Gothamite Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 Besides, it’s not like the Hall hasn’t gotten creative with cap logos before. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
O.C.D Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 In general, the idea of erasing history isn't ideal. Making something completely taboo has a weird way of keeping it relevant. I'm not against the logo change, I'm against acting like we live in a world where it never existed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFGiants58 Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 Warner Bros. had the right idea with their cartoons. It’s better than pretending that a piece of “offensive” media never existed. MLB: Project 32 (Complete), MLB: The Defunct Saga (Complete) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tubby34 Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 15 hours ago, OnWis97 said: I hate wahoo as much as anyone and I think to just say "PC!" is off the mark. That said, the HOF is a museum and should capture the good and the bad. If someone wore that hat for the key part of their career (i.e., if the Indians are the team they should represent and that's the hat they wore), then I'd rather see the hat used. This is a pretty rare departure for me. Jim Thome, I assume, is going in as an Indian. He did wear the "C" every so briefly in his late-career return to Cleveland, but Wahoo is obviously the main hat in his career. That said, if Thome himself asks to use the "C" then I think it's OK to honor that. Bert Blyleven's best/most days with the Twins was in the TC but he has the "M" and I think it's because he wanted the hat from the World Series. So I can live with Thome in the "C" if that's what he wants. I'm all for eliminating Wahoo but history can't really be changed. Some day, a kid visiting Cooperstown who never saw Wahoo on the field will ask his parents about the cap logo someone's plaque and that will be a teachable moment (of course most will just bellyache about political correctness). Thome actually requested the block C before this decision came down. He stated the sensitivities of it and liking the C more too. I think the HOF is making an attempt at revisionist history, there are no more Wahoo clad players worth induction anymore, and anyone after thome would have predominantly worn the C. Vizquel, Ramirez, and Lofton are all played who would go in with blank caps in my opinion, and Kluber if he keeps it up would be more identifiable with the C anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLEstones Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 So, this is a complex issue (for sports), so I'm just going to put some bullets down and you guys can take it however you want. - I do NOT believe the nickname "Indians" is offensive. - I DO think Chief Wahoo should be retired. - I DO think the Hall's decision to no longer use Chief Wahoo is a good idea. - I do NOT think Thome should go in wearing the Block C. That's being said, we can't ignore that Chief Wahoo existed. We can't ignore that it was a primary logo for the franchise for the last 50+ years. We can't just pretend it wasn't part of the history. After Thome, I don't see many more Indians making the Hall - Omar has an outside shot, ManRam would go in as a Sox. I think after the "90's era" would have been the right time to phase out the logo from all Hall plaques. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 21 minutes ago, CLEstones said: That's being said, we can't ignore that Chief Wahoo existed. We can't ignore that it was a primary logo for the franchise for the last 50+ years. We can't just pretend it wasn't part of the history. Nobody is doing that. Wahoo is already found throughout the Hall of Fame. There is no push to remove him from all displays, or whatever else would be necessary for “revisionist history” to be a thing. But Hall of Hame plaques are something very different. The iconography appearing there is especially powerful, and for that reason players have for generations had input into what is depicted there. At least one team has been so desperate for representation that they tried to buy their way on to a plaque. I don’t see any reason at all to oppose this move, especially since Thome himself is in agreement. If he wanted Wahoo on his plaque, then there might be an argument. But since he doesn’t.... The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnWis97 Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 I guess I did not realize 1) that Wahoo is only on one plaque, 2) Thome requested the C, 3) Wahoo is unlikely to be an issue any more. So why did the Hall even bother with this announcement? Just to show that they are on the right side? To me it's just another opportunity for a nuance-free scream session about the plague of political correctness. Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse." BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD POTD (Shared) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadSeed84 Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 5 minutes ago, OnWis97 said: I guess I did not realize 1) that Wahoo is only on one plaque, 2) Thome requested the C, 3) Wahoo is unlikely to be an issue any more. So why did the Hall even bother with this announcement? Just to show that they are on the right side? To me it's just another opportunity for a nuance-free scream session about the plague of political correctness. Agreed, they don't make long multiple paragraphs about the cap choice of the other plaques just have the plaque with the C and shut up about it. Most people don't care, ok the bad caricature logo from the 40s ain't cool anymore, so let's move on and stop caring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 32 minutes ago, OnWis97 said: So why did the Hall even bother with this announcement? Just to show that they are on the right side? Possibly. And that's not a bad thing. Real societal change starts when big institutions feel forced to even give lip service to popular movements. And when the Hall of Fame decides it's better to get ahead of this issue, that's saying something about where we are. