Jump to content

Cleveland Scene Article on Chief Wahoo


mania

Recommended Posts

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.

Exactly. Even something that is unequivocally "offensive" will not offend 100% of people. If a sizable number of people are offended, then pretty much by definition, an object is "offensive." In this sample of 2, 50% are offended...that computes to being pretty darned offensive. The fact that there is a controversy at all fairly well proves that enough people are offended, and that chief wahoo is pretty much unquestionably "offensive". As opposed to "Packers" and "Fighting Irish" and "Vikings" which generally only offends people that like to feign offensiveness to make a lame point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 278
  • Created
  • Last Reply

well, most pro-Wahoo people are well aware of the anti arguments. Flipping it around a little bit, why is the pro-Wahoo camp so incredibly attached to this logo? So many teams change cap logos all the time, what makes Wahoo on the cap special or so sacred? If the Brewers can ditch their "M-B Glove" hats, then almost any team can change their cap logo. Even teams with far bigger brands such as the Cubs, Cards, Dodgers and Bosox have either added alternates or made changes.

And for those who say this thread should be dumped, read the actual article because the author brings new talking points to the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, most pro-Wahoo people are well aware of the anti arguments. Flipping it around a little bit, why is the pro-Wahoo camp so incredibly attached to this logo? So many teams change cap logos all the time, what makes Wahoo on the cap special or so sacred? If the Brewers can ditch their "M-B Glove" hats, then almost any team can change their cap logo. Even teams with far bigger brands such as the Cubs, Cards, Dodgers and Bosox have either added alternates or made changes.

And for those who say this thread should be dumped, read the actual article because the author brings new talking points to the table.

I've asked this exact question in other Wahoo threads and never got a response. It's not exactly a great design and (as others have noted) Wahoo is associated with the absolute nadir of the Cleveland franchise. What other reason could there possibly be for keeping it around aside from certain peoples' delusion that getting rid of Wahoo would somehow infringe on their 'murican civil liberties?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, most pro-Wahoo people are well aware of the anti arguments. Flipping it around a little bit, why is the pro-Wahoo camp so incredibly attached to this logo? So many teams change cap logos all the time, what makes Wahoo on the cap special or so sacred? If the Brewers can ditch their "M-B Glove" hats, then almost any team can change their cap logo. Even teams with far bigger brands such as the Cubs, Cards, Dodgers and Bosox have either added alternates or made changes.

And for those who say this thread should be dumped, read the actual article because the author brings new talking points to the table.

I've asked this exact question in other Wahoo threads and never got a response. It's not exactly a great design and (as others have noted) Wahoo is associated with the absolute nadir of the Cleveland franchise. What other reason could there possibly be for keeping it around aside from certain peoples' delusion that getting rid of Wahoo would somehow infringe on their 'murican civil liberties?

Do you agree that the fighting Irish logo and moniker are offensive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope the logo stays... If for no other reason than to put a stop to all this P.C. nonsense that's become so prevalent. It's a cartoon, not a visual representation of an entire race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a cartoon visual representating an entire race through exaggerated racial characteristics.

JohnnySeoul, is that you? He used to have this ludicrous argument that cartoons could never be racist because they were cartoons and therefore not actually the people being diminished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a cartoon visual representating an entire race through exaggerated racial characteristics.

JohnnySeoul, is that you? He used to have this ludicrous argument that cartoons could never be racist because they were cartoons and therefore not actually the people being diminished.

The features are no more exaggerated than those on the Blackhawks logo but I suppose that should go too... Also, cartoons can be racist... if a racist act is depicted against a visual representation of said race. Otherwise it is what JohnnySeoul says... just a cartoon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, most pro-Wahoo people are well aware of the anti arguments. Flipping it around a little bit, why is the pro-Wahoo camp so incredibly attached to this logo? So many teams change cap logos all the time, what makes Wahoo on the cap special or so sacred? If the Brewers can ditch their "M-B Glove" hats, then almost any team can change their cap logo. Even teams with far bigger brands such as the Cubs, Cards, Dodgers and Bosox have either added alternates or made changes.

