The Cleveland Guardians? Yes, It's Official

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by BobC

Maybe what the Cleveland BBC could have done was to check with people from India then to see if they had an issue with their nationality being used as the name for a professional sports team, and if not, just dump any association with the Chief Wahoo mascot or anything related to native Americans and simply declare from now on the Cleveland Indians moniker had nothing to do with native Americans anymore. As someone else pointed out, not all ethnic or other groups have an objection to the use of their name like that. At least I've never heard of anyone complaing about the Fighting Irish, Celtics, or the Vikings, among others.

Well, the Cleveland BBC can do as they see fit. Free market and all. They also dumped Chief Wahoo ~3 years ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BobC]

Originally Posted by BCauley

Well, the Cleveland BBC can do as they see fit. Free market and all. They also dumped Chief Wahoo ~3 years ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They don't put Chief Wahoo on the uniforms, but last I heard the team still owns the copyright and I believe they still have Chief Wahoo adorned items selling in their gift shops. So they did not completely dump the mascot and are still apparently making some money off it.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Personally, I think the name change is long overdue, but I don't think they made a great choice with "Guardians".

Also, out of curiosity–with all the discussion of "white privilege" and "cancel culture"–is there is a single post on this thread from someone who is not white?

[packs]

There is all this talk about cancel culture etc. but the same people who rally against cancel culture, which is ultimately based around respect, are people who took huge issue with things like kneeling during a song or wanting to have a say in what bathrooms people use. Everyone on either side thinks the argument is dumb to be having in the first place.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

There is all this talk about cancel culture etc. but the same people who rally against cancel culture, which is ultimately based around respect, are people who took huge issue with things like kneeling during a song or wanting to have a say in what bathrooms people use. Everyone on either side thinks the argument is dumb to be having in the first place.

I personally have no issue with players kneeling respectfully during the anthem to make a point, but at the same time I think cancel culture is getting out of hand when it targets people like Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson.

[packs]

That might be because you weren't affected by their lived lives.

Do I think cancel culture can go too far? Yes, but ultimately it is a social view based in respect and shifting attitudes toward social issues that would have either been indifferent to an issue or even encouraged it by omission. For example, I don't think there's any reason for a woman to put up with sexual harassment at work while they're trying to make a living. If you're accused and guilty of that behavior, you haven't been cancelled. You've been held accountable. And while people might like calling it cancel culture in a detrimental way, it's more about accountability for me.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

That might be because you weren't affected by their lived lives.

Do I think cancel culture can go too far? Yes, but ultimately it is a social view based in respect and shifting attitudes toward social issues that would have either been indifferent to an issue or even encouraged it by omission. For example, I don't think there's any reason for a woman to put up with sexual harassment at work while they're trying to make a living. If you're accused and guilty of that behavior, you haven't been cancelled. You've been held accountable. And while people might like calling it cancel culture in a detrimental way, it's more about accountability for me.

I have no problem with people taking a strong stand against sexual harassment (and worse) in the workplace. It's the token gestures against historical figures who are long since dead, that I find more problematic in some cases. Learn from history, don't pull a 1984 and try to erase it.

By the way I'd be willing to bet many highly respected names from history were anti-Semitic. Should we cancel them too?

[gawaintheknight]

I wonder if there are any people on the board as a whole who aren't white men....

Ted

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Personally, I think the name change is long overdue, but I don't think they made a great choice with "Guardians".

Also, out of curiosity–with all the discussion of "white privilege" and "cancel culture"–is there is a single post on this thread from someone who is not white?

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by BobC

They don't put Chief Wahoo on the uniforms, but last I heard the team still owns the copyright and I believe they still have Chief Wahoo adorned items selling in their gift shops. So they did not completely dump the mascot and are still apparently making some money off it.

That is correct:

https://magazine.promomarketing.com/...erican-groups/

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Tabe

That is correct:

https://magazine.promomarketing.com/...erican-groups/

Yup, and I'd mentioned before how I wondered had the Cleveland team been giving a cut of their money to native American tribes and/or charities all along, how those native Americans would have reacted had the team decided to change the name anyway, and because of that, informed them they weren't getting money anymore. So as that article you linked to says, the team still sells Chief Wahoo items, but now donates a part of those proceeds to native Americans. So if the native Americans are trully against the use of the term Indians and Chief Wahoo image, wouldn't you expect them to turn down the money and tell the team to just stop all use and sale of items with that name and image? How much anyone want to bet they take the money? Oh, there will still be other native Americans that would complain and want the use stopped, but who can those still dissenting native Americans really blame then?

[packs]

Originally Posted by BobC

Yup, and I'd mentioned before how I wondered had the Cleveland team been giving a cut of their money to native American tribes and/or charities all along, how those native Americans would have reacted had the team decided to change the name anyway, and because of that, informed them they weren't getting money anymore. So as that article you linked to says, the team still sells Chief Wahoo items, but now donates a part of those proceeds to native Americans. So if the native Americans are trully against the use of the term Indians and Chief Wahoo image, wouldn't you expect them to turn down the money and tell the team to just stop all use and sale of items with that name and image? How much anyone want to bet they take the money? Oh, there will still be other native Americans that would complain and want the use stopped, but who can those still dissenting native Americans really blame then?

I don't understand that premise. How do you feel about lawsuits? Should someone accept a monetary award for something they were wronged by?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't understand that premise. How do you feel about lawsuits? Should someone accept a monetary award for something they were wronged by?

