Cabot: Mock NFL Draft Still Says Blackmon to Browns
April 22, 2012Offensive Positions Outside QB Are The Way Browns Should Go
April 22, 2012Yesterday, UniWatch had their first post of submissions for their new running contest. Their goal is to find the most creative idea for name changes for two of the more ridiculed Native American-based team names in all of sports: The Cleveland Indians and The Washington Redskins. With 35 entries in all for the Cleveland baseball team alone (the first half were revealed yesterday), I thought it would be a fun practice to point out some of the best in my opinion and touch upon if now is the time for a change.
Let me start by saying that if you had asked me this question as little as two years ago, you couldn’t find someone more opposed to a name change. The Indians were named to honor Louis Sockalexis, and the tradition of something nearly 100 years old is not something I’m willing to give up at the drop of a hat. In art class in elementary school, this writer with a lack of even a single artistic bone in his body took to drawing Chief Wahoo. I love wearing Wahoo gear, and even if there’s a name change, I’m not likely to stop wearing it. I even wrote a persuasive paper in high school chronicling why the Indians shouldn’t be forced to change their name. One of my arguments was that if you were going to make my baseball team give up their name, you’d have to take out the Fighting Irish, Vikings, Cowboys, Seminoles, Redskins, Chiefs, Fighting Illini, Braves, Celtics, and Warriors. I’m 12.5% Irish. Maybe I’m offended by the Fighting Irish and Celtics mascots. It’s an all or nothing proposition for me. Remove everything that could be even possibly misconstrued as politically incorrect if you’re going to do it at all.
Another thing I’m not a fan of is redrawing Chief Wahoo or keeping the name and ridding the team of The Chief. The C’s and the I’s are okay for secondary or tertiary logos, but not as the main one. We don’t need to have a hideously bland identity like the New York Giants. More than anything, I would have to be convinced of a new name and identity with a Cleveland history and identity, one that I wouldn’t feel is being shoved down our throats as Cleveland fans. This contest may have done just that for me.
Of the 17 entries that UniWatch showed in their first entry, six were for the name “Spiders”. The name was used from 1889-1899 in Cleveland in the National League. The team won the 1895 championship, and while most will remember the name for the worst record in MLB history in 1899 with a 20-134 mark, the name could get a second chance. It’s a fairly unique name, with the Richmond Spiders of the NCAA being the only one that comes to mind. There were also some really creative entries here that made me think, “Yea, I could roll with that.”
My favorite of the six Spider entries by Liam Burkholder:
I really like this entry for its simplicity and color scheme. For you CSU Vikings, I would think this is very eye-pleasing.
The other entry I believe is the most creative. It belongs to Daniel Irwin, who developed the idea of the “Blue Socks”, which combines elements of three past nicknames. The name references the “Blues” (1879-1884, 1887-1889, 1901), it has a Spider for the mascot, and it’s a tip of the cap to Louis Sockalexis, a Penobscot Indian. On top of being grammatically correct (yes, Sox is commonly accepted but given my disdain for those two franchises that use the name, I dislike it). The Spider mascot, Napoleon (seen below), has blue socks on each of his eight legs. What a creative way to combine historical elements and provide a new identity.
The third and final entry that I’ll highlight is the Cleveland Tribe, submitted by Douglas King. For those who don’t want to get rid of the Indians’ name, this may be a softer blow. I know that I myself refer to our baseball team as “The Tribe” far more than I do “Indians”.Keeping the same established red-blue color scheme that we’re accustomed to may not be the worst decision either. Nothing about “Tribe” has to necessarily be linked to Native Americans. One definition I found online: “A social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties”
The other entry names were Barons (two), Blues, Brown Sox, Rockers, Colts, Grays, Lakers, Moses, and Coasters. Do you guys have your own suggestion or like any of these better than the three I outlined? Let’s hear about in the comments section where I’m sure there will be plenty of passion both ways.
126 Comments
Put a Jewish or Black person’s face instead of Native American on chief wahoo and think of how that would look. It is a racist caricature. Duh.
Get rid of the stupid Wahoo logo and instantly nobody cares.
Assign whatever judgment or validation to the indignation expressed by others that you wish. But don’t be so arrogant as to write in condemnation of people who wish to empathize with the plight (past, present, or future) of other people in an attempt to demonstrate respect, especially when that empathy comes with no benefit to the empathizer (in this case, sacrificing the valued tradition of symbol and a name).
It’s not as if Mr. Kanicki stands to gain something by the elimination of Chief Wahoo. In fact, I venture to guess that he’d lament parts of the logo lobotomy. But he’s expressing his respect for a group of people.
