No, why would you think that I implied that? You are one person. One person might be incorrect. If, however, a large group of Irish Americans found the logo and name to be offensive, then it is offensive.
How many people need to have their feelings stepped on before you think that something needs to be done? How many people need to be offended by something before that thing is considered offensive? 10, 100, 1000, 1,000,000? Do their feelings not matter just because they are in the minority? These “malcontents” (as you so sensitively put it)are the very people that are demeaned and stereotyped by the logo. Just because that logo has come to represent something else to the cheering mob doesn’t make it ok.
My point was that the images you choose as indisputably negative and inappropriate were not from my perspective either.
I am always interested in knowledge.
But my point is that trying to define what is offensive, to whom it is offensive and trying to identify why it is offensive, is not only important but necessary, otherwise you can end up outlawing or restricting half of virtually every language on the planet due to its possible connotations.
Indians as a term describing a cultural group or groups, as I previously stated does not even refer to Native Americans.
I am not certain why the terms are or where chosen and do not in fact think that the historical rational has much bearing, the problems are over interpretation by today’s society and what if any connotations are associated with the images.
Using names of modern groups seems not to be restricted to racial/cultural groups the ‘Oilers’ are if I am not mistaken named for the image of hard working, hard playing image attached to workers in the oil industry. Some people could equally construe this as negative.
For that manner The Cardinals (via way of a bird) are named for a group of religious figures that have historically been accused of a number of heinous crimes against large proportions of European cultures.
The general effect of the image may in fact be positive in regards to the perception of Native Americans or at worse neutral. The problem here is that I can presently locate no reliable research on the particular images being discussed here. Thus determining the impact of the image and whether changing it would be a positive act cannot be definitive established.
What would you determine is a large group of Irish Americans and why are you restricting it to those of Irish decent who reside in America?
My point was that just because some Irish find it offensive does not make it so, perhaps if all or a majority do, it would, but I see no data indicating that any information on the feelings of the majority of Native Americans has been gathered in this case.
Finally the reasons for finding the image offensive may be important as they be founded on incorrect information and thus given full information the group may no longer find the image offensive.
Understanding of such issues is always going to be better than blindly reacting to them, especially where that blind reaction may cause the exact problems it is trying to defeat.
Ehhh, don’t you even try to twist out of the net there, Britt. You got snagged by the double-post, although I will consider your editing as a retraction.
I hope you will acknowledge that I at least pretend to partially understand the issues involved from the opposite point of view.
The National Congress of American Indians is one forum through which Indian tribes attempt to influence Federal policy and shape public opinion. They work as a republican body. Congress, and the Senate in particular, regularly solicits the opinion of the NCAI when shaping their policy toward American Indian tribes, as does the Department of Interior, which is the executive authority over tribes.
Therefore, I think it is safe to assume that a majority of the elected representatives of American Indians oppose the image. I hope you will consider that portion of your definitively answered.
I’m going to be dropping by their office tomorrow. I’ll try to scare up a statement of their rationale then. It will, no doubt, be worth far more than my own explanations.
The Fighting Irish example is restricted to the Irish, because they are the group that is being stereotyped by the logo. Therefore, they and only they can determine if it is or is not offensive. I am not Irish, so the Notre Dame logo does not offend me personally, but I my opinion is unimportant on that matter.
Why does it have to be a majority of Native Americans to be considered offensive? Why are the minority’s feelings unimportant to you? How many people need to be hurt by something before you admit that that something is hurtful?
And as far as Vince goes, minty, he (along with Don King and Phil Spector) ought to be singled out as unique entities themselves. But that’s just my opinion.
It wasn’t a double post one was answering you, with regards to your comparision with other possibly offensive imagary, that got interpreted by two new threads :(, the other was to Airbeck. Secondly I have as yet no clear position on the logo at issue here (although your link will sway me towards the view that some form of modification may be in order), but with the interpretation of imagery with-in social contexts being treated as a straightforward subject.
Thanks for the link it was the sort of information I was looking for.
Now to try and determine how well the NCAI represents the total population of Native Americans. Once I find (or you provide the rational) I will (providing that rational does not rely on the overall social interpretation, without having researched such), be more than happy to consider that this may with-in your context, be an offensive image.
My argument here is that these arguments are very context driven and that what was true 31 years ago may no longer be relevant today.
