Jump to content

Cleveland Indians become the Cleveland Guardians


Bill0813

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Gothamite said:


honest question: did the fans say that?

 

Did the team do any kind of actual research or focus groups (not web surveys or Twitter polls) to determine what the fans wanted to retain from the old identity?

https://www.wkyc.com/article/sports/mlb/indians/cleveland-indians-surveying-fans-new-name/95-af35b026-acc4-4a13-8595-b015e5730c70

https://www.neosportsinsiders.com/name-change-coming-for-the-cleveland-indians/

Multiple sources have identified that the Guardians sent out  questionnaires and conducted focus groups including what the team name should invoke as well as keeping or changing the colors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gothamite said:


honest question: did the fans say that?

 

Did the team do any kind of actual research or focus groups (not web surveys or Twitter polls) to determine what the fans wanted to retain from the old identity?

 

I wasn't in the room, so I can't say this for certain, but it seems clear that their objective was to launch a new identity as expediently as possible and with the least amount of disruption to its fanbase. If that's the case, then I don't know that they'd need any outside input to come to the conclusion that changing the colors would be an unnecessary disruption. 

 

To @GFB's point, I completely understand being underwhelmed by the effort here. But, again, the whole thing reads to me like an attempt to rapidly excise the problematic elements of the brand while maintaining as much of the status quo as possible. It doesn't mean that they don't put some more muscle into this a few years down the road after the new name's had time to marinate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

[Citation Needed]

 

 

 

 

There's also this piece by someone who's angry because the same artist who designed the statues the new name references also painted some pictures that feature unflattering portrayals of Natives.

 

Here's a piece that claims "Guardians" is a racist name because it references "imperialistic statues of cis white men."

 

So yeah. 

There are people for whom nothing will ever be enough. Which is @the admiral's point, I think. He can correct me if I got that wrong. 

 

And that's the tough thing about this, Goth. Yes, the name had to be changed. Yes, they did it in a way that should help ease fans in. And long term? That's the right move. 

You know what else is true though? There are people who, after the battle is won, can't help but fight more battles. And if there aren't anymore to fight on this particular front? Well they're happy to make them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

honest question: did the fans say that?

I don't know if they did or not. Smart money says fans would have preferred it though. 

 

I'll toss an honest question your way though... 

The team is named the Guardians. The colours are red, white, and blue. What about this is problematic? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, none of us know what questions, information and data that they are basing these decisions off of.  But I think it's safe to assume that the Venn Diagram of fans who didn't want a change to the name/logo and the fans who wanted to keep red/blue is a perfect circle.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, GFB said:

Look, none of us know what questions, information and data that they are basing these decisions off of.  But I think it's safe to assume that the Venn Diagram of fans who didn't want a change to the name/logo and the fans who wanted to keep red/blue is a perfect circle.  

I can tell you it isn't because I wanted the colors to stay, and I'm absolutely fine with Indians going away because that plain block C logo is the cheapest type of branding a team could have. And I root for a minor league team that sometimes uses a flaming sandal as their identity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, -Akronite- said:

 

Also from Akron and went to OSU. I always see the Cleveland/Cincinnati rivalry as brotherly and root for the Reds & Bengals whenever it's not against the Guardians & Browns. I don't understand the fans from either side that truly hate the other.

 

 

That mindset was always just dumb city rivalry stuff. It never made much sense to me either. The Indians, sorry, Guardians weren't in the same league and never a threat to the Reds playoff chances so I pulled for them too.  I've never really needed to feel concern about the Browns who've been a gift 1.5 wins most years. This past year when I did need to be concerned about them they played the Steelers in the playoffs and the Steelers are easily the worst people alive so I was a Browns fan that day.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too many are associating their dislike for the navy & red combination (which I love, but admit, is very overused) with the problematic points of Cleveland's baseball identity. They are not one in the same. This was not a case where "everything has to be completely changed or else it's still offensive". Cleveland baseball is one of the most historic franchises in the sport, whether their name be Indians or Guardians or anything from the past. Whether they use Wahoo, a block C or G-Wings. I preferred Spiders, but even then, I wanted them to limit the changes as much as possible. I repeat, what they did was take the most problematic points of their identity and replaced them with Cleveland-centric items, the name "Guardians" and the logo's inspired by the bridge. Literally, their entire identity now is purely CLEVELAND. They can't change the history, nor should they. Who did Larry Doby play for? Cleveland. Whether an old nickname or the future one. What colors did he wear? They literally just Clevejacked their own identity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

34 minutes ago, IceCap said:

I don't know if they did or not. Smart money says fans would have preferred it though. 

 

I'll toss an honest question your way though... 

The team is named the Guardians. The colours are red, white, and blue. What about this is problematic? 

If they did the amount of focus grouping that they've said or implied, chances are the colors came up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

I can tell you it isn't because I wanted the colors to stay, and I'm absolutely fine with Indians going away because that plain block C logo is the cheapest type of branding a team could have. And I root for a minor league team that sometimes uses a flaming sandal as their identity. 

I never said that all fans who wanted to keep the colors wanted to keep the name; I said all the fans who wanted to keep the name wanted to keep the colors.

 

It’s a “not all yellow fruits are bananas but all bananas are yellow fruits” statement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, IceCap said:

You know what else is true though? There are people who, after the battle is won, can't help but fight more battles. And if there aren't anymore to fight on this particular front? Well they're happy to make them. 

 

You can't get too upset over a couple Twitter trolls.

 

The only people who matter in this conversation are Native Americans and the people who represent them.  Unless and until they say that the colors are problematic, any attempt to drag that in is just trolling.  From supporters of the change and from opponents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, IceCap said:

I don't know if they did or not. Smart money says fans would have preferred it though. 

