Breaking News - Cleveland Indians

[JollyElm]

I know people get fired up about these things, especially with regard to Native Americans, and I certainly don't want to start a fight, but the question must be asked. When the snowball starts rolling downhill, when is it ever going to stop? And who is going to decide where it stops? Some snowflake who thinks 'Yankees' is offensive, because she's a southerner? A dog lover who finds 'Panthers,' 'Lions' and 'Jaguars' hateful to his sensibilities? My last name is Irish. Should I be p*ssed off to hell at Notre Dame or the Boston Celtics? No freakin' way!!! You can take each and every name in sports and find some pathetic reason to call it offensive. When will it ever stop??? Of course, there will be those of you who say anything referencing Indians is just on a whole different level, but is it really? Watch the floodgates open.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

I'm sure that most members of the indigenous community would not object if properly aware of/informed of the meaning behind the team name, and they should definitely have the final say in the matter. Was it not originally meant in the club's spirit of solidarity behind their Native teammate? Who is raising the bigger stink--I'm thinking it's more the PC crowd than anything else.

I totally understand abolishing "Redskins". That is offensive. While the term "Indians" is assuredly outdated, it's not the end of the world. First Nations people still use the term to refer to themselves. It's an incorrect term (we all know how it came to be), but it was never applied with racist intent from the inception of its use.

The Cleveland Sockalexii just doesn't have the same ring to it...

[sycks22]

Cleveland disappointments. Straight and accurate.

[paul]

Originally Posted by BillyCox3

I'm sure that most members of the indigenous community would not object if properly aware of/informed of the meaning behind the team name, and they should definitely have the final say in the matter. Was it not originally meant in the club's spirit of solidarity behind their Native teammate? Who is raising the bigger stink--I'm thinking it's more the PC crowd than anything else.

I totally understand abolishing "Redskins". That is offensive. While the term "Indians" is assuredly outdated, it's not the end of the world. First Nations people still use the term to refer to themselves. It's an incorrect term (we all know how it came to be), but it was never applied with racist intent from the inception of its use.

The Cleveland Sockalexii just doesn't have the same ring to it...

The last I heard, something like 90% of Native Americans were not offended by the names of the Indians, Braves, etc., even without necessarily knowing about Sockalexis. Who exactly are the owners of the Indians appeasing? I think it's more virtue signaling.

[hammertime]

Originally Posted by paul

The last I heard, something like 90% of Native Americans were not offended by the names of the Indians, Braves, etc., even without necessarily knowing about Sockalexis. Who exactly are the owners of the Indians appeasing? I think it's more virtue signaling.

Beat me to it. Several years ago the Washington Post pushed hard to get the Redskins to change their name, but they finally gave up after a poll found very few Natives were offended by the term. Of course flash forward to last year and they started up again, and were successful this time.

Personally I don't care strongly one way or another, names change over time. But we should at least be honest about who we're really appeasing...it's largely white progressives.

[campyfan39]

Perfect summation. This is also the group that is never satisfied and only get more emboldened by these concessions.

Originally Posted by hammertime

Beat me to it. Several years ago the Washington Post pushed hard to get the Redskins to change their name, but they finally gave up after a poll found very few Natives were offended by the term. Of course flash forward to last year and they started up again, and were successful this time.

Personally I don't care strongly one way or another, names change over time. But we should at least be honest about who we're really appeasing...it's largely white progressives.

[The-Cardfather]

The Cleveland Grovers.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

Perfect summation. This is also the group that is never satisfied and only get more emboldened by these concessions.

This is true. You want to go by what the demographic (Indians, Black, other) wants, but vocal activists often don't represent the views of the demographic. In fact, I'd wager that they rarely do. And one must not assume what they want, or do "what's good for them irrelevant to what they want," as activists often do.

A prime example is the activists in Minneapolis wanted to "defund the police," and the city council and Mayor went along with that. However, when they polled Blacks in Minneapolis, the majority didn't support that. The city council and Mayor made the common mistake of thinking the vocal activists were a proxy of Blacks in general. Nationally, polling has shown that the majority of Blacks in the United States don't support defund the police, and want more the same or more police in their neighborhoods. The majority want better (reform) policing where they live not less.

