That Cleveland Indians mascot

Great Debates
61

Your case is not strengthened by using examples that are:

  1. In no way parallel to the Chief Wahoo mascot. “KKK clansman [sic]” or “Nazi soldier” does not equal “Chief Wahoo” in terms of their associations.

  2. Unrealistic. It hardly needs saying that no team would think of using a Nazi soldier, now or ever. And even at the height of the KKK, no one would have been bold enough to use such a symbol. Both Nazi and KKK doctorine carry with them inescapable repugnant ideas, ideas that furthermore have been translated into direct action that has caused untold suffering. No such associations exist in the depiction of Chief Wahoo.

My views are not nearly as forceful as those of the poster you’re responding to. I do believe that every reasonable effort should be made to accommodate minority opinion and the feelings of even a small minority of individuals.

But you say “no one is hurt by losing the logo.” This is not so. Three generations of Cleveland Indians fans have grown up with nothing but positive associations of Chief Wahoo – a number that far exceeds the number of Indian Americans who have come in direct contact with it over that same period of time.

Obviously, we can’t place the importance of these feelings on the same level as the generations of hardship and suffering endured by all Indian Americans as a people. But I’m not sure we should.

Perhaps what we should be evaluating instead are what the REAL and specific effects of the existance of Chief Wahoo have been over the last 50 or so years.

I continue to believe the percentage of those individuals who have developed negative perceptions of Indian Americans because of Chief Wahoo (or had existing negative perceptions strengthened by it) is exceedingly small.

But the logic here seems to be that certain members of a minority group point to something they say causes harm – and because they are a minority group that has suffered greatly, we must immediately take them at their word and not even consider the logical underpinnings of their allegation.

If this were followed to the letter, we would immediately release all African-American criminal suspects the moment they cried “You’re only arresting me because I’m black.”

In some cases, this statement proves to be factual – but we first examine the truth of it carefully and systematically before accepting it at face value.

Nor, of course, is the opinion of Indian Americans objective in this matter.

In real life, individuals sometimes take offense at something another individual says, and it turns out that this offense is based entirely on a misunderstanding or miscommunication. The offense often evaporates once the person who allegedly gave it explains to the “offended” party: “That’s not at all what I meant when I said that…what I meant was THIS” or even “No, actually, I never said that at all…what I said was THIS, but you misheard it (or a third party incorrectly quoted me, etc.).”

But it seems in this case, we’re not to even consider such a dialog taking place.

I’m so glad you asked. I’ve been trying to get someone to consider this question since I first joined the thread, and so far, no one has dared to touch it.

So I’ll ask for a third time: the Cleveland Indians deep six Chief Wahoo tomorrow. Now, please plot for me very specifically the course of events that immediately ensues in Cleveland.

And show me that in the end, so much has been gained for Indian Americans (particularly those who live in the Cleveland area), at so little cost, that they will rise with one voice and say “It is a very good thing that this was done. We are immeasurably better off than we were before this was undertaken.”

(Along the way, you might consider what you’ll say if 20 percent of Indian Americans indicate they’re better off, 20 percent say they’re worse off, and 60 percent are indifferent.)

Most of all, please don’t gloss over anything!

62

The Cleveland Indians are using a racist image to promote their product. It’s racist because it is portraying a human being as having red skin, not just reddish tones but RED. American Indians have often been referred to as “redskins”, an offensive racial slur. It also has a rediculously goofy look on it’s face. It amazes me why some people cannot understand why people would be offended by it. Whether they (the Indians organization) will lose money if said image is removed/altered is not my concern. The fact that Indians fans have come to view that logo as an innocent representation of a team they love means nothing to me, it’s still racist. Whether or not the Indians organization means or has ever meant any harm is not the issue. It represents a group of people. If that group doesn’t like it, it has to go. As has been posted before the NCAI is opposed to it, they represent American Indians. For God’s sake if you have to use an Indian in your logo at least make it dignified looking! Wahoo is a buffoon. If someone was using a buffon as a representation of your race in a public arena, not to mention if said buffon also contained stereotypical imagery such as the rediculous red skin, you would be outraged. Imagine the outrage if a team was using a cartoon character in blackface to represent themselves. This is the same thing.

So what? They are the group that is being stereotyped and made fun of. Why do people who are not in that group get to say what is or is not offensive to that group?

