How do the Cleveland Indians get away with using that red-skinned mascot?
Is there something offensive about the Cleveland Indian mascot? I don’t think that being rather cartoonish makes it offensive. My high school used a chief as their mascot but it wasn’t cartoonish at all.
Is the Dallas Cowboy mascot offensive at all?
Marc
They haven’t exactly “gotten away” with it. Here’s one personal archive of information on the controversy (some interesting info, plus a few dead links).
My opinion is that the Chief Wahoo logo is a dumb-looking caricature and I can see why some Native Americans are offended. I’d like to see the Indians adopt a new logo in the likeness of Louis Sockalexis, the player who supposedly was the first “full-blooded Indian” in the majors and in whose honor the team was renamed from the Cleveland Spiders.
Of course, even a new dignified logo would be too much for the people who object to any ethnic team identification.
I think we need to deal with the indefensible Washington Redskins team name before anyone worries about Chief Wahoo.
I speak as a longtime Cleveland Indians fan, so perhaps I’m not the most objective party.
But I also speak as someone who’s (at least I hope) sensitive to the concerns of minorities.
Perhaps this won’t cut a lot of ice with those adamantly opposed to Chief Wahoo, but I’d like to point out that the cartoon mascot is the ONLY manifestation of Native American reference associated with the Cleveland Indians (outside of the team name itself and its informal variant, The Tribe).
We don’t do the tomahawk chop or play “Indian” music in the course of our home games. We don’t have a live mascot who’s dressed up as a Native American. Unless I’ve missed it, our sportswriters don’t say that we “scalped” another team.
Perhaps I’m naive, but I don’t believe there is a single person in Cleveland who thinks less of Native Americans or in any way puts them in an inferior category because of the name of our baseball team or its logo.
Use a name or a symbol long enough, and it “becomes” the thing it’s referring to, with no reference at all to its actual content. Is there ANY music fan on earth who hears “The Rolling Stones” and actually pictures a bunch of rocks tumbling along?
I think this is what has happened in the course of Cleveland’s eight-decade association with The Indians. If someone can attempt to show proof to the contrary, I’ll certainly listen with interest.
Boy, you must be psychic. I was just about to ask the same question, being from Cleveland myself.
Every year, there is a brohuha about it.
Not being Native American, I never thought much about it.
That’s the best suggestion on the matter that I’ve heard in quite a while, Jackmannii. It’s respectful in a Jackie Robinson kinda way, and it wouldn’t require the team to abandon the name. Of course, the “Indians” = “Sockalexis” connection has been reasonably well debunked, from what I’ve read. But that wouldn’t stop the team from adopting the identity today, and I think it could work quite well.
BigStar, I’m kinda sympathetic to the Indians, since the name itself isn’t a racial slur like “Redskins” and the team hasn’t adopted the tomahawk chop or any other bastardized traditions. I realize that there’s no offense intended. Nevertheless, that Chief Wahoo is one seriously ugly caricature. I would hate to be a real Indian in Cleveland and see Wahoo all over the place. I imagine it would be a bit like being black and seeing all the white folk around you wearing Little Black Sambo caps and t-shirts.
And oh yeah–looks like you’ve got a hell of a team up there this year.
I think Minty Green summed it up very nicely: “…that Chief Wahoo is one seriously ugly caricature. I would hate to be a real Indian in Cleveland and see Wahoo all over the place. I imagine it would be a bit like being black and seeing all the white folk around you wearing Little Black Sambo caps and t-shirts.”
You should have seen what the mascot looked like in the 1940s when it was first introduced. Chief Wahoo had an even bigger nose and appeared more comical. I don’t know if today’s mascot represents progress.
Perhaps. Still, I still don’t believe there’s a person in Northeastern Ohio who looks at Chief Wahoo and thinks “there’s one seriously ugly caricature of an Native American” and then goes on to think demeaning thoughts of real Native Americans. I think they see Chief Wahoo and think of the Cleveland Indians baseball team. Maybe the effect is different with those who move here from somewhere else and haven’t had it as a part of their lives from their earliest memories.
And BobT is right that earlier Chief Wahoos were much worse. The 40s version, while it gave the Indian a goofy, almost idiotic expression, at the same time looked much more like a portrayal of the face of a human being – whereas the version of today (which first surfaced in the early to mid-50s, I believe, and has remained unchanged since then) is much more cartoonish and one-dimensional.
I don’t think this is ever gonna be solved. I can’t see The Indians ever taking political correctness to this extreme. Rightly or wrongly, I guarantee there would be an incredible hue and cry should they ever dispose of Chief Wahoo, and the resulting fallout might be more divisive than leaving things status quo.
I realize this is a weak argument; taken to its logical extreme, it would have mean the state flags in the south with Confederacy references would remain forever unchanged, and that wouldn’t have been right either. I guess maybe I see more overt evidence of continued racism among supporters of keeping the flag than I do among Indians fans.
