CS85

Chief Wahoo Departs: Indians remove logo from brand in 2019

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Bill81361 said:

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.

 

34 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

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.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, jayjackson3 said:

I don't care if the logo is going away. It's a logo and nothing else. My only problem is the appetite will never be satisfied. There is already a call to change the team name now. It's never one thing. It starts as one thing. Then it becomes everything. Just the way these things go. 

 

So, you shouldn't think about something isn't good because it could lead to thinking about how other things aren't good?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Bill81361 said:

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.

 

Larry the Leprechaun is quite literally intended to be a leprechaun.  Same with Notre Dame’s logo. Those are not cartoon depictions of an entire group of dispossessed people.

 

I can’t help but notice that you’ve ignored the appropriation question.  People can name teams after themselves.  It’s trickier when you name your team after a group of people that you can’t represent and therefore don’t speak for.

 

And please don’t involve the tired cliche of “political correctness”. Wanting to get rid of a racist caricature like Little Red Sambo (or Little Black Sambo, for that matter) is not “political correctness.”  It’s just the decent thing to do, treating other human beings like human beings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.

 

The "Cleveland" takes care of that just fine.

Share this post


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

 

So, you shouldn't think about something isn't good because it could lead to thinking about how other things aren't good?

 

Someone who is always offended by something will ALWAYS be offended by something. When that person runs out of reasonable things to be offended by, they will find something new to take offense to. Let's not pretend this isn't the the case every single time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jayjackson3 said:

 

Someone who is always offended by something will ALWAYS be offended by something. When that person runs out of reasonable things to be offended by, they will find something new to take offense to. Let's not pretend this isn't the the case every single time. 

 

And so... we shouldn’t object to racist caricatures when we see them? :blink:  

 

Slippery Slope Fallacy is slippery. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, the admiral said:

 

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

Cute, but I don't buy the argument that "redskins" only refer to a player on a the Washington Redskins. Claiming it does takes a degree of wilful ignorance.

Share this post


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

 

And so... we shouldn’t object to racist caricatures when we see them? :blink:  

 

Slippery Slope Fallacy is slippery. 

 

Again, I don't care about the logo. But those (like myself) who know it will never stop at that are always looked at as crazy. "Oh that'll never happen" until it does. Is this really that far-fetched? No. It's not. 

Share this post


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

Cute, but I don't buy the argument that "redskins" only refer to a player on a the Washington Redskins. Claiming it does takes a degree of wilful ignorance.

 

As do most defenses of these names/logos. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jay is worried he won't be able to go woop-woop in the stands in Cobb County anymore. These are trying times for him. Don't you understand his whole culture is at stake here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jayjackson3 said:

Again, I don't care about the logo. But those (like myself) who know it will never stop at that are always looked at as crazy. "Oh that'll never happen" until it does. Is this really that far-fetched? No. It's not. 

 

Yes, it is.  You may wish to Google “Slippery Slope Fallacy”.  

 

And until then, all you've provided is an argument that nobody can ever object to racism.  Which isn’t terribly solid ground on which to stand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

 

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.  

I don't have anything to add to this, but because Ice_Cap's post is such a clean, succinct and accurate argument on this subject that it's almost certain to be ignored by the "What about the Fighting Irish?" crowd, I felt it was worth reposting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sodboy13 said:

Jay is worried he won't be able to go woop-woop in the stands in Cobb County anymore. These are trying times for him. Don't you understand his whole culture is at stake here?

 

So for the crime of having an opinion that is not in line with yours, I deserve to be personally attacked? 

Share this post


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

Cute, but I don't buy the argument that "redskins" only refer to a player on a the Washington Redskins. Claiming it does takes a degree of wilful ignorance.

I don't want to get into this argument, because it is a defense of an objectionable word, but to me, Redskins means the football team in Washington.  I wouldn't refer to a Native American as a Redskin because I don't feel the word carries that meaning any longer.

 

This doesn't claim to make it alright to use, mind you. But I'm not being willfully ignorant (I don't believe) when I say it means that football team to me. I would totally undertand and fully expect that it will change at some point, but I DO see the argument in its presentation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cleveland should follow the lead of the Spokane Indians and brand their team in a manner respectful to indigenous people.

 

https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/culture/sports/spokane-indians-take-historic-step-with-logo-in-salish-language/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jayjackson3 said:

 

So for the crime of having an opinion that is not in line with yours, I deserve to be personally attacked? 

You haven't provided anything other than "we shouldn't get rid of racist things because more racist things may go next."

It's not a particularly strong argument or opinion. Why don't you just tell us what you're trying to get at rather than dance around it with dogwhistle terminology?

 

2 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

I don't want to get into this argument, because it is a defense of an objectionable word, but to me, Redskins means the football team in Washington.  I wouldn't refer to a Native American as a Redskin because I don't feel the word carries that meaning any longer.

 

This doesn't claim to make it alright to use, mind you. But I'm not being willfully ignorant (I don't believe) when I say it means that football team to me. I would totally undertand and fully expect that it will change at some point, but I DO see the argument in its presentation. 

I can't buy into the idea that the name "Redskins" only refers to the football team so long as there are people of Native ancestry who see the term as a slur. It's historically been used as a slur, and the dictionary still recognizes it as a pejorative.

Share this post


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

 

Yes, it is.  You may wish to Google “Slippery Slope Fallacy”.  

 

And until then, all you've provided is an argument that nobody can ever object to racism.

 

The term 'willful ignorance' has been used already and I think it applies here. There's nothing wrong with predicting people going too far with this sort of thing just as there is nothing wrong with opposing it in the first place. Just because I know people have a knack for taking things way too far, doesn't mean I think Wahoo should stay because Cleveland fans like it. 

Share this post


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

Cleveland should follow the lead of the Spokane Indians and brand their team in a manner respectful to indigenous people.

 

https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/culture/sports/spokane-indians-take-historic-step-with-logo-in-salish-language/

 

Absolutely.  It’s certainly easier when you’re named after a specific tribe, but the Indians could and should find one to partner with.  The closest one, or one with historical ties to the area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jayjackson3 said:

 

The term 'willful ignorance' has been used already and I think it applies here. There's nothing wrong with predicting people going too far with this sort of thing just as there is nothing wrong with opposing it in the first place. Just because I know people have a knack for taking things way too far, doesn't mean I think Wahoo should stay because Cleveland fans like it. 

 

This argument doesn't work for me because it implies that we should keep everything that is bad and outdated just because it's been that way for a really long time. What names are there to lose to this sort of backlash that are even worth keeping around? If it's a slippery slope to removing blatant racism and insensitivity from sports branding than the slipperier the better. 

Share this post


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

I can't buy into the idea that the name "Redskins" only refers to the football team so long as there are people of Native ancestry who see the term as a slur. It's historically been used as a slur, and the dictionary still recognizes it as a pejorative.

Right - this is why I don't want to get into that argument, because it really isn't defensible. I'm just saying that FOR ME (and apparently others), it does mean that football team.

Share this post


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