Jump to content

Cleveland Indians become the Cleveland Guardians


Bill0813

Recommended Posts

On 7/28/2021 at 12:25 PM, IceCap said:

 

 

 

 

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. 

They are just never happy with anything which was why I was one of the people that at the time thought they should have just kept things as they were.  It doesn't matter what name WFT or CBT pick there will always be someone miserable with their own existence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, beachperroAZ said:

... there will always be someone miserable with their own existence. 

 

No one hates things (e.g., sports teams, movie franchises, etc.) as much as people who say they're fans of those things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

No one hates things as much as people on social media.

 

The existence of trolls and cranks snarking on the solution does not mean there wasn't a real problem.

 

This, the problem was the logo and name. Those 2 items are fixed.

Anyone still complaining, which would only be on social media is grasping at straws at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, EddieJ1984 said:

Anyone still complaining, which would only be on social media is grasping at straws at this point.

 

Worse yet, a lot of those complaining now are doing aren't arguing in good faith.  Their purpose is to diminish the initial objections Native Americans had to the name and logo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

No one hates things as much as people on social media.

 

The existence of trolls and cranks snarking on the solution does not mean there wasn't a real problem.

I have a hard time differentiating from true believers and people who want to use controversy to gain followers/likes. The documentary 'The Social Dilemma' did a good job showing how ai contributes to the cycle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DTConcepts said:

 

tenor.gif

If it was a joke it seemed to have the opposite effect of what he was going for. We live in a post-parody reality

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Brian in Boston said:

Just 10 MLB teams - the Yankees, Cardinals, Dodgers, Giants, Red Sox, Braves, Athletics, Cubs, Tigers, and Astros - have played in more post-season games than Cleveland's club

 

Wouldn't have guessed Houston as #10 there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Brian in Boston said:

However, the insensitive aspects of the old brand that actively hurt its value were a divisive team name and a logo that was a racist caricature. Said elements of the team's brand identity were eliminated. The team's traditional colors were retained because they weren't responsible for actively hurting the brand's value. 

Brian, in the only part of my post that you didn't pick apart, I explained this.  Aspects of visual identity are not self-contained, they bleed into one another. That's why if I say "Flying Elvis" you think of silver and blue, but if I say "Pat" you think red and white.  Are the colors blue and red responsible for the demise of the Indians brand? Of course not. But if (as you yourself pointed out) red and blue makes Clevelanders not only think of baseball, but also the Indians brand, Chief Wahoo, and everything that comes with that, then the colors have a little stain on them as well, even if they aren't the reason for the offense.

 

Maybe there's not enough to have to throw them out entirely, but there's enough dirt that you might consider it and should at minimum give them a deep cleaning.

 

2 hours ago, Brian in Boston said:

Paragraphs about winning

Look, I'm a Detroit Lions fan and a comparable organization to the Indians/Guardians.  I'm very familiar with a rich tradition despite decades of futility and bad luck. My grandfather would attend Lions games at Briggs Stadium; the honolulu blue and silver runs deep in my family, memory and nostalgia. 

 

If the Lions came out next week and said "We're turning a new page and with it we're changing our blue to red like the 1940s Portsmouth Spartans," I'd be fine with it. Sure, the Lions were the first NFL team to use blue and silver before the Cowboys and Oilers and Seahawks and Panthers and a lot Detroit fans would probably be shocked and confused, but I think the majority of fans would quickly appreciate the organization attempting to wipe the slate clean to a degree and trying to build something new. Now try to change the Red Wings or the Tigers colors and I'll go to war with you, but it's hard for me to feel attached to the silver and blue in the same way when all it's represented to me is 30 years of disappointment.

 

I'm open to a fresh start and this is without the Detroit Lions brand having employed a racist and toxic identity for the last 2-3 decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/28/2021 at 2:05 PM, IceCap said:

I feel like the Chiefs have the easiest time of it. Lots of cultures and professions have or had "chiefs." The only thing tying their identity to Native Americans is the arrow head logo. Get rid of the arrow, and just rock a white KC on the red helmet.

