MLB Changes 2017

[Gothamite]

Fair enough. 

[The_Admiral]

12 hours ago, Ray Lankford said:

Not to put words in your mouth but Padres management deserves credit for not caving and bringing back the bubble font, which already looked ridiculous in the 70s.

I agree. I was thinking an update of either the tailed script or the serifed lettering they used before the Bauhaus letters.

[Rj0498]

I really like the font they used around the 80s i think it would look good if brought back

[Ray Lankford]

Will the New Era logo be white on every team's hat or will teams with lighter secondary colors be more custom?

[HighCheese]

25 minutes ago, Ray Lankford said:

Will the New Era logo be white on every team's hat or will teams with lighter secondary colors be more custom?

So far if the logo has any trace of white then yes. So of course dodgers or blue jays, but even a white outline like texas and boston

 

but for teams with no white like the giants and mets they use the logo color. In their case, orange

[IceCap]

15 hours ago, Gothamite said:

Cherry pick?  Lols, as I believe the kids today doth exclaim in amusement and derision.

 

None of the examples you cite are of groups specifically depicted as inhuman savages because of their race.  Which means they are not actually analogous at all.

 

You could possibly make that argument about something like the names "Braves" or "Chiefs", which are jobs and not immutable characteristics.  It wouldn't still be a great argument, since it willfully ignores centuries of oppression and outright genicode.  But it would at least be a coherent argument. 

Actually...

 

Vikings were often depicted as inhuman savages in European literature and history up until the 18th century. At that point, around the time of the Viking Revival, they began to be viewed as...

 

 

...noble savages. So that's interesting. You could even claim that the Minnesota Vikings' logo set that leans heavily on horns is offensive. It's not only historically inaccurate. That popular inaccuracy is based on Greek writings that described "horned savages from the north." Many later European scholars assumed that any reference to savages from the north had to be Scandinavian Vikings, and so that image got ingrained in the popular consciousness. We're not sure who those Greek authors were referring to, but we're sure it wasn't Vikings. 

It's only relatively recently that history as a discipline has come to really explore pre-Christian Scandinavian culture as, well, a fleshed out and defined culture outside of either the "barbarian savage" or "noble savage" archetypes. 

 

You could argue that race isn't a factor but doing so would be to treat Europeans as one monolithic culture in the way @BringBackTheVet correctly pointed out that Europeans wrongly group all Natives/First Nations together. 

Ethnicity and race are two distinct constructs. "Vikings" as a name may not represent a separate oppressed race, but it does represent an ethnic identity and culture that was eventually beat into submission by the wave of Christianization that swept over Europe.  

 

You have a much much stronger point about opprsssion/genocide, but...

 

As much as I agree with the sentiments expressed by @Ferdinand Cesarano I can't sign off on the idea that ALL native imagery has to be off limits. 

As you have pointed out, teams that have reached out to local tribes have done all they can to ensure that their identities do not belittle or disparage the people their names and logos represent. That seems like an ideal roadmap for teams in this situation to follow going forward.

 

That being said...where does it leave the vast majority of pro identities that use First Nations names or imagery?

Obviously the name "Redskins" is a slur and the Indians' "Chief Wahoo" logo is a racist cartoon. Both need to be dropped ASAP. I don't think any reasonable person disagrees on those fronts.

 

Where I part with Ferdinand and yourself is on teams suck as the Blackhawks, Chiefs, and Braves. 

Chief Black Hawk, who the NHL team is named after in a roundabout way, was a famous Sauk leader who defied the US Government. Given that, and the fact that the NHL team's logo isn't a racist caricature? I'm having a hard time seeing what exactly is offensive about it. 

It's worth noting that the Canadian First Nations activist who issued the complaint about the Blackhawks' logo isn't even a Sauk. 

So if we're going to avoid falling into the trap of lumping all Native peoples into one ethnicity? We need to accept that Ghislain Picard has no agency to speak to the appropriateness of the Blackhawks' logo. 

 

Nor do I see the issues with the names Chiefs or Braves. Both are depicting job titles, not people. And neither team currently uses a logo that depicts a human being (the Braves' attempt at resurrecting an old racist logo got successfully shut down). 

Again, the genocide claim is strong but I think with these cases it's a matter of context.

As BBTV pointed out...American and Canadian cultures have both reached the point where we're willing to be critical of our own history and accept the wrongdoings committed in the names of our nations in the past. No reasonable person in North America thinks that what their country did to the Native populations of this continent was a good thing. 

