Jump to content

Cleveland Scene Article on Chief Wahoo


mania

Recommended Posts

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?

Actually I've made that very argument in here before. For my tastes, the Notre Dame leprechaun looks a little too much like the racist caricatures of Irish people that were common around the turn of the last century. The color gold, the interlocking ND and occasional shamrock do a more-than-well-enough job of representing the University IMHO.

That said, Notre Dame was actually founded and administered by Irish Catholics where the Indians franchise has never been formally connected with any American Indian society... its pointless to compare the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 278
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Whether you care about the racism or not, you would think that you would want to drop the 97 year association with Indians anyway because it's generally an association with losing.

Great, wear the name with pride even though it is attached to only 2 world Series titles and 5 pennants in over 90 years and no trophy since 1948.

Maybe go back to Spiders and just start over.

Let's petition the Cubs to change their name too if winning (or lack thereof) is the rationale.

Actually, I agree with the sentiment here. Whether or not Cleveland has won with that logo is not relevant. And you don't want that criteria used for whether or not the Redskins should change their name, because they've had a winning history with that name.

The point in bringing up the Indians' lack of winning isn't to imply that some World Series hardware would justify keeping it, its just to point out how futile the "tradition" argument is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether you care about the racism or not, you would think that you would want to drop the 97 year association with Indians anyway because it's generally an association with losing.

Great, wear the name with pride even though it is attached to only 2 world Series titles and 5 pennants in over 90 years and no trophy since 1948.

Maybe go back to Spiders and just start over.

Let's petition the Cubs to change their name too if winning (or lack thereof) is the rationale.

Actually, I agree with the sentiment here. Whether or not Cleveland has won with that logo is not relevant. And you don't want that criteria used for whether or not the Redskins should change their name, because they've had a winning history with that name.

The point in bringing up the Indians' lack of winning isn't to imply that some World Series hardware would justify keeping it, its just to point out how futile the "tradition" argument is.

If they just use the C or something else without Wahoo, I doubt many complain about "Indians". The name has tradition, whether it's winning or losing. The Wahoo logo does not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has there EVER been one of these discussions where somebody didn't drag out the Notre Dame logo to try to confuse and derail the argument?

Nope.

But maybe that's not surprising, Wahoo is so offensive that its defenders are left with little more than a combination of red herrings and appeals to tradition.

Never said the logo wasn't offensive, I'm saying the Irish logo should be held in the same regard and your statement proves how ignorant most are to others viewpoints.

Call it white smoke or red herrings, but at the end of the day those who fight for one cause should be fighting for them all together.

No one cause should be dismissed just to make a point about another.

c'mon man. I am guessing you don't even believe what you are saying. You are either just trying to get a rise out of people or are floating out a red herring. I am Irish, live in Boston, grew up around thousands of first and second generation Irish Americans, and never met anyone offended by the notre dame name or logo. I know it's not a scientific poll or anything but you are trying way to hard to connect the fighting Irish to chief yahoo. My grandfather came to America, worked hard to make a better life, and loved the fighting Irish. I am guessing any native Americans reading these posts doesn't feel the same way about that racist caricature that is chief Wahoo. Totally apples to oranges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether you care about the racism or not, you would think that you would want to drop the 97 year association with Indians anyway because it's generally an association with losing.

Great, wear the name with pride even though it is attached to only 2 world Series titles and 5 pennants in over 90 years and no trophy since 1948.

Maybe go back to Spiders and just start over.

Let's petition the Cubs to change their name too if winning (or lack thereof) is the rationale.

Actually, I agree with the sentiment here. Whether or not Cleveland has won with that logo is not relevant. And you don't want that criteria used for whether or not the Redskins should change their name, because they've had a winning history with that name.

The point in bringing up the Indians' lack of winning isn't to imply that some World Series hardware would justify keeping it, its just to point out how futile the "tradition" argument is.

If they just use the C or something else without Wahoo, I doubt many complain about "Indians". The name has tradition, whether it's winning or losing. The Wahoo logo does not.

I think so too... I'm not too crazy about the Indians name and it probably wouldn't fly if an expansion team tried to use it, but I could certianly learn to live with it if Wahoo wasn't attached to it.

Besides, it's not unheard of for a team called the Indians to have an identity that references Native American culture without using depictions of actual people.

4518.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

No, I don't. Why? Simple.

* The logo isn't a depiction of a human-being of Irish descent. Rather, it is a depiction of a leprechaun - a fictional creature found in Irish folklore.