And for those who say this thread should be dumped, read the actual article because the author brings new talking points to the table.

I've asked this exact question in other Wahoo threads and never got a response. It's not exactly a great design and (as others have noted) Wahoo is associated with the absolute nadir of the Cleveland franchise. What other reason could there possibly be for keeping it around aside from certain peoples' delusion that getting rid of Wahoo would somehow infringe on their 'murican civil liberties?

Do you agree that the fighting Irish logo and moniker are offensive?

No.

The Fighting Irish logo (and name, for that matter) depicts a creature from European folklore, and was developed by people of European descent for an institution that, at the time, was primarily open to people of European descent. It was created by and used by the culture it was depicting. That is to say that the people who it's supposedly offending had agency in its creation, and have it in its continued use.

Chief Wahoo, on the other hand, was created by people of European descent to depict a person of Native American descent. Now that's not necessarily a bad thing, but it became negative when the depiction became an offensive cartoon on par with this or this. Unlike the Fighting Irish logo, the people Wahoo depicts had no agency in its creation, not do the have any in its continued use.

It's a cartoon visual representating an entire race through exaggerated racial characteristics.

JohnnySeoul, is that you? He used to have this ludicrous argument that cartoons could never be racist because they were cartoons and therefore not actually the people being diminished.

The features are no more exaggerated than those on the Blackhawks logo but I suppose that should go too

You're off your rocker if you can't see the difference between this....

wnyd2zhh84f50ux4uxyqbktbh-2.gif

....and this.

56-1.gif

One's a respectful depiction of a Native warrior, one's a racist cartoon that fits in alongside anything to come out of the segregationist south (Jim Crow, Sambo, etc...). Please tell me your Blackhawks has warped your mind that much.

... Also, cartoons can be racist... if a racist act is depicted against a visual representation of said race. Otherwise it is what JohnnySeoul says... just a cartoon.

So you agree cartoons can be racist. Ok. So seeing as Chief Wahoo clearly depicts a Native American, and seeing as he displays exaggerated racial characteristics, how is he not a racist depiction of a Native American?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would assume that most Native Americans would also find the Blackhawks' logo to be "respectful", however, I could also understand if there were some that had issue with the coloring, the war paint, the feathers, or really anything that would generalize that era of NA history. Again, not that there's anything at all to be ashamed of (quite the opposite), but I would think that many NAs would be opposed to the stereotype that they're uncivilized savages who live in teepees and fight cowboys. I could see one having an issue with those aspects of the Blackhawks' logo, as well as the Redskins, and classic Braves. Only a Native American can make that determination, but I don't think that the outrageously egregious example of the Indians logo diminishes the subtle stereotypes inherent in those other logos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, most pro-Wahoo people are well aware of the anti arguments. Flipping it around a little bit, why is the pro-Wahoo camp so incredibly attached to this logo? So many teams change cap logos all the time, what makes Wahoo on the cap special or so sacred? If the Brewers can ditch their "M-B Glove" hats, then almost any team can change their cap logo. Even teams with far bigger brands such as the Cubs, Cards, Dodgers and Bosox have either added alternates or made changes.

And for those who say this thread should be dumped, read the actual article because the author brings new talking points to the table.

I've asked this exact question in other Wahoo threads and never got a response. It's not exactly a great design and (as others have noted) Wahoo is associated with the absolute nadir of the Cleveland franchise. What other reason could there possibly be for keeping it around aside from certain peoples' delusion that getting rid of Wahoo would somehow infringe on their 'murican civil liberties?

In fairness, that nadir covers decades :)

But Schtee's question is an interesting one. I don't think too many people put this logo up with the Yankees etc. If the Twins could change their TC for that M (of course they are back), the O's can go from bird to bird, and the Phillies can bounce around from "P" to "P", why not Cleveland (who had a "C" when I started watching in the early 1980s).