It is important to constantly review preconceptions over the interpretation of images, society has a way of changing the way it views them.
I was also here to state that there are some interesting definitions and measurements that are required when determing the effect of an image, blindly reacting to what you believe are the associations can be counter productive.
Finally you have to admit in order to make the Indian Motorcycle example valid it would require Indians from India to take offence. I mean the term is used more accurately and widly to refer to one billion of them, as opposed to a significantly smaller number of Native Americans.
It was not the Irish part I was objecting to but the American part of your sample group.
Minority feelings are important I am just trying to define when a minority becomes significant? I as an individual am not significant, the majority of 'Indians/ Irish worldwide probably is, but where is the line in between?
I agree how many people need to be hurt before it is detrimental to society? I do not know I was hoping that due to your emphatic statements you might have considered this.
In the meantime I am cautious weighing the needs of one set of individuals against another, I am not saying that I can judge the balance, mealy that one must consider it.
I have considered the balance that you speak of, but I don’t think that this is simply a math problem. Perhaps I’m just more sensitive to the feelings of others then. I don’t get how those that are not affected by this issue factor in to the equation at all.
What we are talking about here is something that is highly offensive to some and not at all to others. Group A is harmed, group B is not. The “needs” of group A are to not be harmed. What, exactly, are the needs of group B?
If 10% of the people are harmed by something and the other 90% are not affected at all, who’s needs are more important? Who cares about the other 90% if they aren’t affected one way or another. If we can remove the harm from that 10% then everyone is happy.
Tell me what the “needs” of the group of people that are not offended by this logo one way or another have to do with the question at hand. Those that are offended are the only ones that matter in my opinion. If there are enough people offended then it is a problem.
I don’t appreciate being accused of not “considering” the issues at hand, by the way. I might say that you haven’t fully “considered” the feelings of the Native Americans that are highly offended by this image, but then I like to avoid making assumptions about things and people about which I know nothing.
Just look at the logo. That chap most likely doesn’t worship Ganesh. I understand the possible confusion, but please don’t bring it up as a matter of debate.
Here, man, check out the Bureau of Indian Affairs FAQ. The poor bastards can’t even afford to hotlink their table of contents, but it really does give a pretty decent primer on the matter.
Maybe it’s just my ignorant Hawaiian bias, but to this day I fail to understand why so many Clevelanders actually like Chief Wahoo. I mean, c’mon, people, he’s just plain silly! I certainly wouldn’t want him representing the team and nothing else, as some of you have claimed.
Now, if the Indians were a high school team, I could understand. You get names and mascots from all over the place and no one seems to mind. But a professional team should not have a logo that can cause passersby to snicker. I really think that, if nothing else, they should change it to look like an actual Indian. Several teams do this, and except for the Redskins, I haven’t heard any complaints.
I have similar feelings about the Mighty Ducks, BTW.
Perhaps the Indians could retire “chief” Wahoo and replace him with a real chief such as “Red Cloud” and pay back the community by creating a native American museum and tribute on native American history in northern Ohio.
There were many native Americans here not so long ago.
And their trail has been a trail of tears.
I still have a question about what possible difference it could make if a mascot were changed.
Assume someone’s offended and you have to call the Fighting Illini the Wildcats instead. Why does this make the football game any less fun for you?
Part of my irritation with this issue is that I can’t see how it would harm anyone, or even really AFFECT anyone if the names were changed. Everyone would go on swilling bear and screaming at the tv or in the arena as they always did. Why does anyone CARE?
If Charlene Teters and her organization are outraged at their portrayal and you would be just as happy with a DIFFERENT mascot, then I don’t understand why there’s even a choice to be made here.
Well, I’m pretty sure the Cleveland Indians Baseball Club is busy operating a baseball team - at least I hope it is - so they’re kind of busy right now. Operating a museum isn’t part of their mission statement, nor should it be.
As a Clevelander, I resent the aboriginal people hijacking the term “Native American”. I’m just as native to America as anybody, whether their ancestors strolled over from Asia or took a boat from Europe.
As a Clevelander, I resent the aboriginal people hijacking the term “Native American”. I’m just as native to America as anybody, whether their ancestors strolled over from Asia or took a boat from Europe.
And while we’re at it, where did the aborigines get the moral authority to tell other people what to do? Would that be the same place they got the right to piss off their own neighbors? Or see.
