That Cleveland Indians mascot

Great Debates
21

Yes, and the apparent consent by the relevant group to the use of the drunken leprechan character makes the Fighting Irish a poor comparison to Chief Wahoo. Not to mention the fact that, whatever their past history, the Irish are certainly not a common target of discrimination in this country today.

The Indians-as-mascots issue has been an issue since at least the days of AIM back in the late 60’s-early 70’s, which was pretty much the first time in history that the social and political opinions of American Indians began to be taken seriously in this country. It is not just something that professional whiners made up in the last few years.

I have personally known several Native Americans who thought Chief Wahoo, Chief Illiniwek, the Washington Redskins, and the tomahawk chop were degrading and offensive, even if it was not at the top of their list of things to be pissed off about. (When you’re an American Indian, that’s potentially a very long list.) My last name ain’t Gallup, so I can’t give you raw numbers on offended Indians, but I gather it’s rather a lot. It’s also notable to me that at least some Indians give it a high enough priority to risk the wrath of beer-soaked baseball and football fans by protesting in front of the stadiums every once in a while.

That’s a large part of the objection to Chief Wahoo, it seems to me. The disparity between real Native Americans and these bastardized, caricatured representations is gigantic, yet people still see the latter as representative of the former. It’s just one more brush stroke in the old mural of racial stereotyping, and it’s high time we stopped adding more paint.

Probably true. <sigh> At least we’re only a few days away from Opening Day. Go Rangers!

22

I think it’s ridiculous to want to change team mascots. I’m not offended that my Scandanavian ancestors (who are still not given the recognition they deserve for beating Chris Columbus to North America) are portrayed with blonde braided hair and hats with horns, blowing into what ever that horn thing is, and other Viking things like that. A mascot is a mascot. It doesn’t harm anyone unless you go out of your way to let it.

Also, I’m not totally sure about this, aren’t the Indians a private organization? If Native Americans don’t agree with the mascot, then it’s simple. Don’t give your money to them.

23

Icons are representations, what they represent can be entirely separate from the original intent and is largely a matter of current sociological interpretation (Ankhs are a very good example of an icon that has undergone a number of negative and positive interpretations through out history depending on the social context of the times).
The issue would then be whether this icon solely represents “The Cleveland Indians MLB team” or whether modern American society would also interpret it as a representation of a demeaning caricature for a particular sub-culture.
I personally would not interpret the logo in such a way, but my cultural background has very little conditioning to view Native Americans any differently, than say peoples of Irish descent (i.e. They may have different historical contexts, belief structures and customs, but these of themselves do not effect my preconceptions on them as a group either positively or negatively).
But as I said what is really at issue here, is whether this Icon represents a demeaning and negative stereotype of Native Americans in modern American culture. I would hope not because this I believe would rely on a pre-existing the negative image being in place to associate the logo with, based on the fact that from my perspective I would not draw such connotations are not inherent to the image itself.
If it currently were viewed, as a negative icon, perhaps working on the underlying image held in the society would be better. However the removal of negative icons is a reasonable step to take to try and remove any underlying negative image that they may convey, but it is unlikely to be truly effective in and of itself.

24

I disagree on a couple of fronts.

First, I do believe that many of this subset of fans we’re discussing are, at the very least, neutral when it comes to their view of Native Americans. Fact is, they may not give the entire issue much thought one way or the other – which I suppose can be looked upon as a good or a bad thing. I’m guessing, though, that if I were a minority group that is particularly small in number, I would rather have the greater majority not thinking of me at all one way or the other as opposed to being actively angry at me.

As for those who fall into the “pre-existing bigotry” category, nothing that is done or not done is likely to change their minds in any case, so it’s a wash. Giving Chief Wahoo the deep six will not magically transform them into people who suddenly hold great respect for Native Americans.
I want to assure you that all of this sounds very strange to me personally issuing from my (virtual) lips. I believe very passionately in justice for people of all races, and I certainly acknowledge that any number of very real problems confront our Native American population.