And while Native communities still face many hardships as a result of those actions? The trend has undisputedly been towards trying to improve those conditions and restore a degree of autonomy to those communities. 

 

My point is that while things are far from perfect? We as a culture have come to terms and accepted the wrongs of the past, and are trending in the direction of trying to make things more equitable. 

 

So if we accept that? And if we accept the notion that American historian Emory M. Thomas put forth that the bedrock of American culture is a combination of European, Native, African, and Latino influences? We have to accept that names like "Chiefs" and "Braves" are simply part of the American lexicon. And should be fair game so long as the teams using those names don't disparage anyone by doing so. 

 

I say that defending the Braves' name and identity, but they really do need to stop the Tomahawk chop and chant.  

[Gothamite]

2 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

Vikings were often depicted as inhuman savages in European literature and history up until the 18th century. At that point, around the time of the Viking Revival, they began to be viewed as...

 

...noble savages. So that's interesting.

 

It is. but in this case I think we have to view the different cultures within the context of our shared American story.  There hasn't exactly been a long history of discrimination against Scandanavians (unless we're counting pernicious Ole and Sven jokes), much less a concentrated campaign of dehumanization leading to outright genocide.  So it's kind of hard to compare the two.

 

2 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

As much as I agree with the sentiments expressed by @Ferdinand Cesarano I can't sign off on the idea that ALL native imagery has to be off limits. 

As you have pointed out, teams that have reached out to local tribes have done all they can to ensure that their identities do not belittle or disparage the people their names and logos represent. That seems like an ideal roadmap for teams in this situation to follow going forward.

 

That being said...where does it leave the vast majority of pro identities that use First Nations names or imagery?

Obviously the name "Redskins" is a slur and the Indians' "Chief Wahoo" logo is a racist cartoon. Both need to be dropped ASAP. I don't think any reasonable person disagrees on those fronts.

 

Where I part with Ferdinand and yourself is on teams suck as the Blackhawks, Chiefs, and Braves. 

Chief Black Hawk, who the NHL team is named after in a roundabout way, was a famous Sauk leader who defied the US Government. Given that, and the fact that the NHL team's logo isn't a racist caricature? I'm having a hard time seeing what exactly is offensive about it.

 

I seem to have expressed myself poorly or otherwise given you the wrong impression; I don't think I've ever said that those are out of bounds.  I've never intended to say that all First Nations imagery is automatically offensive or that it can never be adopted.  I think that we have to look at them on a case-by-case basis, and for what it's worth (not much) I don't personally have an issue with any of those three teams.

 

I completely agree that there's a difference between immutable characteristics and jobs.  Which is where I personally tend to draw the lines.  Braves and Chiefs are jobs, not immutable characteristics, and therefore seem no more inherently racist to me than Knights or Kings (or even Brewers and Packers).  Now, the first two are obviously more likely to lead to racist imagery than the others (such as the Screaming Brave and Tomahawk Chop), but if care is taken to avoid those pitfalls I believe it is very possible to use them in a genuinely respectful manner.  As the two teams have tended to do.  I'm a little torn on names like "Indians", although I think it's still possible to use them positively.   At the other end of the spectrum lie truly indefensible things like Cleveland's logo and Washington's name, but my point is that there is indeed a spectrum and that every name and logo has to be considered for its place on it.

 

I also agree that the American mosaic does and ought to include First Nations as part of our collective culture, and they should be welcomed and celebrated within it.  The First Nations story is as much a part of my country's heritage as that of the Italian-Americans who came over in the 1860s, even though I don't personally share any genetic link to either group.  I love that the Seminoles were able to come to a licensing agreement with Florida State and wish that the two Sioux tribes could have done the same with North Dakota.  That's why I'm so much in favor of what the Spokane Indians did; they found a way to recognize their local heritage, and the first people to settle there, in a way that is truly respectful and honoring rather than the lip-service veneer so often applied.

[Ray Lankford]

If the Braves wanted to be proactive, they could promote their cream alt to primary and create a variation of it for the other colors. It'd also solve the problem of how terrible their heavily red road uniform looks with an all blue hat.

[mjd77]

On 10/29/2016 at 6:00 PM, Gothamite said:

That is a logo. 

 

If you're saying you want a mascot logo, that's where it gets tricky. 

 

I think that is probably more along the lines of what I meant.  Can we come up with an Indian mascot that isn't offensive?...or can we at least come up with something other than feathers to represent an Indians nickname?

[Gothamite]

Well, in this case I'm willing to give Spokane a pass on the feathers.  They might be a trope, but they were also chosen in conjunction with the tribe.  So if that's how the tribe wants to be represented, I can't argue with that.