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Akronite- Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 I feel like it should be up to the player ultimately if the plaque shows a cap logo at all, let alone whether it's Wahoo or some other cap. Even if a player spends their career on one team, it's possible they wore multiple caps. In Thome's case, I think he was on the side of letting Wahoo fade away. I mean, what if the Hall decided for him that his most prominent hat was Wahoo and made him wear it in his plaque when he didn't want to carry that prejudiced depiction forever? A player doesn't get to choose the logo for a team, so it'd be weird to "punish" someone in this way. As stated, this only really affects him and possibly someone like Lofton or Visquel if the HOF gets it's :censored: together. Going forward, it's no longer an issue anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 47 minutes ago, -Akronite- said: I feel like it should be up to the player ultimately if the plaque shows a cap logo at all, let alone whether it's Wahoo or some other cap. Even if a player spends their career on one team, it's possible they wore multiple caps. Players used to have the choice, but Wade Boggs ruined that when he sold his space to the Tampa Bay Devil Rays. Now players have some input, as is only right, but the league has the final say. And several of them went in without any logo on their caps at all. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFGiants58 Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 Just now, Gothamite said: Players used to have the choice, but Wade Boggs ruined that when he sold his space to the Tampa Bay Devil Rays. I’d say that the ball started rolling against when Nolan Ryan picked the Rangers for his cap, because he was on bad terms with the Angels and Astros at the time (the Mets weren’t even a consideration). Had the Hall picked, I think he’d have gone in as an Angel or a blank cap (or to be cheeky, a cap with the outline of Texas). MLB: Project 32 (Complete), MLB: The Defunct Saga (Complete) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 True, that's a good point. But Boggs put it over the edge. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawk36 Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 My only requirement, if it was up to me, would be that the player actually wore in an actual game whatever logo he wanted shown on his plaque. Design Hovie Studios Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Boy Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 5 hours ago, CLEstones said: That's being said, we can't ignore that Chief Wahoo existed. We can't ignore that it was a primary logo for the franchise for the last 50+ years. We can't just pretend it wasn't part of the history. This is a statue of Julius Erving that sits in Philadelphia. Erving asked that the statue represent him from later in his career, because he felt he looked more dignified. I don't think anyone argued that in doing so, Dr J was pretending that his sweet afro and gold chain never existed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLEstones Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 8 hours ago, Gothamite said: Nobody is doing that. Wahoo is already found throughout the Hall of Fame. There is no push to remove him from all displays, or whatever else would be necessary for “revisionist history” to be a thing. But Hall of Hame plaques are something very different. The iconography appearing there is especially powerful, and for that reason players have for generations had input into what is depicted there. At least one team has been so desperate for representation that they tried to buy their way on to a plaque. I don’t see any reason at all to oppose this move, especially since Thome himself is in agreement. If he wanted Wahoo on his plaque, then there might be an argument. But since he doesn’t.... If it was a decision that truly came from Thome, I don't mind it. However, I'm not sure it was something that he decided on his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLEstones Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 3 hours ago, Hat Boy said: This is a statue of Julius Erving that sits in Philadelphia. Erving asked that the statue represent him from later in his career, because he felt he looked more dignified. I don't think anyone argued that in doing so, Dr J was pretending that his sweet afro and gold chain never existed. I'm not sure this is a 1:1 comparison. But I see where you are going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 2 hours ago, CLEstones said: If it was a decision that truly came from Thome, I don't mind it. However, I'm not sure it was something that he decided on his own. Why not? Do you think only baseball fans can think Wahoo is a racist symbol best left in a dusty past? The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 2 hours ago, CLEstones said: I'm not sure this is a 1:1 comparison. But I see where you are going. Seems on-the-nose to me. Choosing a later hairstyle to commemorate does not mean the Afro is victim of “historical revisionism”. Choosing to represent another logo Thome wore on his plaque isn’t pretending that Wahoo never existed, either. That’s pretty 1:1. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VikWings Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 23 hours ago, Hat Boy said: So we should ignore Thome's wishes and force him to accept Chief Wahoo on his plaque? Because, without that plaque, Chief Wahoo will be lost in the annals of history forever? Wade Boggs requested a Devil Rays hat and they didn’t honor that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.