What misunderstanding is there to discuss? The motivation of the Indians organization is not important in this issue. Did they mean to perpetuate stereotypes and use racist imagery to promote their team? Probably not. Does that make it ok to do so? Absolutely not.

OK, you’re going to have to explain the logical leap that got you from what I said to this rediculous statement, because I don’t have a clue.

As an aside, do you think that the Washington “Redskins” should change their name? If not, why? If so, how does that differ from the Indians logo?

63

I was simply replying to PatrickM’s post that “A baseball team logo lacks the power to damage a person’s self esteem or to hurt a person’s feelings”. If he was correct, then a team could use any logo it wanted and the person who was hurt by it would be to blame because, “Complaining about having one’s feelings hurt is something only children are allowed to do”. Try reading things in the context in which they were posted. I never meant to draw the parallels that you inferred. Of course I was not making the argument that “Wahoo is offensive because those other logos are offensive”. That’s rediculous, it makes no sense. I’m surprised noone else has taken PatrickM to task for his unbelieveably callous attitute that I quoted above. I was actually taken aback reading his post with that little gem in it. I didn’t think anyone could be so cold as to blame the victim for “letting” himself be offended.

64

why doesn’t that damned sig box stay checked…

65

**

Not a good comparison. After all the Cleveland Indian mascot isn’t depicting a specific person.

**

I don’t see how the Chief Wahoo characiture is demeaning to anyone. And it only matters if the majority think it is offensive. If some tiny minority thinks something is offensive then why care? Remember that tiny minority offended by Married with Children?

**

Actually it is fairly important I’d say. After all it makes a difference in how I view something. Oddly enough I don’t base all of my opinions on the feeling of others.

**

If we based all of our decisions on the minority that wasn’t happy we’d never get anything done. Change the logo and you’ll hurt the feelings of all those Indians fans.

**

His Chief Wahoo demeaning?

**

I’m a white atheist. I find it offensive when people use certain words to describe jewish people, white people, or latino folks. Being a member of that group has nothing to do with it. I feel very comfortable saying Wahoo isn’t offensive.

**

Objective? As if the Native American opinion is objective. HA HA HA HA HA HA…sorry, that was a riot.

**

How is a smiling cartoon character racist?

How would anyone’s life be affected in a positive way by changing the logo?

66

OK. Can you give me an approximate percentage of how much lessoffensive Chief Wahoo would be if his skin tone more closely approximated that of an Indian-American?

Any ethnic group you can name has been referred to with offensive slurs at one time or another. Despite the name of the Washington football team, few in this country today choose this term when referring to living, breathing Indian-Americans.

Uh, it’s a cartoon. Cartoons by definition have exaggerated features. The more or less “dignified” looking Pittsburgh Pirates logo of longstanding was replaced a couple of years ago by a close-up of a fearsome looking gent with an eyepatch and a knife between his teeth.

Your interpretation. Others might simply see an exaggerated smile and not impute any buffoonish characteristics to it. Also, it seems to me that to be truly buffoonish, you have to ACT that way. Chief Wahoo is inert. To my knowledge, he hasn’t been animated since the early 60s, when he used to introduce Indians’ TV broadcasts by hitting a baseball, which dissolved into a screen with the sponsors’ products. And he wasn’t buffoonish then, either…in fact, he had a pretty sweet swing.

I’m already outraged. I’m outraged that teenagers think that Homer Simpson is an accurate representation of middle-class Americans over 35 years of age. Not only does Homer look totally unrealistic and goofy (and nothing like me!), but unlike Chief Wahoo he ACTS in a buffoonish manner, too – in front of millions of viewers, week in and week out.

“Blackface” by definition carries a ton of very specific baggage with it, i.e., whites impersonating blacks in minstral shows with greatly exaggerated dialog and stereotyping. There is no parallel with this to be found in the representation of Chief Wahoo.

Well, this is a pretty convenient way to settle everything…“there’s nothing to discuss.”

You would do well to follow your own advice and “Try reading things in the context in which they were posted” – and also to fully quote that context.

My full statement was this:

The “leap in logic” is a very simple one: if we truly believe in treating all people equally, then we will apply the same standard of proof equally to what any group of people says, as opposed to simply “taking their word for it.”