But to me it comes down to what I said earlier about picking your battles. I think this is also what Britt was implying when he said “If it currently were viewed as a negative icon, perhaps working on the underlying image held in the society would be better. However, the removal of negative icons is a reasonable step to take to try and remove any underlying negative image that they may convey, but it is unlikely to be truly effective in and of itself.”

It might well have been better had the Cleveland Indians never chosen that team name, and never chosen several generations of Chief Wahoos as their iconic representative. But they did; now the question is, What would be the result of initiating a change?

Balancing all of the factors involved, I personally do not see a net gain.

25

This seems to me to be a crucial underpinning of the arguments of those who would banish Chief Wahoo. Again, I don’t believe this statement stands up to scrutiny. Put another way, I think you’re imputing a great deal more power to Chief Wahoo than he actually possesses.

If I went up to 20 adults at random and said “Picture in your mind a Native American,” I’d be willing to bet a signficant number of them would picture Iron Eyes Cody with a tear in his eye from that anti-littering TV and print ad PSA campaign from many years ago. (I’ve been amazed at the strength and staying power of that image, even though the spot has been seen only sporadically since its original run.) I don’t think a single person would picture Chief Wahoo, or a human being that resembles Chief Wahoo, when asked this question.

Furthermore, beyond Chief Wahoo and The Braves’ and Redskins’ icons, where are all the rest of “these bastardized, caricatured representations” of Native Americans?

The fact is, in recent years, the tide has turned completely in the opposite direction. When is the last time a movie was made that shows Native Americans as the evil, savage bad guys and the white man triumphantly and deservedly routing them? No one would dare make such a picture today.

Look at “Dances with Wolves,” “Pocohantas,” the portrayals on “Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman,” etc. To see these, you would think that Native Americans are, literally without exception, the most noble human beings to have ever walked the face of the earth. I’m also betting that most elementary school children at one point or another have some part of their curriculum or engage in some sort of activity that reinforces this image.

This is, of course, the inevitable and natural course of a pendulum that has swung too far in one direction now going the other way. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with this, or that we would ever want to return to the old portrayal.

What I’m saying is that there are any number of extremely powerful portrayals, symbolic and otherwise, of Native Americans current in American culture. I honestly don’t believe that Chief Wahoo has one-hundredth of the power to influence thought and perception that they do.

I’ll repeat what I said earlier, only because no one has really addressed it: an icon or symbol, used long enough, eventually BECOMES the very thing it symbolizes. People see Chief Wahoo and think “the Cleveland Indians baseball team” – just as surely as those who hear “Rolling Stones” or see it in writing picture Mick, Keith, et al rather than a bunch of rocks tumbling along.

26

You do realize that “Iron Eyes Cody” wasn’t even remotely American Indian, right? And that his old “Keep America Beutiful” ad is also hardly representative of the real lives of actual Indians? So I ain’t terribly impressed that most people will think of that (admittedly more positive) stereotype before they think of Chief Wahoo.

The “noble savage” stereotype you describe is better than a lot better than some of the more negative stereotypes, but I’m not so thrilled with it either. Why on earth does Hollywood insist on stereotyping minorty groups at all? But that’s a whole different thread.

So where are the blatantly negative Indian caricatures these days? Mercifully, there aren’t too many obvious ones around, outside of the sports mascot context. And I know plenty of high schools and smaller colleges still have Indian-related mascots that are at least as dehumanizing as Wahoo.

But watch Cartoon Network when they’re showing old Warner Bros. shorts and take a look at all those animated Indians from the 40’s-50’s. You’ll notice that physically, they bear a strong physical resemblance to Chief Wahoo, who of course dates back to exactly that time period. Same ridiculous skin color, same toothy grin, same elongated nose. Notice also that those cartoon Indians are, well, ignorant, bloodthirsty savages. That is the context that Chief Wahoo comes out of, and it’s not a pretty one (even if the slapstick is still quite funny).