No one is pretending they were there. I wasn’t in Nazi-occupied Germany. I didn’t bear witness to Armenian genocide. I didn’t witness the enslavement of generations of African men, women, and children. This doesn’t mean I don’t feel for the groups who suffered directly and indirectly from those atrocities.
Make no mistake, the (mis)treatment of the Native American populations was not dissimilar.
Are Chief Wahoo and the Indians name linked to crimes against humanity in my mind? No. And they clearly aren’t for you, and for many.
But to come on here and suggest that people who are expressing a desire to pay homage through action should not express their opinions, to presume that their argument is a product only of an unrighteous/feigned desire to appear PC (i.e. that they are arrogant and express their opinions without legitimate conviction) is equally (if not more) arrogant.
I like the Rockers.
thanks jack, appreciated and you captured it.
i loved the neon wahoo sign over municipal stadium like we all did, right? and i dont stand in judgement of folks who say ‘it’s all benign, what’s the fuss?’ really. and wahoo and the indians name dont bring a connection to chief joseph’s exile to me either. this is not something i would go to the mat over and i understand/respect the difference of opinion on this … i felt the same way as erchoov not long ago. i get it.
but i do come back to: what’s the benefit?
Cleveland “Americans” anyone?
Perfect
Read the cover story on Chief Wahoo in next week’s Cleveland Scene then tell me that getting rid of Wahoo wouldn’t be a “noble venture,” or that the idea that he should be long gone isn’t something more than “expounding incessantly on beliefs and agendas.”
Or just try googling “Jim Crow Museum, Ferris State University” and look at the items that have been collected there and try to explain the difference between Wahoo and what’s pictured there (the “Hateful Things” and “Racist Cartoons” sections are especially enlightening).
As for your idea that “noble ventures shouldn’t need the beginning of a specific season to serve as a reminder,” it’s a lot harder when you’re talking about a group that’s as small and historically oppressed as Native Americans are. It’s like if you’d cut someone’s arms and legs off, then said you were right to do it then make mocking cartoons about it, just because they can’t fight you back (because, you know, they don’t have any arms and legs).
I know it might not be as exciting to you as a 5,000 word piece on Samardo Samuels working on his jump shot, but you might consider the idea that there are wrongs out there worth correcting and worth writing about.
The Cubs have had no championships for over 100 years, yet they still have tradition.
The cultural reality I’m speaking of is in-line with the idea that the naming of the Indians likely wasn’t actually in honor of Sockalexis as revisionists have it, but something more exploitative.
The treatment of Ishi was very complex, but circa 1915 most people weren’t viewing American Indians with a great deal of respect. The boarding schools trying to extinguish native culture were in full swing at the time, etc.
Simply put and absolutely correct.
Well said.
Really. This franchise could use a fresh start. I think it’d be fun to start some new traditions.
I did read the wikipedia article you were talking about, and it refers to an unscientific, flawed study by Sports Illustrated which proves nothing one way or the other, while also referring to actual Native Americans who were offended by Chief Wahoo and protested against the logo.
The Annenberg study cited is so flawed as to be worthless, and isn’t even about Wahoo.
So what is your point?
I took a look at that, and I’m seeing a LOT of differences between those items and Chief Wahoo. A lot of those things pictured are clearly derogatory and used in an unflattering way to enforce negative stereotypes. Chief Wahoo has been NOTHING but used in a celebratory way, and is a source of pride for most Clevelanders. I really think context is important in these matters.
Ya know what, they can call the team whatever the hell they want as long as those yellow uniforms stay away.
Yeah, I agree that context matters. Wahoo is a racial caricature that was created in 1947 at a time when racism against all minorities was widely accepted, and racial caricatures were widely used to reinforce patterns of prejudice like Jim Crow laws. The exaggerated features are used to reinforce the idea that the depicted race is inferior.
I understand that the symbol has evolved into something else for a lot of Clevelanders, but what’s the point of keeping it given its roots?
It’s gotten to the point were even high schools, with the mascot “cougars” are being forced to change. Along with Indians, Warriors, Braves, Redskins, Gamecocks, Cougars, Bullets, even people wanting the New York Jets to change their name after 9/11. Now where do we stop? to me Native American mascots are no different than Celtics, Irish, Canadians, Americans, Yankees, etc. They all represent a group/race of people. Now the weird thing is those who are 50, 60 70% native american don’t really care. It’s those that are like 2 or 5% that raise a stink. Just like the people who are 1% Italian and call MTV complaining that the Jersey Shore is offensive.
True the orange helmet has 8 Championships, yet the last was 1964. I’m not one to crap on tradition, but there aren’t many people walking around bragging about a title won 48 years ago. There have been 46 Super Bowls in the meantime. No need to get rid of the orange helmets, just put “Brownie” or some numbers on the side ala Alabama.
The Cubs have nothing to do with this discussion. Baby bears do not bring up the same level of insensitivity as Chief Wahoo does.
