Can a logo cause a civil war?

[TxRangersFan]

I live in Garland, a suburb just northeast of Dallas. Tonight, the city council will vote on the adoption of a new logo for Garland. Usually, such decisions cause little controversy, if any. Not in this case.

You can read about this controversy on City Councilman Douglas Athas's blog. It is the very first item on the page.

The proposed logo:

For comparison's sake, here is the current logo:

[vicfurth]

Liking the new Garland logo. Seems to fit the region better and isn't quite so 80s corporate.

[BrySmalls]

It is an identity crisis as the proposed logo, despite the type of flower (Firewheel) that grows in the region, is a misrepresentation of Garland as a whole.

[Firefly]

Garland: Dallas sleeps here.

[cameroncrazie07]

Ah, not sure. There's probably little chance of it getting passed. Considering the heat the Indians are getting for their logo.

[Gothamite]

Ah, not sure. There's probably little chance of it getting passed. Considering the heat the Indians are getting for their logo.

Subtle differences:

1. The Indians' logo is a flat-out racist caricature.

2. So far as that blog indicates, nobody is making an issue of the pseudo-Indian iconography, just that it refers more to one side of town than the other.

[TxRangersFan]

Ah, not sure. There's probably little chance of it getting passed. Considering the heat the Indians are getting for their logo.

Subtle differences:

1. The Indians' logo is a flat-out racist caricature.

2. So far as that blog indicates, nobody is making an issue of the pseudo-Indian iconography, just that it refers more to one side of town than the other.

Concerning point #2, you are 100% correct. And the City Council voted 7-2 to adopt the new logo and branding.

[TrueYankee26]

Ah, not sure. There's probably little chance of it getting passed. Considering the heat the Indians are getting for their logo.

Subtle differences:

1. The Indians' logo is a flat-out racist caricature.

2. So far as that blog indicates, nobody is making an issue of the pseudo-Indian iconography, just that it refers more to one side of town than the other.

I didn't know grinning is racist.

[BlueSky]

Nothing says Garland like, well, garland.

[O.C.D]

Ah, not sure. There's probably little chance of it getting passed. Considering the heat the Indians are getting for their logo.

Subtle differences:

1. The Indians' logo is a flat-out racist caricature.

2. So far as that blog indicates, nobody is making an issue of the pseudo-Indian iconography, just that it refers more to one side of town than the other.

I didn't know grinning is racist.

He has BRIGHT RED SKIN while wearing a feather head-dress. If you don't understand how a Native American could consider that logo racist, you really lack simple empathy.

That being said, the fire wheel logo looks way better. Although the old one looks more 'Merican (I would guess that's why people started freaking out).

[BlueSky]

Ah, not sure. There's probably little chance of it getting passed. Considering the heat the Indians are getting for their logo.

Subtle differences:

1. The Indians' logo is a flat-out racist caricature.

2. So far as that blog indicates, nobody is making an issue of the pseudo-Indian iconography, just that it refers more to one side of town than the other.

I didn't know grinning is racist.

He has BRIGHT RED SKIN while wearing a feather head-dress. If you don't understand how a Native American could consider that logo racist, you really lack simple empathy.

That being said, the fire wheel logo looks way better. Although the old one looks more 'Merican (I would guess that's why people started freaking out).

Agreed, Chief Wahoo is a disgrace. If a team had a similar logo depicting a black person, there'd be marches on Washington. I have no problem with the nickname Indians, but there's a responsibility to represent it tastefully and respectfully. The Redskins are the opposite; the nickname is offensive but the logos are fine. The Braves and Florida State both have done it right.

IMO, those who feel any ethnic nickname or logo should be off-limits are hypersensitive but those offended by Chief Wahoo or the name Redskins have valid points.

[Lights Out]

While we're beating the "racist Indian mascot" dead horse, I'd like to mention, before anyone calls "Indians" a racist name, that most native American tribes prefer the term Indians to Native Americans.

However, I do have a problem with using Indians as mascots - not because of a racial complaint, but because I just find it really creepy to use a group of humans as a mascot for a pro sports team.

[vazquez]

I would take the proposed logo in a heartbeat compared to that current on posted.

[BlueSky]

While we're beating the "racist Indian mascot" dead horse, I'd like to mention, before anyone calls "Indians" a racist name, that most native American tribes prefer the term Indians to Native Americans.

However, I do have a problem with using Indians as mascots - not because of a racial complaint, but because I just find it really creepy to use a group of humans as a mascot for a pro sports team.

Creepy? Not really. One would think the original intent was to imply the team possessed or emulated the positive qualities of the group. If used respectfully, it's in essence an honor. That's why I 1) object to Chief Wahoo but not the Redskins' logo and 2) don't understand people who object on racial grounds.

[tvko]

That being said, the fire wheel logo looks way better. Although the old one looks more 'Merican (I would guess that's why people started freaking out).

If you read the link you would know why people started freaking out, it's because of the town being separated into "North" and "South" Garland, and the logo only represents one of the areas.

[BBTV]

So this is like a microcosm of the point I was making in some other thread a few weeks ago. Why should Garland continue to be bound by boundaries that were defined a long time ago in an era in which they may have made sense, but obviously don't now due to the socioeconomic divide between the north and south? If each is its own distinct area, perhaps they should be governed distinctly. If South Garland doesn't like to feel like they're overlooked and represented by North Garland, then they should secede, or at least the lines should be re-drawn. My guess is that if that were to happen, they'd quickly realize the benefits of being in the same municipality as their rivals from the North, and this controversy would go away. There should just be a mass reel-line-mint of city / county / state boundaries.