Chief Wahoo logo being phased out?

[Hoplite]

As you may have heard, there's some hubbub going on about the Indians demoting their Chief Wahoo logo to secondary status and designating the block-C as their primary logo for 2014.
That hubbub started with a tweet from me, which was based on information from a confidential source. The Indians have denied the story, but I have since confirmed it with two other sources, including SportsLogos.net editor Chris Creamer, who in turn cited sources of his own.
But forget about all the "our word against theirs" stuff; that will play itself out soon enough. Instead, let's address a more interesting question: If the Indians are indeed flip-flopping their primary and secondary logo designations, what does that mean?
It doesn't mean there will be any uniform changes, at least not yet. The Indians have no uni alterations slated for 2014, which means Chief Wahoo will still be on the team's home cap and on the left sleeve of all the team's jerseys for at least one more season. In that sense, the impact of the logo redesignations would be more symbolic than practical.
 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10270450/mlb-cleveland-indians-de-emphasize-chief-wahoo-logo
 
In my opinion, it's about time. This is the most archaic logo in sports, there's no way it would fly if it was proposed today. As for Louis Sockalexis, who the Indians claim the logo is supposed to honor, his family has asked the Indians to stop using the logo.
 
And please don't compare this to the Fighting Irish logo. That happens in every discussion about Native American logos and it's not at all comparable. When Irish-Americans are rounded up, their land and belongings are taken from them, they are placed on reservations and then made in to sports mascots by the people that placed them on the reservations against their objections, then you can compare the logos.

 

[Kliq]

Just go back to the Naps already.

 

[hbk72777]

 
 
I
 
And please don't compare this to the Fighting Irish logo. That happens in every discussion about Native American logos and it's not at all comparable. When Irish-Americans are rounded up, their land and belongings are taken from them, they are placed on reservations and then made in to sports mascots by the people that placed them on the reservations against their objections, then you can compare the logos.

 
That's your opinion. Most of the persecution against Native Americans came from British settlers. The same British that let the Irish starve during the potato famine, killing 750,000 men women and children. Both were treated like pure shit.  To say the Irish weren't, is ignorant. (and I know you used Irish American to suit your agenda, but there are other logos based on cultures outside of the U.S., ie the Vikings)

 

[Frank Fenway]

This happy little guy was their logo until 1950
 

 

[Frank Fenway]

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10270450/mlb-cleveland-indians-de-emphasize-chief-wahoo-logo
 
In my opinion, it's about time. This is the most archaic logo in sports, there's no way it would fly if it was proposed today. As for Louis Sockalexis, who the Indians claim the logo is supposed to honor, his family has asked the Indians to stop using the logo.
 
And please don't compare this to the Fighting Irish logo. That happens in every discussion about Native American logos and it's not at all comparable. When Irish-Americans are rounded up, their land and belongings are taken from them, they are placed on reservations and then made in to sports mascots by the people that placed them on the reservations against their objections, then you can compare the logos.

 
Can't both logos be terrible at the same time? 

 

[terrisus]

Just go back to the Naps already.

 
They could always take over the legacy of the long lost Cleveland Spiders.

 

[Frank Fenway]

Or the Blues. 

 

[SemperFidelisSox]

There needs to be a compromise. The team needs a logo that keeps with their tradition, while better representing the Native American community. They need a logo more...dreamy.
 

 

[Kliq]

I for one admire a time where teams could just switch names to commend star players. Can we just play 2014 as the Boston Papis?

 

[edoug]

I for one admire a time where teams could just switch names to commend star players. Can we just play 2014 as the Boston Papis?

How about F'n Papi's.

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

How about a soccer (football) team in Berlin changes it's name to the Jews.  The Berlin Jews.  With a great comical caricature.  It'll be to remember what happened in Germany years ago.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

 
That's your opinion. Most of the persecution against Native Americans came from British settlers. The same British that let the Irish starve during the potato famine, killing 750,000 men women and children. Both were treated like pure shit.  To say the Irish weren't, is ignorant. (and I know you used Irish American to suit your agenda, but there are other logos based on cultures outside of the U.S., ie the Vikings)

 
Yes, and if, say, an Oxford University sports team were to use a name like "Fighting Irish" and a cartoony Irishman logo like that, it would be reasonable to take offense.