* As for the "Fighting Irish" name, while it is generally thought to have been initially used by fans of opposing teams as a pejorative, Notre Dame athletes, coaches, students, administrators, alumni, and fans - many of whom were of Irish descent themselves - ultimately chose to adopt the moniker as being descriptive of the "never-say-die fighting spirit" of the school's athletic teams, as well as the "grit, determination and tenacity" possessed by those of Irish extraction. In so doing, Notre Dame supporters robbed the sobriquet of any negative connotations that opposing fans had originally meant for it to carry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "why aren't people as upset over the Fighting Irish" argument is just plain ignorant. It's nothing more than an attempt to justify marginalizing Native Americans. I'll ask this one more time; would any of Chief Wahoos supporters be as adamant in their defense of him under the following scenario?

We're moving this thread to a parallel time-line. In our parallel history, everything is exactly the same except: today's Cleveland baseball team is called the Negroes. In 1914, the team was still called the Spiders. The team decided to change their name in 1915. They wanted their name change to honor Moses Fleetwood Walker who, in our parallel time-line, had played for the Cleveland Spiders. So, to honor Walker, the team decided to go with a name commonly used to describe black people in 1915, the Negroes. In 1946 noted "zany promoter" Bill Veeck purchases the Negroes and commissions a new logo for the team. The new logo is named "Uncle Sambo." (pictured below)

princechawmin.jpg

Fast forward to 2012 in our parallel time-line. Remember, everything is exactly the same other than the aforementioned exceptions. OK, Wahoo supporters, using the same "logic" you use with Wahoo, make your case for Uncle Sambo. Good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether you care about the racism or not, you would think that you would want to drop the 97 year association with Indians anyway because it's generally an association with losing.

Great, wear the name with pride even though it is attached to only 2 world Series titles and 5 pennants in over 90 years and no trophy since 1948.

Maybe go back to Spiders and just start over.

Let's petition the Cubs to change their name too if winning (or lack thereof) is the rationale.

Actually, I agree with the sentiment here. Whether or not Cleveland has won with that logo is not relevant. And you don't want that criteria used for whether or not the Redskins should change their name, because they've had a winning history with that name.

The point in bringing up the Indians' lack of winning isn't to imply that some World Series hardware would justify keeping it, its just to point out how futile the "tradition" argument is.

Thank you for explaining my point better than I did.

Tradition is not born through length of time alone. It has to have some sort of success to it. Their old stadium was called the mistake by the lake, they made a movie with them as the team that stinks ( good movie though)and half the country thinks that their name/logo is racist. Maybe it's time to lose all that "tradition" and start over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love all the policically correct, non-Clevelanders and non-Indians fans telling us and everyone else what constitutes tradition to our city and our teams. I love it. High comedy.

What else you guys got?? *lol*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not unheard of for a team called the Indians to have an identity that references Native American culture without using depictions of actual people.

4518.gif

I'd been waiting to see how long it'd take someone to post that.

The "why aren't people as upset over the Fighting Irish" argument is just plain ignorant. It's nothing more than an attempt to justify marginalizing Native Americans. I'll ask this one more time; would any of Chief Wahoos supporters be as adamant in their defense of him under the following scenario?

We're moving this thread to a parallel time-line. In our parallel history, everything is exactly the same except: today's Cleveland baseball team is called the Negroes. In 1914, the team was still called the Spiders. The team decided to change their name in 1915. They wanted their name change to honor Moses Fleetwood Walker who, in our parallel time-line, had played for the Cleveland Spiders. So, to honor Walker, the team decided to go with a name commonly used to describe black people in 1915, the Negroes. In 1946 noted "zany promoter" Bill Veeck purchases the Negroes and commissions a new logo for the team. The new logo is named "Uncle Sambo." (pictured below)

princechawmin.jpg

Fast forward to 2012 in our parallel time-line. Remember, everything is exactly the same other than the aforementioned exceptions. OK, Wahoo supporters, using the same "logic" you use with Wahoo, make your case for Uncle Sambo. Good luck.

*crickets*

*more crickets*

What we have here is a bonafide checkmate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love when Wahoo-defenders try to paint themselves as the victims of some PC Police witch-hunt. Yes, the world is out to get white people. Meanwhile, the Cavs change their logo but no one in Cleveland raises a peep. The Buckeyes change their helmets and it's cool. Again, why the clinging to this particular logo?

Non "PC Police" arguments against Wahoo.

