Cleveland Indians Unveil New Uniform, Cap for 2019

[panthers_2012]

mod edit

[The_Admiral]

Anyway, I watched the Sox play the Indians the other day and the Indians were wearing their navy Cleveland road alternates. Insisting upon location names on the road uniforms has long been a hobby-horse of mine (and this board is a veritable stable of hobby-horses), but I only really meant that for the grey ones. This looks bad. The navy Indians jersey over the red undershirt is as close to a signature spin on red/white/blue as they have, and I think they should have left that alone. One navy jersey is enough.

 

I don't remember which hat they wore but I'm pretty sure it wasn't navy crown/red bill, which should be their only option.

[IceCap]

2 minutes ago, the admiral said:

Anyway, I watched the Sox play the Indians the other day and the Indians were wearing their navy Cleveland road alternates. Insisting upon location names on the road uniforms has long been a hobby-horse of mine (and this board is a veritable stable of hobby-horses), but I only really meant that for the grey ones. This looks bad. The navy Indians jersey over the red undershirt is as close to a signature spin on red/white/blue as they have, and I think they should have left that alone. One navy jersey is enough.

 

I don't remember which hat they wore but I'm pretty sure it wasn't navy crown/red bill, which should be their only option.

MLB has had that problem when it comes to alternates, due to the unique way its traditional uniform system works. Ultimately? It's best to just have one alternate with your team name on it, and who cares if that means you occasionally wear your team name on the road?

Some teams overthink it though, and double up with home and road versions. The Mets were the worst, where they went so far as to colour the "New York" text on their road alternates grey to match the pants. Sometimes teams need to take a step back and understand less is more.

[The_Admiral]

As much as I hate that grey New York script, I'd say the Mets were only second-worst. The worst in alt redundancy (ah, my old favorite Usenet newsgroup) was the 2005-2006 Cubs, who had blue Dumpster Bear jerseys without NOBs at home and then the same jerseys with names for road games.

[SFGiants58]

54 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Ok. So I'm gonna lay out some stuff that might seem random but it actually goes into the whole "white-splaining" thing and why it's not really relevant at all in this particular case. And that's beyond two people painting me with a brush that has been used to marginalize and slaughter my own ethnic background, all in an attempt to delegitimize my point.

 

Let's start off with something admiral said. That American Indians/Natives/First Nations are from the Russian far east. They are. Archaeologists and geneticists have found undeniable proof that the ancestors of Native Americans came from northeastern Siberia across Beringia (a subcontinent that once connected Siberia to Alaska) and spread out across the American continents. This all happened around 20,000 years ago.

Anyway there are quite a few Native American religious beliefs that hold that their ancestors came from their land- ie land on the American continents. That their ancestors were "made" in the Americas. These religious beliefs run counter to above-mentioned Native ancestry in northeastern Siberia.

 

Oh, I'd never try to dispute the scientific and archaeological facts of the ancestry. I'm a firm believer in the archaeological and genetic facts. When I tried to defend the "white-splaining" term, I was using it to refer to matters of historiographical arguments (e.g., indigenous-colonial interactions, the necessity of assimilatory measures, etc.), not the scientific facts of Native American genetic heritage or archaeological history. 

 

Quote

Now here's where the "white-splaining" potholes come in. See, most (not all, but most) of the scientists and archaeologists making these discoveries are white. And there are very good reasons why Native peoples have an issue with white people strolling into town to tell them about their culture and history. I am not an idiot, I'm well aware of the history and why that's a huge hangup for so many Native people.

I also understand the cultural and political aspects at play. There has been a consistent current of white supremacist thought (which is idiotic, as I explained that "white" as a monolithic ethnic bloc doesn't exist) since the earliest days of British colonization that have attempted to claim Natives don't "truly" own the label of being the indigenous peoples of the Americas. So I'm sensitive to how a Native would see some white people going "here's where you really came from."

 

Definitely. It's incredibly important to understand these dynamics, especially when it comes to communicating these facts. As for the bolded point, racial diversity in the archaeological and genetics fields is a whole rant for another day

 

Quote

That being said? The science and archaeology doesn't lie. The ancestors of Native Americans as a broad ethnic group came to the American continents 20,000 years ago over the Beringian subcontinent, before it was submerged. Does that lessen Native American groups' claims to being the indigenous peoples of the Americas? Not at all! Compared to when the earliest Europeans found the Americas (vikings circa 1000 CE)? The ancestors of Native Americans certainly have an iron-clad claim of being these continents' first peoples.