[Bobbycee]

Originally Posted by hammertime

Beat me to it. Several years ago the Washington Post pushed hard to get the Redskins to change their name, but they finally gave up after a poll found very few Natives were offended by the term. Of course flash forward to last year and they started up again, and were successful this time.

Personally I don't care strongly one way or another, names change over time. But we should at least be honest about who we're really appeasing...it's largely white progressives.

Nailed it!

[packs]

It would be pretty cool if they were the Naps again. Drum up some interest in old time pre-war baseball.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by hammertime

Personally I don't care strongly one way or another, names change over time. But we should at least be honest about who we're really appeasing...it's largely white progressives.

Post of the year.

[baseball tourist]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

Post of the year.

Incorrect. If you read the team’s release, this is being done to appease several indigenous stakeholder communities.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

but the question must be asked. When the snowball starts rolling downhill, when is it ever going to stop? And who is going to decide where it stops?

It never stops at a reasonable time. One thing that is certain about human nature: whenever a major societal issue is fixed, people will go way too far the other direction (as the herd mentality and social pressures to jump on that snowball are too much to stop)

[Angyale]

That they are doing it in a year where they are going to have a big salary dump. They are not going to be competiteve and I think some of the timing is to take attention away from the product they will be putting on the field.

Angyale

[NiceDocter]

In a nod to the age of the internet the new mascot will be called Chief Yahoo (with a Fire Chiefs hat to avoid problems)

[Tyruscobb]

I completely understand abandoning the Redskins name, and any mascot that depicts Native Americans in a bad light. However, I don’t understand the Indian aspect. It is just a name that Columbus coined, because he thought he landed in the Indies. He didn’t mean it in a derogatory way. Is the term Indian now unacceptable and political incorrect in every sense of its use? I’m not being flippant; I really don’t understand.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

I completely understand abandoning the Redskins name, and any mascot that depicts Native Americans in a bad light. However, I don’t understand the Indian aspect. It is just a name that Columbus coined, because he thought he landed in the Indies. He didn’t mean it in a derogatory way. Is the term Indian now unacceptable and political incorrect in every sense of its use? I’m not being flippant; I really don’t understand.

All of my Native friends and many others I happen to encounter can be heard using the term "Indian". Perhaps there are Native people who are offended by it, but I've never met a single person who was. Again, it's an incorrect term, not a racist one. Just a silly error from centuries ago, as you pointed out.

By all means, sentence the old mascot to the gallows, but strangely enough, the term "Indians" was in this instance one of unity between races, was it not?! Unfortunately, there's no way to convince the other side to take their blinders off.

[drcy]

One question is why are some people so attached to Cleveland keeping the name Indians. It's pretty much of a nothing, generic beyond generic name. There's nothing particularly special or specific or regional about it.

My complaint about teams names like the Tigers, Bears and Lions is they are so generic and unimaginitive, and Tigers and Lions have nothing to do with Detroit or Michigan. Maybe they had a bear come within 200 miles of Chicago 90 years ago, but it would have been pretty puny and 200 miles would place it in Wisconsin.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by drcy

One question is why are some people so attached to Cleveland keeping the name Indians. It's pretty much of a nothing, generic beyond generic name. There's nothing particularly special or specific or regional about it.

David--Surely you're familiar with why the team was originally named the Indians?! If more people knew the story, there would be a fight to keep the name, but that's not going to happen.

[Throttlesteer]

MLB is being wokeafied.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by BillyCox3

David--Surely you're familiar with why the team was originally named the Indians?! If more people knew the story, there would be a fight to keep the name, but that's not going to happen.

I know about Sockalexis, but don't know that the Sockalexes story behind the name is entirely true. That itself may be a bit of myth.