Chief Wahoo hurts the feelings of Native Americans.- Complaining about having one’s feelings hurt is something only children are allowed to do. Grown-ups recognize that they are responsible for their own feelings and that one’s self worth and self-esteem are not a function of other’s. A baseball team logo lacks the power to damage a person’s self esteem or to hurt a person’s feelings, assuming such a person has even the slightest amount of self control. More to the point, a person’s feelings are his or her own responsibility, not a professional baseball club’s. (Although in fairness I will admit that on occasion the Cleveland Indians’ have broken my heart, particularly when they lost Game 7 of the 1997 World Series, and that may of their recent personnel moves have puzzled and annoyed me, as when they traded Brian Giles for Ricky Rincon .)
Native Americans despise Chief Wahoo - This is false statement. I don’t have any imperical data, but I strongly suspect that some like Chief Wahoo, some hate it, and the majority of Native Americans most likely are utterly indifferent toward it. The Wahoo protesters have to date failed to demonstrate that they have wide spread support among either the Native American community or the greater country at large. There is no consensus with regard to whether the logo is immoral or offensive.
Native Americans have suffered genocide, discrimination, poverty, broken treaties, etc. - and this is the Cleveland Indians’s fault, and/or the result of their Chief Wahoo logo, how? I enjoyed “Dances with Wolves”, and I cried when back in Catholic grade school I first read about Chief Joseph and the Nez Perce, however attributing any of the Native Americans’ troubles to a baseball team that has been using the name “Indians” for about 90 years and the “Chief Wahoo” logo for over 50 years is irrational. The facts are that the United States of America, and its predecessors, forcible took land from the many and various Indian tribes that inhabited the land before them. There were Indian wars, and the Indians lost the wars. The tribes were unable to match the invaders’ technology, economy, weapons, tactics, or mass production methods. Immigration from Europe overwhelmed the Indians by sheer force of numbers. Further, the immigrants inadvertently brought with them diseases to which the tribes didn’t have any immunity built up. All that, and the U.S. broke treaties with the Indians. As a result, the tribes lost the land where they had lived for so long. And now as retribution for that great, historic, irreversible loss, the descendants of the tribes, and certain self-proclaimed “enlightened” others now want to compel a baseball team to change its Indian name and logo. IMHO, the term “non sequitur” doesn’t begin to describe such a ludicrous argument. I guess the more argumentative Native Americans realized that they’re not going to get either Manhattan Island or Oklahoma back anytime soon, so even though they’re not baseball fans they’ll settle for bossing around a baseball team with regard to its name and logo. Or, as put once during a passage in my favorite show, “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”: “I just can’t take all this mamby-pamby boo-hooing about the bloody Indians. … You won, all right? You came in and you killed them and you took their land. That’s what conquering nations do. It’s what Caesar did, and he’s not going around saying, ‘I came, I conquered, I felt really bad about it.’ The history of the world isn’t people making friends. You had better weapons, and you massacred them. … You exterminated his race. What could you possibly say that would make him feel better?”
Only Native Americans can perceive and appreciate how much Chief Wahoo harms them - What an egotistical, anti-intellectual argument. Other people besides Native Americans have brains and feelings too, and can use their brains and intellect to understand such things.
Naming a team the Cleveland Indians is as insulting as naming them the San Francisco Spics, the Baltimore Wops or the Kansas City Kikes - No, it isn’t. Teams name their clubs in order to viscerally associate themselves with something positive, so that their the team’s fans - ie, its paying customers - can pretend that they are similarly associated. Derogatory nicknames are not something a team would voluntarily call itself. A sports team would no more subject itself to ridicule by calling itself the “Kikes” than it would call itself the “Dickheads.” Any negative connotation to the name “Cleveland Indians” or to Chief Wahoo is non-existent with regard to the team or its supporters. With regard to any negative connotation existing in the minds of any Native Americans, see point no. 1 above.
So, that means that a professional team can use any logo that they want, then? How about a person in blackface? A logo does have the power to hurt people by perpetuating hurtful stereotypes. This logo is in the public arena, because so many people are exposed to it does have that power. What if a baseball team decided to use you as their mascot. They drew a stupid looking cartoon version of you looking like an idiot. Then they called themselves the “Morons”. Would they have the right to do that? Since your “feelings” are your responsibility? According to you a professional sports team can use anything they want as their logo and noone has the right to be offended by it. What about a KKK clansmen as a logo. Would that be OK? How about a Nazi soldier as a logo? Why do you think that companies that are in the public eye have no responsibility in this matter.
