Cleveland Scene Article on Chief Wahoo

[IceCap]

To put it simply, Chief Wahoo's continued existence is an embarrassment to everyone involved. Especially to Clevelanders who insist that it's part of their city's cultural heritage. It's a racist cartoon, plain and simple. It should have been dropped decades ago.

[Gothamite]

We've heard that line before, but unless you're a leprechaun, it doesn't wash.

I'm not a leprechaun. Which is exactly why it's offensive. It's not very representative of my Irish heritage. I mean It's not the Notre Dame Fighting Leprechauns is it? Because that would be acceptable.

I actually think he has you hear, Goth.

The Fighting Irish thing isn't a big deal because nobody has bothered to make a stink of it outside of as a fairly lame an overdone response to these topics.

But a leprechaun representing the Fighting Irish is representing Irish as if they're leprechauns. If someone wanted to be offended by that, it'd be relatively easy.

I guess your suggestion is that a Leprechaun is more equivalent to a Shamrock than it is to a caricature, but I think that's a bit of a stretch.

There's a huge difference between appropriating images from a culture and using racial caricatures. Notre Dame and the Celtics borrowing a mythical creature from Irish lore is more akin to the native art in the Seahawks and Canucks logos or the Chiefs' arrowhead logo.

When you're representing an actual people by using exaggerated racial characteristics, that crosses a different line.

[tubby34]

... it never ceases to amaze me that blatant racism involving Native Americans isn't taken anywhere near as seriously as blatant racism involving...well...anyone else. If Chief Wahoo were black, oriental, hispanic, or Jewish, he would have vanished a very long time ago and any argument in his favor would be taken about as seriously as a KKK member justifying their membership in the Klan. But since Wahoo is "just an Indian", people can't seem to understand what the big deal is.

Bingo!

Sorry, not having feelings about the logo doesn't show my feelings on other racial topics.

Personally- race is irrelevant to me. What I find relevant is how much it looks nothing like an actual Indian.

Change the skin tone. Tone down the nose, maybe redo the headdress in an acceptable fashion (maybe "inspiration" from Sockalexis tribe) and your done.

Same issue with the fighting Irish logo, don't make him so ... Irish.

I'm not a racist, I just don't see racism in everything these days like so many do. Ex: Zimmerman and Martin. My take- he took a kids life, only question is was it self defense or murder. There's my line.

Not he shot a African American and you heard him curse in a censored 911 tape and you can't tell what was said.

Just my opinion.

Chief Wahoo can be altered- just how can you preserve his history to a franchise and a region while respecting who your supposed to be honoring.

You not only completely missed the point, you also proved it. Nicely done. That's not an easy combo to pull off.

Your Welcome

/Kobe system

(Maybe on my phone it's hard to make it read the way I intend, but good luck in your crusade to get rid of chief wahoo, can't want to sell all of mine on eBay at a nice profit)

[STL FANATIC]

We've heard that line before, but unless you're a leprechaun, it doesn't wash.

I'm not a leprechaun. Which is exactly why it's offensive. It's not very representative of my Irish heritage. I mean It's not the Notre Dame Fighting Leprechauns is it? Because that would be acceptable.

I actually think he has you hear, Goth.

The Fighting Irish thing isn't a big deal because nobody has bothered to make a stink of it outside of as a fairly lame an overdone response to these topics.

But a leprechaun representing the Fighting Irish is representing Irish as if they're leprechauns. If someone wanted to be offended by that, it'd be relatively easy.

I guess your suggestion is that a Leprechaun is more equivalent to a Shamrock than it is to a caricature, but I think that's a bit of a stretch.

There's a huge difference between appropriating images from a culture and using racial caricatures. Notre Dame and the Celtics borrowing a mythical creature from Irish lore is more akin to the native art in the Seahawks and Canucks logos or the Chiefs' arrowhead logo.

When you're representing an actual people by using exaggerated racial characteristics, that crosses a different line.

I agree. But I may disagree that the leprechaun was brought about because it's Irish imagery rather than itself being an exaggerated racial caricature.

[OnWis97]

We've heard that line before, but unless you're a leprechaun, it doesn't wash.

I'm not a leprechaun. Which is exactly why it's offensive. It's not very representative of my Irish heritage. I mean It's not the Notre Dame Fighting Leprechauns is it? Because that would be acceptable.

I actually think he has you hear, Goth.

The Fighting Irish thing isn't a big deal because nobody has bothered to make a stink of it outside of as a fairly lame an overdone response to these topics.

But a leprechaun representing the Fighting Irish is representing Irish as if they're leprechauns. If someone wanted to be offended by that, it'd be relatively easy.

I guess your suggestion is that a Leprechaun is more equivalent to a Shamrock than it is to a caricature, but I think that's a bit of a stretch.