Woke and PC culture annoy me as much as it annoys anyone, but the general fair standard is it's should be up to the people if it's acceptable that a team use them as a mascot. The Scandanavian Minnesotans (I'm a Scandinavian descendant of Vikings via my dad who was from Minnesotans) chose the Vikings moniker. The team founders included Ole Haugsrud and H. P. Skoglund, which are about as Norwegian of names as you can find. I don't know, but I assume Irish-Americans in Boston are find with the name being called the Celtics. The co-namer of the Celtics was Irish-American, and the other, Walter A. Brown, may have been as well. Not sure what Walter A Brown was, but he was from metro-Boston (Irish-American central) and Brown is a British or Irish surname.

If the name offends Indians than that's the determiner. Though if the name does not then it does not. One cannot merely assume it offends them, and activists often don't represent the views of the majority of the demographic they represent. I don't know what is the polling on Indians on the issue

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by BillyCox3

David--Surely you're familiar with why the team was originally named the Indians?! If more people knew the story, there would be a fight to keep the name, but that's not going to happen.

Actually that story is a bit of a myth. Sockalexis played for a National league team based in Cleveland, and entirely different franchise that went belly up in 1899. He was 2 years dead by the time the AL team changed their name from the Naps. Many baseball history buffs think the name had more to do with the Boston Braves being a hot team at the time and Native American themed nicknames being popular in general.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by drcy

My complaint about teams names like the Tigers, Bears and Lions is they are so generic and unimaginitive, and Tigers and Lions have nothing to do with Detroit or Michigan. Maybe they had a bear come within 200 miles of Chicago 90 years ago, but it would have been pretty puny and 200 miles would place it in Wisconsin.

This is incorrect, I would say all of the older franchise names have deeper meaning (many from their original locations of origin). The Detroit Tigers were named as a tribute to the Civil War Brigade for Detroit, "The Tigers". The original name of the Wolverines was never official. The Portmouth Spartans were relocated to Detroit and were renamed the Lions as a tribute to the popular sports team in the city...The Tigers. It was a theme.

The Bears were again a young franchise named to reflect the popularity of the other popular team of the city and continue a theme as well...The Cubs. They were previously the Decatur Staleys and named after a starch company that owned them. Not exactly a catchy name.

[Tao_Moko]

Originally Posted by JustinD

This is incorrect, I would say all of the older franchise names have deeper meaning (many from their original locations of origin). The Detroit Tigers were named as a tribute to the Civil War Brigade for Detroit, "The Tigers". The original name of the Wolverines was never official. The Portmouth Spartans were relocated to Detroit and were renamed the Lions as a tribute to the popular sports team in the city...The Tigers. It was a theme.

The Bears were again a young franchise named to reflect the popularity of the other popular team of the city and continue a theme as well...The Cubs. They were previously the Decatur Staleys and named after a starch company that owned them. Not exactly a catchy name.

My great grandfather played for the Decatur Staleys and that was a sense of pride because he also worked at A.E. Staley Manufacturing and raised on a soy farm who supplied the plant. He unfortunately missed the most important year of their teams history and continued to play on what was more of a club after the Halas team moved up. The history I grew up with was that "Da Bears" were a continued theme playing off of the massively popular baseball franchise as you mention above.

[Mark17]

The whole thing is dumb. But if they are going to change the name, why not Cleveland Native Americans? Montreal Canadians is okay, isn't it?

I'm in Minnesota and wonder why teams can be called Vikings, or Celtics, or Irish, but not Indians. It actually seems a bit racist to eliminate Indians from the league, after 100 years. I mean, are Indians offensive to anybody?

Makes no intellectual sense. Some people just like to tell others what to do (or they will claim to be victimized and offended.)

[baseball tourist]

Originally Posted by Mark17

The whole thing is dumb. But if they are going to change the name, why not Cleveland Native Americans? Montreal Canadians is okay, isn't it?

The Montreal NHL team isn’t the Canadians, they are the Canadiens


French Canadians (also referred to as Canadiens; French: Canadiens français, pronounced [kanadjɛ̃ fʁɑ̃sɛ]; feminine form: Canadiennes françaises, pronounced [kanadjɛn fʁɑ̃sɛz]), or Franco-Canadians (French: Franco-Canadiens), are an ethnic group who trace their ancestry to French colonists who settled in Canada from the 17th century onward. Today, people of French heritage make up the majority of native speakers of French in Canada, who in turn account for about 22 per cent of the country's total population.

