CS85

Chief Wahoo Departs: Indians remove logo from brand in 2019

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, QueenCitySwarm said:

Which ones? All I can think of are these 6: Indians (which we're covering), Braves (who have done their part to remove offensive imagery), Blackhawks (I'm not sure about this one, since the logo isn't a caricature, but a real person), Redskins (they just need a total rebrand), and Celtics (same with the Blackhawks, but even less so). The only real problems I see are the Indians, Redskins, and maybe the Blackhawks.

 

Why are you worried about the logos? I thought we were talking about names?

 

Should the Vikings have a new name and rebrand?. 

Share this post


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

That is true, but I think the intent to stop using a race of people as a nickname for an entertainment product.

We're drifting into all sorts of nuance (which is appropriate for this issue) and potential political-esqe arguing (which the board discourages).

 

Personally, I am not fond of native-based names.  They sort of hearken back to a time when an entire race of people was seen as silly cartoons by the rest of us.  Ever see the portrayal of American Indians (not to mention other races) in 1950s (hell through 1980s) cartoons?  They were thought of as "less" and you'll never convince me otherwise.  Therefore, while these names are derivative of the context of the day (i.e., you could argue there was no intent to disrespect), I don't think they are particularly rooted in respect.

 

That said, undoing all of that gets tricky because there's a bit of a continuum between Redskins and Bears.  Vikings, Irish,* etc.  And I hate nothing more than when someone yells "What about Notre Dame!"  But it is an ethnic-based name for an entertainment product.  I do believe that it's less egregious, given that it was established at people of Irish descent.  The logo is almost self-deprecating, while Wahoo is essentially a caricature drawn up by the oppressors.  In short, it does threaten to become a slippery slope. I've chosen to draw the line at getting rid of the most eggregious things, which in big-time sports is Wahoo and "Redskins."  There are traditional names and images but sometimes the evolution of the world render them outdated and that's the case with those two.  I've chosen to move on from trying to kill off most other names and images because I do think, for example, Indians, while probably not respectful on day 1, can be so right now.  Wahoo, however, is beyond hope.  As is "Redskins."  I also don't like weaponry, as I think it contributes to the "savages" stereotype.  I'll take feathers over the Braves tomahawk any day (particularly given the crowd antics with that). But again, it becomes quite a mess and I know I have potential inconsistencies, but 100% consistency in dealing with past-established things may not be the goal.

Share this post


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

Which ones? All I can think of are these 6: Indians (which we're covering), Braves (who have done their part to remove offensive imagery), Blackhawks (I'm not sure about this one, since the logo isn't a caricature, but a real person), Redskins (they just need a total rebrand), and Celtics (same with the Blackhawks, but even less so). The only real problems I see are the Indians, Redskins, and maybe the Blackhawks.

Look at high schools and colleges...

 

https://www.denverpost.com/2015/04/02/lamar-home-of-the-savages-defends-mascot-as-culture-wars-rage/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

I also don't like weaponry, as I think it contributes to the "savages" stereotype.  I'll take feathers over the Braves tomahawk any day (particularly given the crowd antics with that).  It becomes quite a mess and I know I have potential inconsistencies, but 100% consistency in dealing with past-established things may not be the goal.

 

If you do away with weaponry...then you have to get rid of the Chiefs' arrowhead and any team that's ever used a spear...plus any use of swords, as swordsmanship was pretty savage back in the day too.

 

I'm plenty okay with doing away with Wahoo...and the Redskins change is likely inevitable, especially if they want a stadium in the District.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll never get rid of the name "Washington Redskins," it's been around too long and means too much to too many people, particularly the guy who owns the team. Your best hope is stripping any Native imagery from the identity and fan behavior, but they'll always be named the Redskins. Just try not to think of the word "redskin" as meaning anything other than "someone who plays for Washington's NFL team," which is the way non-prescriptive English is supposed to work, anyway.

 

2 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

I'm plenty okay with doing away with Wahoo...and the Redskins change is likely inevitable, especially if they want a stadium in the District.

They'll sooner move to Virginia than play ball like that. There shouldn't even be a football stadium in the District. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, WSU151 said:

 

If you do away with weaponry...then you have to get rid of the Chiefs' arrowhead and any team that's ever used a spear...plus any use of swords, as swordsmanship was pretty savage back in the day too.