 

[Leather]

 
Yes, and if, say, an Oxford University sports team were to use a name like "Fighting Irish" and a cartoony Irishman logo like that, it would be reasonable to take offense.

 
 
 
Notre Dame:  Respected instituion of higher learning, deeply Catholic, historically revered by the American Irish Catholic population, and attended by many of the same.  Shunned and marginalized in the late 19th and early 20th century, Irish Americans have become a very socially, politically, and culturally influential demographic in America. 
 
Cleveland Indians:  Baseball for-profit team, representative of the "American Passtime", no American Indian connection whatsoever.  Victims of mass relocation and extermination attempts first by European settlers and later the American govermnent (hbk7277, you have to be shitting me that the United States has not hand in the mistreatment of Indians), Indians continue to be a marginalized, depressed, and largely irrelevant demographic in today's America. 
 
Yup.  Totally the same thing.

 

[Hoplite]

That's your opinion. Most of the persecution against Native Americans came from British settlers. The same British that let the Irish starve during the potato famine, killing 750,000 men women and children. Both were treated like pure shit.  To say the Irish weren't, is ignorant. (and I know you used Irish American to suit your agenda, but there are other logos based on cultures outside of the U.S., ie the Vikings)

 
I don't see how they're at all similar. There's a long history of all kinds of nationalities committing atrocities against each other. There were even Irish sold in to slavery by the tens of thousands. But there's still a sovereign nation of Ireland that's doing quite well for itself. It's not as if all of the Irish were rounded up and transported to the Faroe Islands and then England created a cartoon Irishman logo holding a potato. A largely Irish-American Catholic university created the Fighting Irishman logo, just as a largely Scandanavian-American population in Minnesota created the Vikings logo. They weren't forced on them by a population that nearly wiped them to extinction and they don't have religious symbols in their logos like the Indians logo does. As an Irish-American and a Norweigan-American, I found neither one offensive in the least. And there isn't any evidence that they foster a negative self worth in the populations that they represent.
 
www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/psychological-distress.pps‎

 

[inJacobyWeTrust]

There needs to be a compromise. The team needs a logo that keeps with their tradition, while better representing the Native American community. They need a logo more...dreamy.
 

 
They had their chance but I think they missed the boat on this one.

 

[DLew On Roids]

 
That's your opinion. Most of the persecution against Native Americans came from British settlers. The same British that let the Irish starve during the potato famine, killing 750,000 men women and children. Both were treated like pure shit.  To say the Irish weren't, is ignorant. (and I know you used Irish American to suit your agenda, but there are other logos based on cultures outside of the U.S., ie the Vikings)

 
What does this have to do with Notre Dame?  

 

[glennhoffmania]

Honest question- why do people assume that the use of something as a mascot is offensive as opposed to honoring the group depicted by the mascot?  It's not like Cleveland wants to use the chief as a way to make fun of or insult any or all native Americans.  Typically you name a team after something you admire, no?  Therefore I don't think a British team named the Irish or a German team named the Jews are really fair comparisons here.

 

[Hoplite]

Honest question- why do people assume that the use of something as a mascot is offensive as opposed to honoring the group depicted by the mascot?  It's not like Cleveland wants to use the chief as a way to make fun of or insult any or all native Americans.  Typically you name a team after something you admire, no?  Therefore I don't think a British team named the Irish or a German team named the Jews are really fair comparisons here.

 
For starters, the group that's it's supposed to "honor" has said that it's offensive and has asked the Indians to change it. The Indians name was voted on by sports writers and then the team designed a logo that fit the standards of what was socially acceptable and popular at the time (the time being the 1940's). I think it was a pure marketing move. I don't think it had any intention to offend Native Americans, I doubt they considered the feelings of Native Americans at all. But a lot has obviously changed since the 1940's. The Indians themselves have changed the logo multiple times in attempts to make it less offensive by changing the skin color from yellow to red (I'm not sure that helped) and making the nose smaller.

 

[Leather]

Honest question- why do people assume that the use of something as a mascot is offensive as opposed to honoring the group depicted by the mascot?  It's not like Cleveland wants to use the chief as a way to make fun of or insult any or all native Americans.  Typically you name a team after something you admire, no?  Therefore I don't think a British team named the Irish or a German team named the Jews are really fair comparisons here.