One reply came to mind (before I scrolled down to see the below)...

I hope the logo stays... If for no other reason than to put a stop to all this P.C. nonsense that's become so prevalent. It's a cartoon, not a visual representation of an entire race.

And I think this pretty much answers your question for a lot of the supporters. There is more at stake here. The horror that our culture would have us being more respectful at the cost of our ability to tell others that they should just learn to "laugh at themselves." It already cost them great college and high school nicknames like "Savages". But to get to the pros and take away Chief Wahoo and "Redskins", well that crosses the line.

Beware though, even if the logo does stay, it will not "put a stop to all this P.C. nonsense". Our forefathers fought and died so we could use racial slurs, but there is always going to be someone to jump on us when we do. Those people are probably gay, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would assume that most Native Americans would also find the Blackhawks' logo to be "respectful", however, I could also understand if there were some that had issue with the coloring, the war paint, the feathers, or really anything that would generalize that era of NA history. Again, not that there's anything at all to be ashamed of (quite the opposite), but I would think that many NAs would be opposed to the stereotype that they're uncivilized savages who live in teepees and fight cowboys. I could see one having an issue with those aspects of the Blackhawks' logo, as well as the Redskins, and classic Braves. Only a Native American can make that determination, but I don't think that the outrageously egregious example of the Indians logo diminishes the subtle stereotypes inherent in those other logos.

Considering that the team is named after a WWI division that was named after a Native American war captain, I don't see how the war paint plays into the "savage" stereotype. The real Black Hawk was a warrior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would assume that most Native Americans would also find the Blackhawks' logo to be "respectful", however, I could also understand if there were some that had issue with the coloring, the war paint, the feathers, or really anything that would generalize that era of NA history. Again, not that there's anything at all to be ashamed of (quite the opposite), but I would think that many NAs would be opposed to the stereotype that they're uncivilized savages who live in teepees and fight cowboys. I could see one having an issue with those aspects of the Blackhawks' logo, as well as the Redskins, and classic Braves. Only a Native American can make that determination, but I don't think that the outrageously egregious example of the Indians logo diminishes the subtle stereotypes inherent in those other logos.

Considering that the team is named after a WWI division that was named after a Native American war captain, I don't see how the war paint plays into the "savage" stereotype. The real Black Hawk was a warrior.

I didn't realize that, but the point would still stand for the other examples. I don't know much about the real Black Hawk, but I guess if that's an accurate depiction, then that's a different case than an image designed to represent an entire culture. Either way, I'm not saying that they are offensive, as that's not for me to judge, just that I could understand how one could be offended by the images.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with your assertion that the logo is imitating a creature of folklore. If it was meant to depict folklore, Notre Dame would would be appropriately named the Fighting Leprechauns. To suggest that the drawing is a anything other then a racially charged exaggerated caricature of a Brawling Irishman is not only ignorant, but also hypocritical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with your assertion that the logo is imitating a creature of folklore. If it was meant to depict folklore, Notre Dame would would be appropriately named the Fighting Leprechauns. To suggest that the drawing is a anything other then a racially charged exaggerated caricature of a Brawling Irishman is not only ignorant, but also hypocritical.

I'm not sure who you're replying to.

In case you were replying to me, well you missed the point entirely. It's not about whether or not the Fighting Irish logo is a leprechaun or a depiction of an Irishman. That's inconsequential. Lets assume, for the sake of argument, that it is an exaggerated cartoon of an Irishman.

It's a logo depicting someone of European descent, created by people of European descent, for an organization that, at least at the time, was primarily open to people of European descent. The people depicted by the logo had agency in its creation and use.

Chief Wahoo, on the other hand, depicts a Native American. It was created by someone of European descent, and used by an organization that at the time primarily catered towards and employed people of European descent.