Yet despite that? A good deal of Native activists and spiritual leaders flat out refuse to accept the genetic studies and archaeological work that illuminates where their distant ancestors came from. They consider it "white-splaining."

Only it's not. It's science. Peer reviewed scientific study, backed up by objectively gathered empirical data. Does it conflict with many Native religious beliefs? Sure, but they are hardly the first people in the world to have their spiritual beliefs tested by the cold, uncaring hand of scientific discovery.

 

I get why they would resist, but it's silly. It doesn't change that they were the first humans on the continent. It still has nothing on what certain sects of the Nation of Islam believes about the origins of blacks and whites, and how some will say that science backs up these beliefs.

 

Quote

In short? You can't just say "white-splaining" to discredit something with a factual backing. Again, I get it. These are sensitive topics but at the end of the day? If we are going to be a society (not Native, not white, not anything so exclusionary, a true open society) that values factual knowledge? We cannot hide behind such terms to disregard objectively arrived at truths.

 

I thoroughly agree. Again, "white-splaining" is something like a white person exhibiting ignorance of system racism or reinforcing long-discredited stereotypes towards subaltern peoples. Examples of this would include trying to perpetuate the idea that the indigenous people of the United States needed to be assimilated into Anglo-American culture or arguing that the Native Americans weren't at a constant disadvantage in treaty negotiations. It's not trying to teach peer-reviewed facts. Heck, if I started talking about Japanese war crimes in World War II to various Japanese people, I'd probably get slapped with that "white-splaining" term or just be written off as some gaijin jerk. 

 

Quote

And so when I say "'Indians' as a name isn't derogatory" I'm not trying to tell a Native person "about their own culture," nor am I trying to "erase" tribal identities. I'm simply giving you (a general "you") the etymological history of the term. That's not "white-spalining," that's just a ing fact. And on top of that? You (a general "you") may wanna be careful who you fling that term at, because you just might end up using it against the wrong person.

 

It was a good etymological overview, one that I have no problem with at all. I understand why people have a problem with the name, but I don't see it as bad as the Washington Football Team or a name like "Savages" or something legitimately derogatory (e.g., words that the censor filter now picks out). Changing the name would be nice, but leaving it and building around it (preferably in a Spokane Indians-style with appropriate fluff pieces to satisfy some of the more hardcore critics) would also work.

 

@Ice_Cap, I apologize if I came off like a dick in trying to justify the term. I agree with you on this matter.

 

1 hour ago, DouglasQuaid said:

Power has nothing to do with racism or this conversation, so when using the term "white-splaining" its really no different the calling someone an "indian", "redskin", or any other harmful derogatory term. I think you should read up on why the power dynamic theory is incorrect. I dont mean to argue but its comments like this that really mislead people into a false way of thinking, so I'll just leave it at that.

 

I would beg to differ. That's all I will say.

[IceCap]

4 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

Oh, I'd never try to dispute the scientific and archaeological facts of the ancestry. I'm a firm believer in the archaeological and genetic facts. When I tried to defend the "white-splaining" term, I was using it to refer to matters of historiographical arguments (e.g., indigenous-colonial interactions, the necessity of assimilatory measures, etc.), not the scientific facts of Native American genetic heritage or archaeological history. 

That's more than fair.

 

4 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

Definitely. It's incredibly important to understand these dynamics, especially when it comes to communicating these facts. As for the bolded point, racial diversity in the archaeological and genetics fields is a whole rant for another day

That it is, but at the end of the day? I'm interested in what the findings are, not on the race of the scientist. More diversity in these fields is obviously preferable, but that's a matter at the administrative level. Ultimately a factual finding doesn't stop being factual because the scientist is white and the subject is Native archaeology or genetics.

History is a bit more complicated because it's part of the humanities and not a science, but ultimately? If something is well-researched and sourced? It's valuable. Regardless of the ethnicity of the historian who wrote it.

 

4 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

I get why they would resist, but it's silly. It doesn't change that they were the first humans on the continent.

Well yeah, by a wide margin. The crossing occurred roughly 20,000 years ago. Putting the arrival of the ancestors of Native Americans in the Americas roughly 18,000 BCE. The first Europeans to land in North America were the vikings in 1000 CE. Consistent European settlement in the Americas doesn't occur until the 1500s CE. The Natives' claim to being the first peoples and civilizations of the Americas is iron-clad. No one but the most deluded racist and/or conspiracy theorist denies that. 

 

4 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

It still has nothing on what certain sects of the Nation of Islam believes about the origins of blacks and whites, and how some will say that science backs up these beliefs.

The Nation of Islam is full of crazy people, honestly.