[prewarsports]

Actually, that is exactly what I meant, it is believed that is the first time the term "ticket scalping" was widely used in baseball, when people were charging extra to see Sockalexis play (although it was surely used before that).

[oldeboo]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

However, I don’t understand the Indian aspect. It is just a name that Columbus coined, because he thought he landed in the Indies. He didn’t mean it in a derogatory way. Is the term Indian now unacceptable and political incorrect in every sense of its use? I’m not being flippant; I really don’t understand.

I'm not sure anyone understands it.

This is from the National Museum of the American Indian:
"What is the correct terminology: American Indian, Indian, Native American, or Native?
All of these terms are acceptable. The consensus, however, is that whenever possible, Native people prefer to be called by their specific tribal name. In the United States, Native American has been widely used but is falling out of favor with some groups, and the terms American Indian or indigenous American are preferred by many Native people."

Years back, I believed Indian was the acceptable terminology and was later lead to believe Native American was more appropriate. I think I remember reading a poll awhile ago that many people that identify with this group find the term Native American more offensive than just Indian. My memory could be foggy on that though. I never mean to offend anyone, but it's hard to tell which one is preferred. I guess like anything, when you're dealing with people someone will complain.

I'm sure at some point team names like Yankees, Vikings, Celtics, etc will be forced to change as well. Once the animal rights advocates get going the animal names will vanish too.

Stanford used to use Indian as their name back in the day and changed their name to just a color, Cardinal. Their mascot is now a tree. Maybe some sort of plant or tree could be used for Cleveland. I think Buckeyes is taken.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by oldeboo

Maybe some sort of plant or tree could be used for Cleveland...

No. I'd be offended.

[MCyganik]

My vote is for the Cleveland Steamers, especially since they’ll be taking a dump... in salary, this year if they trade Lindor.

[71buc]

My father is a life long 80 year old Tribe fan from Sharon Pennsylvania. He quit wearing his Chief Wahoo coat last year. I asked him why? I asked him if he thought the team name and Chief Wahoo were racist symbols. He answered, “I don’t know, and it’s not my place to tell Native Americans what they should or should not find racially offensive or insensitive. It’s just coat, I’ll survive” He is a very smooth old guy. My mother always described him as James Dean mixed with a Miles Davis sense of cool. My mother was right. I have spent 57 years trying to measure up to him and have always fallen woefully short.

[Pack The Ripper]

Originally Posted by MCyganik

My vote is for the Cleveland Steamers, especially since they’ll be taking a dump... in salary, this year if they trade Lindor.

Well, the city already has the Cleveland Browns so that actually makes perfect sense.

[philo98]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

I know people get fired up about these things, especially with regard to Native Americans, and I certainly don't want to start a fight, but the question must be asked. When the snowball starts rolling downhill, when is it ever going to stop? And who is going to decide where it stops? Some snowflake who thinks 'Yankees' is offensive, because she's a southerner? A dog lover who finds 'Panthers,' 'Lions' and 'Jaguars' hateful to his sensibilities? My last name is Irish. Should I be p*ssed off to hell at Notre Dame or the Boston Celtics? No freakin' way!!! You can take each and every name in sports and find some pathetic reason to call it offensive. When will it ever stop??? Of course, there will be those of you who say anything referencing Indians is just on a whole different level, but is it really? Watch the floodgates open.

Pretty much agree with you on this. One of the reasons I left the US and only make occasional trips back to attend MLB games or sports collector shows. Im on the other side of the world now, manage a team that consists of 6 different religions, 8 different ethnicities, and we all celebrate each others holidays etc and we all get along. Try doing that in the US.

[Vegas Cards]

The announcement is anticlimactic. The movement and support for this change developed over decades. It was just a matter of timing.

[ramram]

MLB will make out like bandits. Those who want the old jerseys, hats, etc will be grabbing them up for sentimental reasons while the new team-name jerseys, hats, etc will fly off the shelves for obvious reasons as well.

Rob M