Named after one of our former relievers who would definitely be in favor of keeping Chief Wahoo proudly on display.
Except that it’s not the same, as many people have pointed out. The issue isn’t with names or mascots that represent a group of people, the issue is with the cultural and historical baggage associated with the names or mascots. You can’t divorce them from the reality in which they exist.
Also, regarding the “50, 60, 70%” thing, prove it. Where’s your survey data? Where’s your proof? Or are you just spouting off made-up statistics?
No idea what you’re talking about re: the cougar thing. Teams called the Indians, Warriors, Braves, Redskins, Gamecocks and Cougars all still exist.
Don’t you know? It’s much more important to memorialize something that hasn’t meant anything important since we were 10 years old at the expense of everyone else around us.
I might be able to understand the cries to keep Wahoo prominent if it actually meant anything. But if people can’t enjoy the Indians with a C as their logo, they have their priorities so warped, I can’t imagine how they make it through a typical day.
As a resident of the Charlotte, NC area, it’s hard for me to be a huge fan of a name change. I’ve seen here a huge resentment of the name Bobcats. There’s actually a growing campaign to get the Hornets name back now that the new New Orleans owner has said he wants to rebrand the NO franchise. My point is, I don’t think you can just take away the name and image of a franchise and have the majority of the fanbase be OK with it. This isn’t the Tampa Bay Rays or some other relatively new baseball franchise. The Indians have a significant history with Cleveland and Baseball. I don’t think you should change the name unless it becomes absolutely necessary. If at some point the name has to go, I think the only sensible name would be something along the lines of “The Tribe,” largely because you don’t lose the identity of your franchise. I have no interest in becoming some random animal or insect, running around in jerseys that look like we stole the Green Goblin’s outfit. Call me crazy for clinging to jerseys and our name, but I’m not sure what else to cling to; I’ve never even seen a professional championship (and I question whether I ever will.)
“Indians” wasn’t meant to be derogatory, and isn’t meant to be.
AIM leaders should be heard, but they do not speak for all people of Indian ancestry.
Why can’t we keep the Indians name, remove Wahoo, and dedicate part of the stadium to honoring the original inhabitants of Cleveland?
Historical markers could be installed around the stadium and inside.
A small, short historical note could be played on the scoreboard.
Popcorn, corn-sweetened drinks, chocolate, corn tacos and chips, potatoes, tomatoes, and other foods were first used by Indians.
Those facts could be noted.
A new logo honoring Native Americans could be created.
NO
Joe Posnanski (at SI.com) and NYU Professor Jonathan Zimmerman (at the Christian Science Monitor) have both written about this as well, concluding that the Sockalexis line is completely false. Their pieces should be easy to find via google.
Also, sociologist Ellen Staurowsky combed through the organization’s promotional
material from the time before the name change and found no mention of
Sockalexis until 1968, which was after Native Americans who had come to
Cleveland under the federal relocation program began to protest the name and
logo.
Also, Kirk, about this: “the tradition of something nearly 100 years old is not something I’m willing to give up at the drop of a hat.”
If you had a nickel for every time a slaveowner said that in 1863 you’d be rich.
Google something!
Disagree about Cleveland Tribe; reminds me of the Ohio Glory or some such WLAF/minor league nonsense. Spiders and maybe BlueSocks are ok. My vote is to get rid of Chief Wahoo and keep the Indians moniker.
Everyone, eh? Cartoon napalm!
Plus, the Rockers was the name of the now-defunct WNBA team. PASS.
Griffins would have been awesome if RGIII was coming to town. As it is, I would buy a ton of “Cleveland Minotaurs” stuff. I just would. However, I might have to refrain, lest I offend any people of bull descent.
Hey everybody, the white boy isn’t offended by the thing that was intended to dehumanize Native Americans for white peoples’ benefit. It’s got to be totally fine! After all, the white boy says we’re all being too sensitive.
Thanks for digging in here, Scotty Booms, to really get to the bottom of things. I finally see the light.
Jersey Shore is offensive, but not because of what it says about Italian-Americans. None of the people on that show are really Italian-American. It’s offensive because of what it says about how [bleep]ing dumb we are as a society.
I’m sure glad I now know where to direct my desire for social justice. Because, if one were to really want to undertake the noble venture of fostering racial healing and social change, one would certainly start with a baseball team mascot in lieu of all of the other avenues for social change, especially if one were part of the court/law system. I mean, so what that “[a]t yearend 2010, black non-Hispanic males had an imprisonment rate (3,074 per 100,000 U.S. black male residents) that was nearly 7 times higher than white non-Hispanic males (459 per 100,000).” Your [bleep]ing baseball cap is offensive and I will not rest until the injustice is corrected!