 

4 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

I thoroughly agree. Again, "white-splaining" is something like a white person exhibiting ignorance of system racism or reinforcing long-discredited stereotypes towards subaltern peoples. Examples of this would include trying to perpetuate the idea that the indigenous people of the United States needed to be assimilated into Anglo-American culture or arguing that the Native Americans weren't at a constant disadvantage in treaty negotiations. It's not trying to teach peer-reviewed facts. Heck, if I started talking about Japanese war crimes in World War II to various Japanese people, I'd probably get slapped with that "white-splaining" term or just be written off as some gaijin jerk. 

Well Japan's...contentious...history with their WWII legacy is itself another debate

And I get your point. I never said the term "white-splaining" was useless or false or didn't matter. I'm saying that, in this case, it's not something that's relevant. As a term it's a snarky but viable way to explain a very real and problematic thing that happens. I just don't see how it applies here.

 

4 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

It was a good etymological overview, one that I have no problem with at all. I understand why people have a problem with the name, but I don't see it as bad as the Washington Football Team or a name like "Savages" or something legitimately derogatory (e.g., words that the censor filter now picks out). Changing the name would be nice, but leaving it and building around it (preferably in a Spokane Indians-style with appropriate fluff pieces to satisfy some of the more hardcore critics) would also work.

I think the Spokane Indians-style identity is the best way forward, but I'm also not sure the team has the right people in charge needed to see that sort of reorientation through. So being the "Indians" and wearing traditional red, white, and blue baseball uniforms that are classic and non-referential is a safe way to go. You're not going to wow anyone here with the long-term identity of the team, but...I doubt that's their primary concern.

In terms of the name itself? I'm glad that the overview of the name's origin was helpful. Thank you The idea that it's otherwise weird to have a team named after an ethnicity is kind of an interesting debate. I kind of get the "uncanny valley" argument @Digby made, but I'm also not sold on that either. It's something to think on.

 

4 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

@Ice_Cap, I apologize if I came off like a dick in trying to justify the term. I agree with you on this matter.

No need to apologize. It's nothing you said that made my eye twitch, and I agree with you that the term in and of itself is viable and has meaning.

What got to me was how the two people who used it directly with me were trying to misappropriate the term's meaning to shut down a viable discussion on the factual origins of a term. That and they were ignorant of how trying to associate the concept of political whiteness with me was very messed up in and of itself. If that's the brush they want to try and paint me with? They're way off the mark.

[SFGiants58]

40 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

 

What got to me was how the two people who used it directly with me were trying to misappropriate the term's meaning to shut down a viable discussion on the factual origins of a term. That and they were ignorant of how trying to associate the concept of political whiteness with me was very messed up in and of itself. If that's the brush they want to try and paint me with? They're way off the mark.

 

Political whiteness is a fascinating topic for me, from both a historical and ethnographic perspective. It ties nicely into topics of assimilation and reactions to various immigrant movements in relation to real-world conflicts and other events. 

 

But back to the Cleveland AL Baseball Club. Is it bad that I kind of want to see racing stripes return for an alternate?

 

I know that the second Major League movie isn’t as popular as the first, but the asymmetrical stripes are a fantastic change of pace from the normal style of stripes.

[Gothamite]

I would like to publicly apologize to @Ice_Cap for my careless choice of words. It was thoughtless, and I take full responsibility for all consequences stemming from it.

 

Ice, I am genuinely sorry for my carelessness, and I promise I will do better in the future. 

[-Akronite-]

This is probably crossing the line on the rules here, but to address the point made previously, I think it's incorrect logic to decide that because the term was not originally meant as a slur that it makes it okay. That is to say generally I agree with BeerGuyJordan's taken.

 

"Indian" to me kinda comes off like "negro." It's antiquated but there are contexts where it makes sense and wouldn't offend anybody, like talking about Negro League teams. Now would I be cool with a white-owned team calling itself the "Negroes." No. And we're talking about a term that was the mislabeling of a continent of nations of peoples by groups that came in, colonized, committed genocide, and displaced entire cultures. I think it's fair to say that white people and non-natives in general don't get to make the rules on this one and claim ownership over the term, one way or the other.

 

So yes, it's a mixed bag whether American Natives use the term, but that's their prerogative and doesn't really play into the dynamics of whether a white-owned team with no historical relations to Natives (beyond perhaps an individual or two) calling themselves the Indians for their mostly white fans. Ultimately, the name bothers a lot of people who aren't fans of the team, and as a fan of the team it's embarrassing. I find myself talking about Cleveland baseball but trying to ignore the misappropriated moniker. Is there enough energy to change it with Wahoo gone? Probably not for a while, but we'll see.

