Indians removing Chief Wahoo

[bigruss]

Always got to play that “white man” card. What would you say to the millions of white people who aren’t offended by Notre Dame’s nickname? I’m all for this logo getting scrapped because of its racist undertones, but please stop playing the “white man” card anytime someone isn’t outraged by something. I’m sure there are plenty of other people of varying races & genders who gives two s***s about this logo.

I honestly don't care (in respect to whether it should still be used or not) if a mascot offends one group or not. I think that as a society, as humans in 2018, we should be able to look at something called Chief Wahoo and collectively agree that it's not a good image to have around.

 

And the reason the white man card keeps getting played is because white men keep coming in here and saying their s***. If white men would more commonly not have horrible takes they wouldn't get picked on so much.

 

 

[Chicago White Sox]

I honestly don't care (in respect to whether it should still be used or not) if a mascot offends one group or not. I think that as a society, as humans in 2018, we should be able to look at something called Chief Wahoo and collectively agree that it's not a good image to have around.

 

And the reason the white man card keeps getting played is because white men keep coming in here and saying their s***. If white men would more commonly not have horrible takes they wouldn't get picked on so much.

I’m pretty sure you just assumed a Native American on this site wasn’t one because he wasn’t offended by this. If you don’t agree with someone’s take on this issue, then simply call them ignorant. You don’t need to play the skin color blame game. Like I said, there are plenty of people of all races & genders who are not offended by this mascot. Just go to a Cleveland Indians game if you don’t believe me. I’m all for getting rid of the logo, I just don’t appreciate people who aren’t offended by this mascot being labeled with this condescending “white man” moniker by a subset of posters here. It’s a dangerous game to make assumptions about people based on their perceived skin color.

[Panerista]

I’m pretty sure you just assumed a Native American on this site wasn’t one because he wasn’t offended by this. If you don’t agree with someone’s take on this issue, then simply call them ignorant. You don’t need to play the skin color blame game. Like I said, there are plenty of people of all races & genders who are not offended by this mascot. Just go to a Cleveland Indians game if you don’t believe me. I’m all for getting rid of the logo, I just don’t appreciate people who aren’t offended by this mascot being labeled with this condescending “white man” moniker by a subset of posters here. It’s a dangerous game to make assumptions about people based on their perceived skin color.

I agree with this sentiment to some extent. Delineating people as "the white man" is too inflammatory.

[Jose Abreu]

A concept: if you aren't Native American, you have no right to comment on how the logo is no big deal or is not offensive. Pretty simple.

[Panerista]

A concept: if you aren't Native American, you have no right to comment on how the logo is no big deal or is not offensive. Pretty simple.

Jose Abreu hits it out of the park

[caulfield12]

A concept: if you aren't Native American, you have no right to comment on how the logo is no big deal or is not offensive. Pretty simple.

 

It's an interesting debate.

Does that mean no other minority who has faced similar discrimination can comment? That seems a bit absurd.

 

From a business perspective, it's a simple cost/benefit analysis. With Native Americans comprising less than 1% of the US population, and far less than 1% of MLB attendance/revenues, owners feel that the benefits of "being forced to change by outside forces" aren't currently outweighing the benefits of keeping or maintaining that name or tradition.

 

Of course, for public universities, that's a slightly different issue.

 

You also get into the dangerous game of classifying the mascots into "respectful" and disrespectful. For example, the KC Chiefs or FSU Seminoles, Fighting Illini or Runnin' Utes (Utah) vs. the Indians or Redskins. What about the Atlanta Braves or the BlackHawks? The Fighting Sioux?

 

And are the Dallas Cowboys now representative of "white oppression" of Native American peoples? Slippery slope...

 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/29/opinions/dro...lman/index.html

We're also to the point where it can't just be about the symbolism of removing a mascot...where both sides of the ideological divide are looking at the economics and politics of any decision.

Edited January 30, 2018 by caulfield12

[LittleHurt05]

I'm guessing that logo's days are numbered. Although you have to give Rocky and company credit for reaching out to Native American communities to try and be a partner/advocate.

 

Yeah, I assume it will be gone at some point, but that logo is their only connection to Native Americans. Their mascot is a hawk, there are no chants or tomahawks or anything like that. It has an honorable historical basis too, but who knows if it will stick around.