 

As for a mascot logo, the pitfalls are many.  Our history isn't clean enough to use an actual human being as a mascot without veering into dangerous territory.  I think it's more likely that we could get a representative animal mascot logo rendered in a traditional form, like the Seahawks use.  

[Matito]

11 hours ago, HighCheese said:

So far if the logo has any trace of white then yes. So of course dodgers or blue jays, but even a white outline like texas and boston

 

but for teams with no white like the giants and mets they use the logo color. In their case, orange

I really wish they'd use more secondary colors and shy away from using white for everyone. Columbia blue for Tampa Bay, orange for Baltimore, gray for New York, red for Boston and white for Toronto. There, that's the whole AL East, all with different colors.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

 

3 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

Where I part with Ferdinand and yourself is on teams suc[h] as the Blackhawks, Chiefs, and Braves.

 

Please realise that my whole point is the need to defer to the wishes of Natives, who occupy a unique spot amongst the peoples whose imagery is used as team names.  If there has been no sustained outcry about the Blackhawks' name, it's probably due to the factors you cited.  If Natives themselves aren't bothered, then Bob's your uncle.

The Chiefs, who once had a headdressed mascot riding around on horseback, are wise enough nowadays not to use any other Native imagery apart from the arrowhead.  So they escape scrutiny.  If we don't hear from Natives on the matter, then it's best to leave the whole thing alone. 

Regarding the the Braves, who until recently had Chief Noc-a-Homa and the Tomahawk Chop, we have heard plenty of protest, especially during the 1995 and 1996 World Series.  So we cannot honestly make the assertion that Natives are cool with this.  Still, I doubt that the Braves will change their nickname, though they will no doubt eventually drop the tomahawk (which will be sad from a purely aesthetic perspective -- a perspective that I have already acknowledged as being an inappropriate one to take in these matters).

Still, I think it's safe to say that no new teams could consider any of those names.

Side note: after the Edmonton Eskimos won the Grey Cup last year, there was a sudden upsurge of criticism of that name, with many Inuit people expressing their offence at it and saying that it ought to be changed.  Only a few weeks ago, the former CFL commissioner, who is now the mayor of Toronto, mentioned again the need to change that team's name.  So perhaps the clock is ticking on a team name that most people probably thought had become more-or-less defanged.

 

 

[KGeeX5]

30 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

 

Please realise that my whole point is the need to defer to the wishes of Natives, who occupy a unique spot amongst the peoples whose imagery is used as team names.  If there has been no sustained outcry about the Blackhawks' name, it's probably due to the factors you cited.  If Natives themselves aren't bothered, then Bob's your uncle.

The Chiefs, who once had a headdressed mascot riding around on horseback, are wise enough nowadays not to use any other Native imagery apart from the arrowhead.  So they escape scrutiny.  If we don't hear from Natives on the matter, then it's best to leave the whole thing alone. 

Regarding the the Braves, who until recently had Chief Noc-a-Homa and the Tomahawk Chop, we have heard plenty of protest, especially during the 1995 and 1996 World Series.  So we cannot honestly make the assertion that Natives are cool with this.  Still, I doubt that the Braves will change their nickname, though they will no doubt eventually drop the tomahawk (which will be sad from a purely aesthetic perspective -- a perspective that I have already acknowledged as being an inappropriate one to take in these matters).

Still, I think it's safe to say that no new teams could consider any of those names.

Side note: after the Edmonton Eskimos won the Grey Cup last year, there was a sudden upsurge of criticism of that name, with many Inuit people expressing their offence at it and saying that it ought to be changed.  Only a few weeks ago, the former CFL commissioner, who is now the mayor of Toronto, mentioned again the need to change that team's name.  So perhaps the clock is ticking on a team name that most people probably thought had become more-or-less defanged.

 

 

 

Since when is Eskimo offensive? c'mon people....

[Sport]

A friend of mine is an Indians fan who wants the team to drop the logo, could take or leave the name. "That's not why I root for the team" he claims, I think he'll have a harder time moving on than he thinks, but I like his perspective. Not all Indians fans are the guys wearing headdresses and face paint. Those guys are morons. Anyways, he made a good point that even if the team drops the logo it's not like it'll become illegal to wear. If someone wants to they can continue to wear Chief Wahoo. This slow transition away from it, and insisting on wearing it in literally every single playoff game isn't cool. They need to make a clean break. If some fans stuck in the past insist on wearing it then that's on them, but there's no excuse for the team to continue doing so. The team sets the example for their fans and the example they're setting is bad. 

