CS85

Chief Wahoo Departs: Indians remove logo from brand in 2019

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, skip88 said:

They are called the fighting Irish, and the mascot is someone putting their fists up.  Even more stereotypical and racist than a smiling Indian.

Cleveland should not have gotten rid of Wahoo, they could have changed his overly red skin to the skin tone of the Chicago Blackhawks logo. A nice compromise,   

 

MOD EDIT

Edited by Brian in Boston

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much for the "slippery slope fallacy."  Maybe if I google it again :rolleyes: .

All joking aside though, you can think Chief Wahoo is a racist caricature (and a bad logo aesthetically), be glad that it's gone and still be worried about it having an effect on other logos and names.  It doesn't have to be one or the other. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, skip88 said:

They are called the fighting Irish, and the mascot is someone putting their fists up.  Even more stereotypical and racist than a smiling Indian.

Cleveland should not have gotten rid of Wahoo, they could have changed his overly red skin to the skin tone of the Chicago Blackhawks logo. A nice compromise,   

Irish Catholics design "Fighting Irish" logo = self-deprecating.

 

Whites design "red faced caricature" of a marginalized race = keeping foot on throat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, skip88 said:

They are called the fighting Irish, and the mascot is someone putting their fists up.  Even more stereotypical and racist than a smiling Indian.

Cleveland should not have gotten rid of Wahoo, they could have changed his overly red skin to the skin tone of the Chicago Blackhawks logo. A nice compromise,   

Here's the thing though. He's actually not gone, he just can't be placed on anything that's going to be seen on the field. So no jackets, jerseys, hats or gameday graphics. He'll probably still be for sale in the team shops as "Cooperstown Collection" items and on any overstock merchandise left after this year. Fans will still wear the current uniforms and hats with him on there as well as the sweaters and jackets during the fall. That's really why the Indians holding on to that merchandising license is so important. Not to ensure no one else benefits but to make sure they are the only ones that do, legally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

 Personally, I don’t think it’s appropriate to pocket any money from the imagery of another culture.

 

Andrew, this was a shorter version of some other comments you made, where you say the team should pay profits to cultures...what about vendors? Lids, Fanatics, Nike, adidas, New Era,Wincraft, et al, make a lot of money off native imagery...

 

I think the easy and popular answer is "Yes of course they should" but there are some underlying and economical factors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Morgo said:

you can think Chief Wahoo is a racist caricature (and a bad logo aesthetically), be glad that it's gone and still be worried about it having an effect on other logos and names.

 

Well, no.  If you think that Wahoo is a racist caricature and are glad that it is going away, then you will hope that it has an effect on other logos and names, such that this move creates more pressure to get rid of other offensive logos and names.  (I'm looking at you, Edmonton Eskimos.)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Well, no.  If you think that Wahoo is a racist caricature and are glad that it is going away, then you will hope that it has an effect on other logos and names, such that this move creates more pressure to get rid of other offensive logos and names.  (I'm looking at you, Edmonton Eskimos.)  

 

Not ones that use Native American imagery in a tastefully manner like the Chicago Blackhawks.  The Eskimo's logo is two E's in a circle and not offensive in the slightest.  Once again, so much for the 'Slippery Slope Fallacy.'  Next the Canucks use of Haida Art will be deemed offensive.

Share this post


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

 

Andrew, this was a shorter version of some other comments you made, where you say the team should pay profits to cultures...what about vendors? Lids, Fanatics, Nike, adidas, New Era,Wincraft, et al, make a lot of money off native imagery...

 

I think the easy and popular answer is "Yes of course they should" but there are some underlying and economical factors.

 

Sure. I do see a difference, though, in a team using the imagery to build the foundation of their brand and product, versus a retailer who is simply selling the merchandise because they sell all the other merchandise. Thinking about it, we as a society put it on the trademark owners to make things right, but the retailers could theoretically wield a ton of power in this situation and put an end to all this if they stopped buying and selling merchandise with these marks.

 

Short of the ideal resolution where teams drop these trademarks (we’re obviously not there yet), I think the best situation is to send the profits and benefits where they belong, as unrealistic as it may be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Gothamite said:

I would bet that a lot of people today don't even know that the Golden State Warriors' nickname comes from the same place.  