[chitownsportsfan]

The logo is reprehensible in ways most Native "inspired" mascots are not. It should have been phased out long ago. I'm a white guy and never really thought anything of it until I became an adult but yea it's just time to put it to bed. Long past time really.

[chitownsportsfan]

It's an interesting debate.

Does that mean no other minority who has faced similar discrimination can comment? That seems a bit absurd.

 

From a business perspective, it's a simple cost/benefit analysis. With Native Americans comprising less than 1% of the US population, and far less than 1% of MLB attendance/revenues, owners feel that the benefits of "being forced to change by outside forces" aren't currently outweighing the benefits of keeping or maintaining that name or tradition.

 

Of course, for public universities, that's a slightly different issue.

 

You also get into the dangerous game of classifying the mascots into "respectful" and disrespectful. For example, the KC Chiefs or FSU Seminoles, Fighting Illini or Runnin' Utes (Utah) vs. the Indians or Redskins. What about the Atlanta Braves or the BlackHawks? The Fighting Sioux?

 

And are the Dallas Cowboys now representative of "white oppression" of Native American peoples? Slippery slope...

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/29/opinions/dro...lman/index.html

We're also to the point where it can't just be about the symbolism of removing a mascot...where both sides of the ideological divide are looking at the economics and politics of any decision.

 

get real there's no "slippery slope" argument here. This is a disgusting caricature, little better than a hook nose jew or slant eyed chinese and so on. just get rid of the damn thing.

[caulfield12]

get real there's no "slippery slope" argument here. This is a disgusting caricature, little better than a hook nose jew or slant eyed chinese and so on. just get rid of the damn thing.

 

I meant the possibility of Native American groups protesting the idea of "Cowboys/with white hats" as a symbol of genocide, or, at the very least, repression...

[The Ginger Kid]

I don't care what they wear, I still hate f***ing cleveland.

[Real]

Just because someone b****es doesnt mean society should change for them

 

I love your framing of the narrative.

 

How about "Oh hey, let's change an obviously racist insensitive team mascot because it's the right thing to do."

 

Just curious, do you have any confederate statues lying around your house?

[knightni]

Reminds me of this:

 

https://judgelucassports.files.wordpress.co.../10/indians.gif

 

and this:

 

http://www.tworiverstribune.com/wp-content...scotcartoon.jpg

 

 

and this:

 

https://cdn.indiancountrymedianetwork.com/w...toon_102616.jpg

[NorthSideSox72]

get real there's no "slippery slope" argument here. This is a disgusting caricature, little better than a hook nose jew or slant eyed chinese and so on. just get rid of the damn thing.

Exactly.

 

And as for those complaining about "PC", it makes me sad that there are people who have somehow been twisted into a point where they think a private business doing away with a clearly offensive symbol - aka, doing the right thing - is some sort of weakness in society. Quite the opposite, it shows strength.

 

Names like Indians and Blackhawks are another matter as they are proper names, so I can see various angles there. But Chief Wahoo? Redskins? They are, as the quoted post above states, clear as day insults.

 

[FT35]

My dad fought this battle last year as the president of his high school alumni here in town. They were formerly known as the Redskins. He scheduled meetings with the Native American groups in the area whom the school's name originated from to get their thoughts so he could communicate their perspective accurately to the school board and was surprised to hear that the Native Americans themselves had no issue with the name and actually saw it as an honor that, to that point, the community had upheld the name of the school despite this modern day outrage. Dad said the perception that more than one of the Native Americans left him with was wondering why such a small group of individuals were so offended and had so much power to remove the name that didn't offend the people they thought it should.

 

2 quotes from those meetings that stuck out were 1. "Isn't this our battle to fight?" and 2. "Fight with, not for." They also noted that none of the offended met with them to get their thoughts prior to fighting against the name. Kind of interesting. Results differ across the map, I'm sure, as there are some Native Americans who might actually be offended--and they should absolutely be heard, but that is how things went down here in Indiana. The name was ultimately changed despite the input from the Native American groups who the school was named after to "please the masses" that, in reality, were neither masses or the Native Americans themselves, but the perception of such by those who were a part of that political movement.

[ptatc]

I love your framing of the narrative.

 

How about "Oh hey, let's change an obviously racist insensitive team mascot because it's the right thing to do."

 

Just curious, do you have any confederate statues lying around your house?

Generals Jackson and Lee are used extensively as experts in military strategy.