 
Have you ever looked at Chief Wahoo?  Does it appear to be, in any way, honoring Indians? 
 
It's a cartoon version of an Indian stereotype.

 

[AlNipper49]

I think that as part of the phase out process that Terry Francona presents Chief Wahoo with a pile of wool blankets during an elaborate pre-game ceremony

 

[glennhoffmania]

Look I'm not trying to stir shit up.  I'm just asking a question.  And I really doubt that Cleveland has set out to mock native Americans with Wahoo.  That seems a tad bit crazy to me.  If people don't like the idea or the specific mascot, fine.  But I never really understood the general idea that naming a team and using a mascot based on a certain group is automatically offensive

 

[Red Right Ankle]

People can be offensive unintentionally, Glenn.

 

[Hoplite]

Look I'm not trying to stir shit up.  I'm just asking a question.  And I really doubt that Cleveland has set out to mock native Americans with Wahoo.  That seems a tad bit crazy to me.  If people don't like the idea or the specific mascot, fine.  But I never really understood the general idea that naming a team and using a mascot based on a certain group is automatically offensive

 
A mascot based on a certain group is not automatically offensive. But I think it's pretty clear that there are some aesthetic differences between a red skinned grinning child-like face with a huge nose, huge teeth and a feather sticking out of his head (which some Native Americans have said is offensive because it's a religious symbol) and other logos based on certain groups. There's also a pretty significant history to consider here, with how Native Americans were treated in this country. And there's also the power dichotomy of one group in a privileged position forcing this logo on an oppressed group against their objections.
 
Logos aren't black and white, it's not as if either they're 100% offensive or they're not offensive at all. There's a lot of context to consider here.

 

[Leather]

Look I'm not trying to stir shit up.  I'm just asking a question.  And I really doubt that Cleveland has set out to mock native Americans with Wahoo.  That seems a tad bit crazy to me.  If people don't like the idea or the specific mascot, fine.  But I never really understood the general idea that naming a team and using a mascot based on a certain group is automatically offensive

 
You are presenting a strawman.  Nobody is arguing that "naming a team and using a mascot on a certain group is automatically offensive." 
 
And the intent of the Indians (or Redskins) is irrelevant.  Once a group/person becomes aware that something is legitimately offensive to a particular group, the onus is on them to either A) educate the group on why their usage is not offensive; B) change the offensive useage; or C) suffer any fallout their continued useage causes them.  

 

[vintage'67]

I'm with glenn in not understanding the general concept of why a mascot (as opposed to specific caricatures) are offensive.  The New England franchise in the NFL is obviously intended to honor those who fought to found our country.  The fact that the "original" logo--Pat Patriot--is cartoonish has never generated an out cry that I'm aware of, beyond simple aesthetics (i.e. that it sucks, not that it offends the people who risked there lives, families and fortunes to stand up to the world's dominant empire at the time. I'm not defending Chief Wahoo, my question is broader--Can we accept that the MLB team from Cleveland is the "Indians"?
 
drleather, I don't think its a strawman if you think of these debates more broadly, which I think glenn was and I am.  For example the NCAA basically legislated these names away, except with extremely stringent criteria that has left only a few.  Were they all offensive?

 

[Jimy Hendrix]

Look I'm not trying to stir shit up.  I'm just asking a question.  And I really doubt that Cleveland has set out to mock native Americans with Wahoo.  That seems a tad bit crazy to me.  If people don't like the idea or the specific mascot, fine.  But I never really understood the general idea that naming a team and using a mascot based on a certain group is automatically offensive

 
You could name your team with all best intentions to honor the great baseball players of the Negro Leagues, but if your logo is Sambo you've fucked up. Chief Wahoo is pretty much at that Sambo level of racial caricature.

 

[glennhoffmania]

Well you're assuming the feeling of offense is legitimate.  That's really the heart of the issue and a pretty big assumption, and that's the question I'm getting at. 
 
I can never relate to this stuff.  If I'm part of a group that is depicted by an organization of some sort, and I found it insulting or offensive, I'd just ignore it.
 