Or maybe it’s just that I view the love of baseball and its traditions in a more positive light than I do the supposed wonderful ideals embodied by the Confederacy.
I agree…amazing as it may seem, I think we’re going to end up stronger following the departure of Ramirez than we were when he was with us.
The issue isn’t whether Chief Wahoo induces people to think poorly of Native Americans. If that was the only criteria for determining insensitivity through stereotyping or charicature, then we would still call people Polacks or wops and there wouldn’t be anything wrong with black-face or portraying Chinese people by putting little black rimless hats on them and having them put their hands together and bow alot.
I’m not a believer that anything viewed as offensive by any ‘minority’ should be considered ‘incorrect’. After all, there are those who do get a bit overly sensitive about things. Often, it is the product of continually having to fight against truly insensitive behaviour, but that’s grist for another thread. Nevertheless, portraying a minority in a comical or derogatory way is insensitive, and no amount of soft-pedaling is going to make it a correct way to behave.
Chief Wahoo is a remnant of the ‘white man’s’ attitude about Native Americans that was offensive. The view that they were savages, uncultured, unintelligent (when they weren’t being ‘crafty’), and unable to behave decently belongs to a past that we have moved beyond. Just as there would be no place for a cartoon portrayal of Native Americans based upon the sort of stereotyping that Chief Wahoo represents (imagine if Pochahontas had depicted Native Americans that way), there is no place for left-over ‘icons’ that long-since should have been discarded.
The issue isn’t how WE feel about the portrayal. The issue is how those portrayed feel about it. And, even ignoring the most strident opponents, the ones who would ban any use of the concept of ‘Indian’, I cannot believe that there are many Native Americans who wouldn’t find Chief Wahoo at least a bit demeaning.
I also don’t understand the posting of BigStar303. I am glad the Indians don’t condone or encourage the sort of stuff done in Atlanta, but just because you aren’t behaving really poorly doesn’t excuse the fact that you are behaving somewhat poorly. Eliminate the stupid comical indian charicature and adopt something with some decent dignity.
I’m a graduate of a Big Ten University with an Indian mascot. University of Illinois’ Chief Illiniwek. The “Chief” appears in full feathered headdress (real eagle feathers as a mattef of fact) and warpaint and does a gymnastic and dance routine set to “Indian war drums.”
After watching Charlene Teter’s documentary on the issue (mentioned here: http://twist.lib.uiowa.edu/amerind/honor.html) I agree with the protestors, who have been working since 1975 to abolish the mascot. In the film, Teters talks about taking her children to a sporting event and watching them brought to tears by the fact that the “Chief” was dancing around wearing items that they hold sacred and making a mockery of them. For more information on her point of view, check this out: http://buscout.com/ver3.0/99-10-22/mascot.html
Also see this page for a more in depth discussion of how Native Americans and others see this as an offense: http://www.alphacdc.com/treaty/nomascot.html#Chief Illiniwek
The University of Illinois is a State school. The state has NO business promoting a crude characature of a population of people who are already heartily discriminated against. The job of the University, as I see it anyway, is to educate people and eliminate such things.
Furthermore, changing the mascot of a sports team is in no way detrimental to the University. There’s no reason to believe that calling the football something more appropriate would lower attendance or moral. It’s ONLY a sporting event. The maintenance offensive Chief mascot is being heavily supported by alumni who claim that their right to their nostalgia also gives them a right to hold on to the bigotted ideals of their past. I disagree
-L
Sorry, but I’ve got to disagree. As a Clevelander and a long time Indians baseball fan my affection for the team name and logo are important to me. This is a matter of opinion and my opinion counts as much as any one else’s. Just because a few malcontents don’t like the logo is no reason to change it. And there are just a few malcontents. About 30 people show up every spring at Jacobs Field to protest during the Indians home opener, and then they come back during the fall if the Indians make the playoffs. Thirty protesters compared to the 40,000 cheering fans in the park, most of whom have Indians merchandise with the Chief on it, doesn’t persuade me that the Chief needs to go.
The name Cleveland Indians refers only to a baseball team, not to anything or anyone else. No insult is intended either by the Cleveland Indians’ name or logo, and so no insult should be taken.
I apologize for not having a link ( and for butchering the spelling of his name), but long-time Cleveland newspaper sports columnist Hal Leibowitz had a story several years ago referring to how a surprising to him large number of Native Americans actually LIKED the Chief Wahoo logo. Like DSYoungEsq, Leibowitz expected to find that most Native Americans disliked the logo, but that is not what he concluded after interviewing them.
Finally, Chief Wahoo was the brainchild of former Indians’ owner Bill Veeck, who did not have a prejudiced bone in his body. I refer people to his autobiography, “Veeck As In Wreck” for further details.