Lawsuits for what? There is no lawsuit that anyone has officially filed against the Cleveland team to my knowledge. And even so, you usually have to show there are some monetary damages incurred to be able to get anything significant money-wise through the courts.

I was simply speculating earlier on how the use of the word "Indians" and the image of Chief Wahoo may have been perceived by the native American community had the Cleveland team been giving/donating money to them all along as a sort of residual/licensing type of payment for the use of that term and image. I was aware of the fact that even though the team stopped using the Chief Wahoo image after 2018, they still held the copyright to it and have continued to produce and sell items with the image on it. Except now, they are going to be donating some of the future proceeds from those sales to native American groups. I didn't bring that point up before, but since a link to a story telling about the future donations was posted by someone else, I figured I'd bring it into the discussion as something else to keep in mind and look at in the overall scope of things. I am merely putting the question out there that if a group feels wronged about a name or image that is associated with them, does the fact that someone offers them money to more or less pay for the use of that term or image change the situation somehow. Also raising the question of how does it possibly impact the feelings and actions of other members of the "wronged group" that aren't getting any of the money now being paid or, don't care about the money and still want the use of the name and image eliminated entirely. You potentially end up with different factions of the "wronged group" possibly arguing among themselves as to what is the correct thing to do. So now who's right or wrong? Which group do you listen to as to how to make things right if the "wronged group" can't even agree among themselves as to the proper way to handle or fix things?

There are very few universal truths we have in life as humans that are going to be 100% accurate, 100% of the time. The old adage is always about death and taxes, but there are still people currently, and in the past, that have been on this planet that ended up never paying taxes, so that just leaves death as a universal given. However, another universal truth for humans is that we will never all agree 100% on anything. There either is, has been, or will be, at least one human that will disagree with every other human to ever exist on literally every topic, idea or question that ever has or will come up. It is human nature, and the fact that we are all different is possibly the greatest and worst things about us, all at the same time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...f9a_story.html

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by BobC

Y So if the native Americans are trully against the use of the term Indians and Chief Wahoo image, wouldn't you expect them to turn down the money and tell the team to just stop all use and sale of items with that name and image? How much anyone want to bet they take the money? Oh, there will still be other native Americans that would complain and want the use stopped, but who can those still dissenting native Americans really blame then?

Are you suggesting that the fault lies with the recipient of the (legal) bribe rather than the entity offering it?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

Are you suggesting that the fault lies with the recipient of the (legal) bribe rather than the entity offering it?

I am not suggesting anything, merely raising the question about how others would perceive this issue given that money may be involved. I was asking the question to you to think about it and how you would answer it to yourself and others. In your response, you didn't answer the question, just asked me a question in return, if I was implying something. And no, I am not.

However, you made a comment about a bribe being made. My understanding of the definition of a bribe is that it is a payment in some form to get someone to do something for, or act in one's favor. So if you are suggesting that such a payment may be being made to get the native Americans to stop complaining about Chief Wahoo while the Cleveland team keeps selling images of him for a profit, I think you are technically correct and that could fall under the perceived definition of a bribe. But my further understanding of a bribe, at least in regards to an illegal one, is that both parties are at fault and equally guilty. So if you assume the same logic holds true for a legal bribe as well, wouldn't you assume that both parties are also guilty in that instance/situation as well?

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by BobC

Yup, and I'd mentioned before how I wondered had the Cleveland team been giving a cut of their money to native American tribes and/or charities all along, how those native Americans would have reacted had the team decided to change the name anyway, and because of that, informed them they weren't getting money anymore. So as that article you linked to says, the team still sells Chief Wahoo items, but now donates a part of those proceeds to native Americans. So if the native Americans are trully against the use of the term Indians and Chief Wahoo image, wouldn't you expect them to turn down the money and tell the team to just stop all use and sale of items with that name and image? How much anyone want to bet they take the money? Oh, there will still be other native Americans that would complain and want the use stopped, but who can those still dissenting native Americans really blame then?

If the tribes refused the money, do you think Cleveland would stop selling the items? If the answer to that is no, if you're the tribes, wouldn't it better to get something out of it if the selling is going to happen anyway?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Tabe

If the tribes refused the money, do you think Cleveland would stop selling the items? If the answer to that is no, if you're the tribes, wouldn't it better to get something out of it if the selling is going to happen anyway?

Chris,

In Post #308 I responded to another person's comment referring to the payment of money to the native Americans as a type of bribe, albeit a "legal" bribe as he called it. I mentioned how in the case of illegal bribes that both parties are normally considered guilty, so shouldn't that same logic carry over to both parties in "legal" bribe situations as well then? And if that logic does carry over, then wouldn't the acceptance of a "legal" bribe make the native Americans guilty, at least the ones who took the money, of also not really caring so much about the use of the word "Indians" or the Chief Wahoo image? To be truly innocent, isn't the only real way a party involved in a bribe situation could not be considered guilty or complicit to some extent is to simply not accept the bribe money at all?

Look at the case of Joe Jackson, who is deemed guilty mostly due to his having kept money given to him to allegedly throw a World Series. He supposedly tried to not take the money, and even went so far as to tell the team owner Comiskey about it, and even asked Comiskey what he should do with the money. According to testimony, Jackson was told to keep it, and as the story goes he eventually used it to pay for a relative's hospital bills, so he technically didn't benefit from it himself. Now put the native Americans in Jackson's place and ask yourself the same questions!