Edit- was responding to Leather.
 
Another edit- I didn't mean that naming any team after any group is automatically offensive.  I was referring to this particular situation and asking, why is it automatically offensive that Cleveland named its team the Indians and chose a cartoon Indian as its mascot, just because some native Americans believe it's offensive?  It's a pretty subjective standard in my opinion as opposed to a black and white issue, which is what it sounds like Leather is making it out to be.

 

[Jimy Hendrix]

Well you're assuming the feeling of offense is legitimate.  That's really the heart of the issue and a pretty big assumption, and that's the question I'm getting at. 
 
I can never relate to this stuff.  If I'm part of a group that is depicted by an organization of some sort, and I found it insulting or offensive, I'd just ignore it.

 
Ignoring the way that white culture depicts them as less than human and how that plays out for them has not, historically speaking, been a winning strategy for native americans.

 

[AbbyNoho]

 

[The Best Catch in 100 Years]

Well you're assuming the feeling of offense is legitimate.  That's really the heart of the issue and a pretty big assumption, and that's the question I'm getting at. 
 
I can never relate to this stuff.  If I'm part of a group that is depicted by an organization of some sort, and I found it insulting or offensive, I'd just ignore it.
 
Edit- was responding to Leather.
 
Another edit- I didn't mean that naming any team after any group is automatically offensive.  I was referring to this particular situation and asking, why is it automatically offensive that Cleveland named its team the Indians and chose a cartoon Indian as its mascot, just because some native Americans believe it's offensive?  It's a pretty subjective standard in my opinion as opposed to a black and white issue, which is what it sounds like Leather is making it out to be.

Do you belong to a group that has been and continues to be discriminated against, oppressed, etc. to the extent that Native Americans have in the United States? I mean, it's not really for you to decide whether or not the feeling of offense in this case is "legitimate," especially if (as I suspect) you have a fundamental lack of personal experience of what it's like to be a member of an oppressed group.

 

[Leather]

Well you're assuming the feeling of offense is legitimate.  That's really the heart of the issue and a pretty big assumption, and that's the question I'm getting at. 
 
 

 
So you don't think the Chief Wahoo is an absurd stereotype of an Indian? 
 

I can never relate to this stuff. If I'm part of a group that is depicted by an organization of some sort, and I found it insulting or offensive, I'd just ignore it.
 

 
Coming from someone that I presume to be a white anglo-saxon male, this means absolutely nothing.  
 
To put it back on you, I fail to understand why so many people take umbrage at the idea that some of their fellow Americans feel like they are being treated like shit.  What harm does it cause you if Indians want Chief Wahoo changed, or the Redskins name changed?  Why do you reflexively take the position that they must be just looking for attention, or some such?
 
Your (and people like you) deliberate lack of empathy isn't something to be proud of, it's part of the fucking problem.

 

[Ramon AC]

How about a soccer (football) team in Berlin changes it's name to the Jews.  The Berlin Jews.  With a great comical caricature.  It'll be to remember what happened in Germany years ago.

Funny you should mention that. Insert Anne Frank joke here.
 
Fake edit: After that, insert Justin Bieber joke here.

 

[Hoplite]

Well you're assuming the feeling of offense is legitimate.  That's really the heart of the issue and a pretty big assumption, and that's the question I'm getting at. 
 
I can never relate to this stuff.  If I'm part of a group that is depicted by an organization of some sort, and I found it insulting or offensive, I'd just ignore it.

 
That's not how the human brain works. Media works in subconscious ways, and logos depicting oppressed groups in cartoonish ways tend to be internalized as the psychological study I linked to above explains. It's more than "just a logo" if it's causing psychological harm to a marginalized, nearly extinct race of people. If you can't relate to it, fine, but that doesn't make it any less offensive or damaging.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

I was referring to this particular situation and asking, why is it automatically offensive that Cleveland named its team the Indians and chose a cartoon Indian as its mascot, just because some native Americans believe it's offensive?  It's a pretty subjective standard in my opinion as opposed to a black and white issue, which is what it sounds like Leather is making it out to be.