There's a huge difference between appropriating images from a culture and using racial caricatures. Notre Dame and the Celtics borrowing a mythical creature from Irish lore is more akin to the native art in the Seahawks and Canucks logos or the Chiefs' arrowhead logo.

When you're representing an actual people by using exaggerated racial characteristics, that crosses a different line.

I agree. But I may disagree that the leprechaun was brought about because it's Irish imagery rather than itself being an exaggerated racial caricature.

Ethnic, for whatever it's worth.

The other thing about Notre Dame is that, to whatever extent it matters, the imagery was created by an Irish-Catholic institution, as opposed to Chief Wahoo, which was created by people with no connection to the caricature.

The reason the "intent" was not there is because at that time, it did not really occur to think of "injuns" as totally human; but a bit "less than" human. That's what drove a lot of the imagery created in cartoons in the 50s to the 80s (or so). So while Wahoo may not exist out of "racist intent", it certainly was born out of ignorance.

[Magnum]

I dunno ... but I do think people are overly sensitive in today's world.

Everyone has a stereotype in this world and of course, not all them apply to every single person of that culture or group. When I see Chief Wahoo, I just think of the time that it came out when the world was different. If it had come out in the past 20 years, then maybe I'd see it as controversial. It's like trying to rewrite Huckleberry Finn because of the use of the N word ... oh wait, that did happen ...

[Gothamite]

If they were publishing new Huckleberry Finn books with the n-word, then you'd have a much stronger point. This is an ongoing concen, not a dispatch from an old, shameful period in our history.

It's not "overly sensitive" to say that Sambo has no place in our society. Or depictions of hook-nosed Jews stealing Christian babies. Or the big-nosed, crimson-skinned grinning Wahoo. It's about what's right.

[-kj]

It's like trying to rewrite Huckleberry Finn because of the use of the N word ... oh wait, that did happen ...

That's one of the worst red herrings I've ever seen.

One is a logo that is still in use by a modern-day baseball team. It is actively promoting the use of such a mark as a symbol of their club; by extension, a symbol of what they believe.

The other is a work of literature that is a sign of its times. No one is suggesting that it is promoted as how things happen in the modern day, or even that Twain promoted the viewpoints of the characters. It's a glimpse into the past, and perhaps a message that such things shouldn't be repeated--or continue to be accepted.

[Hontas]

It's about what's right.

There's not a consensus about the logo being wrong.

[-kj]

It's about what's right.

There's not a consensus about the logo being wrong.

I believe you're conflating "right" with "popular".

[infrared41]

You not only completely missed the point, you also proved it. Nicely done. That's not an easy combo to pull off.

Your Welcome

/Kobe system

(Maybe on my phone it's hard to make it read the way I intend, but good luck in your crusade to get rid of chief wahoo, can't want to sell all of mine on eBay at a nice profit)

I'm not on any crusade to get rid of Chief Wahoo. I'm simply pointing out how flawed your argument, and all the other arguments in support of Chief Wahoo are. You all don't seem to comprehend ( or, more likely, don't care) that you are arguing in support of a logo that is every bit the equivalent of a ridiculous caricature of a black man that's the logo for a team called the Sambos. But please feel free to continue being completely tone deaf on the issue.

*You're right, Chief Wahoo gear is pretty hard to find. I'm sure there's a huge demand for something that's been plastered on everything from hats to ashtrays for the last 50 years. What's next, making a "nice profit" off your collection of Pepsi cans?

*Note the correct usage of you're.

[02Rover]

Obviously comes in with it's perspective and is never shy about that, but it also did a lot of research and is very well written.

Here.

Hatchet job by a liberal rag with an obvious slant fron the start.

He may be shrinking, but Chief Wahoo isnt going anywhere, no matter how many offended "white people" you line up. For every bored activist searching for something to be offended about, there are just as many honest to goodness Native Americans who support the logo, the name, the history behind it and the Cleveland Indians, themselves.

[IceCap]

Obviously comes in with it's perspective and is never shy about that, but it also did a lot of research and is very well written.

Here.

Hatchet job by a liberal rag with an obvious slant fron the start.

He may be shrinking, but Chief Wahoo isnt going anywhere, no matter how many offended "white people" you line up. For every bored activist searching for something to be offended about, there are just as many honest to goodness Native Americans who support the logo, the name, the history behind it and the Cleveland Indians, themselves.

Um infrared, who's a Native American, has been posting for a while now about the logo being offensive to him.

[Gothamite]

Oh, he doesn't count.

He's obviously No True Scotsman.

[02Rover]

Obviously comes in with it's perspective and is never shy about that, but it also did a lot of research and is very well written.

Here.

Hatchet job by a liberal rag with an obvious slant fron the start.