 

Maybe.  Doesn't mean we should state it as fact unless we know.  Hence my question.

 

38 minutes ago, IceCap said:

I'll toss an honest question your way though... 

The team is named the Guardians. The colours are red, white, and blue. What about this is problematic? 

 

Besides a couple twitter randos, who has even hinted that it is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gothamite said:

Besides a couple twitter randos, who has even hinted that it is?

That's my point- it's not. The Indians' colours were never that identity's problem. So I don't see any problems with the Guardians retaining them. 

 

4 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

You can't get too upset over a couple Twitter trolls.

 

The only people who matter in this conversation are Native Americans and the people who represent them.  Unless and until they say that the colors are problematic, any attempt to drag that in is just trolling.  From supporters of the change and from opponents.

Well I did provide a few published pieces. That goes beyond a few Twitter dorks. 

 

And I'll go a step further. The name "Guardians" and their new logos in no way infringes on Native identity, traditions, or intellectual property. 
So I'm gonna say that, at this point, Natives really don't have a say in what colours the Cleveland Guardians decide to roll with. Not unless the team acts in bad faith, and I've seen no evidence they have with this rebrand as of now. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, GFB said:

I never said that all fans who wanted to keep the colors wanted to keep the name; I said all the fans who wanted to keep the name wanted to keep the colors.

 

It’s a “not all yellow fruits are bananas but all bananas are yellow fruits” statement

 

That much at least is certain.

 

I'm agnostic on the colors, myself.  I understand the pull team colors have, generally hate the idea of changing them.  And even if RWB is overused in sports, that doesn't mean teams should lose the right to use them.  I'm curious why the colors were kept, though.  Attempt to mollify those unhappy fans?  Deliberate link to the past?  Or just liked them?  All are equally valid reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, IceCap said:

Well I did provide a few published pieces.  That goes beyond a few Twitter dorks. 

 

One of which is a satirical piece from a right-wing columnist.   The other is a letter to the editor, which is an old-fashioned version of online trolling.  Neither demonstrates any significant or meaningful objection to the name.

 

14 minutes ago, IceCap said:

So I'm gonna say that, at this point, Natives really don't have a say in what colours the Cleveland Guardians decide to roll with. Not unless the team acts in bad faith, and I've seen no evidence they have with this rebrand as of now. 

 

I meant in terms of the entire rebrand.  The only people who had anything to say about what was necessary are Native Americans and their representatives.

 

So neither twitter trolls nor reactionary columnists looking to "pwn the libs" matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, IceCap said:

 

2 minutes ago, IceCap said:

Well I did provide a few published pieces. That goes beyond a few Twitter dorks. 

 

A  "few" as in two, one of which appears to be satire if you look at that writer's other work which is clearly right-wing & anti-"woke."

 

https://spectatorworld.com/author/stephen-l-miller/

 

I will say that while I don't think the statue artist's previous work means the Guardians symbols should be abandoned, it's an interesting discussion. The intent of the artistic piece your identity is based around arguably matters. What if they didn't do their research and found out the guy was a Nazi who wanted to sculpt perfect Aryans? Of course, people love defending even overtly racist statues in this country, so it probably wouldn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

I meant in terms of the entire rebrand.  The only people who had anything to say about what was necessary are Native Americans and their representatives.

 

So neither twitter trolls or columnists looking for clicks matter. 

Well from what I've seen Native advocacy groups have called the rebrand "momentous" and "a step in the right direction" with no one from those groups- or any other Native-aligned organization or government- even commenting on the colours. 

 

It seems that as far as the people the Indians' name/Chief Wahoo affected are concerned the rebrand is a success.

 

So if Natives don't have a problem with the Guardians retaining red, white, and blue then I see no issue with the Guardians being red, white, and blue. 

 

It may not be the most exciting choice, but I don't think "exciting" was a goal with this rebrand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, -Akronite- said:

 

 

A  "few" as in two, one of which appears to be satire if you look at that writer's other work which is clearly right-wing & anti-"woke."

 

https://spectatorworld.com/author/stephen-l-miller/

 

I will say that while I don't think the statue artist's previous work means the Guardians symbols should be abandoned, it's an interesting discussion. The intent of the artistic piece your identity is based around arguably matters. What if they didn't do their research and found out the guy was a Nazi who wanted to sculpt perfect Aryans? Of course, people love defending even overtly racist statues in this country, so it probably wouldn't matter.


Totally. It’s not like the Guardians were designed by the Willam Bedford Forrest statue guy!

 

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, IceCap said:

Well from what I've seen Native advocacy groups have called the rebrand "momentous" and "a step in the right direction" with no one from those groups- or any other Native-aligned organization or government- even commenting on the colours. 

 

It seems that as far as the people the Indians' name/Chief Wahoo affected are concerned the rebrand is a success.

 

So if Natives don't have a problem with the Guardians retaining red, white, and blue then I see no issue with the Guardians being red, white, and blue.

 

I think you and I are arguing the same point here, because there is no substantive, meaningful, or serious objection to the colors.  

 

I think this rebrand was a smashing success (even though I'm indifferent to the name and outright hate most of the logos) because it eliminated the racist elements and finally respected the wishes of Native Americans after more than a half-century of ignoring them or worse.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, -Akronite- said:

I will say that while I don't think the statue artist's previous work means the Guardians symbols should be abandoned, it's an interesting discussion. The intent of the artistic piece your identity is based around arguably matters. What if they didn't do their research and found out the guy was a Nazi who wanted to sculpt perfect Aryans? Of course, people love defending even overtly racist statues in this country, so it probably wouldn't matter.

If he were a Nazi that would be one thing...but he's not as far as I can tell so 🤷‍♂️

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.