Jump to content

Cleveland Indians become the Cleveland Guardians


Bill0813

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, O.C.D said:

This isn't a gotcha moment, my statement is based in fact. North American Indians are a very specific and unique subset of human beings within a total population of 7.8 Billion human beings on the planet earth. Their ethnicity and culture occupies a very specific branch in the human family.

 

Wasn't going for a "gotcha moment." It was a serious question. Why are "North American Indians? a "very specific" and "unique" subset of human beings. Last I checked, "Indians" are built just like anyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, O.C.D said:

Explain to me how my statement was controversial in the least.

 

OK, you referred "North American Indians" as a "very specific type of human being." Most would agree that all human beings are essentially the same. There are certainly cultural differences, but at the end of the day, people are people. You made it sound like "Indians" are somehow different from "regular" human beings. That might not have been your intent, but it sure came across that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

Wasn't going for a "gotcha moment." It was a serious question. Why are "North American Indians? a "very specific" and "unique" subset of human beings. Last I checked, "Indians" are built just like anyone else.

 

6 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

OK, you referred "North American Indians" as a "very specific type of human being." Most would agree that all human beings are essentially the same. There are certainly cultural differences, but at the end of the day, people are people. You made it sound like "Indians" are somehow different from "regular" human beings. That might not have been your intent, but it sure came across that way.

spacer.png

 

Human beings break down into distinct DNA haplogroups. This is partially how scientists are able to put forth theories relating to human migration and human evolution.

 

Of course human beings are human beings. Within human beings exist genetic differences that make them a unique part of the human tapestry. The human family has differences and they're specific and unique. It's a good thing. It's not as if there is a "regular" type of human and "others", this is just how humans developed along side one another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, the admiral said:

There's not a lot to work with in Cleveland; it's quite arguably the most featureless of the Great Lakes cities. Every Indians concept I've tried to workshop that just goes for civic imagery hits a wall because there isn't any -- not any worth caring about, at least, pace the Cleveland posters. I get the impulse for something/anything novel after a metric ton of Spiders concepts over the years, though. 

 

Its got some stuff.

 

There's the nautical history.   It's been a major port for most of its history.   I couldn't really come up with good nautical names that don't pertain to the ocean.   There has to be a bunch that I'm not thinking of, but the mind immediately goes to the sea or navy.   Commodores calls to mind stuffy British officers with cravats.

 

There's the locomotive history.  it's been a major railroad hub too.  There's gotta be some names there.   Unless people start thinking that trains are racist because that's how terrible the world has gotten today that people crap on trains and player's names because they're too close to racial slurs.

 

dr-cox-gif.gif

 

*sigh*   Anyway.   The city has a huge music history with one of the top orchestras in the world and a rich history of jazz, R&B, polka, rap, and rock and roll music.

 

While someone did suggest the Cleveland Inferno idea to be insulting, I think that it's simultaneously in keeping with the local's sense of humor about their city and also no longer a matter of shame because it kick-started the environmentalist movement, led to agencies that help people today, and the river has been completely cleaned up to the point that you can eat fish caught in it.

 

There's stuff there.   It's unfortunate that the guardian statues, the Fountain of Eternal Life, and the West Side Market seem to be the only real recognizable landmarks and there's not much good you can work with there for a baseball identity.   The only famous dish I found was the Polish Boy and that's not going to play outside of minor league ball, and even then probably a one-night-only promotion.

 

But there's something there.   I feel like it's not impossible.   Especially to someone who's not on the outside-looking-in and knows more intimately their shipping or locomotive industries.   But the strongest of Cleveland culture to the vast majority of us is going to be the Indians, Browns, and Cavs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, O.C.D said:

 

 

 

Human beings break down into distinct DNA haplogroups. This is partially how scientists are able to put forth theories relating to human migration and human evolution.

 

Of course human beings are human beings. Within human beings exist genetic differences that make them a unique part of the human tapestry. The human family has differences and they're specific and unique. It's a good thing. 

 

We're going to end this particular part of the conversation. You said your piece, I've said mine, and now we move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, TenaciousG said:


Most cities do have a distinct culture and the nature of sports is that you are rooting for your city’s team over another city’s team. The players on all major league teams come from everywhere. The only difference is the name on the front of the jersey. Two teams could trade their entire personnel completely with each other and fans would still end up rooting for the same one that represents their city.

 

Your argument is akin to saying “why don’t we take city names off jerseys... After all why should your special snowflake city have its very own unique name???”

 

That's... not my argument. The point is Spiders, as an identity, does not strike me as locally resonant the way a diamondback snake or a ray are to those markets (and I also don't think the historical Spiders have the cachet the way the reincarnated Browns or Hornets did, either).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't expect to come here and learn about haplogroups.  I think that indicates that we've (quickly) reached the point where everything that can be discussed already has been, and there's nothing more to talk about (besides 30k spider varieties, single-nucleotide polymorphism mutation in humanoids, and words that may or may not be slurs) until the team starts making more announcements, which likely won't be until a year from now - kinda like in the WFT and EE threads that were shut down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Digby said:

 

That's... not my argument. The point is Spiders, as an identity, does not strike me as locally resonant the way a diamondback snake or a ray are to those markets (and I also don't think the historical Spiders have the cachet the way the reincarnated Browns or Hornets did, either).

