CS85

Chief Wahoo Departs: Indians remove logo from brand in 2019

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, Pharos04 said:

Interesting that this has evolved into a discussion about the Redskins.  But since we're on that:

 

Remember that they started out as the Boston Braves, taking the name of the their landlords at Braves Field, the Boston Braves (NL).  Upon moving to Fenway, they changed the name likely as a means to not promote the team that they just were part of, and more to fit in with the Sox.  The theory goes that they kept the Native imagery as a means to "honor" a coach that was supposedly part Sioux (funny how this parallels the story about the Indians).  But it seems that the owner wanted to avoid confusion with the baseball Braves but keep the imagery.  This is why he didn't go to Indians because of some random baseball team in Cleveland.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/1933-news-article-refutes-cherished-tale-that-redskins-were-named-to-honor-indian-coach/2014/05/28/19ad32e8-e698-11e3-afc6-a1dd9407abcf_story.html?utm_term=.b6c2b765c871

 

 

I have said this is the easiest thing for Dan Snyder to do. I'm sure they'll argue that they could be confused with Atlanta, but I think that's baloney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

One reason I’m so opposed to Wahoo as a logo is because I did the “how would I like it if....?” experiment.

I can’t claim to speak for Natives and what they may deem offensive or not, but I can certainly imagine what it would be like if there were a team named “the Jews” with a Jewish version of Wahoo as the logo. 

I wouldn’t like that at all. 

 

Frankly, it boggles my mind that the use of the "Chief Wahoo" logo has lasted as long as it has. 

Can anyone imagine Cleveland's Major League Baseball team being dubbed the Chinamen, with the franchise's primary logo being a caricature that depicted the namesake mascot with bright yellow skin, slanted slits for eyes, a pair of enormous buck teeth, his hair pulled back in a long queue, and wearing a conical bamboo hat? How about the Cleveland Jews, with a caricature logo featuring a mascot with a large hooked nose, a swarthy complexion, and traditional Hasidic sidelocks (payot)?

 

Of course, such team identities would be roundly criticized. So, with that being the case, why has "Chief Wahoo" been granted a pass for so long? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As always, @BestFansStLouis reminds America that giant chunks of Missouri and Illinois are chock-full of braindead lumps:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Cardsblues02 said:

Wasn’t there a poll that said something like 90% of Natives didn’t find the Redskins name

racist? I get changing Wahoo. It was wrong to depict a Native American in that light. But changing the name from Indians would upset me and many others. That is the team’s history and that is their team. Same thing goes for the skins. I wouldn’t change the name. Like the FSU Seminoles or the UU Utes. If the people you are repersenting okay with it, why change it?

Those studies are imperfect. What’s the methodology they used to determine who’s a “Native”? 

Did they only poll people who can legally claim tribal status? Or did they poll people who claim they’re “1/16th Native” or something like that? 

You can get a poll to say anything you want, honestly. 

 

Also this... 

 

3 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

This American Psychological Association study, which says that they negatively impact the mental health of marginalized peoples. Here's a basic summary from the article.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

Redskins and N***** grew out of different climates. If there were as few African Americans as there are American Indians, to the point where they're almost treated like they're extinct or unicorns or mythological, and if we'd spent the past 100 years normalizing the use of the N word for a sports team's name then there'd probably be a sports team called the N******. 

 

The only example I can think of is Africentric High School in Columbus, Ohio is called the Nubians and they used to have a large Africa decal on their football helmets. That's cool because they're celebrating their own heritage. If my high school in mayonnaise-white Dublin, Ohio were called the Nubians? Not cool at all.  