Nothing bolsters your argument like a sour-grapes comment at the end ripping the owners of a SPORTS BLOG for writing about SPORTS from the teams they cover.
Give me a break. Nobody doesn’t agree that there are things out there that are worse than Wahoo. The point is that Wahoo is really easy to fix. “An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” “Take the inches that are in front of you.” Etc.
Wait, did you say SPORTS?
But yeah, thanks for reminding me about the incredible ignorance in responding to one of your writers take on an issue as fraught as Wahoo by leaving a comment preemptively and summarily dismissing any Wahoo critics as blowhards.
Just responding in kind to your insinuation that Scott’s skin color somehow predetermines what his level of outrage should be to something you feel a certain way about. I mean, since we’re discussing stereotypes and all…
I never said I agreed with that statement.
I just don’t see how the Samardo Samuels dig proves your point, or has anything to do with this discussion at all. Are you insinuating that Samuels somehow has relevance in this discussion, therefore discussing improvement in his jump shot might earn someone the title of “blowhard” because improvement in his jumper would be crippling to social justice?
Otherwise, it’s a non-sequitur that reads like a juvenile attempt to belittle the entire blog rather than the one writer’s specific statement.
But, I’m sure that’s not what you intended, since we’re talking about intentions and stuff vis a vis Wahoo.
You may now return to the high road.
If we are going to select a new name, I vote for Forest City’s. I think a prior baseball team here had that name, and we could make one a tree our symbol. We have been known as the forest city for a long time. As for the current debate, if you are going to get rid of the logo, change the name also. The “C” is just weak.
usually refrain from this annual discussion, but broke down to make two points:
– intent and context do matter, but only as to whether the origins of the symbol’s use can be faulted. When the context changes a formerly hidden harm can be revealed and new harms can be caused by its continued use. One example: The N word was common usage in multiple regions less than a century ago. The relative powerlessness of the minority in those times and regions does not prove that word was a benign then and the symbolism of that word certainly creates greater offense now. Doesn’t mean we should still feel free to use it.
– There is a segment that seems to hold by a concept that if we adapt a symbol of you for long enough, it’s our symbol now. This is a simple and clean bright-line test, but doesn’t address the complaints. Look at the older Wahoo image WFNY uses at their upper margin, tell me whether the features resemble a real ethnic group or something closer to third reich hate propoganda. Presumably there was a reason the Cleveland Indians have revised the wahoo image a few times, and it did have to do with sensitivity. If a group tells me that my cartoon image of them is offensive, I have no reason to doubt it. They never gave me permission to use it in the first place.
Not level of outrage, but rather credibility in assessing whether its an issue worth discussing or not. It shouldn’t be too hard to understand.
Technically I believe “impact” is more relevant than “intent” when it comes to Wahoo. But anyway, if you really don’t understand the point of the Samardo line, I don’t think I can say much more to help. Other than to say again that it has something to do with the incredible ignorance displayed in responding to one of your writers taking
on an issue as fraught as Wahoo by leaving a comment that preemptively and
summarily dismisses any Wahoo critics as blowhards.
How does: “Hey everybody, the white boy isn’t offended by the thing that was intended to dehumanize Native Americans for white peoples’ benefit.” NOT imply that Scott isn’t offended enough?
Good lord. I’m not “implying” anything. I am in fact stating that his comments on the issue are especially ridiculous and offensive given his race. Again, shouldn’t be too hard to understand.
Good lord. I’m not “implying” anything. I am in fact stating that his comments on the issue are especially ridiculous and offensive given his race. Again, shouldn’t be too hard to understand.
“But anyway, if you really don’t understand the point of the Samardo line, I don’t think I can say much more to help.”
TRANSLATION: I have no rebuttal to your argument.
“Other than to say again that it has something to do with the incredible ignorance displayed in responding to one of your writers taking
on an issue as fraught as Wahoo by leaving a comment that preemptively and
summarily dismisses any Wahoo critics as blowhards.”
Why not just say that, then? It’s so much more clear than your weird analogy. If, in fact, you’re that much smarter than everybody else reading these comments, what benefit to your argument does obfuscating actually bring?
Change the effing logo and name please. It’s an embarrassment.
As fans, you all have an incredibly powerful opportunity in your hands. Yes, it’s not a big deal compared to injustices in the world. But you have the power to do a small good thing. It’s just a small good thing. Please do it. Ask the organization to change it.
Good to know. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by using the word “imply” in my comment. Thanks for clarifying. I’m relieved to know we have an official arbiter of what’s offensive for all people of a certain race, then. We can move on to more important things.
“Why not just say that, then?”
LOL. I did, as soon as you told me you didn’t get it. I happen to know for a fact that others got it the first time around, but anyway, glad you and I are on the same page now. Have a good day.