Jump to content

Cleveland Indians become the Cleveland Guardians


Bill0813

Recommended Posts

Cleveland-area writer Travis Sawchik wrote a piece on the name change relying heavily on quotes from the Brandiose people, including "I think you should find a name that cannot be ignored. If I was there assigned to them, I would tell them to think more like a minor-league team."

 

It could have been worse.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brandiose would’ve come up with a cartoon guardian statue or rock star, swinging a baseball bat with a Dreamworks smirk. The font would be even more of an illegible gimmick filled with too much detail. A name like Rocking Stars, Traffic Guardians, or Guitar Pickers would certainly follow.

 

I’m glad Cleveland resisted Brandiose cancer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, bosrs1 said:

 

I mean I'm 40 and I remember the same thing from the 80's. And I didn't drink back then. I mean Wahoo was the of a wide range of blatantly racist caricatures around the major sports. The fact he survived so far into the 21st century is just mind boggling quite frankly. And honestly I think that's part of why the Indians name itself caught so much heat. It wasn't just that the name was bad in and of itself, it was, but it was bad in the way Chiefs, Braves, Blackhawks, Eskimos, etc... were bad. But it coexisted so long with the blatantly racist Wahoo that it was intimately linked to Wahoo and IMO elevated to a level like Washington's former name, despite not being an unarguably slur like Washington's former name. 

 

Considering this talk (from others) about whether the Indians have been a relevant franchise (they have, it's a silly argument), and the exasperation over the fact that Chief Wahoo existed as long as it did, I find it even more perplexing that the logo perhaps hit its apex in the heat of the '90s, which doesn't feel all that long ago to me. (I'm 44, so it was.)

 

I was a 13-year-old baseball fan without cable TV  when “Major League” came out, so my only real exposure to the Chief Wahoo hats had come from the infamous 1987 Cory Snyder/Joe Carter SI cover proclaiming Cleveland the best team in the AL (spoiler alert: they weren't.) By the end of '89, I not only owned a Wahoo hat, I probably wore it more than any other hat in my collection. The movie made it cool. The team's sudden rise to near greatness in the mid-90s kept that engine humming for years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

If only that movie used the Brewers, Angels, or White Sox. I blame Major League for helping to keep Wahoo around. It might have made it more socially acceptable to keep around.

Even without the movies, the team playing lights out in the 1990's helped keep him on the hats a bit longer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, CLEstones said:

I cant tell you how many people this weekend said "well they are keeping the colors and the scripts/fonts are basically the same, they shoulda just kept the old stuff."

Yeah...but that wasn't happening.

So if the new stuff reminds them of the old stuff...and keeps that transition from seeming too jarring...then it's a smart move.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

Even without the movies, the team playing lights out in the 1990's helped keep him on the hats a bit longer. 

 

I think both helped. We can try and debate which helped keep Wahoo around longer, but fact is, both helped make him somewhat socially acceptable for far longer than other similar logos. I mean think about when the screaming brave was retired in Atlanta, 1987 which I believe was the last one to go in Major sports before Wahoo. Major League the movie came out 2 years later and made the Indians brand including Wahoo "cool". Then the Indians got good and Major League 2 came out starting in 1994. Further giving Wahoo legs. I think you take either of those away and there would have been an even bigger push to can him back then when other teams were ditching the last of the blatantly racist caricatures. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, -Akronite- said:

Not that it changes your point, but political correctness has been a thing for a long time. It gets a new name every so often (cancel culture, wokeness, etc.) but this is an old issue itself. Bill Maher used to host "Politically Incorrect" starting in 1993(!) and people still pretend it's a new phenomenon that the way we use language affects other people.

George Carlin was doing bits about "soft language" and how language affects our perception of reality back in the 70s. It's not new. In fact, he even made the point that "shell shock" was changed to "battle fatigue" in the 1940s. So even the "greatest generation" was changing language for various reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HopewellJones said:

IMO the Guardians nailed it. They didn’t pull any “Cleveland Baseball Team” BS, they didn’t nuke the whole identity, and they aren’t acting like their history is nonexistent.

 

I don't know what that means. 

 

Which teams have renamed away from Native American mascots and acted like their history is nonexistent? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

If only that movie used the Brewers, Angels, or White Sox. I blame Major League for helping to keep Wahoo around. It might have made it more socially acceptable to keep around.

 

Absolutely.

 

He had only been on the caps for a couple seasons at that point, and before that they'd worn various Wahoo-less C logos for a quarter-century.  That film cemented a look that they would have otherwise moved past a lot easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Cujo said:

And still, 'DC SuperPros' >>>>> WTF's former nickname

 

Mmm... The Washingtom Team de Foot.