Fans of the team do equate Chief Wahoo (and through him, Indians as a whole) with the violent stereotypes from decades ago. How many times has some ignoramus showed up at the Jake with a handmade sign of Chief Wahoo saying something like “Scalp the Yankees”? As much as I’d like the Yankees to be mercilessly trounced on the field–I still think Piazza should have pounded Clemens’ ass–how can anyone argue that such sentiments don’t reflect poorly on the people the team is named after?

If Warner Bros. were still producing such cartoons today, I’d be incredibly pissed off at them. Can you imagine the controversy? Fortunately, the animators long ago stopped using racial stereotypes as a source of humor. Unfortunately, the Cleveland Indians haven’t managed to move out of the 1940s when it comes to their mascot.

If you’re going to name your team after a group of people, it should be an honor, not a slap in the face.

27

Well, it’s apparently not quite as cut and dry as you would make it.

Here is a passage from an online obituary that acknowledges and addresses (at the end) your claim – but also includes information that’s relevant in a more global way to Iron Eyes Cody’s life…

The full story is here http://www.goodbyemag.com/jan99/cody.html should you care to read it.

But I would say that for the purposes of our discussion, Iron Eyes Cody’s “authenticity” doesn’t much matter. I do agree with his and your point that the “noble savage” stereotype is itself just that (while at the same time preferable to what has gone before).

As for the rest of your most recent post, I will have more to say…but I really have to get some work done sometime today!

I’m enjoying the discussion, and though it’s different from mine, I respect your point of view.

28

Here’s Euty’sStaff Report on Iron Eyes Cody, if anyone is curious. It basically recounts the same details in the post above, although Euty accepts the Italian origins story as accurate.

And I’m enjoying the discussion as well, BigStar. But I was sure Collunsbury would have shown up in here by now, even if we’re not arguing about genetics. :slight_smile:

29

No Collunsbury yet. Instead you get me, (sigh) the Indian Affairs Guy.

First of all, let me begin by saying that milossarian hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that there is another, far more disgusting, slur against American Indians out there in the sports world. You might want to refer to my third post in this thread for the reasons why I dislike Washington’s name.

The very hardest part of my job is cutting through the fog of myth, misperception, disinformation and yes, racism that pervades every aspect of America’s relationship with American Indians. I’ve spouted off enough about that in the past, so I’ll leave it be except to say this: this thread is a perfect example of the problem.

I don’t know why people can claim that a malt liquor called Powermaster is targeted at black people and yet don’t care at all about a malt liquor called Crazy Horse. I don’t know why a nationwide food chain called Sambo’s can be pressured into changing their name and yet a single sports team like the Redskins can be allowed to perpetuate. But I do know this:

Americans do not acknowledge their racist attitudes toward Indians.

If they did, there would be argument over this in this sort of thing in this day and age. Compare this actual list:

*** Crazy Horse Malt Liquor;

  • The Washington Redskins;

  • Chief Wahoo;

  • Indian Motorcycles;

  • The Florida State Seminoles;

  • Pontiac Motors.**

With this imaginary list:

*** Nat Turner Malt Liquor;

  • The Washington Spear-Chuckers;

  • Chief Sambo;

  • African-American Motorcycles;

  • The Florida State Hutus;

  • Frederick Douglas Motors.**

Now, which list seems perfectly acceptable and which list looks absurd, incongruous, and vaguely offensive? I can tell you with certitude that a hell of a lot of my clients would see both lists that way. Why do so many non-Indian Americans see otherwise?

That’s the problem. Chief Wahoo ain’t a bad guy. Hell, I kind of like him. But he, like all of the examples listed above, is helping to perpetuate a double-standard toward American Indians which I for one find very troubling. Perpetuating the double standard perpetuates the unfair treatment that I see these people have to swallow every single day.

Notice I did not say “unequal.” American Indian tribes are unique in the eyes of the law and American Indians have unique rights. Right now, one of those “rights” is the right to be shit all over, even in this enlightened age.

30

Oops. That should be:

“There would be no argument…”

31

As MGibson pointed out, team names are selected because of respect for the group, often for abilities thought to be good in sports, such as toughness. E.g., Fighting Irish or Spartans.

