CS85

Chief Wahoo Departs: Indians remove logo from brand in 2019

Recommended Posts

This also makes me wonder how long poor Lucky has left;

slhg02hbef3j1ov4lsnwyol5o.png

Then again, I've never really heard any huge controversy with him, unlike with (understandably) The Indians, Blackhawks, Redskins, etc.

 

Celtics, Patriots, Vikings, Pirates (alternate?), Ottawa Senators, are they only teams I can think of that still use some form of caricature in their logos.

I don't see them changing anytime soon though. 

EDIT: Do the San Diego Padres still use that Friar logo? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe now people will actually learn the block C is for the Cleveland Indians. If I had a nickel for every time someone thought my block C hat was for the Cubs...

 

Share this post


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

Saw this concept on the webs (clearly not mine):

 

https://twitter.com/GVartwork/status/958055433025085441

 

 

That's alright, mostly, but the thing that I really liked was the C/arrow/pennant cap logo:

 

JI1INlH.png

 

edit:  it's on his store page 

 

C_ArrowheadRedHoodie_1024x1024.jpg?v=145

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, ozzyman314 said:

This also makes me wonder how long poor Lucky has left;

slhg02hbef3j1ov4lsnwyol5o.png

Then again, I've never really heard any huge controversy with him, unlike with (understandably) The Indians, Blackhawks, Redskins, etc.

 

That's because Lucky the Leprechaun is a Leprechaun.  Leprechauns are not real, unlike Native Americans.  So the comparison breaks down pretty quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mac the Knife said:

Personally if I think they're going to go this far, they may as well go all the way.  Take a "Back to the Future" approach of sorts and drop the name "Indians" while they're at it, rebranding as the "Cleveland Spiders."  Unless the American Anti-Arachnid Defamation League has an issue, it'd eradicate their problem once and for all.

 

Paul Dolan has made it clear that the team is "adamant" about keeping the Indians nickname, and he says Manfred has no objection to it.

 

The problem with renaming them the Spiders: That NL franchise is best known -- fairly or not -- for having the worst record in baseball history in 1899 (20-134), when the owners, the Robison brothers, transferred all the best players to their St. Louis franchise. 

 

If they were going to rebrand with a name previously used, it would be better to choose one actually associated with their own franchise -- Blues, for instance. Napoleons (Naps), even.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SamJethroe5 said:

The problem with renaming them the Spiders: That NL franchise is best known -- fairly or not -- for having the worst record in baseball history in 1899 (20-134), when the owners, the Robison brothers, transferred all the best players to their St. Louis franchise.

 

Maybe that's what it's best known for, but it's barely known at all.  It's not like the name instantly connotes failure to the average fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, ozzyman314 said:

Then again, I've never really heard any huge controversy with him, unlike with (understandably) The Indians, Blackhawks, Redskins, etc.

 

Celtics, Patriots, Vikings, Pirates (alternate?), Ottawa Senators, are they only teams I can think of that still use some form of caricature in their logos.

I don't see them changing anytime soon though. 

EDIT: Do the San Diego Padres still use that Friar logo? 

 

The Patriots, Senators, Vikings and Pirates logos are definitely not caricatures first of all. A depiction of a person does not make it a caricature. The Celtics logo you maybe could create an argument for, but not likely as it is a fictional being. 

Share this post


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

 

Maybe that's what it's best known for, but it's barely known at all.  It's not like the name instantly connotes failure to the average fan.

Just saying, if it's desirable to pay homage to the name of a Cleveland baseball franchise, might as well choose one that doesn't have that kind of baggage. As soon as it was announced that Spiders was being considered, it would take five minutes for ESPN, the Plain Dealer and every other news outlet to point out the 1899 debacle, and it would become another "Cleveland sucks" punchline.

Fortunately, it probably won't matter anytime soon, because the team's ownership is digging in with its heels on keeping the nickname.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SamJethroe5 said:

Just saying, if it's desirable to pay homage to the name of a Cleveland baseball franchise, might as well choose one that doesn't have that kind of baggage. As soon as it was announced that Spiders was being considered, it would take five minutes for ESPN, the Plain Dealer and every other news outlet to point out the 1899 debacle, and it would become another "Cleveland sucks" punchline.

 

What baggage? 

