SportsLogos.Net News

Baseball Hall of Fame Retires Chief Wahoo From Plaques

Recommended Posts

Besides, it’s not like the Hall hasn’t gotten creative with cap logos before. 

 

3743102310_76f4e1a568_o.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warner Bros. had the right idea with their cartoons.

 

zmbuzmtwiv8n5h96hbvn.jpg

 

It’s better than pretending that a piece of “offensive” media never existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

7a358cb10eea1e013b3d6d24a457f193.jpg

 

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.

878177765feb0d80a869da2f7e23528f.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hat Boy said:

 

This is a statue of Julius Erving that sits in Philadelphia. 

7a358cb10eea1e013b3d6d24a457f193.jpg

 

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.

878177765feb0d80a869da2f7e23528f.jpg

 

I'm not sure this is a 1:1 comparison.  But I see where you are going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


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