More to the point, I wish each poster would visit an Indian Reservation. Our country’s policies have tragically worked to destroy the morale of many Native Americans living on reservations. This was not intended, but it has worked out that way. Native Americans need real changes. They weren’t helped by Stanford University changing from the Indians to The Cardinal. If only the the problems could be solved so easily…

32

Sofa King
In GD you should never be supprised at what people will argue about.

As stated before I am talking from cultural perspective outside of the USA.
However I would like to state that I personally would see the Indian motorcycle reference as at best tenuous. I would if anything associate the name with well Indians, a large diverse group of cultures from what is usually referred to here as the ‘sub-continent’. I would also attach no negative cogitations to the word Indian either to refer to this group or Native Americans.

The problems with identifying words that perpetuate negative cultural images, is that language is very localised and is not consistently interpreted across cultural contexts.

Heck I do not even recognise either Pontiac (I believe there is a river of the same name) or Frederick Douglas. These have no meaning what so ever from my cultural context.

I would have recognised the name ‘Crazy Horse’ as having reference to a possibly historical figure from Colonial American history, but again this is in my context if anything a positive cultural image. ‘Nat Turner’ is unknown to me in any context and I would see this in a similar light to McDonalds.
The same would apply to Seminoles/Hutus neither mean anything at all to me.

This is not to say from some contexts that these are not offensive or perpetuate negative images as applied to specific groups with-in society as a whole. However trying to gather information on exactly how ‘the average’ person interprets these images is very difficult as most people refuse to admit their try biases.
The worth to be gained from removing such references can only be measured from this non-measurable context.
I am still firmly of the belief that removing the negative image through shared cultural experience and education is the only effective mechanism for changing social perceptions.

Finally not all cultures are integratable, there are I believe fundamentally different perspectives that cultures use to interact with objective reality. These perspectives are sometimes untranslatable, and thus the gulf between cultures may not be truly bridgeable.
I believe teaching that it is all right to disagree with some else perspective or belief structure is perfectly all right, but insistence that owns own perspective is more correct is the height of stupidity.

Hope that things are improving over there (not that we are perfect here).

Britt

33

Yeah, that whole genocide and ghettoization thing was a complete accident. :rolleyes: Getting rid of the offensive mascots and practices isn’t going to change that all by itself, but it’s a step in the right direction.

And if the Cleveland Indians mascot was supposed to be so respectful towards the group it “honors,” how come so many members of that group are, as Sofa King’s and own experiences attest, offended and pissed off by it?

That said, I have to disagree with Sofa King that naming a sports team after an ethnic group is, by itself, a problem. “Redskins” is ridiculously offensive, and “Braves” borders on problematic, but “Indians” or “Illini” or “Seminoles” don’t have to be destructive, even if many of the actual teams’ practices are.

34

Maintaining cultural integrity for minorities without isolation is a very problematic issue that has never been satisfactorily resolved. Any ideas that would allow such groups to retain their identity with out isolating them from the rest of society would be welcome.

Avoidance of imagery written or graphical that conveys negative implications will help. It is determining whether the imagery really contains such implications that is difficult.

It is perfectly possible for a group to be mistaken as to the effect or connotations of an image to the society as a whole. Given that the removal of all images that, all groups, could possible interpret as offensive is not possible, it becomes a matter of how many individuals assign negative connotations to the image, which as I previously mentioned is very difficult to accurately ascertain.
Just look at the recent debate on Pagan/Neo-Pagan symbols, and whether are negative or not.

35

The only opinions on this issue that carry any weight are those of Native Americans. If they find the logo offensive and degrading then it is. End of argument. It doesn’t matter what a bunch of white Clevelanders think. Cleveland fans have seen this logo as nothing more than a representation of a team that they love for a long time, so to them it’s not offensive, and they don’t see why it would be to other people.

The fact that a Cleveland fan says that the logo is not offensive means nothing.

The fact that a Native American finds it offensive means everything.

