Chief Wahoo in the Crosshairs

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

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.

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.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by dgo71

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.

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.

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

[packs]

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.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by steve B

How are they portraying in a negative light?
Steve B

You really can't be serious, right?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by dgo71

You really can't be serious, right?

If you see people as people....... both are just happy guys doing their thing.*

If you see people as part of a certain group with whatever attaches to that.....well, I suppose they are stereotypes.

Until "we" can see people as people, we'll always have problems.

* Part of it is also that that as shown, there's also no historical context. In his time Al Jolson was ok. As were minstrel shows. It's only after that stuff became unpopular that it became negative. Who are the biggest collectors of most offensive stuff? Yep, usually someone from the group offended. Quite a puzzle there eh?

Steve B

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by steve B

If you see people as people....... both are just happy guys doing their thing.*

If you see people as part of a certain group with whatever attaches to that.....well, I suppose they are stereotypes.

Until "we" can see people as people, we'll always have problems.

* Part of it is also that that as shown, there's also no historical context. In his time Al Jolson was ok. As were minstrel shows. It's only after that stuff became unpopular that it became negative. Who are the biggest collectors of most offensive stuff? Yep, usually someone from the group offended. Quite a puzzle there eh?

Steve B

Empty platitudes aside, there is no denying the intent behind portraying these people in the way they are depicted. And it wasn't hey, let's portray just a couple of happy dudes doing their thing. That's laughably naive. Why does historical context matter? We're not having this discussion in 1922. Obviously it was "ok at the time." That doesn't mean that image shouldn't be viewed as offensive TODAY. Which is the major point of contention here; one of those images is still in use today. If a team had a mascot in blackface I'm sure everyone would agree it would be inappropriate. So why is Chief Wahoo given a pass? Why is one ok and the other not?

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by dgo71

Empty platitudes aside, there is no denying the intent behind portraying these people in the way they are depicted. And it wasn't hey, let's portray just a couple of happy dudes doing their thing. That's laughably naive. Why does historical context matter? We're not having this discussion in 1922. Obviously it was "ok at the time." That doesn't mean that image shouldn't be viewed as offensive TODAY. Which is the major point of contention here; one of those images is still in use today. If a team had a mascot in blackface I'm sure everyone would agree it would be inappropriate. So why is Chief Wahoo given a pass? Why is one ok and the other not?

Chief Wahoo wasn't drawn maliciously. That's the difference.

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

[steve B]

Originally Posted by dgo71

Empty platitudes aside, there is no denying the intent behind portraying these people in the way they are depicted. And it wasn't hey, let's portray just a couple of happy dudes doing their thing. That's laughably naive. Why does historical context matter? We're not having this discussion in 1922. Obviously it was "ok at the time." That doesn't mean that image shouldn't be viewed as offensive TODAY. Which is the major point of contention here; one of those images is still in use today. If a team had a mascot in blackface I'm sure everyone would agree it would be inappropriate. So why is Chief Wahoo given a pass? Why is one ok and the other not?

Yes, it is and deliberately so.

The point remains that until we collectively stop seeing race from either a positive or negative aspect there will always be problems. Human nature what it is I'm not exactly holding my breath waiting.

The bit of art was drawn for Cleveland Scene magazines cover in 2012. Should the artist not draw it since it's not 1922? As a magazine cover about the issue it makes a pretty solid statement. Without that context it's lessened. Context matters a lot.

Interestingly, the guy shown in the other picture later apologized for the facepaint and headdress, but not the team name or sweatshirt.
http://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/201...mbrace-change/

And what are we all to think of things like this?
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/...ostume-7802016

Overall, I think there are much bigger issues with the way Native Americans are treated to this day than a few sports logos.

Steve B

[dgo71]

I agree there are bigger issues but that wasn't what this thread was about. I have a hard time believing the tough issues will be addressed anytime soon if grown people aren't even willing to negotiate about a cartoon mascot. Not sure what point you're trying to make with the link to the native American in blackface. Are you suggesting one incident of bigotry cancels out another, or justifies another? And yes, the artist who drew the bobblehead image was making the sole point that one image is offensive and the other doesn't seem to be, and how silly that is. Simple as that. The artist didn't feel the need to cloud the real issue with tangential debates about historical context that serve only to direct the conversation away from the actual point. I don't agree that seeing people as people is the solution, although I understand the sentiment. The problem with that is it implies that everyone is the same. I think the solution lies in seeing our differences and accepting them, and not marginalizing a group because of them. As long as otherwise rational adults feel changing a sports logo is too heavy a price to pay to show respect to a different group of people though, I'm not holding my breath either.