 

Team nicknames that have local relevance have always struck me as being the most compelling nicknames and I'm glad that MLB has a better track record in that area than other professional sports do. However, I give the Reds, Red Sox, White Sox, etc a pass as being vestiges of the Ye Olde Baseball era, which wasn't concerned with those naming conventions. Then there's a host of teams like the Dodgers, Giants, Braves, Athletics, etc that don't have local relevance but have retained a Ye Olde Baseball name entirely because of relocation. I also give that a pass despite how little sense it makes for a Los Angeles team to be named the Dodgers.

 

I find it fascinating that you have to look back to the 1960s, particularly the Braves and Athletics, as instances of teams presented with the opportunity to create new identities and elected NOT to adopt names/brands that had any local significance. In both cases they opted to retain storied franchise names that had bounced around MLB from city to city. All of the other identities assumed since the 60s have had some kind of local or regional relevance.

 

The Spiders would be an interesting choice because they have no connection to Cleveland/Ohio aside from the existence of a team there from more than 120 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Cujo said:

Spiders as an identity >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Indians

 

Almost anything as an identity >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Indians

I think any team that has a mascot representing any ethnic group should be changed at this point. All of them. It's not worth the trouble.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spiders is the choice. Historical connection*, you can keep your colors, very cool branding possibilities, unique to sports, you can have Spiderman be a mascot. Who says no?

 

*"BUT THE ORIGINAL SPIDERS WERE BAD!!!!" Hi, the current Indians are bad. They haven't won the World Series in a thousand years. The Indians last WS flag is closer in time to the team being named the Spiders than we are to the last WS flag. Why is how good they were in literally the 19th century relevant to choosing a name today? The name isn't why they were bad in 1895 or whatever. The name is cool though and if every bad team changed their name we'd lose a lot of really cool sports identities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, O.C.D said:

Explain to me how my statement was controversial in the least.

It can be applied to any race or ethnicity. It's such a generic statement as to either be meaningless or point to you arguing in bad faith. 

 

23 minutes ago, O.C.D said:

I think any team that has a mascot representing any ethnic group should be changed at this point. All of them. It's not worth the trouble.

 

 

"Historical agency," and "context" aren't your strong suits are they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/15/2020 at 6:03 PM, Silent Wind of Doom said:

 

This argument has come up a bunch of times in relation to the history of the team, or perhaps just repeatedly hit on by one or two users.   But saying that an identity's historicity is invalidated by losing a lot or having your triumphs be many decades in the past is just crazy.


 

 

Not really, it’s the moldy cherry on top of the fecal sundae that is the name. They don’t have the historical cache to really justify keeping the name. As crash said, the team before 1995 had a 41 year playoff drought and 36 straight seasons where they failed to win more than 86 games. That is historical ineptitude, sustained over time. Combine that with the controversial nature of the name and the argument holds merit.

 

BUT THE CUBS! The Cubs were still relevant, even in the nadir of their existence. They played in Chicago, had WGN, and marketed the team as “lovable losers.” Cleveland AL’s never got that distinction as “lovable losers.” Instead, they were just irrelevant and easy to forget. There’s a reason why Major League picked Cleveland.

 

Quote

Then why bring the Browns back to replace the Ravens?   Why did we celebrate the Hornets and Jets coming back?   Why did we celebrate the Brewers and Padres returning to color schemes and logos from earlier in an identity that has won less than or equal to the Indians of the last thirty years?  Why don't we switch the Mariners, Rangers, Rays, Tigers, Rockies, Sharks, Canucks, Bears, Cardinals, Lions, Chargers, Bills, Jets, Vikings, Bengals, Knicks, and Pacers to a new Brandiose identity given that the recent history of those teams has been nothing but either losing or disappointment on the penultimate step and is therefore worthless?


That’s just being ridiculous. None of those names are controversial. It’s controversy around the name AND the team’s history being largely garbage that makes this argument possible. Also, Brandiose isn’t touching this. Aesthetics of the highest levels are veering away from Brandiose cancer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Sport said:

*"BUT THE ORIGINAL SPIDERS WERE BAD!!!!" Hi, the current Indians are bad. 

 

Every team is bad if you take away the good years. It's the inverse of every meathead football coach who ever said "take away those five touchdowns they scored on us and we win that game." It isn't that the Spiders were bad, it's that they were answer-to-a-trivia-question bad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Spiders' problem isn't just "bad", it's that they're known as the worst team ever to grace an MLB field. Nobody talks about the good Spiders teams, only the historically terrible one.

 

With how Cleveland AL's history is by itself, the last thing that fanbase needs is to have the combination of "no WS titles since 1948" and "named after the worst team to play in the MLB" for opposing fans to levy at them, especially with how their current ownership likes to operate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CS85 changed the title to Cleveland Indians become the Cleveland Guardians
  • infrared41 locked this topic
  • CS85 unlocked this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.