 

 

You see the opposite of that now. Robert E. Lee school in San Antonio was the Rebels when it was mostly white then changed to the Volunteers, with the same rebel logo too, when it became a mostly Hispanic school. Then last year it became L.E.E. High School and kept the nickname volunteers. L.E.E. stands for Legacy of Excellence in Education. As big as an outcry that arose not to change the name of the school by the students, the rest of the town had a field day about the change to L.E.E.. Nowadays schools that are the Warriors tend to try to use Spartan, roman or Viking style logos to avoid the backlash of using Native American imagery for their teams. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Cardsblues02 said:

Wasn’t there a poll that said something like 90% of Natives didn’t find the Redskins name

racist? I get changing Wahoo. It was wrong to depict a Native American in that light. But changing the name from Indians would upset me and many others. That is the team’s history and that is their team. Same thing goes for the skins. I wouldn’t change the name. Like the FSU Seminoles or the UU Utes. If the people you are repersenting okay with it, why change it?

No disrespect, but I couldn’t care less about the teams history. I care about the history of those marginalized people more. They are the only group of people that has their imagery/likeness used like this and it’s because they didn’t have the numbers to stop it.

 

Outside of the few Native started uses or uses where the Natives are collaborators (those schools you mentioned), the imagery is being used or created by entities with no ties to those people. We don’t need this anymore and if it does exist it should do so when the Native people do it.

 

Also, those polls sound suspect. 90% of how many total?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Lee Noire said:

Also, those polls sound suspect. 90% of how many total?

 

Kind of irrelevant. Any random sample size over 30 is usually deemed as a legitimate sample for statistics.

 

IceCap's questions on the demographics of those polled are more important than the number of people polled. Random polling is supposed to be accurate within a margin of error, but there are obviously ways to skew the random sample (though then it wouldn't truly be random).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bill81361 said:

What I find curious is all the people who deem to speak on behalf of a group outside their own when that same group has a voice and predominantly chooses not to use it themselves with a few exceptions. 
 

I go back to the question I asked before, "How does one determine the price tag for it no longer to be a problem?"   Who gets to decide the price?  How much of a societal problem is it really when it can be simply bought off?

Well, I wasn't really offended before, but if you're telling me there's big money in it, then, yeah, I am offended, now that you mentioned it.  Money is really the driving motivation on both sides, isn't it?  Does anyone think Cleveland's move was altruistic or was it that MLB was threatening them behind the scenes?

Speaking as someone who was a Redskins fan, I wish they'd lose the name if only to put an end to the discussion. 

 

I’m saying there is no price. 100% of the profits should go to people of that culture if you’re going to insist on using their imagery and customs as trademarks to sell your product, unless, of course, you come to an agreement with the group in question.

 

Also note that the First Nations voice is routinely silenced, on many topics important to them. If you’re not hearing their opposition, you’re likely just not listening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, McCarthy said:

When the Miami president changed from Redskins to Redhawks in the 90's it was incredibly unpopular, lots of donors were upset and there was a lot of that "I'm a Redskin, damnit!" stuff going on too. Guess what, though? People got over it and moved on. Most people would say now that it was definitely the right move and you now have multiple generations of students who never knew their school mascot was at one point a slur. Nobody even thinks about it anymore. That's why you can't leave these issues up to a vote. Last time I was there they were still selling redskins gear in the book store, though, and that rubbed me the wrong way. 

 

Just within the past month, there's been a fracas at U of I all over again because another white boy showed up at a basketball game dressed up as Chief Illiniwek. Acting like a 1940s cartoon To Own The Libs. Maybe he can find a friend on Reddit to re-enact the talking crows from Dumbo next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, -Akronite- said:

 

But like... They've had decades to prepare for a change like this. Everyone saw them downgrade Wahoo 4 years ago. Everyone has been waiting for them to retire him. Why the hell couldn't they have had a plan in place by the time they announced he was gone? He doesn't need a goddamn farewell season.

 

They dragged their feet for so long, it's a little ridiculous for us to pretend this is some last minute change mere months before a new season.

 

 

Well, the article you posted actually explains why it sorta was and sorta wasn't. But mostly no, and the Sockalexis thing gets overplayed anyhow. The 1915 news clipping with the cartoons and eventual usage of Wahoo are pretty obvious signs that they had no real "honorable" intentions with the name.