We don’t allow a black criminal suspect to wriggle off the hook by saying “I was only arrested because I’m black” – we examine the specific circumstances of his or her case carefully.

Similarly, if Indian-Americans allege that the existance of Chief Wahoo causes them specific harm, then they ought to be able to show some convincing and specific proof of this. You may be willing to accept “Because I say so” from them – but I’m less willing.

Under your system, not only do Indian-Americans get to base their entire case on “Because I say so,” but those on the other side of the equation aren’t allowed to present a case at all!

Tell you what…I’ll answer your “aside” after you answer mine…which was in fact a great deal more than an aside.

Despite ample opportunity to respond, you’ve ignored the entire last section of my most recent post, and have ignored previous posts in which I’ve asked the same question as well.

I’m still interested in your response.
I accept the reality that a percentage of Indian-Americans say they are offended by Chief Wahoo.

But I again go back to the concept of picking one’s battles, and of winning the battle but losing the war.

In my opinion (and despite the fact that I’m not an Indian-American, I amallowed to hold one) I believe that on balance those who protest this issue might realize more net gain if their energies were directed elsewhere.

67

No, it’s much worse, it’s depicting an entire race of people. If it was just one person than the total harm would be much, much less than it is now with Wahoo.

I don’t base “all” of my opinions on that either, but I still think that the feelings of others are pretty important.

Yes.

How can you presume to know what is not offensive to American Indians, or any other group for that matter. I feel very comfortable ignoring your opinion then, because I don’t see how you could possibly know that something is not offensive to them.

The American Indian opinion on this matter is based on their feelings about how they are being represented in pop culture. They are the group that is being represented by this image. If they don’t like it, who are you to say that they are not justified in thinking so? The opinion of Cleveland Indians fans on this matter is based on their feelings for their baseball team. They see that logo as representing a team that they love and nothing more. That is why Cleveland fans saying that the logo is not offensive to American Indians is unimportant and irrelevant.

You see that is part of the problem. You look at the logo and see nothing more than a “smiling cartoon character”. No wonder you don’t see why it is offensive. It is racist because, as I said before, it has RED skin. Human beings don’t have RED skin. American Indians are/were often referred to as “redskins” a racist term. Portraying them as having bright red skin is no different from calling them “redskins”.

An entire group of people will no longer be degraded, stereotyped and made fun of by a corporate logo that is seen by millions of people, constantly. If you don’t see why that is positive, then I guess there’s no point in us continuing this debate then. (By the way, I’m not saying that the Indians organization is doing any of those things on purpose, but that does mean that it is ok for them to do so.)

American Indians are being portrayed in a public arena by this logo. If they don’t like the way that they are being represented by this image, why not respect their wishes?

I can’t say quantitatively how much less, but it would be less degrading for sure. As for his stupid grin, that’s another matter. There would be much less controversy if the logo was dignified, wouldn’t you say?

How does the fact that a racist slur is no longer widely used make it ok? Don’t forget that the logo has been around for a long time, and that term was used more often back then.

American Indians are a real group of people who have a right to say how they are portrayed in public. If they don’t like the way that that “cartoon” is depicting them, it shouldn’t be used. Don’t they have a right to not be depicted in a way that they feel is demeaning?

You are referring to a conversation between the Indians organization and representatives of American Indians. In this conversation, the Indians organization says that they never meant to make them feel degraded and belittled. The American Indian representatives reply, well we appreciate that you didn’t mean to do it, but you are still doing it so shoudn’t you stop?

Your “dialogue” involves the Indians organization explaining that their motives were pure. I say that there motives do not make a difference, as long as they continue to use the logo.

How does one “prove” that they feel demeaned and degraded? What type of convincing and specific “proof” of their feelings do you expect? You might say that you love your family, can you can you show convincing and specific proof of that?

Are you referring to what happens to the fans of Cleveland and the Indians organization? If so, then my answer is “I don’t care”. If you are referring to the American Indians in the Cleveland area, then I say, why are they the only ones that are important? Last time I checked there are American Indians all over the country, why should their feelings be any less important. This is a national logo. It is part of pop culture, therefore everyone is exposed to it, not just those in the greater Cleveland area.

My question is this. If a group of people is represented by a corporate logo and that group of people do not like how they are portrayed by that logo, shouldn’t that corporation find a new logo?