And this could solve a key problem of interest to this board; the lack of continuity above and below the neck. I'd love to see the arrow gone, the "KC" enlarged and made white with a yellow outline.  Forgetting whether the arrow is problematic, I think this  would be a better look. The KC facing the opposite end of the arrow on each side the helmet is not great (not Ravens "B" bad, but not good).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/28/2021 at 2:05 PM, IceCap said:

I feel like the Chiefs have the easiest time of it. Lots of cultures and professions have or had "chiefs." The only thing tying their identity to Native Americans is the arrow head logo. Get rid of the arrow, and just rock a white KC on the red helmet.

 

The Chiefs' old Indian-teabagging-Oklahoma logo, RIP mothership comments,  is so far back in the rear-view that in my life I don't even remember advocacy groups or journalists going after them in any consequential way. It was the R#dskins, Chief Wahoo, and the tomahawk chop, in that order, and then random high school teams in Iowa called like "the East Mooseton Redmen" or something. It's only since they got a taste of blood that we've heard anything about the Chiefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

That's my thought as well.  There's likely a reason that there's so many similarities to their current Indians look (basically just different fonts and a modified script) but once people adjust to the name, it's not unreasonable to expect them to explore more of the possibilities of their new brand.

 

Personally I would probably have done the opposite - ripped off the band-aid and gone a little more different right away - but I don't have any marketing / branding degrees, didn't do any market research (unless reading posts here counts as 'market research'), and don't have any emotional attachment to the now-former brand, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

It's interesting because it appears to me at least they worked hard to show a degree of continuity.

 

The "Guardians" script has the jagged edges similar to the "caveman" style of the 70's. So it's trying to evoke some memories to tie the new identity to team history.

Personally I never liked that era of design but it looks like it meshes quite well (to my eyes) in cursive and with the name change you remove the ugliness of that design being intentionally "primitive."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, NicDB said:

 

In MU's case, eventually someone remembered all the crazy unique designs they had when their basketball program came of age and incorporated them with modern sensibilities.

 

Cleveland has 100+ years to draw from. No reason they can't do the same.

 

 

That's  the advantage of Guardians.  Lots of possibilities.  I wanted Spiders and an old timey identity.  But you're limited to 19th century fauxbacks. Other options are minor league and cartoons.

 

Guardians can be modern. Giant statues by the stadium are powerful imagery for the brand.

 

Navy is so neutral I feel they could add a new complementary tertiary color.  I keep thinking of forest green along side the navy, both dark, semineutral and complementary but adding a modern stripe, something both natural and supernatural like a Guardian.

 

Something like the Buffalo Bisons palette when they were the AAA affiliate - although I guess they didn't retain blue at that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GFB said:

Look, I'm a Detroit Lions fan... a comparable organization to the Indians/Guardians.


I don't know that I'd go that far.

The Detroit Lions have certainly racked up more NFL Championships (4) than the Cleveland Indians Guardians have won World Series (2). That said, Cleveland's MLB team has a winning record all-time in regular season play, post-season baseball, and overall. Detroit's NFL entry is a sub-.500 franchise across the board. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, the admiral said:

 

The Chiefs' old Indian-teabagging-Oklahoma logo, RIP mothership comments,  is so far back in the rear-view that in my life I don't even remember advocacy groups or journalists going after them in any consequential way. It was the R#dskins, Chief Wahoo, and the tomahawk chop, in that order, and then random high school teams in Iowa called like "the East Mooseton Redmen" or something. It's only since they got a taste of blood that we've heard anything about the Chiefs.

I'm a Chiefs fan so its hard for me to be totally impartial and I'm certainly open to other interpretations. However, this feels like that moment where the well reasoned among us should say "Stop, there is nothing wrong with the Chiefs name or identity". I've been very much a proponent of the three changes above (and stopping the war chant and war paint horse at Chiefs games) but this one seems unnecessary. 

 

My response to the slippery slope argument of name changes leading to the loss of names that anyone could find problematic (i.e. Yankees or Cowboys)  has always been "When that becomes the problem I'll fight against it just like I fought for these changes" I wonder if we're to that point now.

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.