1. Plenty of other teams have changed their cap logo. The Cubs, Red Sox, Twins, Brewers, Dodgers etc. I would argue that the Brewers' "M-B Glove" logo was just as beloved by Brewer fans as Chief Wahoo is by Indian fans, yet they have a new cap logo, it's nice, and many Brewer fans actually like it.

2. There's little winning tradition with the Wahoo caps outside the late 90s. Again, if the "C" cap was good enough for Bob Feller, Larry Doby and Bob Lemon, then it's good enough for today's bunch.

3. It's not aesthetically pleasing on a cap. There's a reason why 27 of 30 MLB teams go with letters on their caps rather than cartoons. Again, forget the mysterious PC Police; I wouldn't like it if the Mets used Mr. Met on their cap, or if the Cubs used the walking bear as their cap, or if the Padres used the swinging Friar on their cap, or if Detroit used their 80's coked-out tiger on their cap.

And as for the Notre Dame nonsense, they don't use the leprechaun on their helmets, so even if they got rid of the logo it wouldn't have any effect on their visual representation. Same for the Boston Celtics, a basketball team's jersey is far more important than its logo. Likewise in baseball, the cap logo is more important than the actual brand logo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I find offensive is that someone has to bring this subject up at least twice a month and I think it's simply an attempt to rile up the same folks who have given their opinion on this subject everytime it comes up. Does anyone ever really change their mind on this subject based on one of these threads?

Can we all just agree to disagree and instead focus on Logo Design as this site is intended.

And before someone says "but we are discussing the Logo design of the Cleveland Indians", the logo is not new or refreshed in anyway so the only reason it was brought up was to start another 20 page argument.

For the record I am 50% Cherokee (which shouldn't really matter because my opinion should be my opinion not a person of Native descents opinion) and I am not offended by Chief Wahoo, the name Indians or the name Redskins in Washington. In fact my Father who is an 80 year old full blooded Cherokee who grew up in North Carolina was always a huge fan of the Washington Redskins and the Atlanta Braves. He loved the idea of rooting for teams with Native themes and he used to laugh off the whole "Redskins" issue by telling me "hey, you spend 12 hours a day, 7 days a week in a Tobacco Field in North Carolina and guess what you start to look an awful lot like a Redskin"

I don't begrudge anyone for their opinion if they hate Chief Wahoo or the names, but don't do it out of a misplaced belief that you have to defend the honor of Natives, because I think the ratio of like/dislike of Native related themes is probably about the same among the Native folks as it is non-Natives. I don't have any scientific proof to support this just my hunch.

I will comment on one thing I saw in this thread that always makes me laugh when people complain about the name Indians for people of Native descent, because Columbus thought he was in India when he first landed...

-Calling members of the Cherokee Nation "Native Americans" is just as "incorrect" as calling them Indians. Natives were here a LONG time before a map maker in Europe decided to name this continent AMERICA. In fact it was named after a Merchant named Amerigo Vespucci who had written beautiful letters home about the New World during trips back and forth a few years after Columbus had made his first landing. It was a German writer who in honor of Amerigo's letters first penned the name AMERICA when referring to the New Land. If you want to do battle against the name Indians then instead of using Native Americans, you should call us by our actual Nation (Cherokee, Sioux, Lumbi etc...)

Sorry this is so longwinded. My suggestion to the moderators is anytime this argument comes up, just move it to the Graveyard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, some of the Wahoo supporters would be taken more seriously and respected if they would just simply admit: "Hey, yeah it's probably racist, but I like it because I grew up with it. Simple as that." Y'all are trying to keep a memory around, which is admirable, but the way you argue it is embarassing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't like it, gdf, you don't have to click on it. I personally don't like realignment ir NASCAR threads, so I avoid them. Nobody's interested in my opinion that Paterno was a selfish scumbag who protected rapists and got off lucky not serving time, so I don't bother opening that tread anymore.

Personally, I welcome these threads, when a new article is published that warrants talking about the subject again. I would love for a defender of Wahoo to articulate a consistent, defensible position for keeping the logo.

If for no other reason than my limitless optimism that this time, it might actually happen, these threads are worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, some of the Wahoo supporters would be taken more seriously and respected if they would just simply admit: "Hey, yeah it's probably racist, but I like it because I grew up with it. Simple as that." Y'all are trying to keep a memory around, which is admirable, but the way you argue it is embarrassing.

It would be a more respectable opinion but if the Indians themselves ever did that it would be the end of Chief Wahoo because the history argument by itself can't fly and they know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Indianapolis Indians logo IS a person and its a bit stereotypical cause he's wearing a headdress and his mouth is clearly in the "woo" shape.