 

I'm plenty okay with doing away with Wahoo...and the Redskins change is likely inevitable, especially if they want a stadium in the District.

I acknowledged my own inconsistencies...and I said I don't like it. But did not say to get rid of it.  That's kinda where I'm at.  I don't love it but I don't really want to call for it all to be removed.  As I was writing I thought "why do I have the Braves tomahawk so much more than the Chiefs arrowhead?"  I think it's because the Braves go all in with the Tomahawk Chop and the arrowhead on the Chiefs helmet pretty much just sits there quietly.  Or maybe it's because I associate the arrowhead with hunting and the tomahawk with white stereotypes of savages scalping white people...but that's pretty subtle and my own perception, which is why I am not actually talking about getting rid of any of it right now. Similarly, I don't like the name "Wild" but I'm not suggesting getting rid of it (actually, bad example, I am). The Orioles cartoon bird (damn; I want that gone, too).  The Rangers diagonal text on the jerseys.  Don't like it.  But I'm not calling for it to be changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, OnWis97 said:

Colleges and especially high schools are absolutely not off the hook. However, I was looking specifically within the Big 4, where it appears on a national stage constantly.

 

2 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

We're drifting into all sorts of nuance (which is appropriate for this issue) and potential political-esqe arguing (which the board discourages).

 

Personally, I am not fond of native-based names.  They sort of hearken back to a time when an entire race of people was seen as silly cartoons by the rest of us.  Ever see the portrayal of American Indians (not to mention other races) in 1950s (hell through 1980s) cartoons?  They were thought of as "less" and you'll never convince me otherwise.  Therefore, while these names are derivative of the context of the day (i.e., you could argue there was no intent to disrespect), I don't think they are particularly rooted in respect.

 

That said, undoing all of that gets tricky because there's a bit of a continuum between Redskins and Bears.  Vikings, Irish,* etc.  And I hate nothing more than when someone yells "What about Notre Dame!"  But it is an ethnic-based name for an entertainment product.  I do believe that it's less egregious, given that it was established at people of Irish descent.  The logo is almost self-deprecating, while Wahoo is essentially a caricature drawn up by the oppressors.  In short, it does threaten to become a slippery slope. I've chosen to draw the line at getting rid of the most eggregious things, which in big-time sports is Wahoo and "Redskins."  There are traditional names and images but sometimes the events of the word render them outdated and that's the case with those two.  I've chosen to move on from trying to kill off most other names and images because I do think, for example, Indians, while probably not respectful on day 1, does can be so right now.  Wahoo, however, is beyond hope.  I also don't like weaponry, as I think it contributes to the "savages" stereotype.  I'll take feathers over the Braves tomahawk any day (particularly given the crowd antics with that).  It becomes quite a mess and I know I have potential inconsistencies, but 100% consistency in dealing with past-established things may not be the goal.

I wholeheartedly agree. I don't really mind Vikings, since Vikings don't really exist anymore, and it's more of a historical thing than anything else. The Irish are for the most part fine, but the mascot logo is iffy. It's not the blatant racism we see in Wahoo, but it's not really kind, either. And I also think that when the names were chosen, no disrespect was meant, but now in the modern age we have to judge things with modern context, and these names to not fit the bill.

 

3 minutes ago, the admiral said:

You'll never get rid of the name "Washington Redskins," it's been around too long and means too much to too many people, particularly the guy who owns the team. Your best hope is stripping any Native imagery from the identity and fan behavior, but they'll always be named the Redskins. Just try not to think of the word "redskin" as meaning anything other than "someone who plays for Washington's NFL team," which is the way non-prescriptive English is supposed to work, anyway.

I disagree. I think that with enough pressure and a new owner, the team will change.

 

6 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

...plus any use of swords, as swordsmanship was pretty savage back in the day too.

 

 I don't think so. Swordsmanship is a nasty business, but I think he meant that the use of weapons associated with Native American-themed names reenforces the whole "Natives are just savages" thing we're trying to avoid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think they should scrap everything now... name, logos, and colors. Become something completely different because for starters, Indians is an incorrect term for Native Americans (and don't give me "American Indians" because the term "Indians" was still meant for people from India... (thanks, Columbus)). They only have one logo now and it's that horribly generic blocked C, which is not strong enough to be a primary logo (I have the same problem with Pittsburgh and Detroit, but I regress). Also, navy and red is obviously an overused color scheme and this could be an opportunity to explore something new.