[panthers_2012]

26 minutes ago, -Akronite- said:

Is there enough energy to change it with Wahoo gone? Probably not for a while, but we'll see.

If the Dolan's change the name now,I believe that the fans won't support them.

 

If they wait for a few years, then maybe. But if they change it right after they got rid of Wahoo, fans will be pissed. I really tired of these debates and I really don't care if they change their name or not. Or do what @Ice_Cap suggested, honor the Native American heritage, like the Spokane Indians.

[Digby]

9 hours ago, the admiral said:

Anyway, I watched the Sox play the Indians the other day and the Indians were wearing their navy Cleveland road alternates. Insisting upon location names on the road uniforms has long been a hobby-horse of mine (and this board is a veritable stable of hobby-horses), but I only really meant that for the grey ones. This looks bad. The navy Indians jersey over the red undershirt is as close to a signature spin on red/white/blue as they have, and I think they should have left that alone. One navy jersey is enough.

 

I don't remember which hat they wore but I'm pretty sure it wasn't navy crown/red bill, which should be their only option.

 

I saw them wear that jersey with the all-navy cap. The inconsistency between the hat C and the jersey C is what drove me nuts, in terms of both design and coloring. To me that's the issue with the block C, is that it causes the team to have way too many typefaces happening, often all at once -- not that the hat logo has to match perfectly to the jersey script, but there needs to be some sort of harmony, and I'm not sure the block C as it is has that with *any* Cleveland jerseys. Not sure of how to fix that -- an outline to the hat logo or a different block script for the road jerseys might work.

 

 

4 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

Political whiteness is a fascinating topic for me, from both a historical and ethnographic perspective. It ties nicely into topics of assimilation and reactions to various immigrant movements in relation to real-world conflicts and other events. 

 

But back to the Cleveland AL Baseball Club. Is it bad that I kind of want to see racing stripes return for an alternate?

 

 

I know that the second Major League movie isn’t as popular as the first, but the asymmetrical stripes are a fantastic change of pace from the normal style of stripes.

 

Honestly I'm always surprised the movie era doesn't get more love, as aesthetically speaking (and Wahoo aside) I think it's their best, if dated, look. No cornball-90s script, no divisive "woodcut" script, and those movies might be their most successful and relevant era in a way.

[Glover]

As a Cleveland fan this thread is the perfect example of why I'm beginning to lean toward just changing the name. Call them the Spiders, Blues, Broncos, Naps, Wild Things, Unicorns. I don't really care at this point. I'm a fan of the baseball team and this topic is a black cloud over the franchise, and it comes up more frequently as the years pass.

[BeerGuyJordan]

Ok, just checking back in to clarify some points that I either didn't clarify, or were misconstrued.

 

@Ice_Cap When I used the term white-splaining (also used as whitesplaining) I wasn't accusing you of being white. I noted in your earlier comment that you don't identify as such, but was aligning it with the type of behavior typically seen in whites trying to explain racism to people of color. Any education you may have in the area doesn't negate the fact that the article you shared only served to highlight that the term isn't something that Native Americans are simply okay with being called.

I am a well educated man, and I understand the etymology of the word "Indian," but just like a certain word that begins with the letter "n," origin and the way it is wielded are two very different things. Native Americans in the US alone cover a tract of land larger than Europe. The level of erasure these cultures experienced (and still experience is some ways) would be akin to someone sweeping in and aggressively displacing all European cultures, doing their best to force them to become the invading people, and refusing to refer to them as anything other than "European" in the process. They would still have the benefit of a factually correct umbrella term. These were and are peoples with their own cultures, religions, languages, and systems of government, being lumped together under a term for people half a world away, simply because Columbus didn't own a  globe! (that was a joke, people) The continued use of the term by many people, especially with so many more apt/appropriate terms, can easily come across as obtuse disregard. 
 

I never meant to present the term as inherently derogatory. That lack of clarity may have muddled matters, but the term has a history which makes it inherently oppressive in the eyes of many (maybe even most) of the people it is used to describe. I believe the term I have favored is "problematic," something this whole conversation only serves to highlight. Cleveland's decision to hold onto Wahoo as long as they did, coupled with the fact that they have done almost nothing to build bridges with Native peoples gives the appearance of aligning them with that sort of denigrating historical behavior. The fact that casting off the term is a growing trend among Native peoples is only going to serve to make the matter stickier for Cleveland, moving forward.

I'm not saying that Cleveland has to rebrand, I'm saying that, given the position they are in, they might be better off just doing so in the long run.