 

Should this information not be taught because they were Confederates?

[bigruss]

I don't know why people think that it's only on minorities to fix racism and offensive material.

[bigruss]

Generals Jackson and Lee are used extensively as experts in military strategy.

 

Should this information not be taught because they were Confederates?

Teaching history is absolutely different from exploiting racist images.

[Bob Sacamano]

I don't know why people think that it's only on minorities to fix racism and offensive material.

 

I don't think the story was making the argument that they have to fix it. In his story, the people who "should have been offended" were not offended hence, making it not offensive. Yes, I'm sure people in the race are offended but if for example they all aren't offended, then why does it need to be fixed if it isn't offending the race?

 

 

Edited January 30, 2018 by soxfan2014

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't think the story was making the argument that they have to fix it. In his story, the people who "should have been offended" were not offended hence, making it not offensive. Yes, I'm sure people in the race are offended but if for example they all aren't offended, then why does it need to be fixed if it isn't offending the race?

There are many groups and individuals out there representing native peoples who have expressed problems with both the Redskins name and the Chief Wahoo. And it's about them, not me or you, so I don't really see the argument there. It's insulting, people are offended, so do the right thing. Seems pretty simple to me. Just because you can find some individuals who aren't offended isn't particularly meaningful. Many are.

 

Like with the Redskins thing. They hired some guy who I think was a Navajo, to represent them as being OK with it, how it wasn't offensive, etc. That guy made claims his tribe was fine with the name. As it turns out that was a lie, his own tribe's council said the opposite.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

There are many groups and individuals out there representing native peoples who have expressed problems with both the Redskins name and the Chief Wahoo. And it's about them, not me or you, so I don't really see the argument there. It's insulting, people are offended, so do the right thing. Seems pretty simple to me. Just because you can find some individuals who aren't offended isn't particularly meaningful. Many are.

 

Like with the Redskins thing. They hired some guy who I think was a Navajo, to represent them as being OK with it, how it wasn't offensive, etc. That guy made claims his tribe was fine with the name. As it turns out that was a lie, his own tribe's council said the opposite.

 

You're clearly misinterpreting what I'm saying if you think I'm saying, "I'm not offended so it's wrong to change it!" I'm not trying to make an argument for keeping it or anything and I'm not making it about what I believe. I'm simply saying in a hypothetical scenario if no one from that race was/is offended, should it be considered offensive? Kinda going back to what the poster above said about changing the school's name in his region where they checked with the tribe who stated they weren't offended by it at all. I would say no.

 

Edit: I think Cleveland should come up with a new name for it's baseball team in general, especially if they can't even use the logo nor mascot. Bring back the Cleveland Spiders.

Edited January 30, 2018 by soxfan2014

[Eminor3rd]

I've moved this to SLaM.

 

Warning to all: no personal attacks

[ptatc]

Teaching history is absolutely different from exploiting racist images.

So a statue of great generals in history would be exploiting racist imaging but a statue of General Washington or any other President who owned slaves is not.

[Soxbadger]

So a statue of great generals in history would be exploiting racist imaging but a statue of General Washington or any other President who owned slaves is not.

 

Interesting discussion, but I think that there is subtext to Lee and other confederate generals. Washington, Jefferson, etc should definitely receive criticism for being slave owners. They also are afforded the defense of "they lived in a different time." But the 1840s were also a different time. Lee and Stonewall committed treason, to protect slavery. Again they are both afforded the defense of "they lived in a different time", but in the time they lived people were much more outspoken against slavery, and had Lee not resigned from his post in the US, who knows how history would have changed.

 

People are judged by their actions and the future is generally unkind to those who held power in the past. Even those who had "good" intentions, often are seen in a much more critical light because it is hard to justify their decisions when you live in a different time. Even Lincoln falls victim to this.

 

Confederates are responsible for almost as many American deaths as every other war/conflict the US has been involved combined. That is something that you cant defend, no matter what time they lived in.

[CrimsonWeltall]

So a statue of great generals in history would be exploiting racist imaging but a statue of General Washington or any other President who owned slaves is not.

 

Washington's most notable actions were being a Founding Father, Commander of the Revolution, and 1st President. That's why people build statues of him.

 

Confederate leaders' most notable actions were defending slavery as part of a traitorous rebellion. And that's why people build statues of them.