Share this post


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

 I don't think so. Swordsmanship is a nasty business, but I think he meant that the use of weapons associated with Native American-themed names reenforces the whole "Natives are just savages" thing we're trying to avoid.

 

Yeah I was just thinking there will be a point when all savagery of all types will be marginalized. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


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

 

"American Indians" is widely accepted. 

 

There is no real safe answer, since most don't go by Native Americans or American Indians or First Nations.  They go by their tribe.  It takes a lot, from my limited understanding, to get several tribes, much less the mass collective, to sign off on one thing or another.  To us they may all be NA/AI/FN, but in their society they are still Cherokee, Iroquois, Cree, Sioux, etc.  They have histories, folklore, and rivalries that run very deep (obviously) that are difficult for the glut of "White America" to really understand because it's far too complicated for our dumb culture to dig through.  

As a white simpleton in central Illinois, I only know what I've read online and researched idly while I should've been working, but ... yeah.  

 

10 minutes ago, the admiral said:

You'll never get rid of the name "Washington Redskins," it's been around too long and means too much to too many people, particularly the guy who owns the team. Your best hope is stripping any Native imagery from the identity and fan behavior, but they'll always be named the Redskins. Just try not to think of the word "redskin" as meaning anything other than "someone who plays for Washington's NFL team," which is the way non-prescriptive English is supposed to work, anyway.

 

Until the NFL is knocked down a peg (re:  never), the Redskins name will linger on for a very long while, you're likely right.  As you said, the smart thing would be to ban fans from wearing headdresses and the like.  That should be policy at all Indians/Blackhawks/Redskins/etc. games.  

 

The logo is inoffensive (if you're comparing it to the Blackhawks logo for example), but the name "Redskin" is so antiquated and oily that I would never write off a change at some point.  It's like naming a team the "Dark Men" and having your logo be a handsome black gentleman.  He's not doing anything racist, and the words, "Dark Man" isn't incorrect or necessarily offensive, but it feels belligerent.   

 

I dunno.

Share this post


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

I think that with enough pressure and a new owner, the team will change.

 

Introduce me to the woke billionaire who will buy a team Snyder seems to enjoy owning and probably intends to pass down and also change the name of a major-market team that won the Super Bowl three times. It's not gonna happen, we're just gonna play the Secret Word game forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, the admiral said:

 

Introduce me to the woke billionaire who will buy a team Snyder seems to enjoy owning and probably intends to pass down and also change the name of a major-market team that won the Super Bowl three times. It's not gonna happen, we're just gonna play the Secret Word game forever.

I'm not saying it will happen soon. I'm just saying that pressure will happen and that just because it's historical, doesn't mean it's right. They may have been the Redskins their entire existence, but the name is still a slur of sorts towards Native Americans. It's simply derogatory and not right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Clevelander, I'm not happy about this, but I'll support it. I'm glad it's finally over with and we can move on. Now, how can we fix the block C?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, CS85 said:

 

There is no real safe answer, since most don't go by Native Americans or American Indians or First Nations.  They go by their tribe.  It takes a lot, from my limited understanding, to get several tribes, much less the mass collective, to sign off on one thing or another.  To us they may all be NA/AI/FN, but in their society they are still Cherokee, Iroquois, Cree, Sioux, etc.  They have histories, folklore, and rivalries that run very deep (obviously) that are difficult for the glut of "White America" to really understand because it's far too complicated for our dumb culture to dig through.  

 

Fair, but there are quite a few prominent foundations, groups, and other philanthropic orgs that use the term "American Indian" to promote the interests of these local tribes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone want to take bets on the odds of the new primary being the boring ass red block C inside of a blue roundel saying Cleveland Indians? 

Share this post


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

 

Why are you worried about the logos? I thought we were talking about names?

 

Should the Vikings have a new name and rebrand?. 

I was going to ask the same. I never hear the Vikings logo get brought up in these discussions. Is it not the same concept?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad to see it go, yet understand why its going away. The logo takes me back to my childhood and the Major League movies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, njdevs7 said:

I was going to ask the same. I never hear the Vikings logo get brought up in these discussions. Is it not the same concept?

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.