Cleveland Indians become the Cleveland Guardians

[MJWalker45]

17 hours ago, EddieJ1984 said:

I wonder if they'll ever do any faux-backs down the line. Like a vest with the G-wing logo where Wahoo would've been.

If they do throwbacks of any kind, I'd expect they'll be Cleveland Buckeyes, or any Cleveland Indians uniform minus Wahoo on the sleeve or front of the shirt. 

[Gothamite]

15 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.

 

The fact that we don't all remember it, or that we were too young to recognize it at the time, doesn't mean it didn't happen.  Some Native American organizations have been advocating for the removal of all Native nicknames for literally decades.  Well before they had any measure of success.

 

And even if those NA organizations started small, removing the worst and most racist symbols (that is to say the easiest ones to attack) and then built on their successes with a wider campaign, what would be wrong with that?

Do Native Americans not have the right to decide how they and their culture are portrayed?  That seems to me the important question at hand.  The only important question.

 

I will grant you that white journalists haven't always covered the Native American campaigns fairly.  That doesn't mean the campaigns didn't exist or were somehow less valid.  And when those same news organizations started to take Black civil rights groups seriously in the sixties,  started to cover them, did that make Congress of Racial Equality and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference "vampires" with  "a taste of blood" too?

 

 

[Sec19Row53]

12 hours ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

 

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.
 

Native carving - not caveman. Not Greek, either.

[Gothamite]

40 minutes ago, JTernup said:

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.

 

No, because Yankees and Cowboys are not ethnic groups.  So any comparison falls apart immediately.

 

White guys like me don't get to tell Native Americans that "there is nothing wrong with the Chiefs name or identity".  We just don't.

[SFGiants58]

46 minutes ago, JTernup said:

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. 

 

Not to a growing number of people. Ultimately, the team is named for the KC mayor who liked to cosplay as a Native American.

 

Ultimately, it’s the arrow on the logo and the chop people have a problem with. They’ve toned the chop down, but it might be a good time to do the oft-suggested firemen switch.

 

However, the Chiefs have worked with Native American groups and still do, which is why a lot of the more egregious stuff is gone. There’s a piece explaining it here.

 

46 minutes ago, JTernup said:

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.

Nah. The cries aren’t loud enough yet. Also, it took a brutal series of nationwide protests against police murdering black people to even get this far. It took serious property damage and social media/shareholder heat to even get Washington to drop the name (FedEx, the primary sponsor, threatened to pull out if R**s***s stayed in place). Cleveland followed suit, if only because they read the room after that.

 

Those other dominos, like the Braves, Blackhawks, and Chiefs, barely budged. Sure, there was social media talk about them, but nothing of true substance like Washington NFL and Cleveland AL. Sure, various coalitions and groups may talk, but we now know it meant nothing for many years. No sponsors threatened the former three.

 

Ultimately, Native Americans are #NotYourMascot. Their wishes should be respected.

 

[The_Admiral]

Police & Fire are the backbone of MAGA, I'm not sure that's the way to do it.

[SFGiants58]

Just now, the admiral said:

Police & Fire are the backbone of MAGA, I'm not sure that's the way to do it.

Police, probably. There’s no All Firemen Are Bastards saying. It’s akin to the Arizona Hotshots.

[JTernup]

25 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

No, because Yankees and Cowboys are not ethnic groups.  So any comparison falls apart immediately.

 

White guys like me don't get to tell Native Americans that "there is nothing wrong with the Chiefs name or identity".  We just don't.

I want to clarify that I was paraphrasing the kind of bad faith argument that I saw a lot where people would ask "where does it end?".  At some point it either has to end or no name derived from people is culturally appropriate.

 

It's not my place to decide what is right but that's long been the argument and you can't really call it a slippery slope fallacy if I happens. Another example of this is UF banning a song that elicits the response "Gator Bait" because although never used by UF in this context it had links to horrible racism. Some folks asked "what if they come for the name Gators next?" To which I responded "That would be wrong and I'd fight it but that doesn't make this worth saving/fighting for?" That's the point I was bringing up, is there a point where the calls for change become illegitimate?

 

I know the kind of discussion necessary  for anything bordering on worthwhile is banned and probably can't be accomplished over a message board anyway though so that's all I'll say.

[The_Admiral]

8 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

Police, probably. There’s no All Firemen Are Bastards saying. It’s akin to the Arizona Hotshots.

They have the same nWo American flag as the cops do but with one red stripe instead of blue. I'm just saying it's not foolproof.

[DEAD!]

2 minutes ago, the admiral said:

They have the same nWo American flag as the cops do but with one red stripe instead of blue. I'm just saying it's not foolproof.

ah ... so the firemen are the nWo Wolfpac. 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

42 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

Ultimately, it’s the arrow on the logo and the chop people have a problem with. They’ve toned the chop down, but it might be a good time to do the oft-suggested firemen switch.

 

 

Is this really so bad?

 

[dont care]

1 minute ago, the admiral said:

They have the same nWo American flag as the cops do but with one red stripe instead of blue. I'm just saying it's not foolproof.

You find those flags for all kinds of professions, green for military, grey for corrections, light blue ems, white nurse, yellow dispatch ect. I don’t see anyone going after any of those.

[SFGiants58]

2 minutes ago, the admiral said:

They have the same nWo American flag as the cops do but with one red stripe instead of blue. I'm just saying it's not foolproof.