 

 

I was thinking about this yesterday as I watched the Bengals play the Redskins and then later when the Indians played the Cubs - what do the actual players think of this issue? They're the ones who are forced to wear the mark as part of their work attire. What would happen if a player took a stance that they'd refuse to report to a team where they were forced to play as a Redskin or wear a cap with Chief Wahoo? What would happen if a member of the Indians refused to wear the jersey if Chief Wahoo is on the sleeve? I think that might be the step that needs to happen for the leagues to take action. 

[WSU151]

34 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

I was thinking about this yesterday as I watched the Bengals play the Redskins and then later when the Indians played the Cubs - what do the actual players think of this issue? They're the ones who are forced to wear the mark as part of their work attire. What would happen if a player took a stance that they'd refuse to report to a team where they were forced to play as a Redskin or wear a cap with Chief Wahoo? What would happen if a member of the Indians refused to wear the jersey if Chief Wahoo is on the sleeve? I think that might be the step that needs to happen for the leagues to take action. 

 

The players choose to sign with those teams, right?  Even with huge money as a factor, if a player is really against the imagery, they do have the option of not playing for them.  If the player is traded to the team, and chose not to report because of the imagery, the team is still in control.  Players are replaceable, and if they don't want to wear the clothes, they'll receive a friendly "Thanks anyway" card in the mail.  

 

Mike Carey said he requested not to officiate Redskins games, and the NFL obliged, but the NFL wasn't hard-pressed to find referees to work those games.

[Sport]

45 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

The players choose to sign with those teams, right?  Even with huge money as a factor, if a player is really against the imagery, they do have the option of not playing for them.  If the player is traded to the team, and chose not to report because of the imagery, the team is still in control.  Players are replaceable, and if they don't want to wear the clothes, they'll receive a friendly "Thanks anyway" card in the mail.  

 

Which is why it would take a star player with some leverage to tell the Redskins to go sh** in a hat in order to make a difference. If RGIII*, for instance, had said "no, I'd rather not play for a year than sign with a team called the Redskins" right after they traded so much to get him then it would've been a huge statement. I understand why nobody's been willing to risk their NFL future, upset the apple cart before playing a snap in the NFL, go through the blowback, and maybe lose millions of dollars to make that statement, but I could see somebody doing it in the future. 

 

 

*In my understanding in reality RGIII took the exact opposite approach towards the nickname. 

[SilverBullet1929]

Putting this on the players is a bit much. If I've worked my whole life to get to the major leagues and finally get there I'll wear whatever garbage everyone else is wearing even if I think it's offensive. I'm just saying it would take A LOT for a player to refuse to wear the uniform.

[AnPheitseog]

The only way that the Redskins can save the name is if they destroyed all Native imagery and went to a redskin potato mascot. Which would be quite entertaining, having a NFL team names after a potato. 

 

For what it's worth, at least in my real life living within a day trip to Cleveland. Most people seem to prefer the block C.

 

Also, mods, anyway my above post could be deleted please. 

[WSU151]

43 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

 

Which is why it would take a star player with some leverage to tell the Redskins to go sh** in a hat in order to make a difference. If RGIII*, for instance, had said "no, I'd rather not play for a year than sign with a team called the Redskins" right after they traded so much to get him then it would've been a huge statement. I understand why nobody's been willing to risk their NFL future, upset the apple cart before playing a snap in the NFL, go through the blowback, and maybe lose millions of dollars to make that statement, but I could see somebody doing it in the future. 

 

 

*In my understanding in reality RGIII took the exact opposite approach towards the nickname. 

 

I would bet $10 that Snyder's group asked RGIII a question or two about the nickname in pre-draft interviews, and possibly had him sign a disclaimer.  

 

Like you said, though, it would take an incredibly unique situation for a player to have that much leverage in the organization. 

[IceCap]

22 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

As for a mascot logo, the pitfalls are many.  Our history isn't clean enough to use an actual human being as a mascot without veering into dangerous territory.

The Blackhawks pulled it off, and their current logo was originally designed in the 60s. The Seminole tribes of Florida don't seem to object to FSU's logo. I would even say Washington's NFL team has the logo down. Nothing cartoony or demeaning there. It's the name, not the logo, that's got people (rightfully) upset.

I'm just saying that it's something that can be done right. It just requires a bit of awareness.

 

23 hours ago, Gothamite said:

It is. but in this case I think we have to view the different cultures within the context of our shared American story.  There hasn't exactly been a long history of discrimination against Scandanavians (unless we're counting pernicious Ole and Sven jokes), much less a concentrated campaign of dehumanization leading to outright genocide.  So it's kind of hard to compare the two.