I agree.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PatrickM *
**
I disagree with the notion that affection for an athletic team in anyway takes precedence over the offense of an entire culture. The Cleveland baseball team would be the same team if they were referred to as the Elephants.
**
[QUOTEThirty protesters compared to the 40,000 cheering fans in the park, most of whom have Indians merchandise with the Chief on it, doesn’t persuade me that the Chief needs to go.**[/QUOTE]
The fact that people are walking around with a racially offensive logo on their clothing in no way says to me that it’s not offensive. Nor do I believe that the mascot should be maintained to save them from the expense of replacing their clothing with something less bigotted.
**
The fact that he wasn’t aware that it was discriminatory does not mean that it is NOT discriminatory. People often found no offense in white people dressed in black face as characatures of African Americans. It’s offensive whether or not YOU see the offense in it.
-L
I’m enjoying the comments on both sides of this issue and I hope they continue.
Meanwhile, I propose a side trip based on a comment I made in one of my earlier posts.
It’s one thing to talk about all this in the abstract. Let’s make it a bit more real.
As background, consider this: when Art Modell moved The Cleveland Browns to Baltimore under cover of the night, there were demonstrations in the streets. I mean placards, angry shouting, effigies of Modell, the whole bit.
As someone who doesn’t give a rat’s ass about any sport except baseball, perhaps my jaundiced view of this is a bit unfair. But it struck me that these people would never in a million years consider protesting against poverty, social injustice, etc. But let someone take away their football team, and it was suddenly World War III. Believe me, this entire incident and its reverberations continue to be discussed in the present tense today – how many years later?
Having understood this, let’s say that tomorrow, the Cleveland Indians baseball team bows to pressure and agrees to rename itself, removing all references to anything involvoing Native Americans.
I can tell you with 100 percent certainty that the result will be a substantial body of people who will now have some very specific resentments aimed very specifically at Native Americans – where they heretofore had none. And I predict that some of the scenes from the Modell era will be repeated.
I won’t argue whether this is right or wrong – I’ll just argue that it’s reality…this IS what would happen.
For those who feel that there’s no question the Indians should rename themselves (or at least give Chief Wahoo the boot), and the sooner the better, I’d like your take on this absolutely inevitable eventuality.
For me, a couple of stock phrases come to mind: picking your battles…and winning the battle but losing the war.
**
The Dallas Cowboy mascot was a cartoonish looking old timer cowboy. Was it not offensive because he wasn’t a minority? Ever see the movie The Great Scout at Cathouse Thursday? They had a Native American character that was quite comical.
**
I think you’re seeing a lot more in Chief Wahoo then the creators ever did. Certainly nobody would name their baseball team after a group they thought were savages, uncultured, and unintelligent. You name a sports team after powerful animals, storms, or I suppose groups of people. The Raiders, the Cowboys, the 49ers (who have a silly mascot), the Pirates, the Chiefs, the Panthers, or even the Oilers.
So get rid of all comical charicatures?
Marc
Where they heretofore had no such resentments or ill feelings, or where they heretofore had not bothered to express themselves on that set of issues?
MGibson: There are two meaningful differences between Chief Wahoo and the Dallas Cowboys’ hypothetical (because itdoes not exist) mascot.
First, cowboys are not a racial minority whose ancestors were subject to a gencodial campaign of extermination, nordo they even today suffer from widespread discrimination and often disgraceful treatment by the federal, state, and local governments as well as the public at large.
Second, cowboys do not object to caricatured depictions of them by sports teams.
And BigStar, I agree with amarinth’s implication that any hatred displayed towards actual Native Americans upon the retirement of Chief Wahoo would almost certainly be pre-existing bigotry that simply discovered a new excuse for public expression. The mere possibility of public displays of hatred should not deter the Indians from eliminating a demeaning caricature of a marginalized racial group.
**
It isn’t hypothetical because it did exist. It was discontinued not because anyone was offended but because Jerry Jones didn’t like it.
**
I don’t think it is relevant. Irish people were subjected to all these things in the past but I don’t see any one complaining about Notre Dame’s mascot.
**
How long did the Indian mascot last without being offensive? How many really find it offensive?
And BigStar, I agree with amarinth’s implication that any hatred displayed towards actual Native Americans upon the retirement of Chief Wahoo would almost certainly be pre-existing bigotry that simply discovered a new excuse for public expression. The mere possibility of public displays of hatred should not deter the Indians from eliminating a demeaning caricature of a marginalized racial group. **
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think it is demeaning at all nor do I see how anyone could think it is. It isn’t any more demeaning then any other cartoon caricature. In fact when I see Chief Wahoo all I see is a smiling indian. Hardly what I’d call a horrible image. I don’t see many people changing their mind about this so I’m just going to agree that we disagree. Take care.
Marc