 
Of course it's a subjective standard. Offensiveness is subjective by definition, which is why your bolded question is basically tautological: if some native Americans "believe it's offensive," then it's offensive, at least to them. That's what "offensive" means. If a substantial group of people find the logo offensive, then the club needs to accept that, and if they don't want to give offense, they need to fix it. (If they don't care about giving offense, of course, they can do what they like, and the rest of us can think what we like of them.)

 

[glennhoffmania]

 
 
 
To put it back on you, I fail to understand why so many people take umbrage at the idea that some of their fellow Americans feel like they are being treated like shit.  What harm does it cause you if Indians want Chief Wahoo changed, or the Redskins name changed?  Why do you reflexively take the position that they must be just looking for attention, or some such?
 
Your (and people like you) lack of empathy isn't something to be proud of, it's part of the fucking problem.

 
You're putting words in my mouth and escalating this unnecessarily, but feel free to remain on your high horse.  I never said that these particular people, or anyone else, are simply looking for attention.  I also never said I have no empathy for people.  I couldn't care less if Cleveland or Washington or any other team or organization change their name or mascot.  That's up to them.  However, I also think that this issue has been taken a little too far in general, regardless of whether Cleveland or Washington are wrong or insensitive in their particular cases.  The teams can do whatever they want, and the group that is offended is free to react however they want.  That doesn't necessarily mean that either the team or the offended group is correct in any particular case.

 

[AbbyNoho]

If nothing matters and people can act or react however for any reason, why are you saying anything at all in this thread, then? If your point isn't "they shouldn't be offended" or "people shouldn't make changes just because it offends people" then what is your point?

 

[The Best Catch in 100 Years]

If nothing matters and people can act or react however for any reason, why are you saying anything at all in this thread, then? If your point isn't "they shouldn't be offended" or "people shouldn't make changes just because it offends people" then what is your point?

Haha, exactly. Elaborate a little bit on what you mean by "the issue has been taken a little bit too far in general" Glenn. Would love to hear what you mean by that.

 

[Royal Reader]

 
That's your opinion. Most of the persecution against Native Americans came from British settlers. The same British that let the Irish starve during the potato famine, killing 750,000 men women and children. Both were treated like pure shit.  To say the Irish weren't, is ignorant. (and I know you used Irish American to suit your agenda, but there are other logos based on cultures outside of the U.S., ie the Vikings)

The persecution of the Native Americans were done by *European* Settlers.  They weren't uniformly British by any means.  Early America was much more diverse than the general perception.

The real difference with Notre Dame is that it is a Catholic institution set up by Irish-Americans, with a lot of Irish-American students, and with which a lot of Irish-Americans identify.  There is a legitimate debate to be had within the Irish-American community about whether it is OK for certain people who identify with a certain identity to represent it in a way that other members of that community find offensive or distasteful.  See also the N-word reclamation debate.  It's legitimate for Irish-Americans or Black people to take either side in those internal debates.

When the individuals doing the representation aren't of the group depicted, then it's cultural appropriation, which is much less of an open question.  There's a big difference between a High School with a majority-NA student body choosing to call itself 'Indians' and Chief Fucking Wahoo.  I'd also like to echo everyone who has pointed out how hugely offensive it is to try to tell an oppressed group how they should react to their own oppression.

 

 

[Hoplite]

  I couldn't care less if Cleveland or Washington or any other team or organization change their name or mascot.  That's up to them.  However, I also think that this issue has been taken a little too far in general, regardless of whether Cleveland or Washington are wrong or insensitive in their particular cases.  The teams can do whatever they want, and the group that is offended is free to react however they want.  That doesn't necessarily mean that either the team or the offended group is correct in any particular case.

 
The Indians and Reskins are private institutions, which have the right to name themselves whatever they want. However, there have been legal arguments made against teams with disparaging names receiving federal protections for their brand. At one point, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office cancelled the federal trademark registration of the Redskins on the grounds that federal trademark protections are only legal if they aren't "disparaging, scandalous, contemptuous or disreputable." The Redskins appealed and had the trademark protection reinstated, and when Native American activists appealed that decision, they were denied an appeal on the grounds that they should have taken offense with the name sooner. There's currently a pending law suit against the name with younger Native American activists who had no chance of taking offense to the name at a younger age. And similar names using the term "redskin" have been denied federal trademark protection on the grounds that they're "disparaging".
 