68

Since you asked me personally, and so tactfully I might add, let me tell you that if any baseball team used my likeness in its logo without my permission, whether or not the logo made me look like an idiot, I would consult a lawyers who specialize in intellectual property law and in libel/defamation law and see if I had viable lawsuit against the team. My suit wouldn’t be based on my feelings being hurt, but upon using my likeness without my permission. I could probably make big bucks off of such a lawsuit.

However, the hypothetical is a flawed one. No team that wants to continue in business would draw a logo looking anything like boring old nondescript me, nor would they call themselves the “Morons” if they wanted to stay in business for longer than a week.

BTW, if memory serves, an anti-Wahoo group already sued the Cleveland Indians back during the 1970’s alleging such things. Before the case got thrown out of court as a nuisance suit the Indian plaintiff group settled for extracting some nominal amount of money from the ballclub without any admission of culpability. Last time I checked (yesterday) the courthouses were still open. Anyone out there who “feels” that Chief Wahoo demeans them is more than welcome to hire a lawyer and sue the ballclub for defamation. Of course, there are penalties for filing frivolous lawsuits like that one would be so I personally wouldn’d recommend that course of action but that’s not my call.

Of course, rather than hiring lawyers to file suit, maybe the Wahoo protesters would be better served by using their money to purchase rights to the logo from the ballclub. Once they owned it the protesters could retire it themselves. I don’t have the figures, but I believe that Chief Wahoo is one of the better selling lines of licensed baseball merchandise so the price for the logo wouldn’t be cheap, but what’s a little money to people so principled and enlightened?

69

PatrickM,

What is it going to take for me to get you to try to see things from another perspective. I feel like I’m beating my head against the wall trying to get you to, for ONE SECOND, consider how American Indians might feel. I understand that, to you, the logo means nothing but a representation of a team that you love. I get that. To, you it’s not only not offensive, but it actually gives you a feeling of pride. But you need to try to see things from another perspective. Can’t you even consider that other people have viewpoints that differ from you and might actually have actual valid reasons for feeling that way?

Would it be so terrible to at least use a dignified representation of American Indians for your team? I mean, you don’t see this amount of controversy surrounding the logo of the Chicago Blackhawks, do you? I’m sure there is some, but not the level that surrounds the Indians. Do a search on google.com for “chief wahoo controversy”. There are a lot of people that share my opinion on this matter.

70

Look, people. In a world where Washington, DC can change the name of their team from “Bullets,” which was cool, to “Wizards,” which is lame, simply because they are the murder capital of the country, certainly you can continence the change of a simple, stodgy, disparaging symbol, can’t you?

Take a look at these guys:

Two Hatchet

Sitting Bull

Sitting Bull again

Red Cloud

Little Horse

Come on, men. These guys are motherfuckers. They are real, bad-ass dudes whose spirits might get you the danged pennant (if there still was one). Why can’t you consider them?

71

Is this smiley offensive to Orthodox Jewish people?

;j

72

Airbeck my good sir or madam, you proceed from the false assumption that that I did not consider things from other viewpoints. What evidence have you that I haven’t done so? Obviously people have other opinions than mine. So what? Does that mean that I should adopt what I consider to be erroneous opinions just because some people have opinions that are different than what mine (and others who agree with me) is? Should I concede the argument merely because some others disagree with me? An appeal to logic, rather than to emotion and false analogy would stand a better chance of convincing me. So would demonstrating that some people have been actually injured by the logo, rather than merely being annoyed or angered. I have seen anger and annoyance and it alone doesn’t impress me any. Should I live my life trying not to annoy or anger those who get their collective noses out of joint at me for what logo my favorite baseball team uses? I think not. Obviously I shouldn’t go out of my way to annoy or anger people for no other reason, however, but by the flip side of that same coin, shouldn’t other people (including Native American type people) not go out of their way to take offense at me or my team’s logo when clearly no offense was intended?

It may interest you to know that at one time back in the 1980s I agreed that the Chief Wahoo logo was offensive. I’d been convinced after viewing a poster that had mock pennants with team names like the Kansas City Kikes and Pittsburgh Niggers I referred to in a previous post. But then I thought about it awhile and realized that that argument was based on a falty argument, as previously discussed, so I changed my mind back.