 

6 hours ago, CLEstones said:

Again, it just seems like so many missed opportunities.  The bridge is forest green, the stadium walls and seats are forest green, one of the original pro baseball teams in Cleveland was the Cleveland Forest Citys.  There is just so many connections to forest green and could be a unique color, especially if Oakland continues to push kelly green.

 

Not only that, the rest of the bridge is sand/beige... would be a great complimentary color, would be perfect for an alternate uniform color or in lieu of gray away uniforms.  The Guardian statues have so many beautiful architectural aspects, including "baseball seams" going down their cloaks.  The logo package could have been some of the best in sports... now it's in the running for worst.

 

Cleveland Forest Citys sounds more like a soccer team than Washington Team de Foot.   Switching to the palette another Midwest team just recently switched to and won a championship in doesn't seem to be the best course of action.

 

20 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

Also, I seem to be a fairly small minority here, but I really hate the backwards G that I know exists on the other side.

 

I don't mind.   The reason I don't mind is because I don't think of it as a G.   I think of it as a helmet.   The two protective sides curve over either cheek like many stylistic helmets tend to do.   It just so happens that they also kinda look like the letter G so they made a logo of the perspective that emulates the letter.

 

That reasoning help at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that there's no meat on the bone for any argument that is built around the sacrifice of history, for the team, for the indigenous peoples they originally "represented," posterity, et al.

 

It's simply frustrated older people who have a volatile need to defend institutions from change, and are assembling their AARP buddies to commence the E-War against Cancel Culture, The Woke Left, Libs, and any and all groups that they consider weak.

 

The Cleveland Indians are keeping their history and over time the Guardians will forge their own branding takes on the identity and aesthetic.  If you're upset about it, you need to really re-examine your priorities.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gosioux76 said:

Considering this talk (from others) about whether the Indians have been a relevant franchise (they have, it's a silly argument), and the exasperation over the fact that Chief Wahoo existed as long as it did, I find it even more perplexing that the logo perhaps hit its apex in the heat of the '90s, which doesn't feel all that long ago to me. (I'm 44, so it was.)

 

Instead of using it as the perfect opportunity to make the change, the team went Wahoo crazy when Jacobs Field opened in 1994. Wahoo was everywhere in that park.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

Instead of using it as the perfect opportunity to make the change, the team went Wahoo crazy when Jacobs Field opened in 1994. Wahoo was everywhere in that park.

 

And I would argue that "Major League" played no small part there.  The film was only a couple years old and had made the team a relevant nationally.

 

Had the film come out in 1979 or 1999 instead of 1989, Wahoo would have had a lot less cultural currency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CS85 said:

It's simply frustrated older people who have a volatile need to defend institutions from change, and are assembling their AARP buddies to commence the E-War against Cancel Culture, The Woke Left, Libs, and any and all groups that they consider weak.

 

It is possible that people don't like the name change for far less sinister reasons. People are creatures of habit. You make a big change in their routines and they're going to resist simply because they don't like people messing with their routines. Right, wrong, or indifferent, people loved the name Cleveland Indians for reasons that have nothing to do with playing the team politics game. I'm not saying that there aren't people who are clinging to the name for all the wrong reasons, but let's stop acting like every person who is unhappy about it just got home from a Klan meeting. You're assuming that every single Indians fan is as political as you are. Trust me, they aren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

Absolutely.

 

He had only been on the caps for a couple seasons at that point, and before that they'd worn various Wahoo-less C logos for a quarter-century.  That film cemented a look that they would have otherwise moved past a lot easier.

 

That's right. And, speaking from experience, the Wahoo logo, with that charming, toothy, almost Loony Tunes-esque smile, directly appealed to kids, especially when compared to any of the other MLB logos at the time. I wasn't exactly a neutral — I grew up in Minnesota, and Wahoo came to the fore as the Twins  (save for poor seasons in '89 and '90) were winning titles  — and I still bought and wore out that hat. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, CS85 said:

I believe that there's no meat on the bone for any argument that is built around the sacrifice of history, for the team, for the indigenous peoples they originally "represented," posterity, et al.

 

It's simply frustrated older people who have a volatile need to defend institutions from change, and are assembling their AARP buddies to commence the E-War against Cancel Culture, The Woke Left, Libs, and any and all groups that they consider weak.

 

The Cleveland Indians are keeping their history and over time the Guardians will forge their own branding takes on the identity and aesthetic.  If you're upset about it, you need to really re-examine your priorities.