 

TimelineWarriors200_1.jpg

To piggyback on this, in 1949 the Tri-Cities Blackhawks debuted in the NBA, and this was their logo:
Tri-Cities Blackhawks (1950 - 1951)
That lasted all of 2 seasons; when they moved to Milwaukee in 1951 they shortened their name to "Hawks" and changed their logo to a bird...
Milwaukee Hawks (1952 - 1955)
...And after moves to St. Louis in 1955 and Atlanta in 1968, that name & mascot lives on to this day:
Atlanta Hawks (2016 - Pres)
...And nobody noticed or cared, except for pedantic nerds like myself. :P

Point being, change the name and/or logo and after enough time, success and/or visibility, nobody'll really care anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Well, no.  If you think that Wahoo is a racist caricature and are glad that it is going away, then you will hope that it has an effect on other logos and names, such that this move creates more pressure to get rid of other offensive logos and names.  (I'm looking at you, Edmonton Eskimos.)  

The kicker about the Eskimos' identity is that you could change their name to something else alliterative (Eagles, Express, etc.) and not have to change any logos except for a wordmark.
Edmonton Eskimos (1998 - Pres)
The identity is so simple and inoffensive that a name change would be practically seamless. (Kind of the same thing some of us are starting to think about the Indians once Chief Wahoo is gone, actually...)

(Sorry about the double post)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Morgo said:

Not ones that use Native American imagery in a tasteful[] manner like the Chicago Blackhawks. 

 

It's not up to non-Natives to decide what is tasteful.  

 

 

11 minutes ago, Morgo said:

The [Eskimos'] logo is two E's in a circle and not offensive in the slightest.

 

Please don't play dumb.  Obviously the problem there is not the logo but the nickname.

Share this post


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

 

It's not up to non-Natives to decide what is tasteful.  

 

Please don't play dumb.  Obviously the problem there is not the logo but the nickname.

 

Eskimo isn't a slur, Redskin is.  Are you saying the Chicago Blackhawks need to change their logo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Morgo said:

 

Not ones that use Native American imagery in a tastefully manner like the Chicago Blackhawks.  The Eskimo's logo is two E's in a circle and not offensive in the slightest.  Once again, so much for the 'Slippery Slope Fallacy.'  Next the Canucks use of Haida Art will be deemed offensive.

 

The word "Eskimo" itself is the problem, not two letter "E"s in an oval.

 

As for the "tasteful" description of the Blackhawks' logo, you can see that as having been touch-and-go as it's changed through the decades. The version in use from 1999 to the present, with a sly grin, tends more toward a cartoon than previous iterations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Morgo said:

Next the Canucks use of Haida Art will be deemed offensive.

 

Similarly, one could argue Paul Allen appropriated native culture with the Seahawks logo.

Share this post


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

 

Eskimo isn't a slur, Redskin is.  Are you saying the Chicago Blackhawks need to change their logo?

He's not saying anything about the Blackhawks. For all of your jokes about the Slippery Slope fallacy, the one actually committing it (repeatedly) is you.

Share this post


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

 

Not ones that use Native American imagery in a tastefully manner like the Chicago Blackhawks.  The Eskimo's logo is two E's in a circle and not offensive in the slightest.  Once again, so much for the 'Slippery Slope Fallacy.'  Next the Canucks use of Haida Art will be deemed offensive.

 

These can be especially tricky because as some of the nations (and non-natives) have commercialized their own artistic styles, those styles have become so synonymous with their regions that they’re blurring the lines between kitschy and sacred. Haida/Salish and Kachina come to mind.

Share this post


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

 

 

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?

That’s because unlike Native Americans and Asian Americans, African Americans hold enough societal power in America to will it so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has veered off-course. We've gone well beyond discussing the Cleveland Indians' decision to drop their Chief Wahoo logo and ventured into other territory. Therefore I'm locking this up.

 

A reminder about an item from the boards' official guidelines:

 

Quote

4. No Discussion of Native American Team Name Controversies

This topic, like various political topics, often devolves into name calling, straw man construction, and other assorted "tactics" not suitable in intelligent, mutually respectable debate.

 

Share this post


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