 

Fair enough, but I’m willing to bet that manufacturers and retailers don’t keep an “offensive mascot protocol” manual in the top drawer to make identity changes go more smoothly for the teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

Kind of irrelevant. Any random sample size over 30 is usually deemed as a legitimate sample for statistics.

 

IceCap's questions on the demographics of those polled are more important than the number of people polled. Random polling is supposed to be accurate within a margin of error, but there are obviously ways to skew the random sample (though then it wouldn't truly be random).

I get you. It’s a little crazy that 30 people is all it takes. Thanks for the insight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, crashcarson15 said:

Ah, yes, finally found the standard “a founding member of the American League that’s worn navy in every one of its 117 seasons and used red alongside of it for each of the last 85 years should change its colors” argument in a thread about the Indians identity!

 

Sorry... history or not, when the only logo you currently have is a damn letter, combined with a color scheme used by up to seven different teams (eleven if you include blue and red in general), that leads to a boring and forgettable identity. They don't have to change colors, but I think they should if they stick with what they have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cardsblues02 said:

Wasn’t there a poll that said something like 90% of Natives didn’t find the Redskins name

racist? I get changing Wahoo. It was wrong to depict a Native American in that light. But changing the name from Indians would upset me and many others. That is the team’s history and that is their team. Same thing goes for the skins. I wouldn’t change the name. Like the FSU Seminoles or the UU Utes. If the people you are repersenting okay with it, why change it?

 

The poll's sampling was flawed: The Washington Post asked people who identified as Native American, not enrolled members of nations/tribes.  The vast majority of respondents believed their great-grandmother was a Cherokee princess <sarcasm>

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, andrewharrington said:

 

I’m saying there is no price. 100% of the profits should go to people of that culture if you’re going to insist on using their imagery and customs as trademarks to sell your product, unless, of course, you come to an agreement with the group in question.

 

Also note that the First Nations voice is routinely silenced, on many topics important to them. If you’re not hearing their opposition, you’re likely just not listening.

Ah, but there is a price, you said it in your next sentence, 100%.  I again ask if it is a societal problem, (and I'm not saying it isn't) why suggest that it can be bought off with mere money?

 

In July 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled "the disparagement clause violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause."  As such, Dan Snyder has trademark protection for the team name.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/2017/06/29/a26f52f0-5cf6-11e7-9fc6-c7ef4bc58d13_story.html?utm_term=.15a2aa044bf1


In short, what you think "should" happen, won't, and Dan Snyder can not be compelled otherwise, at least by the Government, or society.  Now if the owners strong arm one of their fellow billionaires, as MLB did with Cleveland, who knows.  Clark Hunt and the Chiefs might not want to go along.  Maybe the Chiefs can be bought off, I don't know, but it appears Dan Snyder has enough money and can't be bought off by the league. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Derek said:

 

I’d love for the Spiders name to return to Cleveland, but they are not in the Indians team lineage. The Spiders were an NL team totally separate from the Naps/Indians.

 

The remaining assets of the Spiders were sold after the 1899 disaster and merged with a team in the minor American/Western league until it became a major league, with the club being called the Lake Shores, the Blues, and ultimately, the Indians.

 

It’s not tidy, but there is lineage there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mod edit 

Edited by Ice_Cap
keep the discussion sports-centric please, otherwise you’re going to run afoul of our “No Politics” rule

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bill81361 said:

Ah, but there is a price, you said it in your next sentence, 100%.  I again ask if it is a societal problem, (and I'm not saying it isn't) why suggest that it can be bought off with mere money?

 

In July 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled "the disparagement clause violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause."  As such, Dan Snyder has copyright protection for the team name.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/2017/06/29/a26f52f0-5cf6-11e7-9fc6-c7ef4bc58d13_story.html?utm_term=.15a2aa044bf1


In short, what you think "should" happen, won't, and Dan Snyder can not be compelled otherwise, at least by the Government, or society.  Now if the owners strong arm one of their fellow billionaires, as MLB did with Cleveland, who knows.  Clark Hunt and the Chiefs might not want to go along.  Maybe the Chiefs can be bought off, I don't know, but it appears Dan Snyder has enough money and can't be bought off by the league. 
 

