothing to add here.

[vintagewhitesox]

As I'm not a native american, whether I am offended or not is irrelevant.
If a native american tells me the image is offensive to them, well, I would have to believe that person.
I look at it this way, if there was a team called the New York Jewboys, and the logo was a hooked nosed caricature, I'd probably be offended.

I do find it somewhat humerous that the middle aged white men on THIS board are so bent out of shape about a sports logo.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by vintagewhitesox

As I'm not a native american, whether I am offended or not is irrelevant.
If a native american tells me the image is offensive to them, well, I would have to believe that person.
I look at it this way, if there was a team called the New York Jewboys, and the logo was a hooked nosed caricature, I'd probably be offended.

I do find it somewhat humerous that the middle aged white men on THIS board are so bent out of shape about a sports logo.

Possible simple solution: lighten his skin. I would think that the Redskins would be more offensive than the Indians.

Back in the 1990's my local minor league team, a Cleveland affiliate, changed it's name from Indians to Red Stixx (local Indians would use sticks painted red to communicate between villages) - it was silly, but it worked for that team...for a while, then they changed it to Mudcats (Chattahoochee River catfish)- nobody was ever offended with that one.


Wouldn't that make things okay for everyone?

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Possible simple solution: lighten his skin. I would think that the Redskins would be more offensive than the Indians.

Back in the 1990's my local minor league team, a Cleveland affiliate, changed it's name from Indians to Red Stixx (local Indians would use sticks painted red to communicate between villages) - it was silly, but it worked for that team...for a while, then they changed it to Mudcats (Chattahoochee River catfish)- nobody was ever offended with that one.


Wouldn't that make things okay for everyone?

I brought this up in the thread that was started in the main forum: why not go back to the original, "vintage" Chief Wahoo? I asked if that would be offensive, and people said yes because of the shape. I always thought it was the skin color, but I guess the shape offends people, too, because not all Native Americans look like that.