 

If Sportscenter wanted to get snarky, it would last for about ten minutes.  And then the old team would be forgotten again, and the new team would keep right on going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, selby56 said:

Maybe now people will actually learn the block C is for the Cleveland Indians. If I had a nickel for every time someone thought my block C hat was for the Cubs...

 

That actually happens?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spiders is a somewhat :censored: name but could inspire a killer logo. Not quite satisfied with any concepts I've seen.

 

The name should change eventually (I'd prefer this year but oh well), but for now I like our identity. Our colors and uniforms are nice. The Block C could use a white stroke and a home cap w/ a red bill.

 

And I think we should see a resurgence of the Scipt I. It's a unique logo that doesn't use Native imagery.

indians-logo.png

 

Find a way to unite the identity a bit between the Script I and Block C and we have a winner, at least for now. Though I personally have no issue, uniform-wise, with having a cursive home ID and block lettered road ID. It'd be nice to have some unifying sleeve logo...

 

I am making the pointless and stupid prediction that the Block C gets a white stroke and the roundel treatment and that satisfies the need for a primary for a while. 

 

011559c0806cb38910d94fc735d12bfe--clevel

 

*The logos above are from Google, I did not mock them up.

Share this post


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

 

I think the issue for most people is if the name is "punching down" vs. "punching across (or up)". In a vacuum, yes, Vikings would be the same concept.

 

 

It'd odd when Slate (!) produces an article that goes against the tide with regard to the Redskins.

 

First, a “viking” is a role, descriptor, or occupation. Not all Norse were vikings. “Vikings” has more in common with “Braves,” “Centurions,” “Warriors,” or “Knights” than it does with any name based on an ethnicity. 

 

Secondly? There’s a world of difference between a predominantly white society using European cultural touchstones they have ownership of and that same culture using the touchstones of a culture they don’t have ownership of, and have historically subjugated.

 

That’s why all of these talking points are false equivalencies that miss the point of just why Native groups dislike teams using logos like Wahoo or names like “Redskins.”

 

Speaking of the name “Redskins”? My outlook on that is simple. If you were introduced to a Native person would you feel comfortable referring to them as a “redskin”? If not then you can see why so many people view the name as a problem.  

Share this post


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

Spiders is a somewhat :censored: name but could inspire a killer logo. Not quite satisfied with any concepts I've seen.

 

The name should change eventually (I'd prefer this year but oh well), but for now I like our identity. Our colors and uniforms are nice. The Block C could use a white stroke and a home cap w/ a red bill.

 

And I think we should see a resurgence of the Scipt I. It's a unique logo that doesn't use Native imagery.

indians-logo.png

 

Find a way to unite the identity a bit between the Script I and Block C and we have a winner, at least for now. Though I personally have no issue, uniform-wise, with having a cursive home ID and block lettered road ID. It'd be nice to have some unifying sleeve logo...

 

I am making the pointless and stupid prediction that the Block C gets a white stroke and the roundel treatment and that satisfies the need for a primary for a while. 

 

011559c0806cb38910d94fc735d12bfe--clevel

 

*The logos above are from Google, I did not mock them up.

I always enjoyed the script I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

That's because Lucky the Leprechaun is a Leprechaun.  Leprechauns are not real, unlike Native Americans.  So the comparison breaks down pretty quickly.

The team name is the Celtics, not the Leprechauns.  It is a cartoon characterization and not an attempt to depict Celtic people, as opposed to how the Vikings are portrayed as an example.  Notre Dame hasn't garnered national backlash for Fightin' Irish.  Should they?  If no, why not?  Do away with Chief Wahoo, I agree with the move. But if using "Indians" is not politically correct then that standard needs to be applied equally to other groups as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best solution will be re-design Wahoo to be less/non offensive.

Share this post


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

That actually happens?  

Oh yeah. Never happened when I lived in Ohio obviously. But when I moved to Tennessee I got it all the time. The best (worst?) part was after the World Series. People would say "Oh man. I bet you're happy you guys finally broke the curse, huh?" 

 

Just rubbing salt in the wound :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Speaking of the name “Redskins”? My outlook on that is simple. If you were introduced to a Native person would you feel comfortable referring to them as a “redskin”? If not then you can see why so many people view the name as a problem.  

 

Hypothetical person doesn't play for the Redskins, so it doesn't make any sense to. I wouldn't call him a Met either.

Share this post


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