Chief Wahoo having passport problems at Toronto airport

[njdevs7]

16 minutes ago, CRichardson said:

You don't have to be of native descent to know that a caricature of a Native American with red skin is racist. It's no different from blackface.

 

The teams colors are red and blue. Not like they went out of their way to make the face red. If the face was navy you would think its ok?

[Kevin W.]

No, I'd still have a problem with it because the logo is an offensive caricature no matter what color the skin is. The red skin just makes it worse.

 

Besides, they could always make the skin  a natural tone, like the Blackhawks.

[JayMac]

43 minutes ago, The Giant Pacific Octopus said:

 

Riight. So that justifies making fun of a certain ethnicity then right? Because Italians aren't oppressed and we are considered white  that makes us fair game to be ridiculed and made fun of? I tell you when someone tries to justify racism towards a certain race or ethnicity it makes it even more offensive to me.

I agree with you. Regardless of being oppressed or not, all races and/or ethnicities should not be able to be ridiculed. Selective racism is a good way to put it. It's a double standard in my eyes. I'm sure that somehow makes me racist. 

 

FWIW, I hate the Chief Wahoo hat. It's incredibly dumb looking and I prefer the plain old (new?) block C hat.

[hawk36]

55 minutes ago, The Giant Pacific Octopus said:

 

Riight. So that justifies making fun of a certain ethnicity then right? Because Italians aren't oppressed and we are considered white  that makes us fair game to be ridiculed and made fun of? I tell you when someone tries to justify racism towards a certain race or ethnicity it makes it even more offensive to me.

Great point. There are plenty of logos with caricatures that can be considered offensive by some. Allowing selective racism only weakens a person's claim.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

58 minutes ago, The Giant Pacific Octopus said:

 

Riight. So that justifies making fun of a certain ethnicity then right? Because Italians aren't oppressed and we are considered white  that makes us fair game to be ridiculed and made fun of? 

 

A necessary component of racism is a power dynamic.  So ridiculing an ethnic group that is considered white and is therefore part of the privileged sector of society is fundamentally different from ridiculing a group that doesn't benefit from white privilege.  
 

[hawk36]

4 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

A necessary component of racism is a power dynamic.  So ridiculing an ethnic group that is considered white and is therefore part of the privileged sector of society is fundamentally different from ridiculing a group that doesn't benefit from white privilege.  
 

That's a horribly sad way of thinking that hinders your progress. Ridiculing any group is unacceptable.

[DL Watt]

As a white man who lost his right eye, I find the Oakland Raider's logo incredibly sensitive! (Just adding fuel to the fire) 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

17 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

TRidiculing any group is unacceptable.

 

It may be unacceptable on some other basis (e.g., it's rude, etc.).  But it ain't an example of racism.  

Words have meanings.  And the meaning of the word "racism" includes power relations and the reinforcement of societal inequality.

[~Bear]

I'm not offended by Atlanta Crackers. And I'm a lot white. That was a long time ago, but still. 

 

What about Cracker Barrel? But if it was {insert racial slur that's not Cracker} Barrel, is it still racist? Yeah. 

 

I have Native American blood (Lakota), but I don't complain about the Indians or Redskins. I've come to accept that that's the team's name and I know there won't be changing of names (in the near future). The Indian's logo is stereotypical/racist, so why not redesign it to make it more "agreeable?" That block C is just pitiful. 

[IceCap]

Just a reminder. This thread is being kept open on condition of the conversation remaining civil. Please refrain from personal insults.

[BeerGuyJordan]

3 hours ago, chcarlson23 said:

In the case of the logo, it's mostly offensive because of the red skin. Otherwise it would work as a face for almost anything. It honestly looks it could be used for a clown face, or on a pumpkin... (No, I'm not being racist, look at the logo as if it wasn't supposed to be a Native American)

I don't think that the offensive nature comes from it being a caricature. It looks really nothing like a person, let alone a stereotypical Native American. I think the Indians at the very least should drop the red skin on the logo. It'll still be a little offensive, but it works to please both parties a little more...

No, the caricature itself is typical of depictions of Natives in just about all early cartoons (i.e. Bugs Bunny). The red skin just makes it more blatant.

2 hours ago, njdevs7 said:

I think some of you guys are crazy. All I see in this logo is a cartoon Indian that is colored red. It's funny that there are Non-Indians arguing with other non-Indians that an Indian logo is offensive lol. Yea, Im sure some Indians don't like the name but I bet you a lot of actual Indians do like it. Let them decide, its not our decision. 

 

 

First, Indians is not what any of us identify as, and most think that American Indian is even more ludicrous. Native American, Indeginous American/People, First Nations or Aboriginal are the accepted terms. 

 

That being said, Indian is still used by the US government: Indian Health Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, etc.