A similar law suit could be made about the Indians logo. There could also be a legal case against the anti-trust exemptions that MLB enjoys, since the federal government probably shouldn't be taking the side of an institution which allows disparaging racial logos. In short, it's a bit more complicated than "these are private institutions and they can do whatever they want."

 

[Spacemans Bong]

This Irish-American oppression fetishizing sounds like some sort of Reagan Democrat "If they call themselves n-words why can't we?" crap.
 
Irish-Americans fucking love Notre Dame, every time Notre Dame plays a road game (and certainly back in the days when there were first and second generation Irish-Americans in the big cities) there's a huge crowd of Irish-Americans with no connections to ND cheering them on. It is in no way comparable to Chief Wahoo, and not just because there's no Irish-American version of Pine Ridge now that Southie has money.
 
And stop it with the genocide claims, nobody in these fair isles believes that and the actors on both sides were here.

 

[Infield Infidel]

Or the Blues. 

 
Well, there's already a team called the Blues in North American major league sports that would put up a fuss about that. There isn't anyone called the Spiders though, except for minor league and college teams. 
 
Teams change names all the time, Devil Rays, Bullets, Bobcats, Colt 45s, Redmen, Warriors, Flying Dutchmen, etc. If it's a dumb name, it's easy to change it. 

 

[Royal Reader]

 
 
And stop it with the genocide claims, nobody in these fair isles believes that and the actors on both sides were here.

 
'Nobody' is a bit strong.  Plenty of Irish people do.  It's better to state 'those claims are hotly contested even by historians who are Irish Nationalists themselves.'

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

Well, there's already a team called the Blues in North American major league sports that would put up a fuss about that.
 

 
They could, but there's nothing that the St. Louis Blues could do to stop Cleveland from changing their name to "Blues".

 

[oumbi]

I think that as part of the phase out process that Terry Francona presents Chief Wahoo with a pile of wool blankets during an elaborate pre-game ceremony

Will the blankets have small pox as well?

 

[Reverend]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9VMY8X9rU8
 
I think Chief Wahoo is very different from, say, Chief Osceola, though there is disagreement among members of the Seminole Tribe of the appropriateness of that mascot as well.

 

[Hoplite]

Will the blankets have small pox as well?

 
Nothing like some good old genocidal chemical warfare humor.

 

[terrisus]

 
Well, there's already a team called the Blues in North American major league sports that would put up a fuss about that. 

 
 

 
They could, but there's nothing that the St. Louis Blues could do to stop Cleveland from changing their name to "Blues".

 
Not to mention, at least some part of the name is different.
It's not like we're talking about the (former) New York Giants and the (fake) New York Giants (who don't even play in New York)

 

[Spacemans Bong]

 
'Nobody' is a bit strong.  Plenty of Irish people do.  It's better to state 'those claims are hotly contested even by historians who are Irish Nationalists themselves.'

 
Perhaps that's more accurate, but I think the whole "Irish famine is a genocide" thing is being driven by nascent Celtic Studies departments in the US. A lot of Irish historians, certainly the majority, reject it, and those who don't, like Tim Pat Coogan, are often considered people with an axe to grind. I like Tim Pat, but he's a hardcore nationalist who will absolutely wave the flag on certain issues (like whether Michael Collins is, in fact, God).

 

[SumnerH]

Offensiveness is subjective by definition, which is why your bolded question is basically tautological: if some native Americans "believe it's offensive," then it's offensive, at least to them. That's what "offensive" means. If a substantial group of people find the logo offensive, then the club needs to accept that, and if they don't want to give offense, they need to fix it. (If they don't care about giving offense, of course, they can do what they like, and the rest of us can think what we like of them.)

 
I disagree strongly; people can believe something is offensive that really isn't. Sometimes the group or people who are offended are simply wrong about what things mean, what their history is, or what the usage in question is. Claiming that the alleged victims' beliefs solely define what is offensive leads to situations like the David Howard incident or the SUNY Albany picnic kerfuffle.
 
(Which is not to defend the Indians: In this case the Cleveland mascot is clearly a stereotypical caricature and taking offense is reasonable.)

 

[SumnerH]

Will the blankets have small pox as well?