That's the difference between Notre Dame's leprechaun and Wahoo. In one former the people the logo depicts had agency in its creation and use. In the later the people the logo depicts had their image "taken" by outsiders and twisted into a racist image. They lacked that agency.

I would assume that most Native Americans would also find the Blackhawks' logo to be "respectful", however, I could also understand if there were some that had issue with the coloring, the war paint, the feathers, or really anything that would generalize that era of NA history. Again, not that there's anything at all to be ashamed of (quite the opposite), but I would think that many NAs would be opposed to the stereotype that they're uncivilized savages who live in teepees and fight cowboys. I could see one having an issue with those aspects of the Blackhawks' logo, as well as the Redskins, and classic Braves. Only a Native American can make that determination, but I don't think that the outrageously egregious example of the Indians logo diminishes the subtle stereotypes inherent in those other logos.

Considering that the team is named after a WWI division that was named after a Native American war captain, I don't see how the war paint plays into the "savage" stereotype. The real Black Hawk was a warrior.

I didn't realize that, but the point would still stand for the other examples. I don't know much about the real Black Hawk, but I guess if that's an accurate depiction, then that's a different case than an image designed to represent an entire culture. Either way, I'm not saying that they are offensive, as that's not for me to judge, just that I could understand how one could be offended by the images.

Fair enough, solid points all around.

My original point was simply that the Blackhawks' logo isn't even close to the Indians' Chief Wahoo in terms of being an offensive cartoon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're off your rocker if you can't see the difference between this....

wnyd2zhh84f50ux4uxyqbktbh-2.gif

....and this.

56-1.gif

One's a respectful depiction of a Native warrior, one's a racist cartoon that fits in alongside anything to come out of the segregationist south (Jim Crow, Sambo, etc...). Please tell me your Blackhawks has warped your mind that much.

I like the Blackhawks logo but there are many paralells between the two. You could argue that both depict native americans in a stereotypical nature. The only real difference is that one is realistic while the other is cartoon-ish. ...and one's red.

... Also, cartoons can be racist... if a racist act is depicted against a visual representation of said race. Otherwise it is what JohnnySeoul says... just a cartoon.

So you agree cartoons can be racist. Ok. So seeing as Chief Wahoo clearly depicts a Native American, and seeing as he displays exaggerated racial characteristics, how is he not a racist depiction of a Native American?

Should South Park be taken off the air? They make lots of your so called "racist depictions." Personally I think we should have a gestapo to specifically target all cartoons, logos, and any other expression of the visual arts so we can eliminate anything any group finds offensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, most pro-Wahoo people are well aware of the anti arguments. Flipping it around a little bit, why is the pro-Wahoo camp so incredibly attached to this logo? So many teams change cap logos all the time, what makes Wahoo on the cap special or so sacred? If the Brewers can ditch their "M-B Glove" hats, then almost any team can change their cap logo. Even teams with far bigger brands such as the Cubs, Cards, Dodgers and Bosox have either added alternates or made changes.

And for those who say this thread should be dumped, read the actual article because the author brings new talking points to the table.

I've asked this exact question in other Wahoo threads and never got a response. It's not exactly a great design and (as others have noted) Wahoo is associated with the absolute nadir of the Cleveland franchise. What other reason could there possibly be for keeping it around aside from certain peoples' delusion that getting rid of Wahoo would somehow infringe on their 'murican civil liberties?

Do you agree that the fighting Irish logo and moniker are offensive?

Answering a question with another--unrelated--question is not answering the original question at all; it's deflecting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with your assertion that the logo is imitating a creature of folklore. If it was meant to depict folklore, Notre Dame would would be appropriately named the Fighting Leprechauns. To suggest that the drawing is a anything other then a racially charged exaggerated caricature of a Brawling Irishman is not only ignorant, but also hypocritical.

I'm not sure who you're replying to.

