Indians to remove chief Wahoo stating in 2019

[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

[seanofjapan]

Haven't read through this thread in its entirety but just skimming through it I'm surprised by the amount of irrelevant political talking points have been thrown in (why is there a whole page talking about climate change in a thread purportedly about a baseball team logo????)

[steve B]

Originally Posted by seanofjapan

Haven't read through this thread in its entirety but just skimming through it I'm surprised by the amount of irrelevant political talking points have been thrown in (why is there a whole page talking about climate change in a thread purportedly about a baseball team logo????)

Well..... a lot of hot air is being released discussing it elsewhere I'm sure.

[Stampsfan]

Originally Posted by seanofjapan

Haven't read through this thread in its entirety but just skimming through it I'm surprised by the amount of irrelevant political talking points have been thrown in (why is there a whole page talking about climate change in a thread purportedly about a baseball team logo????)

Two reasons for me:

1. It was in reference to Jane Fonda doing the tomahawk chop, and why we give the Hollywood folks any credence in (almost ) any discussion.

2. In a small way, to attempt to deflect the discussion and limit the vitriolic comments going back and forth among us.

Hope this clarifies for you.

[Mark70Z]

Opinion: I’m fairly sure the Indians name and mascot were designed to be a good thing and not designed to be offensive. Just because some take offense to it doesn’t necessarily mean it should be removed. What’s the ultimate goal? Remove the charicarure, then I’m sure next will be the Indians name, correct? Where does the political correctness stop? If I was an Indians fan I’d be upset about it that’s for sure.

I’m sure some people are offended that I go to church or that the church exists. That’s fine; I’m still going...

[timn1]

What does your going to church have to do with the Indians logo?? That is the weirdest and worst argument I've seen yet in this train-wreck of a thread.

Your analogy is ridiculous. No one could care less whether you go to church or not.

But if you got your church to adopt a slogan like "Atheists-goin'-to-Hell" and a logo that portrayed atheists as badly as Chief Wahoo portrays Native Americans, and then sold caps and T-shirts with that logo to every member of the church, then you would be doing something that was offensive to a particular group of people, and they would be reasonable in asking you to stop doing it. Why is that so hard to grasp?

Originally Posted by Mark70Z

Opinion: I’m fairly sure the Indians name and mascot were designed to be a good thing and not designed to be offensive. Just because some take offense to it doesn’t necessarily mean it should be removed. What’s the ultimate goal? Remove the charicarure, then I’m sure next will be the Indians name, correct? Where does the political correctness stop? If I was an Indians fan I’d be upset about it that’s for sure.

I’m sure some people are offended that I go to church or that the church exists. That’s fine; I’m still going...

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by timn1

then you would be doing something that was offensive to a particular group of people, and they would be reasonable in asking you to stop doing it.

Originally Posted by rainier2004

its just about respect.

You two keep throwing around words like "offensive" and "respect", but only when it fits your ideals. As a veteran, Kaepernick kneeling for the national anthem offends me and a large group of the population and we think it's disrespectful, but people like you defend his right to do so.

I realize the situations are totally different, but they're also the same in that he's (Kaepernick) doing the very same thing (offending and disrespecting) to a group of people that you're claiming Chief Wahoo does. Native Americans only represent 2% of the population. Do you think more than 2% of the population is disrespected and offended by Kaepernick kneeling?

[rainier2004]

So David, removing the logo is offensive and/or disrespectful to you? Please explain.

[orly57]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

You two keep throwing around words like "offensive" and "respect", but only when it fits your ideals. As a veteran, Kaepernick kneeling for the national anthem offends me and a large group of the population and we think it's disrespectful, but people like you defend his right to do so.

I realize the situations are totally different, but they're also the same in that he's (Kaepernick) doing the very same thing (offending and disrespecting) to a group of people that you're claiming Chief Wahoo does. Native Americans only represent 2% of the population. Do you think more than 2% of the population is disrespected and offended by Kaepernick kneeling?

David, Kaepernick kneeling was an example of an INDIVIDUAL expressing his right to free speech. His exercising that right offended enough people that he is currently unemployed. So it appears that the people he offended won that standoff. Now, some of the same people offended by Kaepernick, are calling others "snowflakes" for being offended by the Indian caricature.
A logo is neither speech, nor is it an expression from an individual. It is an image that represents a major league franchise. This logo is not a free speech issue.
When Kaepernick knelt, I didn't like it, but defended his right to free speech. I was not surprised or angered that he lost his job. The right to free speech protects you from GOVERNMENT action, but your employer doesn't have to put up with it. If The Indians or MLB have made a business decision, and chose to change a logo that could be viewed by some as racist, then they are as much in their rights to do it as the NFL and its execs were in blackballing Kaepernick.

[rainier2004]

Originally Posted by Mark70Z

Opinion: I’m fairly sure the Indians name and mascot were designed to be a good thing and not designed to be offensive. Just because some take offense to it doesn’t necessarily mean it should be removed.

Are you sure about that or was little thought put into it t begin with? Why wouldn't you remove it "just b/c some take offense"? Its not about PC, its just about respect.

[Orioles1954]

I'm in the camp of remove the logo and keep the name.

[CollectingAmericasPastime]

Originally Posted by rainier2004

Are you sure about that or was little thought put into it t begin with? Why wouldn't you remove it "just b/c some take offense"? Its not about PC, its just about respect.

Why don't you ask the creator of Chief Wahoo, who passed just this past December. The logo was literally created to show happiness and inclusion into the Cleveland community.

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

[Mark70Z]

Originally Posted by rainier2004

Are you sure about that or was little thought put into it t begin with? Why wouldn't you remove it "just b/c some take offense"? Its not about PC, its just about respect.

I respectfully disagree with your opinion.

Also, it sounded like, in another of your responses, that you think conservativism is not your cup of tea (you chose to use different phraseology); why don’t you respect their views and values? “It’s just about respect”, correct?

[CollectingAmericasPastime]

Originally Posted by baseball tourist

The controversy over the Redskins name is actually quite robust.

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

That's about the name, not the logo. It was mentioned that a supposed issue with the Chief Wahoo logo is that it isn't what Native Americans look like. The Redskins logo doesn't look like all Native Americans either, which is the point I was trying to make. Their name is an entirely separate issue.