Rats. I picked Guam, thinking there wouldn’t be much of a market for Indians merch generally out there. My thought was that a much smaller fraction of mainland America expatriates in Guam would be Indians fans than in NE Ohio, and the native Guamanians probably wouldn’t be interested. Didn’t know that Guam got lots of Japanese tourists.
They could borrow the Redskins logo, which is much more respectful than either the Redskins name or the Chief Wahoo logo, when the Redskins finally change their name to something that has no connection to Native Americans.
Why have the owners been so resistant over the years? It must have been obvious even in 1947 what this thing meant. Is it just the natural human defensiveness to being told one is in the wrong?
Meta-question: Is there an objective way to decide whether a particular cartoon caricature is or is not racially/ethnically offensive? or is it purely in the eye of the beholder?
Has anyone mentioned it’s really a goofy mascot? If I were a Cleveland fan, I’d want to see it gone for no other reason than that.
As for some colleges with Native American mascot/nicknames, FSU Seminoles and Illinois Illini have the endorsement of these tribes.
Probably not. Unfortunately, it’s probably going to always require a small amount of empathy and compassion.
Blocked here at work. But I imagine it has something to do with Notre Dame. And I totally agree.
I wonder if it was always seen as offensive, but what’s actually changed over the years has been societal acceptance of offensiveness.
No he was pointing out that the team’s on-field mascot is a fluffy pink alien thingy guy.
Great. Now let’s see the Redskins change their name and logo. Or at least the name, for crying out loud.
Does that matter?
As the citations i provided earlier in the thread demonstrate, Native American groups have been expressing their opposition to the logo since at least the late 1960s. And even if their opposition had only begun in, say, the 1990s, so what? The question to ask about a logo like this is, Is it offensive now, and should it be eliminated?
I have no doubt that the societal definition of what is offensive has changed over the past 50 years or so, and that a larger portion of the population finds it offensive now than did back then. And again, so what? Isn’t society supposed to change its practices as values and ideals change?
Though, the University of Illinois retired their “Chief Illiniwek” mascot in 2007. Even so, there continues to be Illinois students and alumni trying to re-institute the mascot, and there’s someone who shows up at events as the “unofficial Chief.”
Yes, society’s acceptance of offense has changed. For the better.
There was a bit of a cultural revolution back in the 60’s and early 70’s. Perhaps some people missed it. But this isn’t a political thread, so I’m just noting that, especially towards Native Americans, things have changed.
Wow; that was an excellent article. Thanks for linking it.
[nitpick]
AFAIK, Florida State University is the only NCAA school with the endorsement of a Native American tribe to use their name, imagery, etc.
[/nitpick]
Central Michigan uses “Chippewas” with the consent of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe.
The Ute tribe gave the University of Utah “explicit permission to use the name” when the NCAA began to pressure schools to drop Native American-themed nicknames,
The name, sure. What’s wrong with the logo?
Their logo is no worse than the Chicago Blackhawks’ one. The name, however …