He may be shrinking, but Chief Wahoo isnt going anywhere, no matter how many offended "white people" you line up. For every bored activist searching for something to be offended about, there are just as many honest to goodness Native Americans who support the logo, the name, the history behind it and the Cleveland Indians, themselves.

Um infrared, who's a Native American, has been posting for a while now about the logo being offensive to him.

And Im a Native American (part, not full blooded) and it doesnt offend me. So whose side is more legit?

[JTernup]

Someone will be offended no matter what, so the indians should just keep it. IMO

An interesting philosophical question is; If the Indians colors were navy and sky blue or orange, would wahoo still have red skin, or would he be blue or orange? If your answer is yes, than it's racist, if your answer is no, than it isn't racist. *but there are other racist elements so this ONLY applies to the possible racism of the skin color.*

[tubby34]

You not only completely missed the point, you also proved it. Nicely done. That's not an easy combo to pull off.

Your Welcome

/Kobe system

(Maybe on my phone it's hard to make it read the way I intend, but good luck in your crusade to get rid of chief wahoo, can't want to sell all of mine on eBay at a nice profit)

I'm not on any crusade to get rid of Chief Wahoo. I'm simply pointing out how flawed your argument, and all the other arguments in support of Chief Wahoo are. You all don't seem to comprehend ( or, more likely, don't care) that you are arguing in support of a logo that is every bit the equivalent of a ridiculous caricature of a black man that's the logo for a team called the Sambos. But please feel free to continue being completely tone deaf on the issue.

*You're right, Chief Wahoo gear is pretty hard to find. I'm sure there's a huge demand for something that's been plastered on everything from hats to ashtrays for the last 50 years. What's next, making a "nice profit" off your collection of Pepsi cans?

*Note the correct usage of you're.

Yup- welcome to America- land of the free and home of the capitalists.

I simply Do. Not. Care.

My Pepsi cans stay with me though, need something to drink when the apocalypse comes and everyones clamoring for my hats.

Side Note: How do you FEEL about this?

You see racism at it's finest, I see $$$.

Obviously I'm Trolling.

I'm part Irish, and have about 3 native american friends (2 Mickosukee's, one Seminole) who almost exclusivly wear their Indians Cap with Wahoo over their other Cursive I's and Block C's. One wears his so often he bought a few with me last year at Marshalls.

If you don't find the "Fighting Irish" offensive, they your as blind and stupid as I am Ignorant .

Fighting Irish implies my families ancestors soley prayed and fought. It makes no mention of the horrible fight they fought to be accepted in this country as people other then Micks and troublemakers.

As unaccepted as Italians, and Cubans were, even irishman fought uphill battles when coming to this country during the potato famine.

Everyone except the white man has struggled for equality- why should native americans be held in a higher regard then the Irish?

Don't bring African Americans into this conversation. They fought and struggled until the civil rights movement for equality and still face an uphill battle. But they fought.

Much like my fathers cuban ancestors, they complain and call for action, but when the time comes to have a actual protest and try to do somethign about it, 19 Native Americans and a white guy showed up to force change-- only on opening day, for years.

Even my cuban ancestors found a way to get 300 together on short notice to ask for Ozzies Head, and even then they gave up the next day.

If this small pact want's to be taken seriously, they need to make a statement by coming out in dozens of dozens, not just a bakers dozen.

Change only happens when you truly believe in it, devote your life to it, and feel you are fighting for whats right. If only 20 Native American's can find a way to make it out to a game scheduled for 6 months, their race must not care enough to let their voice be heard.

Just like my cuban ancestors, your can't complain for changes to be made, and give up half way through.

(for those who are wonderign, I'm 1/2 Cuban, 40% Italian, 5% Irish and 5% Jewish, and yes- a team named the "Penny Pinches with a Jewish Rabbi Logo would make for a funny mascot, same thing with the Jersey Shores )

[JTernup]

Slight amendment, that hat is definitely NOT ok, IMO. But... I want one as a hat collector.

In my mind it's wrong to put the flag on the face of someone, charicture or not of a country that once suppressed them.

Don't ask me why I draw the line there!

[tubby34]

Slight amendment, that hat is definitely NOT ok, IMO. But... I want one as a hat collector.

In my mind it's wrong to put the flag on the face of someone, charicture or not of a country that once suppressed them.

Don't ask me why I draw the line there!

I'm with you, it's one of those things you buy and put away. Like a Playboy Mag.

Really poor judgement. Happy they went to a C for the S&S after that.

[Gothamite]

And Im a Native American (part, not full blooded) and it doesnt offend me. So whose side is more legit?

Both opinions are legitimate, of course.

But I think in the absence of a near-consensus, we have to default to the "it's offensive" position. You may disagree, but so long as there is any measurable percentage of people who see it is a racist caricature of their people, we need to respect that.