 

I doubt it’s quite the same. A bunch of groups have a similar design.

 

 

Only the cop one has any political connotations.

 

2 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

Is this really so bad?

 

 

Yup. It’s still got black and no yellow. A Florian Cross or fire helmet would be nice, or just the KC on its own (white with yellow outlines/shadow).

[Gothamite]

27 minutes ago, JTernup said:

I want to clarify that I was paraphrasing the kind of bad faith argument that I saw a lot where people would ask "where does it end?".  At some point it either has to end or no name derived from people is culturally appropriate.

 

It's not my place to decide what is right but that's long been the argument and you can't really call it a slippery slope fallacy if I happens. Another example of this is UF banning a song that elicits the response "Gator Bait" because although never used by UF in this context it had links to horrible racism. Some folks asked "what if they come for the name Gators next?" To which I responded "That would be wrong and I'd fight it but that doesn't make this worth saving/fighting for?" That's the point I was bringing up, is there a point where the calls for change become illegitimate?

 

I know the kind of discussion necessary  for anything bordering on worthwhile is banned and probably can't be accomplished over a message board anyway though so that's all I'll say.

 

I really do appreciate the discussion.

 

Calls for change are never illegitimate if those calls come from the people themselves.  In this case, Native Americans are the only ones who get to decide what's appropriate and what's not, and the rest of us have to respect their decisions.  Seems simple enough.

 

And again, until cowboys or northerners or meat packers become a protected class, it's a slippery slope fallacy.

[Carolingian Steamroller]

1 hour ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Native carving - not caveman. Not Greek, either.

Just using the same shorthand I’ve seen elsewhere on these boards.

[spartacat_12]

17 hours ago, ManillaToad said:

Wouldn't have guessed Houston as #10 there

 

I guess it's because MLB started expanding the playoff format shortly after Houston got the expansion team.

 

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

Do Native Americans not have the right to decide how they and their culture are portrayed?  That seems to me the important question at hand.  The only important question.

 

Except Native Americans aren't some politically homogenous single-entity. They are a group with diverse political & cultural ideals just like the rest of society.

 

While it is obvious that the Cleveland logo & Washington name were offensive, I don't think you would get any sort of consensus in the Native/Indigenous communities if you were to poll people about the Chiefs, Blackhawks, Braves, etc. 

[Gothamite]

13 minutes ago, spartacat_12 said:

Except Native Americans aren't some politically homogenous single-entity. They are a group with diverse political & cultural ideals just like the rest of society.

 

While it is obvious that the Cleveland logo & Washington name were offensive, I don't think you would get any sort of consensus in the Native/Indigenous communities if you were to poll people about the Chiefs, Blackhawks, Braves, etc. 

 

You are absolutely correct.  NA groups are an incredibly diverse lot, and even in each nation you will find a diversity of opinion.  That's why consensus is important, just as it is with any other population. 

So how are such things decided?  Through their selected representatives.  The National Congress of American Indians is the only group of which I'm aware that represents all Federally-recognized nations.  And they have come to a clear consensus position they're happy with.

 

If there's a better way of determining that consensus, I'm certainly glad to hear it.  Until then, I think we should respect their wishes.

 

https://www.ncai.org/proudtobe

[tBBP]

I'm curious to know a few things, just out of curiosity:

 

1) I know @infrared41 is of Native ancestry; have we any other members of this site that also of Native ancestry?

 

2.) How many people in here have actually spent time walking and talking amongst indigenous peoples?

 

I say that because it's easy to read and repeat what others say about things; it's a little different when you hear things straight from the source. Such has been the case for me the past two years, as I've gotten to know and speak with a good number of indigenous peoples up here in the upper midwest and pacific northwest (and a few back down where I come from), and with some I have brought up this issue.  And just from my own experience, their opinions vary widely across the board on some Native-themed nicknames (the Indians obviously not being one; most all I asked that about shot that down as soon as it was brought up.)

 

Most of my experience has been with the Lakota Nations here in South Dakota (in fact I'm dating a Lakota woman now), but I've also spoken with some of the Crow and Cheyenne peoples up in Southeastern Montana, some up in northeastern Washington state, some up in Western New York (I want to say Onondaga), a good number of Creek in Oklahoma, and of course some of the Seminole nation back down in Florida and what few there are in northern Alabama.

 

What's crazy is that I actually saw a few of the Crow and Cheyenne wearing KC Chiefs gear and even a few with the former WTF logo. Some didn't seem too bothered by it; a few were actually proud of it. But, by and large, it seems the two most offensive mascots to most of the ones I talked to were the **dians and R****ins. None seemed to have an issue with the Chiefs arrowhead, and opinions were mixed as far as thr Braves' tomahawk (probably more so the tomahawk on its own rather than the actual Braves nickname).

 

Just offering this little snippet up in case anyone was curious. 

[Gothamite]

You are correct that individual people will always have individual opinions, especially in such a diverse population.

 

My sister in law is Shoshone, and not even everyone in her family agrees 100% on this issue.  Or at least they don't all feel as strongly about it as some do.

 

That's why consensus is important, and one way Native Americans have reached that consensus is through their representatives in the NCAI.  If there's another way to evaluate that consensus, even a better way, I would honestly be interested in hearing it.  Because personal anecdotes and internet polls aren't up to the task.

[Sec19Row53]

1 hour ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

Just using the same shorthand I’ve seen elsewhere on these boards.

Understood. I've tried correcting that misnomer when it comes up.