 

Speaking as part of the group you say should make the decision, Natives generally have an issue with Chief Wahoo. Indians, as a team name, is merely outdated, and most Natives are ambivalent to its use.

 

I, personally, have no issue with the Braves, or their logo. The Blackhawks are fine, on both fronts, and the Indians name, while mildly grating, are fine.

 

The only two items in all of Major League sports I take issue with are Chief Wahoo and the Redskins name.

1 hour ago, njdevs7 said:

 

The teams colors are red and blue. Not like they went out of their way to make the face red. If the face was navy you would think its ok?

The face is red because of the Redskin nickname for Natives. It seems fairly obvious that the logo was designed that way, deliberately.

[hawk36]

I don't think the original designer set out to create something that really upset Native people to "stick it to them". And now, since the logo has such a long history, the team is reluctant to get rid of it. Not because they want to offend Native people but because it has been the team's brand for a long time.

 

If it were my team I'd change the logo, first and foremost, since I think it's a goofy logo. But if their ownership wants to keep and use it, I'm not offended as I never thought their Indian had anything to do with my family and ancestors. 

[Thomas]

2 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

A necessary component of racism is a power dynamic.  So ridiculing an ethnic group that is considered white and is therefore part of the privileged sector of society is fundamentally different from ridiculing a group that doesn't benefit from white privilege.  
 

 

Jesus , some people think racism towards whites is okay due to "white privilege"

I now see why these Cleveland Indian threads gets shut down.  

[Thomas]

2 hours ago, CRichardson said:

No, I'd still have a problem with it because the logo is an offensive caricature no matter what color the skin is. The red skin just makes it worse.

 

Besides, they could always make the skin  a natural tone, like the Blackhawks.

Who says it´s offensive, you ?

It could also be a complement. and caricatures goes back 100´s of years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caricature

[MJD7]

I think something that sometimes gets lost in these conversations is the logo itself. Personally, I don't like Chief Wahoo simply as a logo, before even getting into the racist/stereotypical tones it might convey. I don't really see what's worth salvaging about it.

 

I think building an identity that undoubtedly honors Native Americans would be more intriguing and unique among sports anyway. Not to mention that it would maintain the good aspects of their history, and still be progressive(the name of their field, ironically) at the same time.

 

However, if it were up to me, I wouldn't be afraid to change the identity entirely. The name "Indians" doesn't seem to ever be considered as racist as the logo is, but nonetheless it is still inaccurate. That would be enough for me to want to go in a new creative direction.

 

All this being said though, I could obviously never say that I hold all of the definitve, right answers. But maybe this is just a way to think about it before ever having to decide if the logo is racist or not.

[~Bear]

@MJD7 I agree. "Indians" could be replaced w/ Chiefs, Warriors, or Shamans (Chiefs seems to be the best IMO) and could be used to create a more accurate logo. And it's not like the logo is good. Its outdated. That being said, the block C isn't much better. 

 

And @BeerGuyJordan, I personally get confused when people say "Indian" because I never know if they mean Indians from Indian subcontinent or Native Americans. Columbus did think he was in the West Indies, thus the name "Indians", but especially where I am the area is culturally diverse for the South, so Indian generally means those from the subcontinent. American Indian more specifies, but I agree that something around the lines of Native Americans would be much better. When I here Aboriginies, however, my mind tends to wander to Australia and since that's the common moniker for the native people there. 

[OnWis97]

47 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

I don't think the original designer set out to create something that really upset Native people to "stick it to them". And now, since the logo has such a long history, the team is reluctant to get rid of it. Not because they want to offend Native people but because it has been the team's brand for a long time.

 

If it were my team I'd change the logo, first and foremost, since I think it's a goofy logo. But if their ownership wants to keep and use it, I'm not offended as I never thought their Indian had anything to do with my family and ancestors. 

That's probably true.  According to the Mothership, this logo (before minor tweaks) debuted in 1949.  Something similar was used from 1946-1948.  In those days, the general level of respect we had for Native Americans was somewhere in the neighborhood of "caricature".  You'll see that stuff with blacks and Asians as well.  So there's a bit of context as to why the designer designed it.  But it was symptomatic of a bigger problem; the less-than-equal way we looked at Native Americans.  Stuff like that is bigger than "PC."  It's subconscious.  Just because the intent wasn't there doesn't make it appropriate now...well it wasn't appropriate then, but it took us a few decades to evolve and realize it.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

1 hour ago, Thomas said:

Jesus , some people think racism towards whites is okay due to "white privilege"

 

"Racism towards whites" does not exist. 

[hawk36]

10 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

"Racism towards whites" does not exist. 

Such a sad world you have made for yourself. Rise above, man.

[-kj]

Why?  He's right.  White privilege is decidedly a thing.