As for a dignified logo, do you mean one like the Washington Redskins use on the side of their football helmets, with a more realistic head in profile? I didn’t think so, because the Redskins use the dreaded “skin” word, in conjunction with the dreaded “red” word. (That’s it, the Washington NFL team is Communist!) Maybe they should redesign their mascot into a redskin potato, just to satisfy the PC police.

Finally, I concede that some time in the future the Cleveland Indians will most likely change their logo. Merchandise sales of Chief Wahoo will flag, either because people get pursuaded by the emotional but illogical arguments Airbeck and others have presented here, or just because fashions change as they are wont to do, and some marketing executive will figure the baseball team can goose profits by redesigning the logo. Such things happen frequently in professional sports. For example, my favorite lousy pro basketball team, the Cleveland Cavaliers, has changed its logo 3 or 4 times in the last 20 years, trying to find one that is popular. The Cavs’ logo changes weren’t based on protests from descendents of supporters of Charles I of England (look it up) but upon attempts to spur merchandise sales. That’s just the nature of retail sales.

73

PatrickM

Obviously, neither one of us is going to change our mind on this matter, so why don’t we just call it quits. I don’t see us making any progress towards a resolution any time soon. So, unless there is an objection, I move to let this debate drop unresolved. I can think of a lot of things that I would rather do than sit here banging my head against the wall. At least this way we can end this while it’s still pretty civil and avoid the road that many of these debates end up travelling down, to name-calling and personal attacks.

(FYI, I happen to be a sir. Perhaps my username should be Mr. Airbeck)

74

Obviously, you’ve utterly failed to answer the question I posed (and I also note that no one else has had the courage to tackle it, either, even though I’ve posed it three times now).

No, I’m not referring to “what happens to the fans of Cleveland and the Indians organization.” I am such a fan. Should the Indians give Chief Wahoo the boot, I will find this move to be unnecessary, but I won’t go spastic. I will accept it with equanimity and get on with life.

However, if you think my reaction would be typical of Indians fans, you’re mistaken. I’ve already given an example of how seriously they take their sports traditions. Ditching Wahoo admittedly isn’t on the same level as sneaking the Browns out of town, but it would be unwise to underestimate the degree of anger this group of people is capable of, and what actions some of them are capable of taking to give that anger voice.

Let me make it clear that I don’t condone this; should a great deal of specific ugliness be directed toward the Indian-American community of Cleveland – as I believe it would – you would find me squarely in their corner and taking up their cause. Not their cause with regard to Chief Wahoo, but rather their right to be free from the specific kind of racially motivated abuse that would likely follow Wahoo’s banishment.

Since you failed to accept the challenge, I’m merely pointing out to you what inevitably WOULD happen in Cleveland – and I’m asking you whether you think the game is worth the candle.

Any time a change is contemplated, it is wise to calculate a cost-benefit ratio. “Cost” in this sense refers not to financial matters, but rather to considerations of overall status. Put more simply, the question becomes: “Are we going to be better off after this change is made than we were before it was made?”

And more specifically: “Having pressed our case so hard that the Cleveland Indians finally dump Chief Wahoo, have we as Indian-Americans in the Cleveland area realized a true net gain? Or have we instead bought ourselves a whole new set of problems we didn’t have before – problems that have in fact placed us in a worse overall position that we had been?”

And more specifically still: "With Chief Wahoo is gone, have the majority of people in Cleveland now magically reformed their view of Indian-Americans, and do they now suddenly accord us full status in the community of human beings (whereas they did not before)?

“Or have we now in fact incurred considerable resentment, if not downright enmity, that has heretofore never been directed at us? And how will this affect our overall course in the future?”

I think these questions deserve careful consideration, rather than glib assumptions that everything will be roses as soon as Chief Wahoo goes.

75

This just in the paper today; People are already protesting again(its the start of season today).
We’ll see what happens.
I wouldn’t be a bit surprised, though, if they started using the mayor’s face instead (Note: this will be funny to those who live or have lived here).

76

For the record, I grew up on the Fond du Lac Reservation in the Northeast Corner of Minnesota. And I have never heard a fellow tribe member refer to him/her self as anything but an “Indian.”

It is my opinion (utterly unfounded, other than by above) that “Native American” is mostly used by non-Indians.

mm