 

While not liking your allies can certainly be a problem to deal with, one should also not assume that every single person that is on one side of a cause is of the exact same set of beliefs as the worst person on that side of the cause.   That is a two way street and when one takes up the cause with the least bad voices devoid of what the cause or the truth is or demonize the other side as being a copy of their worst ally, the world becomes a very, very, very dark place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

It is possible that people don't like the name change for far less sinister reasons. People are creatures of habit. You make a big change in their routines and they're going to resist simply because they don't like people messing with their routines. Right, wrong, or indifferent, people loved the name Cleveland Indians for reasons that have nothing to do with playing the team politics game. I'm not saying that there aren't people who are clinging to the name for all the wrong reasons, but let's stop acting like every person who is unhappy about it just got home from a Klan meeting. You're assuming that every single Indians fan is as political as you are. Trust me, they aren't.

 

That's true.  Not every one is political.

 

But seeing other human beings as human beings shouldn't be considered "political".  It's polite, which is another thing that not all people are.

 

I get that people are comfortable with familiarity, and sometimes change is difficult.  But anybody loudly protesting this change today is saying their familiarity is more important than other people.  Which itself kinda feels.. political to me? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

 

I think both helped. We can try and debate which helped keep Wahoo around longer, but fact is, both helped make him somewhat socially acceptable for far longer than other similar logos. I mean think about when the screaming brave was retired in Atlanta, 1987 which I believe was the last one to go in Major sports before Wahoo. Major League the movie came out 2 years later and made the Indians brand including Wahoo "cool". Then the Indians got good and Major League 2 came out starting in 1994. Further giving Wahoo legs. I think you take either of those away and there would have been an even bigger push to can him back then when other teams were ditching the last of the blatantly racist caricatures. 

 

Was there any pushback to that? I only remember that logo from mounds of Dale Murphy baseball cards, but by the time the team got great they had transitioned to their current look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

It is possible that people don't like the name change for far less sinister reasons. People are creatures of habit. You make a big change in their routines and they're going to resist simply because they don't like people messing with their routines. Right, wrong, or indifferent, people loved the name Cleveland Indians for reasons that have nothing to do with playing the team politics game. I'm not saying that there aren't people who are clinging to the name for all the wrong reasons, but let's stop acting like every person who is unhappy about it just got home from a Klan meeting. You're assuming that every single Indians fan is as political as you are. Trust me, they aren't.

 

The bristling at the change makes sense, particularly for older fans, but the words that come out usually aren't "I fear change."  It's "woke cancel culture is taking away my sports things*."  If you tested the water from the source, almost certainly the discomfort with change is almost always the prevalent bacteria, but after a few miles down the metaphorical creeks and rivers, those who seek to politicize, from whatever branch of the outrage tree, happily soak up those muddied waters and proliferate with a will.  So much so that the initial feeling - "change stinks" - has become "Cultural Battleground #6823972928174503454."

 

However it starts, and however casual or innocent the average fan is, when it comes to a lot of predominately white sports fans, these issues always end up absorbed into extreme polarities.


* - obviously this and every post regarding my takes on this topic are entirely subjective and heavily influenced by my personal experiences

 

28 minutes ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

 

While not liking your allies can certainly be a problem to deal with, one should also not assume that every single person that is on one side of a cause is of the exact same set of beliefs as the worst person on that side of the cause.   That is a two way street and when one takes up the cause with the least bad voices devoid of what the cause or the truth is or demonize the other side as being a copy of their worst ally, the world becomes a very, very, very dark place.

 

I guess?  I find this and other Native logo controversies extremely simple, and don't get why it's such a personal issue for so many.  I mean I get it, but I don't get how the frustration lasts longer than, say, a few days.  It may just be how I'm wired.  I tend to move on from things extremely quickly by most standards.  If the Blackhawks changed their logo to look like the new Winterhawks identity (that is to say a boring, placeholder, thoughtless design) I'd be totally fine moving on.  I'm kind of already in that process now because of Letter-of-Recommendation-gate, but that aside, things change, and I can either choose to be pissed off and hurt about it, or I can move on because it's a sports team that aside from nostalgia has no real impact on my life.

 

If others would like people like me to stop rushing to judgments and assumptions, maybe they should  be aware of just how hijacked the "I'm gonna fight for my nostalgia" mentality has so many welcoming, pulling arms from extremists and hate-centric groups. 

 

It's like a weeping family begging their heroin-addicted son to go get treatment, but they don't because they feel judged.  Well yeah.  You're a heroin addict.  I feel bad for you, but I also judge your bad decisions that got you into this mess and now place the welfare of your person onto your frustrated and exhausted family, and they must go about mandating this change in a slow, methodical way, lest the addict feel judged and seek any excuse to break sobriety.

 

Anyway, I may have pulled this entire post/series of posts out of my ass.  Fin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.