Other logos that represent ethnic groups are also offensive if and only if the group that they represent find them offensive.

-Notre Dame’s logo is not offensive because Irish people are not offended by it.

-The Dallas Cowboys logo was not offensive because Coboys didn’t find it offensive.

-The name Redskins is offensive because Native Americans say that it is.

-Chief Wahoo is offensive because Native Americans say that it is.

I really don’t see the debate here. Native Americans are offended by it, so it’s offensive. What more is there to discuss?

36

Well there is a bit more to discuss, Airbeck. They could irrationally find it to be offensive, in which case I couldn’t care less. But considering the harmful stereotype from which Chief Wahoo arises, I find taking offense perfectly rational here.

37

I am of Irish descent (6 generations ago), so if I say that Notre Dames Logo is offensive, it must go?
Firstly I do not represent all people of Irish descent and even if I did I may be complaining due to the mistaken impression that the logo re-enforced a negative image of peoples of Irish descent, where as the society at large in fact interpreted it as representing courage and determination. Should the logo be removed in this case?
Heck, my complaining about a positive image may have a much larger negative effect on the perception than the image ever could have. Should I complain?
What is required is accurate information on the imagery involved and the interpretations that various groups with in society attach to these images.
The problems involved here are multitudinous. For a start what are the boundaries of the population being measured? What happens when the image is used outside those boundaries? How do you gather such information? Having attempted to constructed surveys before, trying to determine interpretations of images that may contain cultural references without introducing the idea that the images are culturally loaded would not be something I would like to attempt.

38

The point I was trying to make is that if we used another downtrodden American minority, specifically African-Americans, as the source of light-hearted team names and products, most of us would either experiece a shiver of distaste or a twinge of delight. This is not the case with American Indians. Hence my stated double standard.

(Britt, I’ll be happy to fire you an e-mail explaining the names I used in those lists, if you’re interested, or, I can take up a lot of space here and post 'em.)

I do not doubt for a moment that the references to Indians and Indian tribes are chosen out of a certain begrudging respect. The problem is that in doing so, Indians are treated with a funereal nostalgia that is utterly and completely incorrect.

Dude, the Indians are still f**king here, dammit!

Their autonomy is preserved by law, their way of life and traditions largely continue, they steadfastly refuse to ignore or cheapen their cultural identity. You want to name a team the Spartans, go ahead. They convey an image of fierceness, and they’re long gone.

The Seminoles are not. In fact, despite the fact that it provides minimal services to the tribe, the state of Florida profits nicely from the bingo operation that the Seminoles run from their Hollywood (Florida) reservation. The Seminole Tribe does not, as far as I know, share in any of the profits that FSU enjoys by using their name.

Indians are not dead. They are not gone. They are not fully integrated with American society. They did not unconditionally surrender to the United States.

When you invoke the term Indian, or use one as a mascot, or name a business after a tribe, in many cases you are invoking the name of a living entity that most Americans do not know exists, and worse, it reinforces the assumption that they do not, because who would be so arrogant as to name a team The Bloods, for example, or to name a motorcycle company after a race of existing people?

I’m sorry, Cleveland fans, but Chief Wahoo oughta go. Maybe you can work something out. Get a respectful logo, and do some PR work with some of the tribes out there. Hell, you might even get the Miamis of Indiana to do war dances for you at the seventh-inning stretch, if you can convince them that it’s honest, appreciated, and respectable. That’s what these people want. Who in the hell are you to deny them that?

39

Obviously, if ONE Native American considers it offensive that is not enough. However if a substantial amount find it offensive then it is. ONE person can be mistaken or delusional. Many people who share a view lends a bit more creedence to that view. I never said that Wahoo is offensive because AN American Indian says so. I said that American Indians (plural) say so. That takes away the misinterpretion/delusion possibility.

Besides, if you were to list everything that was found offensive by at least one person, the list would be long enough to circle the Earth.

40

Vince McMahon.

I mean, c’mon, the “New Jersey Hitmen”?

:wink: