Indians to remove chief Wahoo stating in 2019

[CollectingAmericasPastime]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

I suspect that's because you're assuming that it's either the color or the shape, or at least because your wording is instructing people to choose one or the other. There's no reason that you can't have an image more than one of whose features is offensive to a particular group.

If it's not the color OR the shape, then what's offensive about it?

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

If it's not the color OR the shape, then what's offensive about it?

I suppose capitalization is clearer than italics. The answer you're looking for is "the color AND the shape."

[CollectingAmericasPastime]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

I suppose capitalization is clearer than italics. The answer you're looking for is "the color AND the shape."

Whoa whoa whoa. You can't have "AND" in there, when they are completely different logos. The modern Chief Wahoo is "red" and the vintage Chief Wahoo sports a shape and skin color that is commonly seen with other, more realistic Native American-inspired logos, for example the Chicago Blackhawks and Washington Redskins, neither of which have much controversy (or any at all) around their logos.

[Louieman]

My two cents, glad to see it removed. These discussions are meant to be complicated and nuanced, and it's something we need way more of, instead of the sensationalism-driven shouting match you see on the news. The way I see it, it's the least that can be done, given the history of how the Natives were treated from Columbus onward. It's not going to do much, but it's the right thing to do and it helps just a little bit.

I generally believe that those who see this as a pc issue or as something irksome to their livelihood are most likely coming from a place where you have the privilege to see it like that. For many minorities, the effects of oppression are experienced daily, where it smacks you in the face. It's not subtle. More importantly, it's ingrained within the history and the institution of the country itself, where to this day this oppression persists. Take for example, housing value appropriation.

But this is not to say that if you're a middle class middle aged white male, your life isn't hard. That's not what Black Lives Matter or protesters who point out Chief Wahoo are trying to do. It's about exposing the actual history behind how things came to be in this country, and when you consider that history and see what brought it to this point, it is important to expose it and point it out, so that we do something about it to change it for the better. Because I honestly think if people could see that story, they'd be happy to help improve things.

[mechanicalman]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Whoa whoa whoa. You can't have "AND" in there, when they are completely different logos. The modern Chief Wahoo is "red" and the vintage Chief Wahoo sports a shape and skin color that is commonly seen with other, more realistic Native American-inspired logos, for example the Chicago Blackhawks and Washington Redskins, neither of which have much controversy (or any at all) around their logos.

Ok, I’ll play Kyle.

I looked at both the modern and vintage logos. As a run of the mill white dude, they do not OFFEND me, per se. The impression I get, however, from those logos is that Native Americans, (no, wait, Indians) are ugly, goofy, clowns not to be taken seriously. They seem to marginalize, and not honor, people of Native American descent like my wife, whom I find to be beautiful.

In my opinion, I don’t think it’s wrong to reference Native American tribes like the Blackhawks or Seminoles so long as the visual expression truly honors the people and does not portray an unflattering caricature.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by mechanicalman

Ok, I’ll play Kyle.

I looked at both the modern and vintage logos. As a run of the mill white dude, they do not OFFEND me, per se. The impression I get, however, from those logos is that Native Americans, (no, wait, Indians) are ugly, goofy, clowns not to be taken seriously. They seem to marginalize, and not honor, people of Native American descent like my wife, whom I find to be beautiful.

In my opinion, I don’t think it’s wrong to reference Native American tribes like the Blackhawks or Seminoles so long as the visual expression truly honors the people and does not portray an unflattering caricature.

I don't want to wade into this divisive debate, but I tend to agree with this point of view. Not that I profess to have any special philosophical or moral insight into this topic, and am a Nordic-American from the Midwest.

To be honest, I've found the lame mascots to be such as the Lions and Tigers in Detroit-- not only are there no lions and tigers in Michigan (sans Zoo), but they lack imagination. And, of course, there are the now geographical oxymorons such as the Los Angeles Lakers and Arizona Cardinals, which aren't lame so much as funny.

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by drcy

I don't want to wade into this divisive debate, but I tend to agree with this point of view. Not that I profess to have any special philosophical or moral insight into this topic, and am a Nordic-American from the Midwest.

To be honest, I've found the lame mascots to be such as the Lions and Tigers in Detroit-- not only are there no lions and tigers in Michigan (sans Zoo), but they lack imagination. And, of course, there are the now geographical oxymorons such as the Los Angeles Lakers and Arizona Cardinals.

Or Utah Jazz...

[drcy]

The Cardinals, Jazz and Lakers have character due to their curiousness. I like those due to that.

I'm a U of Wisconsin alum, born and raised in Wisconsin, and saw just one badger in the wild my whole time there. Though if you read the history, the Badgers didn't directly come from the animal but from 1800s miners who badger-like dug holes.

My dad was a Minnesota alum and I'd tease him about the wimpy gopher mascot. "You have to have a manly mascot, like a badger or a wolverine." Though at least they have a lot of gophers in Minneapolis, and I suppose that large group of them could beat you up.

[CollectingAmericasPastime]

Originally Posted by mechanicalman

Ok, I’ll play Kyle.

I looked at both the modern and vintage logos. As a run of the mill white dude, they do not OFFEND me, per se. The impression I get, however, from those logos is that Native Americans, (no, wait, Indians) are ugly, goofy, clowns not to be taken seriously. They seem to marginalize, and not honor, people of Native American descent like my wife, whom I find to be beautiful.

In my opinion, I don’t think it’s wrong to reference Native American tribes like the Blackhawks or Seminoles so long as the visual expression truly honors the people and does not portray an unflattering caricature.

Ok so it's the simple fact that it's a caricature that bothers you?

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

You have made two points worth repeating.

1) Because more than one logo exists it isn't possible for one of them to have more than one feature that is offensive. Got that, everyone?

2) The two logos below sport the same shape and skin color. Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

1) Goodness. I was asking a question regarding what is actually offensive about the modern Chief Wahoo, using the old Chief Wahoo as a measuring stick since it has a different shape and skin color. All I've ever heard is the red color being the issue.

2) The Blackhawks = similar skin color to vintage Chief Wahoo. The Redskins = similar shape to vintage Chief Wahoo, particularly in the nose. So where's the outrage over those other logos?


Here's an interesting article on the subject. Yenyo, the Indian interviewed, says that this isn't far enough, that it should be removed immediately along with the nickname "Indians".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.0dd79c5c2364

[baseball tourist]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

2) The Blackhawks = similar skin color to vintage Chief Wahoo. The Redskins = similar shape to vintage Chief Wahoo, particularly in the nose. So where's the outrage over those other logos?

The controversy over the Redskins name is actually quite robust.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.c174493f604e

[SAllen2556]

Originally Posted by drcy

To be honest, I've found the lame mascots to be such as the Lions and Tigers in Detroit-- not only are there no lions and tigers in Michigan (sans Zoo), but they lack imagination. .

Watch it bub. Don't be rippin' on my Jungaleers. I'd rather be a Tiger than a Packer any day. Now if that's not the dumbest mascot ever, I don't know what is.

b1shipt-jpg-3.jpg

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Whoa whoa whoa. You can't have "AND" in there, when they are completely different logos. The modern Chief Wahoo is "red" and the vintage Chief Wahoo sports a shape and skin color that is commonly seen with other, more realistic Native American-inspired logos, for example the Chicago Blackhawks and Washington Redskins, neither of which have much controversy (or any at all) around their logos.

You have made two points worth repeating.

1) Because more than one logo exists it isn't possible for one of them to have more than one feature that is offensive. Got that, everyone?

2) The two logos below sport the same shape and skin color. Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

[Jeffrompa]

I love it