 

In parting, I do want to point out that the comments made stating that there's basically no such thing as "white culture," as part of a conversation where they are at least partially defending the use of the term "Indian" is woefully obtuse.

[MJWalker45]

10 hours ago, the admiral said:

Anyway, I watched the Sox play the Indians the other day and the Indians were wearing their navy Cleveland road alternates. Insisting upon location names on the road uniforms has long been a hobby-horse of mine (and this board is a veritable stable of hobby-horses), but I only really meant that for the grey ones. This looks bad. The navy Indians jersey over the red undershirt is as close to a signature spin on red/white/blue as they have, and I think they should have left that alone. One navy jersey is enough.

 

I don't remember which hat they wore but I'm pretty sure it wasn't navy crown/red bill, which should be their only option.

After the 1994 redo, the red bill almost always stayed at home. I think this hat is a throwback to that. I wish that blue jersey brought back the cursive Cleveland rather than going with block letters. It looked so much better. 

[simtek34]

13 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

After the 1994 redo, the red bill almost always stayed at home. I think this hat is a throwback to that. I wish that blue jersey brought back the cursive Cleveland rather than going with block letters. It looked so much better. 

This one?

[MJWalker45]

1 minute ago, simtek34 said:

This one?

Yes! I have this and the navy jersey which used Indians on it. Just adding piping would enhance the current blue jerseys. 

[The_Admiral]

1 hour ago, Digby said:

Honestly I'm always surprised the movie era doesn't get more love, as aesthetically speaking (and Wahoo aside) I think it's their best, if dated, look. No cornball-90s script, no divisive "woodcut" script, and those movies might be their most successful and relevant era in a way.

 

The scripts are okay but the racing stripes aren't. Color distribution is good. I wish one of the Twins or the Indians would commit to navy base/red outline for stuff across the board instead of both half-doing it (or in the Twins' case, adding unnecessary beige).

[crashcarson15]

Still maintain that the awful sleeve patch aside, 1948 is the best the Indians have, and likely ever will, look:

 

To me, it ticks all the boxes:

• Red bills, home and away, as it should be
• Consistent color application on the home and road jersey, specifically with red outlined in navy
• Stirrups and accents that reinforce the Indians' scheme — navy as the primary color, with red as a significantly used secondary
• No outline on the "C" logo on the cap (IMO, the Indians have always had enough contrast between their red and navy to avoid needing it)
• Script at home, block on the road — to me, this is the quintessential Indians design

 

Throw in the contrasting piping between the placket and sleeves, which I love, and it's the ideal Indians design to me.

 

A small shout-out to 1945, which was the first year of the red bills, and the last year of the "C" on the chest:

 

With both Chicago and Detroit using monogrammed home jerseys, though, I'm not sure the Indians could get away with a design like this today without it feeling derivative.

[The_Admiral]

That and it's too close to Cincinnati's C. But I agree with your boxes and the necessity of their ticking.

[crashcarson15]

1 hour ago, Digby said:

 

I saw them wear that jersey with the all-navy cap. The inconsistency between the hat C and the jersey C is what drove me nuts, in terms of both design and coloring. To me that's the issue with the block C, is that it causes the team to have way too many typefaces happening, often all at once -- not that the hat logo has to match perfectly to the jersey script, but there needs to be some sort of harmony, and I'm not sure the block C as it is has that with *any* Cleveland jerseys. Not sure of how to fix that -- an outline to the hat logo or a different block script for the road jerseys might work.

The away alternate jersey bugs the :censored: out of me for the same reason. (It also bugs me because the navy jerseys at home, with red accessories, was the best look they've had in the last several decades).

 

I actually think the block "C" works pretty well with the home jersey — the idea of a block hat with a jersey script isn't novel (see the Dodgers), and the color balance would work really well for me if more players wore high socks. There's no real contrast between the hat and jersey to me, since they're clearly meant to be in different styles, but they share the common element of a red base, outlined in navy (or the lack of outline on the hat).

 

The other three jerseys really do clash, though.

 

The road jersey being navy numbers outlined in red is silly and stupid — not only does it run counter to the jersey it's based on (that 1948 road jersey I posted earlier), but the color application is opposite from the hat. Flipping the red and navy on the away jersey's lettering would help immensely and would actually do a pretty solid job of matching the hat — imagine this July 4th jersey, without garish stars, and the normal hat:

 

 

Overall, though, the biggest problem they're going to have is that the application that works best with their primary uniforms (no outline) is always going to clash with their alternates, where outlines are required.

 

I don't really know what the best way to handle this is, mind you, but that's what's led to a lot of the issues with the red and particularly the navy jersey.