 

Ah, but I'm not talking about Scandinavians as a "race" or nationality. I'm talking about Viking culture. Specifically pre-Christian Scandinavian culture Viking warriors are associated with. There's never been a long history of discrimination against Scandinavians, but the pre-Christian Viking ethnic identity was pretty much purged as a result of the aggressive Christianisation of Europe.

 

23 hours ago, Gothamite said:

I seem to have expressed myself poorly or otherwise given you the wrong impression; I don't think I've ever said that those are out of bounds.  I've never intended to say that all First Nations imagery is automatically offensive or that it can never be adopted.  I think that we have to look at them on a case-by-case basis, and for what it's worth (not much) I don't personally have an issue with any of those three teams.

 

I completely agree that there's a difference between immutable characteristics and jobs.  Which is where I personally tend to draw the lines.  Braves and Chiefs are jobs, not immutable characteristics, and therefore seem no more inherently racist to me than Knights or Kings (or even Brewers and Packers).  Now, the first two are obviously more likely to lead to racist imagery than the others (such as the Screaming Brave and Tomahawk Chop), but if care is taken to avoid those pitfalls I believe it is very possible to use them in a genuinely respectful manner.  As the two teams have tended to do.  I'm a little torn on names like "Indians", although I think it's still possible to use them positively.   At the other end of the spectrum lie truly indefensible things like Cleveland's logo and Washington's name, but my point is that there is indeed a spectrum and that every name and logo has to be considered for its place on it.

First off, glad to see a Yank go with the First Nations moniker. It's really a better term than the clumsy "Native/Indians" debate. Plus it's a bit more dignified I think. 

Secondly, sorry if I misread some of your earlier comments on the matter.

I think the name "Indians" is fine, and the Spokane MiLB team proved you can make it work. The name is "incorrect," but it still seems workable given a few factors. The first is that the name wasn't meant to be derogatory. Columbus thought he was in India. So he called the people he met there Indians. It wasn't meant as a slur. It's just an incorrect use of a term that gained traction. Secondly, there are plenty of First Nations groups and tribes across both the US and Canada that use the term "Indian" and use it to refer to themselves.

Honestly? I always say "Native" or "First Nations," but if the people being referenced don't take issue with "Indians"? It's probably fine as a team name. The name shouldn't be automatically disqualified because the Cleveland team made a mess of the logo situation. Much like how Washington's NFL logo shouldn't necessarily be tossed on the scrapheap because the name is a slur. There are ways to salvage both overall identities with some logo and name adjustments, respectfully. 

 

I agree totally though, that this is definitely a case-by-case situation. And as has been pointed out? The Chiefs and Braves have had problematic elements of their identity that they've simply abandoned. So I think even in the case of the Cleveland Indians and the Washington Redskins? The overall identity of both teams can be salvaged should the teams suddenly gain the wherewithal to treat the cultures they've been basing their identities on with respect.

Sadly Dan Snyder probably won't have that realisation any time soon. Which is tragic for a variety of reasons. One of the key ones being that he should know better as a Jew.

 

21 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Please realise that my whole point is the need to defer to the wishes of Natives, who occupy a unique spot amongst the peoples whose imagery is used as team names.  If there has been no sustained outcry about the Blackhawks' name, it's probably due to the factors you cited.  If Natives themselves aren't bothered, then Bob's your uncle.

I agree. Part of my issue with the Blackhawks situation is with Ghislain Picard. Mr. Picard is the Chief of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador. He's called on the Blakhawks to change their logo.

Now a lot of people might say "well here's a Native in a leadership position who thinks it's got to go." Except...Chief Black Hawk was a Sauk. Mr. Picard is not a Sauk, and the organisation he leads doesn't include any Sauk tribe.

Now I think it would be great if the Blackhawks could work out a deal of sorts with the Sauk tribes, but even if they don't? I tend to take the position you've cited. If they don't actively say it's a problem then it's probably not a problem.

 

One of the biggest pitfalls we as people of non-Native descent fall into when discussing these issues is assuming all Natives are one ethnicity. They're not. The First Nations of the American continents have as much in common as the various nations of Eurasia. Chief Black Hawk's legacy belongs to the Sauk people. I don't have an ounce of Native blood in me, and it irritates me to see Ghislain Picard try to claim a degree of agency over the Chicago Blackhawks' logo. It would be like a Russian declaring the Fighting Irish logo is offensive because "Russians and the Irish are both Caucasian."