Full disclosure, I've never particularly liked the Indians brand at all (I like the "I" logo by itself, but this logo I don't like at all) I'd blow it up and go to "Clowns" or something completely new. Or if they want to keep the name "Indians" just do something based on the city instead of Native American.

BTW...I think a ton of these arguments are solely based on "tradition" and people thinking PC has gone too far. Even if they agree. I wanted Chief Illiwek to stay only cause I grew up watching him. I wanted the logo to stay cause I liked the logo aesthetically. But I've come to realize that I being silly and defending something for selfish reasons.

Like now, I don't see anyone defending the Indy Indians stuff but I know they'd come out of the woodwork if they changed the name.

"DEY TOOK OUR LOGOZ!!!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love all the policically correct, non-Clevelanders and non-Indians fans telling us and everyone else what constitutes tradition to our city and our teams. I love it. High comedy.

What else you guys got?? *lol*

Check my location, Einstein. I'm Ohio born and raised. Been to, I don't know, 300 Indians games in my life. Grew up with the team. Ray Fosse was my first ever favorite baseball player. Fosse is the reason why I caught in little league all the way through high school baseball. (To this day, I still hate Pete Rose over the 1970 All-Star Game) I may not be from Cleveland proper, but I've spent a good portion of my life in and around Northeast Ohio. (I work in the Lorain-Elyria area) My guess is I'm a damned sight older than you as well, so I'm pretty familiar with "our traditions." We actually have some really good traditions, Chief Wahoo is not one of them. Chief Wahoo is an embarrassment. Period.

The only high comedy (more like tragic comedy) in this thread is watching my fellow Ohioans looking like bunch of narrow-minded hilljacks by defending our absurd "tradition." We're better than this; well, at least some of us are.

For what it's worth, the fact that you "love it" is just one more reason (of many) why Cleveland fans are held in such low regard around here. Finally, not that you care, but it's attitudes like yours that have literally pushed me away from the teams I grew up rooting for.

OK, flame away. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Indianapolis Indians logo IS a person and its a bit stereotypical cause he's wearing a headdress and his mouth is clearly in the "woo" shape.

Hmm... never saw the "face" until now, but I'm still not sure I would call that a person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I find offensive is that someone has to bring this subject up at least twice a month and I think it's simply an attempt to rile up the same folks who have given their opinion on this subject everytime it comes up. Does anyone ever really change their mind on this subject based on one of these threads?

Can we all just agree to disagree and instead focus on Logo Design as this site is intended.

And before someone says "but we are discussing the Logo design of the Cleveland Indians", the logo is not new or refreshed in anyway so the only reason it was brought up was to start another 20 page argument.

For the record I am 50% Cherokee (which shouldn't really matter because my opinion should be my opinion not a person of Native descents opinion) and I am not offended by Chief Wahoo, the name Indians or the name Redskins in Washington. In fact my Father who is an 80 year old full blooded Cherokee who grew up in North Carolina was always a huge fan of the Washington Redskins and the Atlanta Braves. He loved the idea of rooting for teams with Native themes and he used to laugh off the whole "Redskins" issue by telling me "hey, you spend 12 hours a day, 7 days a week in a Tobacco Field in North Carolina and guess what you start to look an awful lot like a Redskin"

I don't begrudge anyone for their opinion if they hate Chief Wahoo or the names, but don't do it out of a misplaced belief that you have to defend the honor of Natives, because I think the ratio of like/dislike of Native related themes is probably about the same among the Native folks as it is non-Natives. I don't have any scientific proof to support this just my hunch.

I will comment on one thing I saw in this thread that always makes me laugh when people complain about the name Indians for people of Native descent, because Columbus thought he was in India when he first landed...

-Calling members of the Cherokee Nation "Native Americans" is just as "incorrect" as calling them Indians. Natives were here a LONG time before a map maker in Europe decided to name this continent AMERICA. In fact it was named after a Merchant named Amerigo Vespucci who had written beautiful letters home about the New World during trips back and forth a few years after Columbus had made his first landing. It was a German writer who in honor of Amerigo's letters first penned the name AMERICA when referring to the New Land. If you want to do battle against the name Indians then instead of using Native Americans, you should call us by our actual Nation (Cherokee, Sioux, Lumbi etc...)

Sorry this is so longwinded. My suggestion to the moderators is anytime this argument comes up, just move it to the Graveyard........

PLEASE read this gentlemans post again!!! If your not just pretending to crusade for a cause thats for his people , but really for yourself!!

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.