 

In my opinion, if you’re making money from cultural imagery, that benefit should be passed directly on to those cultures (in the absence of an agreement otherwise) for the simple fact that you don’t own that culture, its customs, or its imagery. I don’t see that as buying anything off. That’s simply the most decent thing to do when the branding of your product is reliant on someone else’s imagery (other than abandoning it entirely). It’s true no one can compel Dan Snyder or anyone else to do the decent thing. It doesn’t change the fact that it is the decent thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very interesting thread to read to say the least.There will always be some who will always be offended by a teams name or logo.And there will also be some who will fight to the death to protect the teams name or logo.Let's see now how well Chief Wahoo merchandise sells in 2018 now that the Indians are dropping it.Much earlier in the thread a poster mentioned renaming the Indians to the Tribe.But again Tribe could be also thought of as discriminatory.Example:Tribe can be used to describe the Jews who run the finance industry.Tribe can also be known as a native tribe,a gang so to speak.My point is that this people are trying way too hard to be politically correct and pander and try to please everyone.And it's simply never going to happen.Some people will bitch just to bitch.Is the name Redskins offensive?It can be to some.Hell,some people consider it now racist of you refer to Native American Indians as Native American Indians instead of the politically correct wording of Indigenous Peoples .WTF?Do they change names of sports teams and logos in other countries because someone finds it offensive?Like I mentioned earlier,watch the sales of Chief Wahoo gear.I'm thinking sales will be up just because people like to support things when it's no longer politically correct to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MJWalker45 said:

You see the opposite of that now. Robert E. Lee school in San Antonio was the Rebels when it was mostly white then changed to the Volunteers, with the same rebel logo too, when it became a mostly Hispanic school. Then last year it became L.E.E. High School and kept the nickname volunteers. L.E.E. stands for Legacy of Excellence in Education. As big as an outcry that arose not to change the name of the school by the students, the rest of the town had a field day about the change to L.E.E.. Nowadays schools that are the Warriors tend to try to use Spartan, roman or Viking style logos to avoid the backlash of using Native American imagery for their teams. 

 

It's about time these finally take the smart path to correct the idiocy of  those in charge of naming the school in the 1st place. There is nothing more un-American than naming a school after a Loser and a Traitor. Schools should be named after inspirational figures in history that the represent core values we want our kids to grow up with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DC in Da House w/o a Doubt said:

 

I can appreciate what you're saying and it makes sense to me.  I think those are valid points.  But using the n-word example, would a predominantly African american high school ever adopt that name for their sports teams?  There's no way.  My main point is, I realize that both are slurs but I think the comparisons end there.  It's apples and oranges in my opinion.  There's a reason we're all openly typing redskin, but not typing out the n-word.  They're on a completely different playing field.  

 

2 hours ago, DC in Da House w/o a Doubt said:

 

That's probably true.  But still doesn't address the fact that no high school would ever name their team the n-words.  Again, different tiers.  

 

The N-Word is worse that Redskin. Most people would agree that it is in fact the worst racial slur around, because we understand the context and history of the word and what it meant to a population of enslaved Americans and their descendants. Redskins, for various reasons, has been normalized in a lot of ways. But just because there are worse examples, it doesn't mean that makes it okay. People are willing to say the word Chink or Oriental, while we literally write out N-Word instead of the actual word.

 

It is highly unlikely that any team would name themselves the N-Words, and there happens to be one example of a Native high school using Redskin. Yes, I agree they aren't at the same level (in large part because it's hard to find actual Natives to offend). But there is a huge difference between a group reclaiming a word and that same word being exploited by white billionaires. There just is. If an Asian High School decided to go by Orientals, to reclaim the word, would that make it okay in pro sports?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.