Why are you so insensitive to the feelings of your fellow human beings? Why is it ok for anyone to do anything they want that is hurtful or insulting to anyone else? Why is it then the victim’s fault if he is hurt by it? Would it be ok for someone to take a megaphone out to the middle of town and yell insults about you all day? According to your views, if you were hurt buy that, it would be your fault since “Grown-ups recognize that they are responsible for their own feelings”. What if a newspaper printed a lot of insulting things about you? They are not responsible for your feelings are they? Aren’t you, therefore, not justified in being upset by your logic? We live in a world where it is important to consider who might be hurt by our actions. Whether or not you feel that they are justified in being hurt is unimportant.
Why do they need “widespread support”? Why is it ok to demean a group of people if less then half care? What is everyone’s hangup on thinking that something is only offensive if the majority think that it is? Whether or not you think that those that are offended are justified to be so is immaterial. If something is hurtful to 20% of the people and 80% are indifferent, why do you think that that would not be hurtful? Noone is hurt by losing the logo. Someone is hurt by keeping it. Why keep it? How does it hurt anyone to change the logo? We know for a fact that it hurts at least some people to keep it, but who is harmed if it is changed?
American Indians are the group that is being demeaned by this logo. Therefore if they say that it is offensive, then it is offensive. I never said that non-Indian Americans cannot also share this view. I merely said that non-Indian Americans cannot say that the logo is NOT offensive since they are not part of the affected group. I am a non-Indian American and I think that the logo is offensive. There is nothing wrong with that. However, if a Cleveland Indians fan says that the logo is not offensive, that opinion means nothing. It is hardly objective.
I never said that the name “Indians” is offensive, just the racist logo that accompanies it is.
Honestly, I don’t see what the big deal about changing the logo is. What difference does the logo make? How would anyone’s lives be changed negatively if the logo was changed?
I did not accuse you of not considering the issues; I was eliciting your opinions on them.
If a group that can be determined as ‘significant’ is offended by an image and there are no groups that benefit from the image then the use of the image should be discontinued.
The problem occurs where there are possible benefits to some groups and it then becomes a matter of weighing the benefits against the harm.
Please note this is not referring to just the monetary value that the organisation places on an image but also includes any possible positive images and connotations that the image may provide in society.
Once there is a question of balancing benefits verses costs of an activity there will always be debate and this process can be used positively for both sides to come to a better understanding of each other’s perspective. Given the information I have now managed to collect (thanks ** sofa king ** your references where most helpful, although I still lack a true understanding of how representative the NCAI truly is of Native Americans when it comes to this issue) I believe the requirement is now on the owners of the logo to show what possible benefits the logo provides that out weigh the harm that some groups perceive it is causing them.
** Sofa King **
Ah it is the picture and not the name, that really bothers you, now there is a more appropriate illustration (if it were to be compared with say an image of a KKK hood).
Sorry, to have hijacked this thread so much, it was not the examples that I was trying to argue it was the indisputability of their negativity that struck me as unfounded. In a large diverse group of individuals all images are going to be interpreted in a number of both positive and negative ways, and this will naturally lead to debate over there interpretation to ‘society’
Research on imagery and it effects on the perceptions held by society is in general limited and in specific instances usually non-existent. I was trying to rail against this state of affairs or have some one kindly soul point out some new research I was unfamiliar with. As illustrated with the Indian example examination of the issues can lead to a better understanding of where the true problem lies.
Also I was trying to point out that judging the ‘real’ effect of an image is not as simple as it offends X number of individual or groups. Especially as there is no objective number to assign to X
If a group believes an image is offensive, because they believe it causes a negative perception of their cultural heritage, they may in fact be mistaken, it may in fact have a positive effect on the perception of the heritage it may no longer be associated with it at all.
With out the research blindly judging the issues becomes a much more difficult task.
Your links eventually lead to enough evidence that a ‘prima-facie’ case against the logo has been established for myself to want those that wish to continue using it, to show that either the reasons for finding it offensive are invalid or that there is some other ‘good’ provided by the image that would outweigh its negative connotations.
At present the only argument in its favour is based on its monetary value as a branded and well-identified logo. This would not satisfy my balancing of the equations involved however YMMV.