In case you were replying to me, well you missed the point entirely. It's not about whether or not the Fighting Irish logo is a leprechaun or a depiction of an Irishman. That's inconsequential. Lets assume, for the sake of argument, that it is an exaggerated cartoon of an Irishman.

It's a logo depicting someone of European descent, created by people of European descent, for an organization that, at least at the time, was primarily open to people of European descent. The people depicted by the logo had agency in its creation and use.

Chief Wahoo, on the other hand, depicts a Native American. It was created by someone of European descent, and used by an organization that at the time primarily catered towards and employed people of European descent.

That's the difference between Notre Dame's leprechaun and Wahoo. In one former the people the logo depicts had agency in its creation and use. In the later the people the logo depicts had their image "taken" by outsiders and twisted into a racist image. They lacked that agency.

I would assume that most Native Americans would also find the Blackhawks' logo to be "respectful", however, I could also understand if there were some that had issue with the coloring, the war paint, the feathers, or really anything that would generalize that era of NA history. Again, not that there's anything at all to be ashamed of (quite the opposite), but I would think that many NAs would be opposed to the stereotype that they're uncivilized savages who live in teepees and fight cowboys. I could see one having an issue with those aspects of the Blackhawks' logo, as well as the Redskins, and classic Braves. Only a Native American can make that determination, but I don't think that the outrageously egregious example of the Indians logo diminishes the subtle stereotypes inherent in those other logos.

Considering that the team is named after a WWI division that was named after a Native American war captain, I don't see how the war paint plays into the "savage" stereotype. The real Black Hawk was a warrior.

I didn't realize that, but the point would still stand for the other examples. I don't know much about the real Black Hawk, but I guess if that's an accurate depiction, then that's a different case than an image designed to represent an entire culture. Either way, I'm not saying that they are offensive, as that's not for me to judge, just that I could understand how one could be offended by the images.

Fair enough, solid points all around.

My original point was simply that the Blackhawks' logo isn't even close to the Indians' Chief Wahoo in terms of being an offensive cartoon.

There is a difference between those with European decent and those of Irish decent. If a logo depicting a Frenchman as a baguette eating fairy god mother was created by an Englishman it would be offensive. There is no wiggle room in that debate. Unless a man of Irish decent created the logo for those of Irish decent then it is not the same thing.

Just because it's used by a generic continent and made by a generic continent doesn't qualify it for exception.

The logo is racially charged, much like the Indians logo and should be changed regardless. Any other outcome is seemingly ignorant to the plight of the Irish and their ancestors and demeans their very existance into " we fight and dress funny", much like Wahoo insinuates all Indians are red faced, big nosed, hippies who wear feather caps.

To think otherwise is hypocritical and ignorant.

Just my .02. I'm not calling you ignorant , it's in relation to the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

]

Answering a question with another--unrelated--question is not answering the original question at all; it's deflecting.

No, answering a topic with a like topic related question is a discussion for a discussion board.

Noting that their is a difference between Irish and Indians is deflecting.

To form a opinion one must generate a thought provoking process to ensure the attention. Asking a question such as mine attempts to draw out the questioneers motive.

Motive is key.

So is a discussion on the proper use of Your, you're and you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're off your rocker if you can't see the difference between this....

wnyd2zhh84f50ux4uxyqbktbh-2.gif

....and this.

56-1.gif

One's a respectful depiction of a Native warrior, one's a racist cartoon that fits in alongside anything to come out of the segregationist south (Jim Crow, Sambo, etc...). Please tell me your Blackhawks has warped your mind that much.

I like the Blackhawks logo but there are many paralells between the two. You could argue that both depict native americans in a stereotypical nature. The only real difference is that one is realistic while the other is cartoon-ish. ...and one's red.

Well as I just learned, the Blackhawks logo isn't just an Indian / Native American, it's a specific person, so if my understanding is correct, it'd be like if the Cleveland Browns had a drawing of Paul Brown on their helmet. He is what he is, and (as long as I'm understanding correctly) it isn't supposed to represent anything other than that one person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.